ZSoil GettingStarted

NUMERICS IN GEOTECHNICS AND STRUCTURES
ZSOIL.PC
GETTING STARTED
by
Stéphane Commend, Rafal F. Obrzud,
Krzysztof Podleś, Andrzej Truty,
and Thomas Zimmermann
Edition III (2014)
Zace Services Ltd, Software engineering

P.O.Box 2, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
(T) +41 21 802 46 05
(F) +41 21 802 46 06
http://www.zace.com,
hotline: zsoil@zace.com
since 1985
Preface
Development of ZSOIL.PC started in the early eighties, at newly founded
Zace Services Ltd in Lausanne, Switzerland. The need for such a pro-
gram emerged from discussions between Bernard Saugy (EPFL), François
Vuilleumier (Bonnard & Gardel Eng. Ltd) and Thomas Zimmermann (Zace
Services Ltd). The previous decade had led to considerable progress in non-
linear finite element analysis and the first PCs were available at reasonable
prices. At the same time, object-oriented programming was emerging, lead-
ing to more robust coding techniques, which became progressively essential
in ZSOIL’s development. It was obvious that numerical approaches were
going to spread into engineering daily practice. The conditions for a major
evolution were there. The project started in 1982 and became reality three
years later.
The goal of ZSOIL is to provide engineers with a unified analysis tool for
failure analysis in civil engineering applications. Version 1 appeared in 1985
after three years of intensive developments, by a team of engineers composed
of C. Rodriguez, B. Dendrou, B. Rebora, J. Diaz, and Th. Zimmermann,
with research experience at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, U.
C. Berkeley, Caltech, and Purdue University. Discussions with J. P. Wolf
(EPFL), T. J. R. Hughes (University of Texas at Austin), and J. H. Prévost
(Princeton University) have often been influential in the choice of the proper
strategies and algorithms, throughout the years and the successive versions.
After several 2D and custom 3D versions, a general 3D commercial version
has now been available since year 2000. This book is meant to give the
reader and ZSOIL user an introduction and enough familiarity with the
program to get him started. Online theory, data preparation, tutorials, and
benchmarks manuals, together with a number of topical reports provide
assistance for more advanced applications.
Lausanne, October 2014 Thomas Zimmermann
iii
Acknowledgments
Several engineering companies have contributed to the development of cus-
tom versions with scientific contributions, validations and financial support.
These include Bonnard & Gardel ingénieurs conseils SA, Lausanne, in partic-
ular F. Vuilleumier, who was instrumental in the organization of the financ-
ing of the 3D version in the early nineties. GEOS ingénieurs conseils SA,
Genève, GVH ingénieurs conseils SA, Tramelan, KBM, Sion, Schneller-Ritz
und Partner AG Ingenieurbüro, Brig, Stucky ingénieurs conseils SA, Renens,
and later Emch + Berger Ing. AG, Bern.
The financial support of the Swiss Commission for Technology and Innova-
tion (CTI) under grants 2672.1, 2387.1 and 2995.1, for 3D version 4, and
4182.1, for version 6, is acknowledged.
Parts of early developments of the 3D version were done at the Laboratory
of Structural and Continuum Mechanics (Prof. Th. Zimmermann & Prof.
F. Frey) at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, with con-
tributions from the Laboratory of Rock Mechanics (Prof. F. Descoeudres),
and the Laboratory of Soil Mechanics (Prof. L. Vulliet). Ph. Menétrey
(EPFL) and P. Roelfstra (Intron) contributed to some theoretical models.
Th. Zimmermann supervised the development of the early versions with C.
Rodriguez and B. Dendrou as the main development architects. A. Truty
joined the development team in the mid-nineties and supervised the de-
velopment of recent versions with K. Podleś and A. Urbański as assistant
architects. The following individuals participated in the developments for
periods varying from one to several years: B. Rebora, J. Diaz, F. Delaraye,
M. Howe, E. Seker, S. Commend, W. Atamaz-Sibai, E. Davalle, L. Vernier,
W. Farra, B. Rutscho, B. Radic, A. Barry, D. Alvarez, Y. Li, A. Wróblewski,
A. Wiktor. Contributions to the validation process of the program, by the
following individuals, are acknowledged: U. Ekdahl, J.-L. Sarf, A. Bisetti, J.
L’Eplattenier, D. Tendon, M. Kharchafi, R. Gaerber, L. Laloui, V. Labiouse,
D. Collomb, S. Domon, C. Marzer, G. Roelfstra, C. Gindroz, F. Geiser, F.
Pellet, C. Carron, M. Favre, P. Mayu.
iv
Contents
Preface iii
Acknowledgments iv
1 GETTING STARTED 3
1.1 Hardware and software requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Installation of ZSOIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Main menu of ZSOIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4 An introduction to nonlinear analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5 Getting started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.5.1 Analysis of a superficial foundation . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.5.2 Stability of a vertical cut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2 TRUSS STRUCTURES 17
2.1 Construction of stiffness matrix of single truss . . . . . . . . 18
2.2 Assembly of elemental stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3 Solution procedures for linear systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.4 Using ZSOIL to analyze truss structures . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.4.1 Data Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.4.2 Running analysis and exploiting results . . . . . . . . 26
2.4.3 Imposed displacements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.5 Large displacements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.6 Collapse load analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.7 Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
CONTENTS
2.7.1 Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.7.2 Time integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.7.3 Hilber-Hughes-Taylor algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.7.4 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3 LINEAR AND NONLINEAR CONTINUA 43

3.1 Linear statics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.1.1 Invariants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.2 Basic elasto-plastic models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.2.1 Mohr-Coulomb and Tresca yield criteria . . . . . . . 50
3.2.2 Drucker-Prager and von Mises criteria . . . . . . . . 52
3.2.3 Dilatancy and flow rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.2.4 ZSOIL data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.3 Finite elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.4 Newton-Raphson procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.4.1 Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.5 Geotechnical aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.5.1 Initial state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.5.2 Locking in quasi incompressible media . . . . . . . . 65
3.5.3 Spurious pressure oscillations in consolidation . . . . 65
4 SINGLE PHASE SOLID CONTINUA 69

4.1 Bearing capacity of a superficial foundation . . . . . . . . . 71
4.1.1 Data preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.1.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.1.3 Incompressibility, dilatancy and locking . . . . . . . . 77
4.1.4 Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.2 Slope stability: vertical cut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.2.1 c-phi reduction and other algorithms for safety eval-
uation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.2.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
viii
CONTENTS
4.2.4 Refined Safety Factor Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . 85

4.2.5 Stability analysis preceded by initial state analysis . . 87
4.2.6 Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.3 Initial state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.3.1 Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.3.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.3.3.1 Initial state analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.3.3.2 Time dependent/Driven load analysis . . . 95
4.3.3.3 Safety analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5 UNDERGROUND FLOW 99
5.1 A two-dimensional steady state flow problem . . . . . . . . . 100
5.2 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.2.1 Material data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.2.2 Boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.2.2.1 Pressure and flow boundary conditions . . . 105
5.2.2.2 Seepage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.2.2.3 Fluid head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.3 An example of transient flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.3.1 Preprocessing: geometry and boundary conditions . . 109
5.3.2 Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
5.3.3 Material data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
5.3.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
6 TWO-PHASE MEDIA 117

6.1 One dimensional Terzaghi consolidation test . . . . . . . . . 119
6.2 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
6.3 Stability of vertical cut with water table as SINGLE PHASE
analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
6.3.1 Total stress analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
ix
CONTENTS
6.3.1.1 Data Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

6.3.1.2 Geometry/boundary conditions/initial con-
ditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
6.3.1.3 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
6.3.1.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
6.3.2 Effective stress analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
ditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.3.2.3 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.3.2.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.4 Stability of vertical cut with flow as TWO-PHASE analysis . 132
6.4.1 Stability of vertical cut with permanent flow . . . . . 132
ditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
6.4.1.3 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
6.4.1.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
6.4.2 Stability of vertical cut with transient flow, uncou-
pled case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
6.4.2.1 Data preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
ditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
6.4.2.3 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
6.4.2.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
6.4.3 Stability of vertical cut with transient flow, coupled
case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
6.4.3.2 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
6.4.3.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
6.5 Validation test: Superficial foundation on a consolidating
saturated material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
6.5.1 Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
x
CONTENTS
6.5.2 Geometry, boundary conditions and load . . . . . . . 142

6.5.3 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.5.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.6 Instability due to rain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.6.1 Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
6.6.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
7 TUNNEL EXCAVATION - CASE STUDY 149

7.1 Tunnel excavation in urban environment, acounting for initial
state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
7.1.1 Problem definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
7.1.2 Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
7.1.3 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7.1.4 Geometrical input pre-processing . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7.1.5 Macro model subdomains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
7.1.6 Meshing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
7.1.7 Structural elements, boundary conditions and loads . 157
7.1.8 Excavation steps, Existence functions, Load functions 159
7.1.8.1 Existence functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
7.1.8.2 Convergence and Load functions . . . . . . 161
7.1.9 Materials and initial state data . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
7.1.10 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
7.2 Tunnel excavation in urban environment with hydromechan-
ical aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
7.2.2 Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
7.2.3 Boundary conditions for two-phase problem . . . . . 166
7.2.4 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
7.2.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
7.2.6 Advanced post-processing options . . . . . . . . . . 170
xi
CONTENTS
7.2.7 Creation of sections and computation of inflow into

tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
7.2.8 Computing bending moments from continuum elements171
8 2D TUTORIAL: EXCAVATION WITH RETAINING WALL 173

8.1 Problem Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
8.2 Data Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
8.2.1 Project creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
8.2.2 Pre-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
8.2.3 Analysis and drivers definition . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
8.2.4 Material definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
8.2.5 Existence function definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
8.2.6 Loading function definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
8.3 Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
8.4 Post-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
9 3D TUTORIAL: CONCRETE BOX CONTAINER 201

9.2 Data preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
9.2.2 Pre-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
9.2.2.1 Macro-model: creation of the right of the
model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
9.2.2.2 Macro-model: creation of the container . . 207
9.2.2.3 Macro-model: creation of the left part of
the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
9.2.2.4 Macro-model: creation of subsoil below the
container . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
9.2.2.5 Macro model: setting existence function
for continuum 3D subdomains . . . . . . . 210
9.2.2.6 Macro model: creation of interface ele-
ments between container and fill . . . . . . 210
9.2.2.7 Macro model: water inside the container . 211
xii
CONTENTS
9.2.2.8 Creating the FE mesh and setting bound-

ary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
9.2.3 Definition of analysis and driver types . . . . . . . . 212
9.2.4 Definition of material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
9.2.5 Definition of existence function . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
9.2.6 Definition of loading function . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
9.3 Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
9.4 Post-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
9.5 Updating initial project assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
9.5.1 Updating the geometry of excavation . . . . . . . . . 221
9.5.2 Updating material properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
9.5.3 Dividing excavation stage into two substeps . . . . . 224
9.5.4 Introducing shotcrete wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
9.5.5 Introducing nail elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
10 STRUCTURES 233
10.1 Trusses, Anchors, Cables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
10.1.1 Truss data under plane strain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
10.2 Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
10.2.1 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
10.2.2 Adjusting beams to tunnel shapes . . . . . . . . . . 239
10.2.3 Offsetting stiffness of beams to match real tunnel axis 240
10.2.4 Hinges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
10.2.5 Cross-section geometry and materials . . . . . . . . 243
10.3 Membranes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
10.3.1 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
10.3.2 Illustration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
10.4 Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
10.4.1 Elastic simply supported uniformly loaded square plate247
10.4.2 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
10.4.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
10.4.4 Postprocessing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
xiii
CONTENTS
10.4.5 Elasto-plastic square plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

10.4.5.1 Problem definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
10.4.5.2 Geometry and load . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
10.4.5.3 Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
10.4.5.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
10.5 Shells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
10.5.1 A simple example: stairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
10.5.2 Hemispherical shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
10.5.2.2 Geometry, load and boundary conditions . . 255
10.5.2.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
10.5.2.4 Hinges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
A Solution procedures for linear systems 261
B Dilatancy 269
C Shell orientation and sign of resultants 273
References 274
xiv
Introduction
ZSOIL’s online manuals describe in details theory, data preparation, bench-

marks and tutorials. All this documentation is available in printable help
files.
The purpose of this book is to introduce new users to ZSOIL. It includes an
introduction to finite element techniques, linear and nonlinear, in statics and
in dynamics. It starts with elastic behavior of simple truss structures, in-
troduces elasto-plastic collapse, large displacements, and dynamics of such
structures. Single-phase and partially saturated two-phase media, includ-
ing soil-structure interaction, analyzed up to failure, with simple and some
more advanced constitutive models commonly used for soils and rocks are
presented. Applications which cover a wide spectrum of practical situations
are shown.
The book is intended for students in civil engineering, up to PhD level. It
will also be useful as a primer for engineers in practice and in research.
1
CONTENTS
GETTING STARTED WITH ZSOIL

Chapter 1
GETTING STARTED
Contents
1.1 Hardware and software requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.2 Installation of ZSOIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Main menu of ZSOIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4 An introduction to nonlinear analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5 Getting started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.5.1 Analysis of a superficial foundation . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.5.2 Stability of a vertical cut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3
CHAPTER 1. GETTING STARTED
1.1 Hardware and software requirements

ZSOIL v2014 requires 64-bit systems like Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8,
at least 4 GB RAM (preferably 8 GB or more). For large 3D problems at
least 32 GB of RAM and Intel Xeon processors which support large sizes of
RAM memory, are recommended. In addition, 100 GB disk space or more
is recommended. The hard drives such these with 10,000 RPM spin speed
SATA 6 Gb/s drives including a 64 MB cache (e.g. WD VelociRaptor)
deliver the ultimate performance in terms of data writing.
1.2 Installation of ZSOIL

Program ZSOIL can be downloaded from www.zsoil.com or www.zace.
com; it contains a complete version of the program with an exhaustive doc-
umentation: help, theory, data preparation, benchmarks, tutorials and notes
on special topics. In order to install the program:
1. Install ZSOIL executables from download file (or from a pen drive de-
livered by ZACE, if applicable). To do that: run setup executable and
follow the instructions
2. Install the online help (optional)
3. Run ZSOIL using desktop icon or list of programs
Problems with more than 100’000 degrees of freedom are routinely solved
with ZSOIL but for the student version, problem size is limited to 8’000
nodes and the license excludes all forms of consulting, as stated on output
screens; the program also has a time limitation, but free renewals are avail-
able. Updates, if any, have to be downloaded from website www.zsoil.com
or www.zace.com.
ZSOIL opens on a front screen which gives access to Check for updates
and Continue. Press Continue.
The next screen to appear is a first preselection screen. Selection one of
analysis types creates a new project. In addition, the already created projects
can be opened by picking one from five recent projects or by clicking Open
project.
The next screen to appear after selection of analysis type is a preselection
screen. Activation of preferences will filter input screens in order to simplify
data preparation. Watch that option Basic is active, which means that only
the most common material models and analysis options can be activated.
This simplifies many input screens and most data discussed in this book
correspond to this Basic option. When needed, we will sometimes activate

1.2. INSTALLATION OF ZSOIL
Figure 1.1: Front screen.
Figure 1.2: Preliminary project preselection.
the Advanced option locally, in specific screens, in order to get access to

additional parameters.
5
Figure 1.3: Detailed project preselection.
1.3 Main menu of ZSOIL
The main menu is the backbone of ZSOIL; it serves as basis to organize

the Help, the User manuals and documentation. The main menu screen
is presented in Fig. 1.4 and the functionalities of the main menu options
are given below. The main menu is the backbone of ZSOIL; it serves as
basis to organize the Help, the User manuals and documentation. The main
menu screen is presented in Fig. 1.4 and the functionalities of the main
menu options are given below.
File
Usual file manipulations and batch processing (automatic run of multiple
projects).
Control
All computing control settings can be modified here. The main one, Drivers,
contains main algorithmic settings for the problem to be solved.
Assembly
Geometric, material, loading and excavation information can be specified
here.
Analysis
Run and restart analysis from last converged step are available from here.
Results

1.4. AN INTRODUCTION TO NONLINEAR ANALYSIS
Figure 1.4: Main Menu of ZSOIL
Post-processing of output data is available from here.

System configuration
Setting of version, various access paths (PDF, ASCII and CSV editors), and
preferences.
Help
Help gives access to a comprehensive documentation.
1.4 An introduction to nonlinear analysis
Most geotechnical problems are nonlinear from the onset of loading, often
already under initial state conditions, this results from the constitutive char-
acteristics of soils. In fact, if we assume that there exists a linear range, it
is most of the time only for convenience.
Let us consider a superficial foundation and assume an elastic-perfectly plas-
tic constitutive material law (one-dimensional for the time being, see Fig.
1.5), at each point in the soil medium. When the load is increased on the
foundation, plastic yield will be reached successively at different locations
in the soil, at different time values, and the observed global response, will
be a nonlinear force displacement curve as shown in Fig. 1.5.
The nonlinear problem defined by F = N (d) will have to be solved step by
step (step counter: n) and iteratively (iteration counter: i); N (d) defines a
nonlinear function of displacement d.
7
Figure 1.5: Linear elastic - perfectly plastic idealization of stress-strain relation-

ship.
In order to better understand the procedure, let’s assume that equilibrium

has been reached at time tn (see Fig. 1.6, point 1. ) and that an increase of
external load ∆F ( 2. ) is applied. Linearization of the problem is necessary;
by this we mean: definition of a local tangent (stiffness). The dashed part
of curve N (d) is of course unknown at this point, but we only need a local
tangent to proceed. This situation is illustrated with 3. , which indicates
that application of ∆F will lead to an increment of displacement ∆d, which
leads to a first estimate for dn+1 after one iteration. The procedure is then
repeated with the out-of balance force defined with 4. , till convergence to
N (d) is reached within a prescribed tolerance, cf. at 6. .
Figure 1.6: Newton-Raphson iteration - schematic of iteration process.

1.5. GETTING STARTED
1.5 Getting started

An easy way to start using ZSOIL consists in examining a problem for which
data exist and which has already been solved. ZSOIL was originally designed
for slope stability and surface foundations bearing capacity evaluation, so
let’s examine first the case of a superficial foundation under plain-strain
conditions.
1.5.1 Analysis of a superficial foundation
Under File/Open: open file Ex 1 1 FootPS.inp.

Remarks:
- This file should be located in your Windows My Documents folder, as

ZSOIL’s installation procedure copies data files into this location
Notice the specification of Plane strain and Deformation in the Project

properties window, which corresponds to a single phase analysis.
Figure 1.7: Part of Project properties window.
Under Control/Drivers: observe that the driver is: Time dependent/driven

load, start at time t = 0, end at time t = 3, step ∆t = 0.1, see Fig. 1.8
Multiplier = 1 applies to ∆t at each step. It is important for creep type
problems which slow down as time progresses allowing for larger time-steps.
A step by step analysis will be done; steps will be incremented till failure
is detected. Notice that time is not real time here; it is merely a way to
manage steps.
Figure 1.8: Dialog window for defining analysis driver types.
Under Assembly/Preprocessing: geometrical data can be examined, a rigid

footing on a box-shaped medium. Observe the boundary conditions: rollers
9
on the side, fixed at the bottom Fig. 1.9. Red bars indicate imposed dis-
placement directions.
Under Assembly/Materials: 2 materials are defined, an elastic one for the
concrete footing, this requires definition of Young’s modulus E, and Pois-
son’s ratio ν, and a Mohr-Coulomb material for the ground, which requires,
in addition, specification of c, the cohesion, φ the friction angle, and ψ
the dilatancy angle (cf. Appendix B); here the zero value for dilatancy
corresponds to incompressible plastic flow (see Fig. 1.10, notice that the
’advanced’ input mode had to be activated to access dilatancy). The weight
of the soil is neglected in this example.
Under Analysis/Run Analysis: run the analysis, and observe the screen dur-
ing computation, Fig. 1.11, it contains information related to storage allo-
cation and situation of the convergence of the nonlinear iterative procedure;
finally we get a message end of computation see log file. The log file contains
information about convergence; we will look at it later.
Figure 1.9: Plane strain footing: geometry of the problem.
Under Results/Graphical Options, see Deformed Mesh, or Displacement

Vectors, and use Settings to adjust visibility by changing the scale, see
Fig. 1.12. Formation of a failure mechanism is visible.
With option Maps, Settings/Displacements/ABS Fig. 1.13, a failure mech-

anism can be identified. But remember that this step did not converge,
see Time/Select current time step for confirmation, results in this step are
only indicative, move backward in time (use + / - keys) and watch how
the mechanism builds up. By using Page Up and Page Down keys, the
displacement vectors or mesh deformation can be respectively scaled.
Now select Results/Graphical options see Nodal time-history, pick one node
below the footing and get a displacement time-history, again use Settings

Figure 1.10: Plane strain footing: material data input.
Figure 1.11: Plane strain footing: computing run screen.
to modify the scale or to select a different component, see Fig. 1.14.
11
Use + / - keys to
change time steps
Figure 1.12: Plane strain footing: displacement vectors at failure (diverged step).
Use PgUp and PgDn

keys to change
the scale factor
of deformation
Figure 1.13: Plane strain footing: failure mechanism identified by displacement

intensity map (diverged step).
Measurement node -
Figure 1.14: Plane strain footing: displacement-time history.

1.5.2 Stability of a vertical cut
Examine next a vertical cut under plane strain conditions.

Under File/Open: open file Ex 1 2 CutPS.inp.
Under Control/Drivers: notice that the driver is: Stability tan(phi)-c, with
initial SF = 1, end SF = 2, Increment = 0.05. Identification of the safety
factor SF will be attempted between 1 and 2 with steps of 0.05. In fact
tan φ and c are progressively reduced (divided by SF) until instability is
reached, see Fig. 1.16. This procedure is justified in the theory manual; it
has been available in ZSOIL since 1985.
Figure 1.15: Dialog window for defining analysis driver types.
Figure 1.16: Stability of vertical cut: material data input.
Under Assembly/Preprocessing: the geometry can be examined, a vertical

cut. Observe the boundary conditions: rollers on the side, fixed at the
bottom Fig. 1.17.
NB: Exit from preprocessor (under File) without saving, to avoid saving an
13
Figure 1.17: Stability of vertical cut: geometry of the problem.
accidentally modified file.

Under Analysis/Run analysis: run analysis.
Under Assembly/Materials: one material is defined, a Mohr-Coulomb ma-
terial for the ground, which requires specification of c, the cohesion, φ the
friction angle, and ψ the dilatancy angle (cf. Appendix B), here the 0 for
dilatancy corresponds to incompressible plastic flow see Fig. 1.16. Weight
cannot be neglected for this problem; it is both behind the stabilizing and
the destabilizing force.
Under Results/Graphical options see Deformed Mesh, or Displacement Vec-
tors, or Maps of displacement amplitudes; use Settings to optimize visibility,
a failure mechanism can be identified (Fig. 1.18) corresponding to a Safety
Factor SF = 1.30 at the last converged step, see Results/Time.
The last step, which identifies a failure mechanism, is by definition not con-
verged and cannot be used to extract quantitative output, see Time/Select
current time step, move backward/forward in time (use + / -) and observe
how the mechanism builds up.

Figure 1.18: Stability of vertical cut: failure mechanism identified by means of

displacement amplitude map (diverged step).
Remarks:
• SF can be read from the screen at the last converged step

• if the failure mechanism is not well visible try to visualize color contours
of the increment of absolute displacements between the noncoverged step
and the last converged one (use Time/Select Reference Time Step)
• if the failure mechanism is still not well visible or local instabilities are
observed try to reduce the increment of safety factor and restart analysis
15

Chapter 2
TRUSS STRUCTURES
Contents
2.1 Construction of stiffness matrix of single truss . . . . . . . . 18

2.2 Assembly of elemental stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3 Solution procedures for linear systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.4 Using ZSOIL to analyze truss structures . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.4.1 Data Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.4.2 Running analysis and exploiting results . . . . . . . . 26
2.4.3 Imposed displacements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.5 Large displacements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.6 Collapse load analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.7 Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.7.1 Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.7.2 Time integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.7.3 Hilber-Hughes-Taylor algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.7.4 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
17
CHAPTER 2. TRUSS STRUCTURES
Trusses are the simplest structural elements. Stiffness matrix construction,

solution procedures, large displacements and dynamics on truss elements are
discussed in this chapter. Procedures remain simple for such elements and
knowing them may help understanding results. There is no need, however,
to understand how stiffness is built and how the resulting linear system is
solved in order to use ZSOIL, and we will not go into these details for more
complicated elements. For details, an interested reader may refer to ZSOIL
help, in particular to the theory manual.
2.1 Construction of stiffness matrix of single

truss
Let’s start with a single truss, a 1-dimensional structure, in 1-dimensional

space, as illustrated next.
Figure 2.1: Truss with boundary condition and load.
The characteristics of this structure are its length L, section A and elastic
modulus E. Static equilibrium requires that we fix this structure at one
end at least, and we apply a force Fext at the other end. Now, we write
equilibrium at the loaded end, which requires internal and external forces to
be in equilibrium:
EAd
Fint = Fext and Fint = σ · A = E · ε · A = (2.1)
L
where σ denotes stress, ε is the strain, and d is the displacement, unknown

so far. Now, let us assume that the truss is discretized using a single 2-node
element (see Fig. 2.2).
Expressing equilibrium of the deformed truss (d1 is the displacement of node
1), yields a system of two equations with R denoting an unknown reaction.
Writing the system of equations in matrix form one gets:

1 −1 d0 R EA
k = with k = (2.2)
−1 1 d1 F1 l

2.1. CONSTRUCTION OF STIFFNESS MATRIX OF SINGLE TRUSS
Figure 2.2: Single element truss and forces involved.
The left-hand-side matrix represents the stiffness matrix of a truss charac-

terized by E, A, L in one-dimensional space. If an imposed displacement
d0 = D, zero or nonzero, is given at the left end, d1 can be calculated from
the second equation and then R from the first one.
The same truss in two-dimensional space will have the following stiffness by:
    
1 0 −1 0  d0x 
 
F0x 
0 0 0 0
 d0y = F0y
   
k
−1 (2.3)
0 1 d1x 
0  F1x 
  
0 0 0 0 d1y F1y
   
If the truss has a skew orientation in 2D-space:
Figure 2.3: Skew truss in 2D space (c and s are the cosine and sine of angle θ)
The 3D case can be derived in a similar manner.

Remarks:
- A more generic approach to the formulation of the matrix equations of

trusses is of course possible, using e.g. finite elements techniques. How-
ever, this is beyond the scope of this book.
19
2.2 Assembly of elemental stiffness
We have now enough information to start with an example. Consider the

following structure and associated load and boundary conditions. The stiff-
nesses of each element can easily be calculated and assembled to form the
stiffness of the structure. The assembly procedure can be viewed as a sum-
mation of elemental stiffnesses of each truss after mapping into the global
stiffness matrix. For element 1, which connects nodes 1 and 2, we obtain, by
applying the construction rules of the elemental stiffness matrix developed
in the previous section and then mapping it into a new matrix which has
the format of the global stiffness matrix 6x6 (3 nodes x 2 dofs) (Fig. 2.4).
Example 2.1:
Remarks:
- ZSOIL renumbers nodes and elements.
For element 1, which connects nodes 1 and 2, we obtain, by applying the

construction rules of the elemental stiffness matrix developed in the previous
section and then mapping it into a new matrix which has the format of the
global stiffness matrix 6 × 6 (3 nodes × 2 dofs) (Fig. 2.4).
The same procedure can then be applied to trusses 2 and 3 and correspond-
ing global matrices can be summed, the global stiffness matrix results (Fig.
2.5).
Observing that both displacements of at node 1 and y displacement at node
3 are ”0”, we are left with 3 unknowns. We can remove lines and columns
corresponding to known ”0” displacements from the above system. The

2.2. ASSEMBLY OF ELEMENTAL STIFFNESS
Figure 2.4: Assembly of Truss 1.
Figure 2.5: Assembled global stiffness.
resulting reduced linear system writes:

    
1 0 −0.5 d2x   √ 0 
102  0 1 −0.5 d2y = − 2 (2.4)
−0.5 −0.5 1.5 d3x 0
   
This system can be solved by hand, with the following result:

   √ 
d2x   − √2/4 
d2y = 102 −5√2/4 (2.5)
d3x −2 2/4
   
Nodal reactions can then be computed using the equations, abandoned ear-
lier, which correspond to degrees of freedom (dofs) subject to boundary
conditions.
We will need, however, solution techniques which are applicable to a larger
number of unknowns.
21
2.3 Solution procedures for linear systems

Finite element stiffness assemblies lead to a linear system often written:
Kd = F, where K is called stiffness matrix, d the vector of nodal displace-
ments components and F the vector of applied forces components. Solution
procedures for linear systems are discussed in Appendix A.
2.4 Using ZSOIL to analyze truss structures
2.4.1 Data Preparation
Consider Example 2.1 again. Open ZSOIL and select 2D/Frames only as
project pre-selection (Fig. 2.6). The role of this pre-selection is to initialize
coming up input screens, restricting them to entities relevant to the problem
being solved. The pre-selection can be modified any time later on.
Figure 2.6: Pre-selection of the project type.

2.4. USING ZSOIL TO ANALYZE TRUSS STRUCTURES
CONTROL/DRIVERS
Next, define the analysis driver. Open Control/Drivers (Fig. 2.7).
Time dependent/driven load over 1 time step is automatically selected. The
role of this driver is to manage time, real (requires units) or fictive (used
to sequence operations without specified time units); here it is fictive, the
analysis starts at time t = 0 and computes a solution at each time step until
time tend is reached.
For this particular case, we have 1 step and this is sufficient for a linear
elastic structure subjected to a static load.
Remarks:
- There are no preprocessed projects; we will come back to this later.
Save the input file: select File/Save as and enter Ex 2 1 trussStruct.inp.
Figure 2.7: Defining characteristics of analysis driver.
ASSEMBLY/PREPROCESSING
Open Assembly/Preprocessing. Introduce 3 truss elements, FE Model/Truss/
2 nodes-points. Attribute material numbers (e.g. 1 for oblique trusses & 2
for horizontal truss). If needed, you can modify them later, using Parameters
(Fig. 2.8).
Introduce fully fixed boundary conditions at the left node and a sliding
boundary condition at the right node (Fig. 2.9), specifying On node for
new data, or Update/Parameters for existing ones. Impose load at bottom
node (Fig. 2.10), On node for new data, or Update/Parameters for existing
one. Move to File/Exit and click Yes when prompted if you want to save
changes.
ASSEMBLY/MATERIALS
Two materials have to be defined under Assembly/Materials, the first one
for oblique trusses (Fig. 2.11), the second one for horizontal truss.
Data needed for oblique trusses are:
Elastic modulus E = 10 0000 000 kN/m2
Area A = 0.0005657 m2
And for horizontal truss:
Area A = 0.0008 m2
23
Figure 2.8: Defining Input of trusses and specification of materials for truss ele-
ments.
Figure 2.9: Imposing boundary conditions.

Figure 2.10: Defining loads on truss elements.
Figure 2.11: Material definition for horizontal and oblique trusses.
25
2.4.2 Running analysis and exploiting results
ANALYSIS/RUN ANALYSIS
The solution procedure is quasi-instantaneous, no need to discuss it now.
RESULTS/INFO/On node
Results confirm previous ones (Fig. 2.12).
Figure 2.12: Results for the node 3 (2 in problem definition), using Info/Node
results.
2.4.3 Imposed displacements
Next, we would like to analyze the influence of a vertical displacement 0.1

m of the boundary condition at node 3. Let us define this analysis as a
2nd stage with respect to the previous one. Begin analysis by saving the
previous input file as Ex 2 1 trussStruct impDisp.inp.
CONTROL/DRIVERS Time Dependent/Driven load over 1 time step is
automatically selected. In order to define two analysis steps, the Increment
should remain equal to 1, whereas Time End should be modified to tend = 2,
(Fig. 2.13).
At both steps, we would like the external load to be present, while an im-
posed boundary motion should be applied only at step 2. In order to achieve
it, the vertical displacement should be associated with a customized load
function 1.

Figure 2.13: Driver setup for a 2-step analysis.
Note that the load function number 0 is a default, and constant, equal to 1.
This load function is associated with the external load (see Fig. 2.10).and
load function number 1 with the moving boundary condition, under Assem-
bly/Load function (Fig. 2.14). Observe that the load function numbers are
associated with the load or the boundary conditions in the preprocessor (Fig.
2.15) and are defined as function of time under Assembly/Load function.
Figure 2.14: Load functions: 0 (default) - associated with the external load, and
1 (custom) - associated with the vertical displacement of node 3.
Remarks:
- with steps of amplitude 1 the load alone will be taken into account at
step 1, load and imposed displacement at step 2. Refinement of the
time step increment will lead to progressive application of the imposed
displacement.
ANALYSIS/RUN ANALYSIS
As in the previous analysis.
RESULTS
Let us compare stress resultants in the trusses between step 1 and 2 in
order to observe the influence of the support settlement at node 3. Select
27
Figure 2.15: Imposing vertical displacement on node 3, at step 2 (via associating

UY with LF=1).
reference and current time step under Time, and activate result browsing
by selecting Info/Elements resultsand pick one of the trusses (Fig. 2.16).
Notice that the difference of stress resultants between step 1 and 2 is zero,
meaning that there is no influence within the framework of theory of small
deformation.
2.5 Large displacements
Equilibrium must be satisfied in deformed configuration. Depending on

the adopted E modulus, displacements will be small with respect to the
structural dimension, in which case small displacement theory applies,
or more significant, in which case large displacement (large rotations
in fact) theory applies. Nevertheless, small strain theory is considered
applicable throughout this book.
Let us consider Example 2.1 once again. It will be solved now using ZSOIL,
first assuming small displacements, then large displacements, and repeating
both with Young’s modulus E hundredfold reduced. Data preparation is
described below.

2.5. LARGE DISPLACEMENTS
Figure 2.16: Stress results between steps 1 and 2 (influence of the vertical dis-
placement imposed on node 3).
Open the data file prepared for the small displacement problem
(Ex 2 1 trussStruct.inp), and save it under Ex 2 1 trussStruct laDisp.inp.
Now, you can activate large displacements as demonstrated in Fig. 2.17.
Figure 2.17: Activation of large displacements.
Results are compared for the 2 different values of E moduli, the first one
leading to small elongations (typically less than L/100), and the second one
29
to an elongation of approximately L/10. Computations have been carried

out with small and large displacement assumptions, in both cases. Dis-
placements at the bottom node and normal force in the oblique trusses are
reported in Table 2.1.
Input files are: Ex 2 1 trussStruct trussEe6.inp, Ex 2 1 trussEe6 laDisp.inp,
Ex 2 1 trussEe4.inp, and Ex 2 1 trussEe4 laDisp.inp.
Table 2.1: Example 2.1 - small vs large displacement theory.

Young’s modulus Theory of Tot. horiz. Tot. vert. Normal force in
deforma- displ. displ. oblique trusses
tions
E [kN/m2 ] uP
x [m] uP
y [m] N [kN]
1e6 small −3.53e-3 −1.76e-2 1.00
1e6 large −3.53e-3 −1.76e-2 1.00
1e4 small −3.53e-1 −1.76e0 1.00
1e4 large −2.48e-1 −1.33e0 0.86
Remarks:
- There is no influence of the large displacement formulation when the

structure is rigid, i.e. relatively large E.
- The large displacement problem is nonlinear. The influence on N , the

normal stress resultant in oblique trusses is significant, when the structure
is deformable, i.e. relatively small E.
- Given a set of ZSOIL data for small displacements, it is sufficient to

simply activate large displacements under the advanced option in the
CONTROL screen to get the large displacement solution. The program
essentially redefines stiffness taking into account the deformed configura-
tion.
2.6 Collapse load analysis

Next, we analyze the same structure which is subject to a load that increases
until failure is reached. A displacement control procedure has to be used in
order to be able to pursue the analysis beyond the onset of plasticity. The
corresponding input is a vertical displacement imposed at node 2, associated
with a load function which increases linearly (Fig. 2.18) starting from 0 and
up to ∞.
Solutions for small and large displacement approaches are compared in Table
2.2 and Fig. 2.19, revealing sensitivity to displacement amplitude, which
increases with the deformability of the structure (i.e. when E is small). The

2.6. COLLAPSE LOAD ANALYSIS
Figure 2.18: Definition of the load function associated with the displacement.
material is considered to be elastic-perfectly plastic with the yield stress of

1000 kN/m2 (tensile & compressive).
Input files are: Ex 2 1 trussEe5 coll.inp, Ex 2 1 trussEe5 laDisp coll.inp,
Ex 2 1 trussEe4 coll.inp, and Ex 2 1 trussEe4 laDisp coll.inp.
Notice that yield is reached for a smaller displacement when large displace-
ments are taken into account; this is due to a change of orientation of
oblique trusses.
Table 2.2: Example 2.1 - comparison of vertical displacements at node 2 and

yield forces in oblique trusses using small and large displacement for-
mulations.
Young’s modulus Theory of Tot. vert. Normal force in

deforma- displ. oblique trusses
tions
E [ kN/m2 ] uP
yield [ m] N [ kN]
1e5 small −0.100 0.5657
1e5 large −0.099 0.5657
1e4 small −1.00e0 0.5657
1e4 large −0.92e0 0.5657
Remarks:
- It is worth noting that large displacements, or essentially large rotations,

is a matter of implementation of the proper theory, and does not require
additional data. What changes is the reference configuration for the
31
Figure 2.19: Time-stress history in oblique trusses.
computation of strain and stress, and the current stiffness. While it

significantly affects hand calculations , it is no longer complex when using
a computer. One may ask so why it is not used for all calculations. The
answer is simple: linear calculations are cheaper in terms of computational
effort.
2.7 Dynamics
Analyzing the system presented in Example 2.1 under dynamic loading is
also easy using ZSOIL. The linear system to be solved is not any more of
the static form:
Kd = F (2.6)
which is analogue to an equation of a spring; it is now of the form:
Ma + Kd = F (2.7)
where M denotes the mass matrix, and a is the vector of nodal acceleration
components.
Assuming that mass is concentrated at both ends of each truss, we guess
that for a single element, in the 1-dimensional case, the lumped mass matrix

2.7. DYNAMICS
will correspond to half the total mass at each end, i.e.:

1 0
M = (ρAL/2) (2.8)
0 1
where ρ is the mass/unit volume, A the cross-section, and L being the

length of truss.
A consistent derivation of the matrix form would lead to a consistent mass
matrix, which writes:

1/3 1/6
M = (ρAL) (2.9)
1/6 1/3
Using one form or the other is not completely indifferent, the 1st form
underestimates eigenfrequencies, the 2nd overestimates them, but we will
come back to this later.
Remarks:
- For a skew truss the same transformations as for the stiffness matrix apply
to the mass matrix.
2.7.1 Damping
If viscous damping is included we get an equation of motion of the form:
Ma + Cv + Kd = F (2.10)
with C being a viscous damping matrix, and v the nodal velocity compo-
nents.
Rayleigh damping is the most commonly adopted form for C; it corresponds
to a linear combination of the mass and stiffness matrices:
C = α0 M + β 0 K (2.11)
Viscous damping is usually not representative of the physics of dissipative

mechanisms appearing in structures. However, this form is very useful for
modal analysis because it maintains modal decoupling, and it can be adopted
as is for time-integration analysis. Notice that Rayleigh damping introduces
two scalar parameters, α0 and β 0 . By comparison of the above damped
equation with the equation of motion of a damped SDOF (single-degree-
of-freedom) system in free vibration, characterized by a viscous damping
ratio of ξ, a measure of per cycle amplitude decay is obtained:

un
ln = 2πξ (2.12)
un+1
33
where un is the nth peak of the oscillation.

We can define two damping coefficients by fixing the values of ξ i for two fre-
quencies ω i ; the corresponding ZSOIL input screen is given in Fig. 2.20 and
the resulting damping for other frequencies can be deduced, as illustrated
on a diagram of the type shown in Fig. 2.21.
Table 2.3: Typical values of damping ratio ξ (Chopra, 1995).

2-3% to 5-7% welded steel, prestressed concrete
3-5% to 7-10% reinforced concrete
5-7% to 10-15% bolted steel and wood structures
NB. Lower values for stress below 50% yield, upper close to yield
Figure 2.20: Input of Rayleigh damping via two pairs (ξ i , ω i ).
2.7.2 Time integration
Commonly used techniques to solve the equation of motion include: direct

time integration, modal analysis, and frequency domain analysis. As only
the first one fully supports nonlinear analysis, it is the only one available
in ZSOIL. Also, we consider only one-step algorithms, which means that
given the solution (acceleration an , velocity vn and displacement dn ) at
tn = n · ∆t of the equation of motion, we compute the solution at tn+1
using only values computed at tn .
Dynamic analysis requires a new driver (Fig. 2.22) and the choice of an
algorithm.
First, let us consider Newmark’s family of algorithms and a SDOF system,

2.7. DYNAMICS
Figure 2.21: Rayleigh damping: stiffness or mass-proportional, and combined.
Figure 2.22: Newmark’s algorithm for time integration: time-step and parameters
input.
a spring fixed at one end with a mass at the other end. At time tn+1 the
35
equation of motion reads:
Man+1 + Cvn+1 + Kdn+1 = Fn+1 (2.13)
a, v, and dare acceleration, velocity and displacement of the SDOF respec-

tively, and F is the applied load, function of time; M, C, and K are the
mass, the viscous damping and the stiffness matrices, scalars in the case of
a SDOF. We have therefore 1 equation and 3 unknowns, and we need 2
additional equations which are provided by Newmark’s algorithm. These
2 equations are finite difference equations which relate a, v, and d:
∆t2
dn+1 = dn + ∆tvn + [(1 − 2β) an + 2βan+1 ] (2.14a)
2
vn+1 = vn + ∆t [(1 − γ) an + γan+1 ] (2.14b)
The algorithm introduces 2 parameters γ and β, which can be tuned to

control stability and accuracy. The default values are (γ = 0.5, β = 0.25),
corresponding to an implicit algorithm, unconditionally stable and second
order accurate, in which case no algorithmic decay will be observed no matter
which time-step is used, but some period elongation will be present.
Alternatively, (γ = 0.5, β = 0.0), not available in all versions of ZSOIL)
corresponds to an explicit algorithm characterized by conditional stability
(condition: ω max ∆t < 2), where ω max is the maximum frequency in the
system, and also by period contraction. A more complete discussion can be
found in the documentation of ZSOIL.
Remarks:
- Notice that the dynamic problem is still linear unless material nonlinearity
or large displacements are activated.
- The static problem needs to have enough displacement boundary condi-

tions to remain stable, the dynamic problem does not need any of these
boundary conditions for stability, and they will be present only if they
correspond to physical reality.
2.7.3 Hilber-Hughes-Taylor algorithm
Discretization leads to a finite number of DOFs, and the same number

of eigenfrequencies; on the other hand, the corresponding continuum has
an infinite number of eigenfrequencies. The lowest frequencies obtained
from the discretization usually coincide reasonably well with the ones of the
continuum, but the higher ones are biased (this is illustrated in Fig. 2.23),
and therefore not representative of the real behavior of the structure. It is

2.7. DYNAMICS
therefore desirable firstly to have a sufficiently wide spectrum of unbiased

frequencies to cover the spectrum of frequencies excited by the load, and
secondly to filter out the biased frequencies by an appropriate algorithmic
choice. The Hilber-Hughes-Taylor (or HHT) algorithm, with an appropriate
choice of the time step ∆t, will do just that. Details can be found in
ZSOIL’s documentation.
Figure 2.23: Comparison of eigenfrequencies for continuous and discrete truss

models (N masses).
2.7.4 Example
Let us consider Example 2.1 once again. We will now add a lumped mass
M = 400 kg at node 2 (Fig. 2.24), and we apply an initial displacement pro-
portional to the static loading case: (d2x , d2y , d3x ) = (−0.002, −0.01, −0.004)
(see Fig. 2.25).
The system has 2 dynamic DOFs (d2x , d2y ) and 1 DOF without associated
mass, i.e. d3x .
The corresponding input file is Ex 2 1 trussStruct dynIC.inp.
As DRIVER, the default implicit Newmark’s algorithm is used (with γ = 0.5
37
and β = 0.25), and ∆t = 0.1 s (see Fig. 2.26). Notice that 2 drivers
are defined, the first one introduces a very small time step for the system
in order to restore the equilibrium as soon as possible after imposed initial
conditions which often are not in equilibrium.
Figure 2.24: Nodal mass input.
Figure 2.25: Definition of initial conditions.

2.7. DYNAMICS
At node 3, we can observe an undamped horizontal oscillation between d =

±0.004. At node 2, the motion has 2 components but vertical oscillations
have undamped limits at ±0.01, as expected given the prescribed initial
conditions (Fig. 2.27) and the algorithmic properties.
Remarks:
- Small and large deformation assumptions give the same result for the
above data. They would be different if a large displacement is imposed
as initial condition.
Exercise 2.2
Build the stiffness corresponding to the following structure and solve the
corresponding linear system using the ZSOIL’s external solver (see A).
Compare obtained solution with the same problem solved with ZSOIL
(file Ex 2 2 trussStruct.inp).
39
Figure 2.26: Definition of analysis drivers.
Figure 2.27: Vertical oscillations at node 2 (node 3 in PostPro output).

REFERENCES
References
Chopra, A. (1995). Dynamics of structures. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
41

Chapter 3
LINEAR AND NONLINEAR CONTINUA
Contents
3.1 Linear statics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

3.1.1 Invariants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.2 Basic elasto-plastic models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.2.1 Mohr-Coulomb and Tresca yield criteria . . . . . . . 50
3.2.2 Drucker-Prager and von Mises criteria . . . . . . . . 52
3.2.3 Dilatancy and flow rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.2.4 ZSOIL data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.3 Finite elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.4 Newton-Raphson procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.4.1 Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.5 Geotechnical aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.5.1 Initial state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.5.2 Locking in quasi incompressible media . . . . . . . . 65
3.5.3 Spurious pressure oscillations in consolidation . . . . 65
43
CHAPTER 3. LINEAR AND NONLINEAR CONTINUA
3.1 Linear statics

Equilibrium of a 2D infinitesimal element of dimensions dx1 · dx2 can be
represented graphically as shown in Fig. 3.1. Equilibrium in direction of x1
then writes:
∂σ 11 ∂τ 12
dx1 dx2 + dx2 dx1 + f1 dx1 dx2 = 0 (3.1)
∂x1 ∂x2
which can be simplified into:
∂σ 11 ∂τ 12
+ + f1 = 0 (3.2)
∂x1 ∂x2
and generalized to 1, 2 or 3 directions as:
∂σ ij
+ fi = 0 for i=1 to 2, and sum over j=1 to 2, in 2D case (3.3)
∂xj
We rewrite this expression as:
σ ij,j + fi = 0 with sum on repeated indices (1 to 2 in the 2D case)

(3.4)
The corresponding multi-dimensional boundary value problem can be stated

as, in differential form:

 σ ij,j + fi = 0 on Ω
ui = ui on Γu (3.5)
σ ij nj = σ i on Γσ and Γ = Γu + Γσ

The first equation expresses that equilibrium must be satisfied on domain

Ω, the second defines imposed displacements on part of the boundary, and
the third imposed surface tractions on the rest of the boundary (nj are
components of the local normal) (Fig. 3.1).
Figure 3.1: Static equilibrium.
If the medium is elastic, then Hooke’s law applies which can be stated as:
σ ij = Cijkl εkl sum on repated indices (3.6)

3.1. LINEAR STATICS
For isotropic elasticity, this can be simplified to:
σ ij = λεkk δij + 2µεij (3.7)
where λ and µ are Lame’s constants, and δ ij is Kronecker’s symbol (1 if

i = j, and 0 if i 6= j).
Alternatively, a volumetric-deviatoric split of the stress tensor is possible,
then:
- σ kk = σ 11 + σ 22 + σ 33 = Kεkk , is the volumetric stress, a function of

the volumetric strain, and the bulk modulus K
- sij = 2µeij , is the deviatoric stress, a function of the deviatoric strain,
and hence:
σ
kk
- σ ij = δ ij + sij
3
The same decomposition applied to strain leads to:

ε
kk
- εij = δ ij + eij
3
Expanding Hooke’s law for the isotropic 2 and 3-dimensional cases, we ob-
tain, in matrix form:
45
Table 3.1: Hooke’s law, 3D isotropic elasticity.

    
εx   1/E −ν/E −ν/E 0 0 0  σx 

   

 
 
 


 
   


 
   



 ε

y 
 −ν/E 1/E −ν/E 0 0 0 

σ
 y
 


 
   

 
   

    

 εz 
  −ν/E −ν/E 1/E 0 0 0   σz 
 
=
 
 
    
γ yz 




  0 0 0 1/G 0 0  τ yz 
 
 
  





 
   
γ 
   


 zx


  0 0 0 0 1/G 0 
 
 τ zx




 
  
 


 
   

γ 
  
xy
 0 0 0 0 0 1/G τ  xy
    
σ λ + 2G λ λ 0 0 0  ε
   


 x 

 
 x 



 
   


 
   

σy   λ λ + 2G λ 0 0 0  εy 

   
 

 
   


 
   


 
   

σ 

z   λ λ λ + 2G 0 0 0  εz 
 
=
 
 
    



 τ yz 



 0
 0 0 G 0 0
γ yz 






 
   


 
   

τ zx 

 
  0 0 0 0 G 0 γ zx 

 


 
   


 
   


τ   
xy
 0 0 0 0 0 G  γ xy 
NB. γ xy = 2εxy
Table 3.2: Hooke’s law, plane strain.

εz = γ xy = γ yz = 0
 
1 − ν2
 
ν(1 + ν)


 εx  − 0 
 σx 
E E

 
  
 

     
1 − ν2
   ν(1 + ν)   
εy = − 0 σ y
E E
     

 
   
 


γ 
   1 
τ 
 
xy
 0 0 xy

G
    
 σx  λ + 2G λ 0 
 εx 

   
 
  


 
   

=
 
 σ y 
 λ
 λ + 2G 0
 εy 

 
   


   
τ   0 0 G

γ 

xy xy
σz = ν (σ x + σ y )

3.1. LINEAR STATICS
Table 3.3: Hooke’s law, plane stress (only in ZSOIL custom version)
σz = τ xy = τ yz = 0
    
ε  1/E −ν/E 0  σx 
  


 x 

 




 
   

=
 
ε y −ν/E 1/E 0  σ y

 
   

 
  





γ   
xy
 0 0 1/G τ xy 
 
  E ν  
 σ x

 (1 − ν 2 ) E 0  εx

(1 − ν 2 )

 
 
 


 
   
 

   
=
 ν E 
σ y 
E 0 ε y 
 (1 − ν 2 ) (1 − ν 2 )
   

 
  
 


 
   
 

τ xy  0 0 G
γ xy 
ν
εz = − (εx + εy )
(1 − ν)
Only two constants are needed for isotropic elasticity, but different pairs can
be used (see Table 3.4).
Table 3.4: Elastic constants

expressed by: λ, µ E, ν K, µ
νE 3K − 2µ
Lame parameter λ λ
(1 + ν)(1 − 2ν) 3
E
Kirchhoff’s modulus G=µ µ µ
2(1 + ν)
µ(3λ + 2µ) 9Kµ
Young’s modulus E E
λ+µ 3K + µ
E(1 − ν)
Oedometric modulus Eoed − −
(1 + ν)(1 − 2ν)
λ 3K − 2µ
Poisson’s coefficient ν ν
2(λ + µ) 2(3K + µ)
3λ + 2µ E
Bulk modulus K K
3 3(1 − 2µ)
47
Remarks:
- Soil can sometimes be considered as an almost incompressible material

(i.e. fully saturated soil + perfectly undrained conditions). Incompressible
elasticity corresponds to ν = 0.5. This value of ν will induce numerical
problems and must be approximated by ν = 0.49999, but even this value
will lead to mesh locking unless appropriate elements are used. A special
section is dedicated to this issue.
3.1.1 Invariants
Stress and strain components depend on the orientation of coordinates but

stress and strain invariants remain unaffected by a change of the coordinates.
Invariants play an essential role in nonlinear analysis because yield and failure
criteria must be expressed in terms of invariants in order to avoid dependence
on the coordinate system.
Different invariants or linear combinations of invariants can be defined, but
we will use only a few to start with.
Table 3.5: Stress and strain invariants in 3D and in plane strain

Let principal stresses be such that σ 1 > σ 2 > σ 3 . The following can be written:
- 1st invariant of the stress tensor:

I1 = σ kk (sum on repated indices)
= σ x + σ y + σ z = 3σ m (in general coordinates)
= σ1 + σ2 + σ3 (in principal stress coordinates)
- 2nd invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor:

J2 = 0.5sij sij = 0.5 s21 + s22 + s23

1h i
= (σ xx − σ yy )2 + (σ yy − σ zz )2 + (σ zz − σ xx )2 + τ 2xy + τ 2yz + τ 2zx
6
1h i
σ 2q = (σ xx − σ yy )2 + (σ yy − σ zz )2 + (σ zz − σ xx )2 + 6 τ 2xy + τ 2yz + τ 2zx
2
1h i
= (σ 1 − σ 2 )2 + (σ 2 − σ 3 )2 + (σ 3 − σ 1 )2
2
- Lode’s angle:

σ 1 − 2σ 2 + σ 3
θ = tan−1 √
3(σ 1 − σ 3 )
- plane strain invariants:
1 1
σs = (σ xx + σ yy ) = (σ 1 + σ 2 )
2
q 2
σd = (σ xx − σ yy )2 + 4τ 2xy = σ 1 − σ 2

3.2. BASIC ELASTO-PLASTIC MODELS
3.2 Basic elasto-plastic models

Linear elastostatics are not sufficient for the simulation of soil behavior. Per-
Figure 3.2: Schematic uniaxial elastoplasticity.
manent deformation, hysteretic cyclic behavior, strain hardening and strain

increments which are not coaxial with stress increments, are typical to soil
behavior. Incremental plasticity supports such type of behavior, which makes
it an appropriate constitutive theory for soils. A 1-dimensional case is ex-
amined in Fig. 3.2. The figure illustrates three typical plastic behaviors:
perfectly plastic behavior, hardening and softening. All three are sup-
ported by ZSOIL, but not with every model. The first and the second can
be used without special precautions, but softening induces a dependence on
the discretization (mesh size) which has to be taken into account. Loading
up to σ Y , the yield stress, is elastic and unloading from this point leaves
no irreversible deformation. Applying a positive stress increment ∆σ from
the yield point σ Y leads to a irreversible deformation ∆εp after unloading.
Incremental plasticity assumes split of strain into additive elastic and plastic
strain components, such that ∆ε = ∆εe + ∆εp . The corresponding incre-
mental constitutive law can then be written in different forms, as should be
obvious from Fig. 3.2:
∆σ = Dep ∆ε = Dep (εe + εp ) in 1D: ∆σ = E ep ∆ε (3.8a)
∆σ = D∆εe = Dep ∆εp in 1D: ∆σ = E∆εe = H 0 ∆εp (3.8b)
Elastoplasticity requires defining three essential ingredients:
1. A yield criterion F (σ) = 0, a surface in stress space which limits the
49
domain of elastic behavior. Given an arbitrary stress state σ we have:
F (σ) < 0 for an elastic state
F (σ) = 0 for a plastic state (3.9)
F (σ) > 0 impossible stress states
In the 1D case the yield criterion is simply a limiting stress σ Y , where

index y stands for yield.
2. A hardening law, which governs the evolution of the size of F under

increasing plastic strain, then, F (σ) = 0 becomes:
F (σ, h) = 0 (3.10)
where h is a hardening parameter, a function of plastic strain invariants.

In the 1D case the yield criterion is simply F (σ, h) = σ Y (H 0 , εp ).
3. A flow rule. The plastic strain increment direction will be governed by:
∂G(σ)
∆ε = dλ (3.11)
∂σ
where defines the plastic potential, defines the direction of plastic flow,
normal to , is the plastic multiplier which defines the amplitude of plas-
tic flow. When we have associative plasticity, otherwise non-associative
plasticity.
The consistency condition:
Ḟ (σ) = 0 (3.12)
completes the formulation and will be used to define the amplitude of plastic
flow via dλ. It expresses that the stress point remains on the yield surface
during plastic flow. This point is essential for theory and implementation
but not for applications, see ZSOIL manuals for more details.
3.2.1 Mohr-Coulomb and Tresca yield criteria
Mohr-Coulomb is the most frequently used yield criterion in soil mechanics,

it expresses that the shear stress τ cannot exceed a given limit, function of
the effective normal stress σ n , on the physical failure surface.
|τ | = σ n tan φ + c (3.13)
Remarks:

- Sign convention: underlined values are positive in compression.
A more convenient form, for numerical implementation, can be written:

1 − sin φ cos φ
F ≡ σ1 − σ3 − 2c (3.14)
1 + sin φ 1 + sin φ
with two additional constraints:
σ 1 >= σ 2
(3.15)
σ 2 >= σ 3
In addition Rankine tensile cut off can be added:
F2 = σ 1 − f t (3.16)
Figure 3.3: Mohr-Coulomb criterion in 3D stress space.
In a three-dimensional principal stress space, Mohr-Coulomb criterion cor-

responds to a cone with hexagonal cross-section (Fig. 3.3). This is a
multi-surface criterion, in fact six surfaces are present, and this criterion is
therefore slightly more difficult to manage numerically than smooth criteria.
Remarks:
- Tresca criterion corresponds to Mohr-Coulomb criterion with φ = 0, the

corresponding criterion is a cylinder with regular hexagonal cross-section.
- Notice that the shape of the cross-section of Mohr-Coulomb criterion
moves from a regular hexagonal for φ = 0, to nearly triangular for large
friction angles (see Fig. 3.3).
- The criterion is composed of three pairs of planes associated with the min
and max principal stresses. The traces of failure planes associated with
(σ 1 , σ 2 ), in the deviatoric cross section are illustrated in red in Fig. 3.3.
51
Mohr-Coulomb is an elastic-perfectly plastic model in ZSOIL, there is

therefore no hardening law associated with it.
The plastic flow rule is nonassociated in general (it is associated only for the
deviatoric part), and characterized by an angle of dilatancy. It assumes the
existence of a plastic potential G(σ), analogue to the yield criterion F (σ),
in meridional planes (see Fig. 3.5). The value of the angle of dilatancy is
usually extracted from an experiment. Dilatancy will be discussed in Section
3.2.3.
3.2.2 Drucker-Prager and von Mises criteria
Drucker-Prager and von Mises criteria are slightly more convenient for
numerical implementation than Mohr-Coulomb.
The criterion proposed by Drucker and Prager as an approximation of the
Mohr-Coulomb can be written:
F ≡ σ q − 2σ m sin φ − 2c cos φ = 0 (3.17a)
or alternatively:
p
F ≡ aφ I1 + J2 − k = 0 (3.17b)
with aφ and k being material properties.

In 3D principal stress space, Drucker-Prager criterion corresponds to a cone
with circular cross-section and von Mises criterion to a cylinder (Fig. 3.4).
Both are single-surface criteria.
Remarks:
- von Mises criterion corresponds to φ = ψ = 0.
When a Drucker-Prager criterion is used to approximate a Mohr-Coulomb

criterion it appears that matching both criteria cannot be unique. Adjust-
ment is possible at external edges, which correspond to uniaxial compression,
internal edges, corresponding to uniaxial tension, matching elastic domains
for a particular stress state or plane strain collapse. A table of size adjust-
ments available in ZSOIL is given below and illustrated in Fig. 3.5. Plane
strain states (σ 1 , σ 2 ) are in planes which intersect deviatoric planes as shown
in Fig. 3.5.
The flow rule, which defines the direction of ∆εp , for Drucker-Prager crite-
rion is introduced again by assuming the existence of a plastic potential G
whose normal, in meridional planes, can be described by the dilatancy angle
ψ (for MC criterion), and aψ for D-P criterion, Fig. 3.6. Incompressible
flow is coaxial with the normal to I1 axis (σ 1 = σ 2 = σ 3 ).

Figure 3.4: Drucker-Prager and von Misès criteria.
Figure 3.5: Size adjustments of Drucker-Prager with respect to Mohr-Coulomb,

in a deviatoric cross section.
Figure 3.6: Direction of plastic flow, with respect to yield criterion and plastic
potential.
53
3.2.3 Dilatancy and flow rule
Except for incompressible flow, shearing causes a volume increase during

plastic flow, this is called dilatancy. Considering Mohr-Coulomb criterion,
with associative flow (φ = ψ), and the definition of plastic flow, we can
derive:
dεpv = dεp1 + dεp2 + dεp3 = −2dλ sin ψ ( ψ = φ for associated plasticity)

(3.18)
which corresponds to a dilatant behavior.

Usually, associated plasticity overestimates dilatancy observed in experi-
ments.
If an experiment is available from which dεp can be evaluated, then ψ can be
calculated from the above formula. In the absence of available experiments
take:
ψ=φ : associated plasticity
ψ<φ : non-associated plasticity
and typically
ψ=0 : for incompressible plastic flow Remarks:
ψ∼
= 0 to 0.25φ : in absence of detailed data
ψ < φ − 25o : should be avoided due to associated nu-

merical problems in the case of M-C or
D-P
- Dilatant and incompressible flow both lead to mesh locking phenomena

unless appropriate elements are used. ZSOIL handles the choice of el-
ements automatically (Fig. 3.7, toggle Advanced version option in the
menu if needed), depending on the constitutive choices of the user. But
the interested user who wants to investigate locking phenomena can re-
lease the default options.
3.2.4 ZSOIL data
Mohr-Coulomb model requires two elastic constants E, ν and three plas-

ticity parameters, cohesion c, friction angle φ, and dilatancy angle ψ. Dila-
tancy is zero by default (incompressible case), it can be specified differently

Figure 3.7: Selection of finite elements used in an analysis.
by activation of option advanced. Material specification also requires the

unit weight γ; and a tension cut-off ft is available for materials that do not
support tensile stresses. A dilatancy cut-off which limits excessive volume
increase is also available, see Appendix B.
Figure 3.8: Material input for Mohr-Coulomb, elasto-plastic model.
If Drucker-Prager is used as a smooth approximation to Mohr-Coulomb,

then cohesion c and friction angle φ are the physical material data. Plasticity
theory requires in addition the plastic flow direction given by the dilatancy
angle ψ and a size-adjustment is necessary because matching both criteria
55
is not unique, as illustrated above.

The advantage of using Drucker-Prager for soil analysis, rather than Mohr-
Coulomb, is related to reduction of computational effort, and it should there-
fore be avoided unless computing time is an issue, like in multiple parametric
analyses, or if the user is knowledgeable about size adjustments; results are
very sensitive to this parameter. Watch that the ratio of the internal radius
and the external one of possible D-P approximations is 0.62 for a friction
angle of 45o , see Table 3.6. The proper choice for size adjustment is however
easy in some cases like adjustment at external edges, which corresponds to
uniaxial compression, internal edges, corresponding to uniaxial tension, or
matching plane strain collapse between M-C and D-P criteria.
Default options in ZSOIL are plane strain collapse, for plane strain analysis,
which speaks for itself, and intermediate, between external and internal
edges for axisymmetry which will be further discussed when the ultimate
load of axisymmetric footings is analysed.
Matching parameters for the various options are given in Table 3.6.
Figure 3.9: Input screens for Drucker-Prager material model.
3.3 Finite elements

Finite differences would be a straightforward way to discretize boundary-
value problems, but finite elements lead to more robust numerical methods
and are nowadays the most commonly used technique, and the one used
exclusively in ZSOIL, for space discretization; finite differences are used in
time.

3.3. FINITE ELEMENTS
Table 3.6: Size adjustments for Drucker-Prager criterion used as approxima-

tion to Mohr-Coulomb.
2 sin φ 6c cos φ
3-dimensional, external aφ = √ k= √
3(3 − sin φ) 3(3 − sin φ)
2 sin φ 6c cos φ
3-dimensional, internal aφ = √ k= √
3(3 + sin φ) 3(3 + sin φ)
sin φ
Plane strain failure with aφ = k = c cos φ
ψ = 0 (default) 3
√ √
2 3 sin φ 6 3c cos φ
Axisymmetry intermedi- aφ = k=
ate adj. (default) 9 − sin2 φ 9 − sin2 φ
In order to formulate our finite element method we first build a weak (in-
tegral) form of the equilibrium equation. If equilibrium is true as stated by:
σ ij,j + fi = 0 with sum on repeated indices, (3.19)
then the integral form

Z
(σ ij,j + fi ) wi dΩ = 0 (3.20)
Ω
in which wi is a reasonable arbitrary weighting function, is also true and

integration by parts yields:
Z Z Z
wi,j σ ij dΩ = wi fi dΩ + wi σ i dΓ (3.21)
Ω Ω Γσ
Stress is related to strain by Hooke’s law, strain to displacements by the

1
small strain kinematic relation εij = (ui,j + uj,i ) - remember that (ui,j =
2
∂ui /∂xj ) - and u is interpolated on quadrilateral subdomains, called ele-
ments, by:
4
X
uhi = Na dia (3.22)
a=1
where the dia are nodal displacement values, and Na are interpolation func-
tions, see Fig. 3.10.
An identical interpolation is used for w:
4
X
wih = Na cai (3.23)
a=1
57
Figure 3.10: Interpolation of displacement field within an element.
where cai are nodal values of arbitrary w test functions. Invoking arbitrari-
ness of w (think of it as of virtual displacements), we can then deduce the
matrix form of equilibrium.
The first integral will generate the stiffness term, a square matrix of coef-
ficients multiplied by the vector of unknown nodal displacements Kd, the
second the body force term Ff , a vector of given nodal forces and the third
the surface traction term Fσ , also a vector of given nodal forces, i.e. :
Kd = Ff + Fσ with
Z
Kd = BT σdΩ (3.24)
Z Ω
K= BT DBdΩ
Ω
and:
ε = Bd
(3.25)
σ = Dε = DBd
D was given above for plane strain, plane stress and 3D, matrix forms details
can be found in text books on finite elements and ZSOIL manuals.
K will be symmetric for elasticity and associative plasticity; it will be non-
symmetric for non-associative plasticity and large displacements.

3.4. NEWTON-RAPHSON PROCEDURE
Displacement boundary conditions will be enforced later directly into the

matrix form, as illustrated earlier for trusses.
3.4 Newton-Raphson procedure

It was demonstrated above that an elastoplastic constitutive law will induce
a nonlinear equilibrium relationship between forces and displacements. So
that the linear relation Kd = F no longer holds, and is replaced by the
nonlinear one:
N(d) = F (3.26)
Where d is the vector of nodal displacements, F the vector of nodal forces,
and N(d) represents a nonlinear matrix form, function of d.
Load F will be defined by a load time-history, so that:
Fn+1 = Fn+1 ,and

(3.27)
tn+1 = (n + 1)∆t
where ∆t is the time increment, and n is the time increment (real or ficti-
tious) counter.
At each time value, a nonlinear problem must be solved, iteratively; with i
as iteration counter, we write:
N di+1

n+1 = Fn+1 (3.28)
This expression can be linearized using a Taylor expansion:
linear part of the expansion

| {z }

∂N
N di+1 = N din+1 + (3.29)

n+1 ∆d . . .
∂d
N di+1 ∼
= N din+1 + KT ∆d

n+1
with KT , the tangent stiffness.

From here on we derive the algorithm:
for each n
KT ∆d = Fn+1 − din+1

(3.30)
di+1 i
n+1 = dn+1 + ∆d
i = i + 1, iterate as needed until Fn+1 − N din+1 < tol.

59
The solution procedure is illustrated in Fig. 3.11. The application could

correspond to a loaded footing, for example.
Figure 3.11: Newton-Raphson procedure.
In order to better understand the procedure, let us assume that equilibrium

has been reached at tn (Fig. 3.11, at ”1.”) and that an increment of external
load ∆F (Fig. 3.11, at ”2.”) is applied. The dashed part of curve N (d)
is of course unknown at this point but we only need a local tangent to
proceed. This situation is illustrated in (Fig. 3.11, at ”3.”), which indicates
that application of ∆F will lead to an increment of displacement ∆d, which
leads to a first estimate for dn+1 after one iteration. The procedure is then
repeated with the out-of balance force defined at (Fig. 3.11, at ”4.”), till
convergence to N (d) is reached within a prescribed tolerance (Fig. 3.11, at
”6.”).
As obvious from Fig. 3.11, there is no need to take the true tangent stiffness
at each step and iteration, which corresponds to the full Newton-Raphson
scheme; alternative schemes are possible: Initial or Constant Stiffness, or
Modified Newton-Raphson (see Fig. 3.12).
Algorithmic choices can be made in ZSOIL under CONTROL/Control. By
default, each driver has its own predefined settings in which option of auto-
matic selection of nonlinear solvers is active. The full Newton-Raphson
solver is selected as the first one for any 2D problem. If it fails to con-
verge, next solvers, i.e. BFGS, Initial stiffness (accelerated) and, finally,
the standard Initial stiffness solver are run. If all of them fail to converge
then computation will be terminated and user has to check and identify the
source of the problem, check correctness of the model, and then restart or
rerun the computation.
An automatic step reduction/amplification can also be activated by
adding user defined control settings (using option Add) and associating them
with the driver in the list of drivers. The BFGS (quasi-Newton method) is

3.4. NEWTON-RAPHSON PROCEDURE
Figure 3.12: Alternative iterative strategies.
the default nonlinear solver used as the first one for any 3D analysis. This
is crucial to save the CPU time for large nonlinear computations. Spe-
cial attention has to be paid in case of dynamic computations in which
level of nonlinearities can be relatively low. In this specific case, the user
should predefine his own settings and choose the Initial stiffness solver as
the starting one. In some cases, such as steady/transient seepage or steady
state/transient thermal analyses, selection of nonlinear solvers will be en-
forced internally by the calculation module ignoring user’s selection.
3.4.1 Convergence
Newton-Raphson iterations are repeated until convergence criteria are satis-

fied. The first convergence criterion is the Eulerian norm of the right-hand-
side of the linear system solved at step n, which must be less than the preset
tolerance (Fig. 3.13). By default the tolerance is set to 1% of the initial
out-of balance at step n + 1:
v
uN DOF s
u X 2
Fn+1 − N din+1 = t Fn+1 − N din+1 k ≤ tolerance (3.31)

k=1
61
Figure 3.13: Input window for algorithmic parameters of Newton-Raphson and

other algorithms.
Convergence of the energy of deformation is also tested and used to limit

iterations when internal energy is stationary, meaning that nothing is hap-
pening anyway. Tolerances are set by default in ZSOIL (Fig. 3.13), but the
user can modify default values if needed.
The maximum number of iterations is automatically updated by ZSOIL,
with an absolute max. number of iterations used to stop ill-conditioned
runs, in particular during batch runs (Fig. 3.13).
Remarks:
- Convergence tolerances have to be set separately for each phase, i.e. for
solid phase, liquid phase, structures and interfaces, respectively.

3.5. GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS
3.5 Geotechnical aspects
3.5.1 Initial state
Most analyses solving real problems start with an existing constructed or at

least deformed state, about which we only know the actual geometry, and
that the gravity was the dominant load over past history. Moreover, it can
be considered that some long-term creep took place.
In order to compute the initial stress state, the stress state corresponding
to gravity loads + all other loads existing at assumed initial time t = 0
(e.g. existing constructions), has to be computed first. Then the computed
stress state is applied as an initial stress state, and superpose both computed
states. The result will be an undeformed state with stresses corresponding
to gravity; this will be the initial state. The implementation of the procedure
is described step by step in Table 3.7.
Table 3.7: Initial state procedure
let σ = σ 0 + ∆σ; σ 0 is the initial stress

Z Z
then by definition: Kd = BT σdΩ = BT (σ 0 + ∆σ) dΩ = Fext , from
Ω Ω
which
Z Z
K∆d = BT ∆σdΩ = Fext − BT σ 0 dΩ
Ω Ω
let Fext
1 = FΓ , gravity and t0 loads
Z
K∆d = BT ∆σdΩ = FΓ ; compute ∆d due to gravity
Ω
yields ∆d1 = dΓ and ∆σ 1 = σ Γ as results

Z
let Fext
2 = − BT σ 0 dΩ = Fσ0 with σ 0 = σ Γ define initial stress as recom-
Ω
puted gravity stress
Z
K∆d = BT ∆σdΩ = Fσ0 ; compute ∆d due to gravity induced stress
Ω
applied as initial stress
yields ∆d2 = −dΓ and ∆σ 2 = −σ Γ as results
superposition finally yields; superpose
d = ∆d1 + ∆d2 = 0; σ = σ 0 + ∆σ 1 + ∆σ 2 = σ γ + σ γ − σ γ = σ γ
The initial state procedure is automated in ZSOIL (Fig. 3.14). The initial
state driver, under CONTROL/Drivers applies gravity step by step starting
63
with a user defined gravity load multiplier of 0.5 e.g., and raising it up to 1
by steps of amplitude 0.1 e.g. The idea is to apply gravity progressively in
order to avoid initiating too much plasticity at once.
Remarks:
- The procedure applies to nonlinear behavior and to 2-phase media.
- All loads associated with a load time function (ASSEMBLY/Load time

function) with nonzero value at t = 0 are activated in the initial state
procedure (Fig. 3.15).
- Certain constitutive models for soils (like Cam-Clay) require the initial
guess for initial effective stresses to be set by the user (option Initial
conditions/Initial stresses)
- Setting the initial guess for the initial effective stresses can be beneficial
for cases when a poor quality mesh is used
Figure 3.14: Initial state analysis driver.
Figure 3.15: Load function with nonzero value at t = 0.

3.5. GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS
3.5.2 Locking in quasi incompressible media
Incompressible media are frequently encountered in soil mechanics and this

type of behavior leads to locking. Incompressible elasticity (ν ∼ = 0.5) and
incompressible plastic flow are typically inducing such behavior.
In order to better understand the locking phenomenon, let’s look at a sim-
ple example Hughes (1987). Fig. 3.16 shows a small finite element mesh,
composed of two triangular elements with linear interpolation of displace-
ments. Linear interpolation means constant displacements derivatives within
elements and hence constant volume in case of material incompressibility.
With the given boundary conditions this means that, at node N , element 1
requires a vertical displacement, and element 2 a horizontal displacement.
This will lead to locking and obviously locking will propagate throughout the
mesh if the mesh is extended in both directions with the same stencil. As
a matter of fact, imposing incompressibility adds constraints on the nodal
displacements which have less freedom to satisfy the differential equation of
equilibrium. Remedies to this problem are known: selective underintegra-
tion, BBAR elements, EAS elements, stabilized formulations, or higher order
elements. ZSOIL automatically selects the most appropriate remedy avail-
able among BBAR elements, EAS elements, stabilized formulations, but the
user can impose his own preference through the following input screen, see
Fig. 3.17 (toggle Advanced version instead of Basic version in the menu if
needed).
Figure 3.16: Mesh susceptible to locking.
3.5.3 Spurious pressure oscillations in consolidation
A similar phenomenon also occurs in 2-phase media. Vermeer and Verruijt

(1981) established the existence of a lower bound to applicable ∆t to avoid
pressure oscillations. In ZSOIL this condition takes the form:
1 h2 Eoed k
∆t ≥ with cv = (3.32)
4 θcv γw
65
Figure 3.17: Element setup to allow avoiding locking effect and pressure oscilla-
tions.
where h is an element size, θ an integration coefficient, set to 1.0 in ZSoil

(θ ≥ 0.5 is required for unconditional stability), k is Darcy’s coefficient and
γ w the water unit weight.
This issue can however be overcome in ZSOIL by using stabilization (Truty
and Zimmermann, 2006); again activation/deactivation can be done by the
user under CONTROL/finite elements, see Fig. 3.17.

REFERENCES
References
Hughes, T. (1987). The Finite Element Method. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Truty, A. and Zimmermann, T. (2006). Stabilized mixed finite element
formulations for materially nonlinear partially saturated two-phase media.
Comp Meth Appl Mech Engng, 195:1517–1546.
Vermeer, P. and Verruijt, A. (1981). An accuracy condition for consolidation
by finite elements. Int J Num Anal Meth Geomech, 5:1–14.
67

Chapter 4
SINGLE PHASE SOLID CONTINUA
Contents
4.1 Bearing capacity of a superficial foundation . . . . . . . . . 71

4.1.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.1.3 Incompressibility, dilatancy and locking . . . . . . . . 77
4.1.4 Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.2 Slope stability: vertical cut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.2.1 c-phi reduction and other algorithms for safety eval-
uation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.2.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.2.4 Refined Safety Factor Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.2.5 Stability analysis preceded by initial state analysis . . 87
4.2.6 Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.3 Initial state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.3.1 Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.3.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.3.3.1 Initial state analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
69
CHAPTER 4. SINGLE PHASE SOLID CONTINUA
4.3.3.2 Time dependent/Driven load analysis . . . 95

4.3.3.3 Safety analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

4.1. BEARING CAPACITY OF A SUPERFICIAL FOUNDATION
In this chapter three problems which are typical of geotechnical works are
analysed, i.e. bearing capacity of foundations, slope stability, and initial
state definition, respectively.
4.1 Bearing capacity of a superficial founda-

tion
The bearing capacity of a superficial foundation is a classical problem of
geotechnics. We will see how to solve it with ZSOIL and compare results
with formula proposed in literature. Consider a rigid circular footing of
diameter D = 1 m, subjected to a load which increases linearly from ”0”
until failure is reached.
4.1.1 Data preparation
ZSOIL data for this problem require specification of a driver algorithm

and associated load function (which defines the evolution of load in time),
geometric and material data; we will assume here that the foundation-soil
interface is rough (no relative motion possible). Only data necessary for
problem specification will be introduced.
ZSOIL DATA: Ex 4 1 FootingAxisym.inp
We have an Axisymmetric, Deformation (i.e. 1-phase) problem, no advanced
option, no preprocessed preliminary analysis.
Remarks:
- The preprocessing procedure is explained in the following pages. You can

either follow this procedure, or just open the preexisting ZSOIL data file.
ASSEMBLY/Preprocessing
Geometry, boundary conditions, loads, and materials are defined here. Enter
the geometrical preprocessor by selecting menu option Assembly/ Prepro-
cessing. First, switch off the axes (press the A key or use Visibility dialog
box). Use mouse wheel in order to change zoom in such way to have ac-
cess to grid points at X = 0 m, X = 15 m, Y = 0 m, and Y = −15 m,.
Next, use Rectangle method from Draw pane to define the rectangle be-
tween points (0; 0) and (15; −15) as shown in Fig. 4.1A. Then create
next rectangle between points (0; 0) and (7; −6) and activate Run inter-
section automatically and do not show this query again checkbox in Object
intersection dialog box (see Fig. 4.1B).
Use the zoom tool located on the right hand side of the screen (see
Fig. 4.1C) , in order to zoom left-top corner of the domain and create next
71
Figure 4.1: Preprocessing of footing problem: macro model.
rectangle between points (0; 0.4) and (1; 0) (see Fig. 4.1D).
Press CTRL-F to optimize the zoom.
Select option Macro Model/Subdomain/Create/Continuum inside contour,
and click successively inside of the 3 subdomains. Click on Update/ Param-
eters and assign Initial material number 2 to the subdomain which defines
the footing.
Now, select the Mesh/Create virtual mesh method and click inside the sub-
domain defining the footing. Structured mesh type is selected by default,
as this subdomain has four control points. Set Edge 1-2 split to 5 and Edge
1-4 split to 4. Then click on Create virtual mesh. Then, click inside of the
subdomain under the footing, set split 35 in horizontal direction, and split 30
in vertical direction. Click on Create virtual mesh. Finally, click inside of the
remaining subdomain, select unstructured mesh type, and set approximate
element size to 0.85 m. Click on Create virtual mesh, and Close.
Select Mesh/Virtual → Real mesh method and click successively inside of
the 3 subdomains (see Fig. 4.1) or select all subdomains before clicking on
Mesh/Virtual → Real mesh .
Then, move to FE model/Boundary Conditions/Solid BC/On box in order
to automatically create displacement boundary conditions around the soil
domain.

Figure 4.2: Preprocessing of footing problem: generating the finite element mesh.
The geometry of the load, location and initial amplitude, is defined with the
preprocessor. As the foundation is considered as rigid, it does not matter
whether a uniformly distributed or an isolated nodal load is introduced.
Therefore, move to FE model/Loads/Nodal Loads/On Node method, click
on the upper-left node of the footing, and define FY = −1, and load
function = 1.
Remarks:
- in case of unwanted operation, you may always cancel the last (five)
action(s) using Windows Menu Command Edit/Undo.
You can now exit the graphical preprocessor and save your work (File/Save
model and return to Main Menu).
ASSEMBLY/Load-time function
73
When the load geometry is defined load-time function number 1 was as-
sociated with it. The time-evolution of the load in time is handled by a
load function Assembly/Load function (Fig.4.3), which multiplies the value
entered in the geometric definition of the load such that :
F (x, t) = P (x) · f (t) (4.1)
A unit load P = [0, −1] was applied in direction (-Y) which will increase
from 0 (actually 1) to 30, as time (fictitious) increases, unless divergence
occurs and an ultimate load is found.
Figure 4.3: Preprocessing of footing problem: definition of the load-time function.
ASSEMBLY/Drivers
Time dependent/Driven load driver is activated for an analysis running from
time 0 to 30 with steps of 1 [day] (Fig. 4.4). In fact the unit is unimportant
here, this driver will increment time (fictitious time here: time steps are
simply load steps, no units involved).
Figure 4.4: Footing problem: selection of driver for a (time-dependent) driven

load analysis.
For such definition of load function and driver, load increment for each time
step is 100 kN. In order to obtain more exact level of load bearing capacity
control and algorithmic parameters will be changed. Press button placed in
Nonl. solver settings column. Control dialog will be opened with Default

settings. Default setting cannot be edited so new control setting has to

be added. Press button Add and enter name of new control settings. For
defined control activate Advanced settings and activate Then reduce step
size (automatically) checkbox (see Fig. 4.5). Close dialog box with OK
button and newly created control setting will be automatically selected in
drivers definition.
Figure 4.5: Footing problem: setting control parameters for analysis.
We assume that the foundation itself is elastic, weightless and fairly rigid.
The input material data are as follows:
Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.2
As regards the soil, we consider a weightless Mohr-Coulomb material, char-

acterized by:
75
Elastic modulus E = 300 000 kN/m2
Cohesion c = 15 kN/m2
Friction angle φ = 25o
Dilatancy angle ψ = 5o
Remarks:
- - values of ψ < φ − 25o can lead to numerical problems.
ANALYSIS/Run analysis
Once data has been prepared, the analysis can begin, ANALYSIS/Run Anal-
ysis, the *.inp file will be completed and mapped to the *.dat file (data
file in the format suitable for the calculation module). Data check will be
performed before the run starts.
4.1.2 Results
The analysis fails to converge at time step 20, c.f. Fig. ??. The last
converged solution was obtained at the previous step and this corresponds
to the load bearing capacity. Displacement vectors at diverged step give
only an indication about the failure mechanism.
The corresponding ultimate load can be calculated by first reading load-time
function value reached at the last converged step and second multiplying it
by the load defined in the geometrical screen, hence:
LF(step19.75) = 10 975
UltimateLoad = Load(x)·LTF(tlastconverged ) = −1·10 975 = −10 975 kN
The mechanism of failure can be observed using Graph option/Maps, see

Fig. 4.8. Comparison of a converged step with a diverged one clearly
indicates a localization phenomenon.
Alternatively, displacements vectors (see above Fig. 4.6) also give an indica-
tion about the failure mechanism. The log file, (see Results/View Logfile in
the main ZSOIL menu) gives information about the convergence procedure.
It can be read from the LOG file (Fig. 4.10) that at time step 1, and itera-
tion 1 we read 1.000E + 02 (SQR FORCE). This is the initial Euler-norm of

Figure 4.6: Displacement vectors and the time log, under Graph op-
tion/displacement vectors, and Time/Select time
the right hand side (RHS), a measure of the applied load increment. In the
same column, in the following lines, it can be notice that this norm of the
RHS evolves during iterations. The 2nd column represents the same values,
but normed by 1.000E + 02, the initial RHS norm. At the last iteration the
convergence criteria must be satisfied and indeed, this is the case at step 1
and iteration 2, 3.144E −12 < 1.000E −02, which is the tolerance of out-of
balance on the right-hand-side. At step 2 it takes 3 iterations to satisfy the
convergence condition and, at failure, it is not satisfied after 16 iterations.
The other columns give indications about convergence in the energy norm,
incremental and total.
Finally, the displacement time-history indicates an unstable vertical displace-
ment. For that, go to Results/Postprocessing/Graph Option/Nodal time-
history, pick any node below the footing, and under Settings/Graph. Con-
tents, select Displacement-Y for vertical axis (see Fig. 4.10), observe that
the vertical displacement increments in each step tend to increase when
getting closer to the ultimate load.
4.1.3 Incompressibility, dilatancy and locking
It is important to realize that most soil mechanics problems are subject to

severe locking under incompressible or dilatant plastic flow (i.e. ψ ≥ 0),
meaning always, at least if an inappropriate finite element formulation is
used. This locking phenomenon is similar to the one discussed earlier for
incompressible elasticity. It is illustrated below (Fig. 4.111). Observe that
77
Figure 4.7: Ultimate load as the function of maximum LF value reached in the
analysis.
Figure 4.8: Displacement amplitudes before and at failure.
the numerical solution significantly overshoots analytical solutions unless

appropriate provisions are taken.

Figure 4.9: Investigation of analysis failure (divergence) with the aid of log file.
BBAR elements, EAS elements and stabilized mixed formulations associated

with low order elements, 4 node QUADS in this case, have been proven
to provide appropriate solutions to these locking phenomena and all three
approaches are available in ZSOIL. The user can rely on automatic internal
choices, unless he wants to experiment. A user interface gives access to
modification of default selections under Control/Finite Elements (only when
the advanced version is activated).
4.1.4 Validation
It is important to compare ultimate loads predicted with ZSOIL with re-

sults obtained by different approaches; this is done in Fig. 4.12, where
results obtained with ZSOIL using a smooth Mohr-Coulomb (by special-
ization of Menetrey-Willam) material are compared with formula proposed
in literature. Notice that ZSOIL results obtained with the smooth Mohr-
Coulomb show an excellent match with the analytical formula proposed
by Salençon and Matar (1979). Observe also the huge difference between
results obtained with Drucker-Prager criterion adjusted to external edges
and Drucker-Prager adjusted to internal edges of the Mohr Coulomb cri-
terion; this indicates that great care must be taken to select the proper
79
Figure 4.10: Vertical displacement time-history (seetlement vs loading) under the

loaded footing.
Figure 4.11: Illustration of ultimate load overshoot due to locking phenomena,

comparison with formula from literature, case of a superficial footing.
size adjustment when a Drucker-Prager criterion is used as a substitute to

Mohr-Coulomb.

4.2. SLOPE STABILITY: VERTICAL CUT
Figure 4.12: Bearing capacity of circular footing, comparison of ZSOIL smooth

Mohr-Coulomb model with published results.
4.2 Slope stability: vertical cut

Slope stability is another typical problem of geotechnical engineering. The
case of the stability analysis of a vertical cut is considered here, but the
methodology applies to any slope stability problem.
4.2.1 c-phi reduction and other algorithms for safety

evaluation
The algorithm is pictured in Table 4.1. Starting from the definition of the
safety factor and the Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion (here stress τ y ), we can
easily establish that the safety factor of a given slope can be assessed by
simply dividing cohesion and (tangent of) friction angle by a factor which
increases progressively from 1 to a value corresponding to onset of global
81
instability. The strict equivalence of this approach with the more traditional
kinematic approach will however be true only when SF is reasonably close
to 1.
Table 4.1: c − φ reduction method.
R
Γ
τ y dΓs
Assume: SF = R s
Γs
τ dΓs
with: τ y = c + σ n tan φ
R
Z
Γ
τ y dΓs Z
c tan φ
then: τ dΓs = s = + σn dΓs
Γs SF Γs SF SF
Algorithm:
c
1. set c∗ =
SF
tan φ
tan φ∗ =
SF
2. increase SF until instability occurs
Remarks:
- Of course c − φ reduction applies only to criteria which have c and φ as

parameters.
Alternative formulations are possible for more general criteria. With stress
written as σ ij = (σ kk /3)δ ij + sij , SF can be defined as the maximum value
of the stress level κ which can be applied uniformly over the domain to:
σ ij = (σ kk /3)δ ij + κsij (4.2)
before instability is reached. Selection of the proper safety factor definition

is done under Control/Drivers (Fig. 4.13):
Safety evaluation using different safety factor definitions and different yield
criteria are discussed in details in ZSOIL manuals, they are beyond the
scope of this book.

Figure 4.13: Selection of the safety factor algorithm.
ZSOIL data for this problem require specification of a driver, geometric and
material data. Control data are left to default values.
ZSOIL DATA: Ex 4 2 cut.inp
We have a Plane Strain, Deformation (i.e. 1-phase) problem, no advanced
option, no preprocessed preliminary analysis (see Fig. 4.14, driver selection).
Stability/tan(phi)-c driver starts at 1, ends at 2, with a step of 0.05. This
driver will increment the safety factor SF, from 1 to 2 with steps of 0.05,
in a c − φ reduction algorithm, until failure is reached.

Remarks:
- A safety driver is often activated within a sequence of drivers, in order to

define an instantaneous safety value; time remains constant during safety
analysis.
- c and φ are modified during a safety analysis. If safety analysis is followed

by another safety analysis (with refined stepping e.g.) the second analysis
83
will start with the c − φ values reached; for any other driver, c and φ are
reinitialized to their initial values.
As for the footing case, geometry and boundary conditions are first defined
in the Assembly/Preprocessing menu. Then, materials are defined in the
Assembly/Materials screen.
Soil is considered as Mohr-Coulomb material, characterized by:
Weight γ = 16 kN/m3 (Fig. 4.15)
Elastic modulus E = 300 000 kN/m2
Cohesion c = 16 kN/m2
Friction angle φ = 30o
Dilatancy angle ψ = 0o
Select Analysis/Run Analysisin order to run the stability analysis.


4.2.3 Results
Numerical divergence occurs at a value of safety factor of 1.55. The last

converged computation corresponds to SF = 1.50. This can be compared
with values obtained from formula proposed in the literature, Therzaghi
(1951, citation of Fellenius):
s
Hcrit 3.85 · c φ
SF = = tan2 45o + = 1.66 (4.3)
H γ·H 2
In order to visualize the instability, use Results/Postprocessing, then Graph

option/Displacement vectors (see Fig. 4.16), use Time/Select reference
time step = 1.50 and Time/Select current time step = 1.55 to focus on the
instability, and use Settings/Scale to change scale of vectors. Notice that
except for qualitative purposes, like visualization of failure mechanism, the
diverged step results (at SF = 1.55) should not be used. They correspond
to a non-converged solution which is not in equilibrium.
Figure 4.16: Displacement vectors for non-converged step.
Alternatively, absolute displacement color maps (option Graph option/Maps)

also clearly identify the instability (see Fig. 4.17).
4.2.4 Refined Safety Factor Evaluation
In the second step, the obtained safety factor can be refined, by starting a
second stability driver, see Fig. 4.19, starting at the last converged step of
85
Figure 4.17: Map of displacement amplitudes for non-converged step.
the previous analysis (SF = 1.50) and a refined increment (∆SF = 0.01).
Remarks:
- Use Analysis/Restart Analysis in order to restart stability analysis where

it stopped at the last converged step, see Fig. 4.18.
Figure 4.18: Analysis restart from the last converged step.
The finally obtained safety factor is 1.53, which corresponds to the last
converged step after step refinement and restart.
Figure 4.19: Refining the increment of stability analysis driver.
If material is to be considered as ”no tension” supporting, we need to modify

material properties as shown in Fig. 4.21. Under Assembly/Materials/
Nonlinear activate the advanced option and set tensile cut off to ”0”.

Figure 4.20: Displacement vectors corresponding to instability (current step SF =

1.54 (diverged), reference step SF = 1.53)
Figure 4.21: Specyfing material which does not support tensile stresses.
The corresponding safety factor obtained is 1.15 (last converged step), which
could be refined again (see Fig. 4.22). The corresponding analytical solution
is given by Therzaghi (1951, citation of Fellenius):
s
Hcrit 2.67 · c 2 o
φ
SF = = tan 45 + = 1.15 (4.4)
H γ·H 2
4.2.5 Stability analysis preceded by initial state analysis
The initial state often corresponds to a safety factor already close to 1.

Proceeding directly with a safety analysis may then lead to premature failure
87
Figure 4.22: Identified failure mechanism (diverged step SF = 1.15) for the ma-
terial with the active Rankine’s criterion.
and it might be preferable to start with the initial state analysis. This is
demonstrated below.
ZSOIL data for this problem require specification of two drivers (see Fig.
4.23), no other changes are needed. Geometric and material data are the
same as before. Control data are left to default values.
Open the Ex 4 2 cut.inp and save it as Ex 4 2 cut IS.inp
Open the Drivers screen and 1 click with right mouse button on first line.
As the result new line with driver will be added, 2 change driver type from
Stability to Initial State
Remarks:
- The safety factor obtained in this case is the same as obtained earlier.
The only difference lies in the progressive application of gravity which
helps avoiding early instabilities.
4.2.6 Validation
The static approach to safety factor evaluation adopted in ZSOIL differs

fundamentally from the usual kinematic approaches; comparison of results
is therefore essential. This is done below for the vertical cut problem and
a slope at 45o with various friction angles ψ. c is the cohesion, γ the
deadweight and h the height of the slope.
- Comparison with the method of slices, which introduces some simplifica-

Figure 4.23: Setup for a stability analysis preceded by an initial state analysis.
tions on the original problem, is shown in Fig. 4.24(a).

- Comparison with a variety of different approaches is shown in Fig. 4.24(b).
- Notice that rather crude meshes are used here and that Drucker-Prager
criterion with plane-strain adjustment is used.
89
(a) Comparison of ZSOIL model with the method of slices
tan φ Simplified Ord. meth. Friction Janbu Z SOIL
c
γ·H Bishop of slices circle procedure
2 1.17 1.12 1.14 1.10 1.20
5 1.83 1.73 1.78 1.70 2.00
8 2.48 2.30 2.36 2.26 2.60
(b) Comparison of ZSOIL model with classical methods
Figure 4.24: Vertical cut and natural slope stability analyses.

4.3. INITIAL STATE
4.3 Initial state
4.3.1 Algorithm
Initial state evaluation is very important in soil mechanics because the initial
stress state often lies very close to the plastic yield limit, which is obvious
if you think of a natural slope inclined at angle β, close to the material
friction angle φ. The procedure to simulate the initial state is such that the
correct stress-state corresponding gravity loads superposed with all other
loads which are non-zero at time zero are associated with a zero deformation
state corresponding to the observed topography. This can be achieved by
ignoring deformations during the initial state evaluation or by superposition
of gravity and associated loads with the initial stress state corresponding to
gravity stresses and associated loads. The second approach is adopted in
ZSOIL.
This initial state procedure is illustrated Fig. 4.25 with gravity applied to
a box-shaped medium with free surface; it can also be followed through in
ZSOIL with the set of input files BOXDi.inp. The first case, BOXD1.inp
corresponds to gravity applied to a box shaped medium with free surface;
the upper surface will settle and a confinement stress is developed.
The second case, BOXD2.inp corresponds to a vertical initial stress state
which, if equal to the gravity induced stress, generates a surface movement
and a confinement stress equal and opposite in sign to the previous one.
A confinement stress can then be applied, corresponding to any desirable
K0 state, BOXD3.inp. Superposing gravity, initial stress induced by gravity
and a K0 state produces the desired initial state, BOXD4.inp. The whole
procedure is automated in ZSOIL, as illustrated by BOXD5.inp.
Application of the procedure to a real case is illustrated below.
91
No. APPLICATION YIELDS: WHERE:

OF:
deadweight γ downwards
σ 2 = −γh;
ν
1 σ1 = σ3 = − γh; BOXD1.INP
1−ν
γh 2ν 2
ε2 = − (1 − );
E 1−ν
vertical initial stress σ 02

σ 2 = 0;
ν
2 σ1 = σ3 = − σ 02 ; BOXD2.INP
1−ν
σ 02 2ν 2
ε2 = − (1 − );
E 1−ν
horizontal initial stress σ 01
σ 01 = −0.5γh σ 1 = σ 01 ;
3 σ 2 = σ 3 = 0; BOXD3.INP
ε2 = 0;
gravity field, σ 2 = −γh;
σ 02 = −γh σ 1 = σ 3 = K0 σ 02
4 BOXD4.INP
σ 01 = K0 σ 02 ; = −K0 γh;
σ 03 = K0 σ 02 ; ε2 = 0;
5 gravity field, automatically gen- BOXD5.INP

erated as the initial state driver is
activated in the program and K0
is prescribed by the user (in a di-
rection which is confined).
ν
(NB: K0 = , by default)
1−v
Figure 4.25: Illustration of the initial state procedure.

4.3. INITIAL STATE
The case of a constructed site with two preexisting buildings is considered.

The initial state includes here the gravity loads of the ground and of the
buildings. An increasing load is then applied to the right building in order to
simulate the construction of additional stories and finally a stability analysis
is performed to evaluate the final safety factor.
Figure 4.26: Site with two existing constructions, box type boundary conditions
and load on right building.
ZSOIL data for this problem require specification of 3 drivers, geometric

and material data and a load function. Control data are left to default
values.
ZSOIL DATA: Ex 4 3 env.inp
The Initial State driver has 3 parameters (Fig. 4.23). Initial load factor
(0.5), final load factor (1), increment (0.1). This means that application of
gravity (and loads which are associated with a load function which is nonzero
at time t = 0) starts with a reduction factor of 0.5, which is then increased
by steps of 0.1 up to 1.0. This way of proceeding should avoid instantaneous
plastification of the whole domain. The Time dependent/driven load driver
will then increase the load (from 0 to 30 kN/m2 in 3 steps) on the right
building to simulate an increase in building height, watch that the load time
function is ”0”, at time t = 0 (Fig. 4.28), which ensures that the load is
inactive at that time.
93
The Stability driver is used finally to define the safety factor of the site after
elevation of the right building.
Figure 4.27: Setup of analysis drivers: Initial state, Time Dependent/Driven load,
followed by Stability.
Figure 4.28: Site with two existing constructions, box type boundary conditions
and load on right building.
As for the footing and the vertical cut case, geometry, loads
(via FE Model/Loads/Surface Loads/2 Nodes(variable) option in the pre-
processing phase) and boundary conditions are first defined in the Assem-
bly/Preprocessing menu.
Then, materials are defined in the Assembly/Materials screen. For soil we
have 2 weighting Mohr-Coulomb materials (numbers 2 & 3), for the build-
ings 1 weighting Elastic material (number 1).
Select Analysis/Run Analysis in order to run the analysis.

4.3. INITIAL STATE
4.3.3 Results
4.3.3.1 Initial state analysis
As already mentioned, the initial state solution cancels deformations which

happened before t = 0, but not stresses, therefore showing an undeformed
(not in the reality but in the analysis), but stressed state. Enter the graphical
postprocessor choosing Results/Postprocessing option. Under Graph Op-
tion/Maps and Settings/Graph contents/Nodal quantities/Displacement/
ABS verify that an uniform undeformed state is obtained at time t = 0 (see
Fig. 4.29); while under Settings/Graph contents/Continuum/Stress level we
observe that the stress state almost reaches plastic yield (stresslevel = 1)
in the immediate vicinity of the upper building (see Fig. 4.30).
Figure 4.29: Displacement norm at the initial state at time (t = 0).
4.3.3.2 Time dependent/Driven load analysis
During increasing load deformations build up, mainly under the right build-
ing (Fig. 4.31), Options/Maps & Settings/Graph contents/Nodal quanti-
ties/displacement/ABS, at time t = 3 (you may use +/− keys to navigate
through time steps).
95
Figure 4.30: Stress level at the initial state at time (t = 0).
Figure 4.31: Field of absolute displacements at t = 3.

4.3. INITIAL STATE
4.3.3.3 Safety analysis
Numerical divergence occurs at a value of safety factor of 3.6. The last

converged computation corresponds to SF = 3.4. The observed mechanism
is a slope instability with tilting of the upper building (see Fig. 4.32).
Figure 4.32: Safety analysis: Observed mechanism (displacement increment vec-

tors between t = 3.4 and t = 3.6).
97
References
Salençon, J. and Matar, M. (1979). Capacité portante des semelles filantes.
Revue française de géotechnique, 9:51–76.
Therzaghi, K. (1951). Mécanique théorique des sols. Dunod, Paris.

Chapter 5
UNDERGROUND FLOW
Contents
5.1 A two-dimensional steady state flow problem . . . . . . . . . 100

5.2 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.2.1 Material data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.2.2 Boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.2.2.1 Pressure and flow boundary conditions . . . 105
5.2.2.2 Seepage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.2.2.3 Fluid head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.3 An example of transient flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.3.1 Preprocessing: geometry and boundary conditions . . 109
5.3.2 Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
5.3.3 Material data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
5.3.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
99
CHAPTER 5. UNDERGROUND FLOW
5.1 A two-dimensional steady state flow prob-

lem
Dupuit flow towards a trench is a common problem in civil engineering.
Let’s consider the example shown in Fig. 5.1. It corresponds to a steady
state flow with known upstream and downstream head.
Figure 5.1: Flow towards a trench, geometry of the problem.
ZSOIL DATA: Ex 5 1 Dupuit flow.inp

Let’s open the input file and examine the data. In Project properties we
see that the problem is defined as Plane (strain) flow (Fig. 5.2). Under
Control/Drivers there is a Time dependent/steady state driver (Fig. 5.3).
A single time step is sufficient in this case since flow is steady, but iterations
(within the step) will be needed to find the free surface.
Figure 5.2: Analysis and problem type for flow analysis.

5.1. A TWO-DIMENSIONAL STEADY STATE FLOW PROBLEM
Figure 5.3: Driver for flow analysis.
Under Assembly/Preprocessing, you will find the mesh and specified bound-
ary conditions. There are 3 types of boundary conditions:
- ”no flow” on the upper and lower edge; this is a default boundary condi-
tion, which does not need any input.
- Imposed pressure: select FE model/Boundary Condition/Pressure BC/

Update Parameters, click on the left boundary; if parameter screen does
not pop up, use scale, change sign, then diagram show reverse, then
repeat: update parameters and click again on pressure diagram, values
can now be updated.
- The third type of boundary condition is a seepage condition, it is imple-

mented as a seepage element: go back to FE model/Seepage/Direction/
Show a set of black line segments will point outwards of the seepage
boundary (Fig. 5.4). This type of boundary condition is used whenever
a seepage out- or inflow can be expected. The boundary condition will
impose a flow proportional to the difference of pressure between in- and
outside the boundary, if the medium is saturated inside, and a ”no flow”
condition if the medium is not saturated inside.
Exit preprocessor now without saving.

Under Assembly/Materials we observe the presence of 2 materials: Contin-
uum/Elastic and Seepage/Seepage. The first one is there only because we
solve the flow problem on the whole (solid) domain using partial saturation,
default values of E, ν and γ can be left as is, they have no influence. Flow
under steady state requires the permeability tensor kij (which can be ori-
ented is space with angle β) and γ F , the fluid unit weight to be specified.
In addition, due to possible partial saturation, (1/α) the thickness of the
transition from full to residual saturation, and Sr the residual saturation
must be given. Other data, default or not, can be ignored.
Seepage requires defining a penalty factor kv [m3 /(Ns)] in order to handle
the ouflow through the seepage surface. Its value is estimated within the
calculation module and can be amplified/diminished by the user defined
multiplier. Leave default multiplier value = 1, and see theory manual for
details.
Analysis/Run Analysis can be performed in 1 step, but a few iterations are
needed to find the free surface.
101
Figure 5.4: Flow boundary conditions.
Figure 5.5: Material data for Continuum.
Results/Postprocessing/Graph Option/Maps. After running the problem,

the plot of pressure maps indicates the position of the free surface, and
settings can be changed to improve the visibility. Settings/Graph Contents,
with imposed scale (Min = 0, Max = 1), indicates a free surface which
corresponds to what is expected (Fig. 5.7).

5.2. THEORY
Figure 5.6: Material data for Seepage.
Remarks:
- The free surface does not change too significantly in this problem, when
kv is changed, but the outflow does. When kv is increased permeability
and therefore outflow increases.
- The free surface corresponds to zero pressure, pressures above the free
surface are positive, but their contribution to total stress in the medium
is multiplied by the saturation, so that the effective water pressure above
the free surface is in fact zero: σ tot 0 ∼
ij = σ ij + Spδ ij and Sp = 0 above the
free surface.
5.2 Theory
Underground Darcy flow is governed by a diffusion equation, expressed here
in terms of pressure as the nodal unknown. The equations for partially sat-
urated Darcy flow are given in Table 5.1. The approach adopted in ZSOIL
considers that the flow domain coincides with the soil domain, always, sat-
uration will ultimately define the limits of flow. The formulation accounts
103
Figure 5.7: Color maps of pore pressure.
for partial saturation and the free surface corresponds to the p = 0 line in
Fig. 5.7.
In Table 5.1, the continuity equation expresses that a local source induces
a divergent flow divergence and a local time-dependent pressure variation.
The flow conditions can be transient, in this case all terms of the continuity
equation are active, or steady state, in which case there is no pressure change
in time and the corresponding term in the equation, cṗ, can be ignored.
If the flow is confined, the medium fully saturated, and the flow condition
steady, then the problem is linear; it can be solved in a single step without
iterations. But most of the time the exact position of the free surface is
unknown a priori, it is part of the problem to be solved, the problem becomes
therefore nonlinear and iterations are needed even for the steady state flow,
a fortiori within each time-step in the transient case.
5.2.1 Material data
Material data needed include Darcy’s coefficient k, and γ F , the fluid’s spe-
cific weight, in the basic version; all other parameters are selected by default.
In the advanced version the fluid compressibility β F and two new coefficients
are introduced, 1/α [m], a measure of the thickness of the transition from
full saturation to residual saturation, and Sr which is the second parameter.
Material data α and Sr depend strongly on the granulometric structure of
the medium, values taken from literature are given in Table 5.3.

5.2. THEORY
Table 5.1: Equations of partially saturated underground flow
vk,k − cṗ = f : continuity equation

p ∗
vi = −kij kr (S) − + z ,j : Darcy’s law with kij = kij kr
γ
F
S dS
c=n − : storage coefficient
βF dp
Remarks:
v - Darcy velocity
p - pressure
f - source

p
− + z - pressure head
γF
kij - permeability coefficients, often kij = kδ ij
kr - permeability reduction, function of saturation S, (kr = 1 if S = 1)
γ F - specific weight of fluid

e
n - porosity, n =
1+e
e - void ratio
β F - bulk modulus of fluid

Sr - residual degree of saturation
z - altitude
5.2.2 Boundary conditions
5.2.2.1 Pressure and flow boundary conditions
Three types of boundary conditions need to be considered: imposed pressure

(in blue), imposed flux (in black), and seepage (in red), as summarized in
Fig. 5.8.
Pressure is prescribed at nodes where the pressure is known, it is used here
to introduce boundary conditions corresponding to the left free surface, a
linear pressure distribution. A ”no flow” condition, q = 0, is imposed at the
105
Table 5.2: Material data for flow problems
Problem type Required parameters
Steady state saturated flow kij , γ F
Steady state partially saturated flow kij , γ F , α, Sr , kv
(e.g. free surface flow)
Transient partially saturated flow kij , γ F , α, Sr , kv , β F , e0
(e.g. free surface flow)
kij [m/s] : Darcy’s permeability coefficients, often a scalar k
γF [N/m3 ] : fluid specific weight
1/α [m] : thickness of transition from full to residual satura-

tion
Sr [−] : residual saturation
kv [−] : seepage constant multiplier
βF [N/m2 ] : fluid bulk modulus
e0 [−] : void ratio (volume of voids/volume of solid)
n [−] : porosity n = e/(1 + e)
γ [kN/m3 ] : = γ D +nSγ F mass/unit volume of 2 phase medium
γF [kN/m3 ] : unit weight of fluid (water)
γD [kN/m3 ] : unit weight of dry solid (soil)
bottom, this condition is natural, it is applied ”by default”, like the zero
surface traction present by default in deformation analysis.

5.2. THEORY
Table 5.3: Flow parameters from Yang (2004)
Type of soil α Sr
Gravely Sand 100 0
Medium Sand 10 0
Fine Sand 8 0
Clayey Sand 1-1.7 0.09-0.23
Figure 5.8: Flow boundary conditions
5.2.2.2 Seepage
The seepage boundary condition, in red on the figure, enables us to handle

seepage on free surfaces, a situation which is frequently encountered, and it
also serves to model drains; it corresponds to a Darcy type equation over a
pressure jump. The seepage element has two layers, internal and external.
External pressure, zero by default, is prescribed on the external layer, and
internal pressures are computed by the program on the internal layer. The
boundary condition will switch automatically from no flow to pressure driven
flow, depending on internal saturation, see Table 5.4.
Referring to Fig. 5.8 we observe that the water table intersects the soil
surface above the downstream water table. The position of the intersection
is an unknown a priori; it will depend on permeability, domain geometry and
upstream head. We cannot therefore anticipate which boundary condition
to apply and where: pressure or ”no flow”. This situation will be handled
107
Table 5.4: Equation of seepage boundary condition Aubry and Ozanam (1988)
qout = kv (pext − pint )
Remarks:
trace (k)
- kv = 106 is automaticaly set by the code while user may apply
γ F he
an extra multiplier to that value (by default multiplier is set to 1.0); he
is an equivalent size of adjacent continuum element
- when kv ∼= 0 no outflow take place, this option is switched on automati-

cally when saturation S < 1 is detected in the domain
- when kv is large: internal and external pressure will be forced equal, and
seepage flow take place. This option is switched on automatically when
saturation S = 1 is detected in the domain
by the ”seepage surface element”. The seepage coefficient kv depends

on the properties of the interface and is user defined. The condition will
switch automatically from ”seepage” to ”no flow” across the border when
internal saturation is detected to be less than 1, and vice-versa. As a rule,
seepage boundary conditions will be applied whenever boundary conditions
are susceptible to change.
5.2.2.3 Fluid head
Fluid heads are a convenient way to introduce pressure boundary conditions

which change in time. Their use is illustrated in the following example
5.3 An example of transient flow

An example of transient flow with variable pressure head boundary conditions
illustrated in Fig. 5.9 is discussed next. A rectangular dam is subjected to a
rapid filling followed by a rapid drawdown on its upstream side. The analysis
is carried out to determine the time-evolution of internal pressures within
the domain.
Remarks:
- You can either follow the description of the mesh and boundary conditions
creation below, or open ZSOIL data: Ex 5 2 FillDrawDown2D.inp.

5.3. AN EXAMPLE OF TRANSIENT FLOW
Figure 5.9: Filling followed by drawdown behind a rectangular dam
5.3.1 Preprocessing: geometry and boundary conditions
Enter the geometrical preprocessor by selecting menu option Assembly/ Pre-

processing. First, change zoom by scrolling mouse wheel to see grid points
with coordinates: (0; 0) (0; 20) (10; 20) (10; 0). Create rectangle using
option in Draw panel (see Fig. 5.10).
Figure 5.10: Create rectangle

and click inside of the domain. Now, select the Mesh/Create virtual mesh
method and click inside the subdomain. Structured mesh type is selected
109
by default, as this subdomain has four control points. Set splits to 10 x 20

and click on Create virtual mesh.
Select Mesh/Virtual− >Real mesh method and click inside of the subdo-
main. Hide the macro model by clicking MACRO column in Visibility dialog
box.
Select the edges along the two vertical faces of the domain using the tool
identified with a red arrow in Fig. 5.11 and clicking successively on the top
and bottom nodes of the boundaries. Move to FE Model/Seepage/Create/
On edge(s). Set seepage material number = 2. Choose Unselect All method
from Global selection tools panel.
Figure 5.11: Selecting edges and creating seepage elements
Select option FE Model/Node/Outline/In zoom box and select all nodes be-
longing to the left boundary of the domain. Move to FE Model/Boundary
Condition/Pressure BC/Fluid head on selected nodes. Set fluid head = 1 m
and load function = 1 (see Fig. 5.12). Move to menu Selections/Unselect
All.
Finally move to FE Model/Boundary Condition/Pressure BC/On node and

set pore pressure = 0 to the node at the bottom-left corner of the mesh.
You may now exit the graphical preprocessor and save your work (File/Save

Figure 5.12: Pressure head definition and associated load function
model and return to main Menu option).
5.3.2 Drivers
The solution procedure starts with an Initial State/Steady State analysis,

this analysis is performed at time t = 0, in one step, with some iterations,
it will define the initial steady state flow. This analysis is followed by a
Time Dependent/Transient analysis (Fig. 5.13), during which the upstream
pressure head boundary condition is updated using a load function (Fig.
5.14). Time dependent pressure head boundary conditions are a convenient
way to introduce boundary conditions which vary in time; Observe that
pressure head boundary conditions are, as a rule, associated with seepage
boundary conditions. All other input are similar to the preceding example
and can be followed directly in ZSOIL.
Figure 5.13: Drivers specification for fill-drawdown analysis
111
Remarks:
- Observe that, for obvious reasons, pressure head boundary conditions

are always associated with seepage boundary conditions, since boundary
conditions have to be able to switch from imposed pressures to ”no flow”
condition q = 0.
Figure 5.14: Load function associated with water level on the left boundary
5.3.3 Material data
Flow under transient state requires the permeability tensor kij (which can be
oriented is space), and γ F , the fluid unit weight, specification, in addition,
due to possible partial saturation, (1/α) [m] the thickness of the transition
from full to residual saturation, and Sr the residual saturation must be
specified. Other data default or not, can again be ignored.
5.3.4 Results
The evolution in pressure distribution as a function of time is illustrated in

Fig. 5.16. Observe that the use of seepage boundary conditions allows to
capture the strong gradients along the boundaries, which result from the
fast change in boundary conditions.
Remarks:

Material Model Data group Properties Unit Value

1 soil Elastic Unit weights γF [kN/m3 ] 10
Flow kx0 [m/day] 0.01
ky 0 [m/day] 0.01
β [o ] 0.0
Sr [−] 0.0
α [1/m] 2.0
βF [kN/m2 ] 1038
Density e0 [−] 0.4
γF [kN/m3 ] 10.0
Figure 5.15: Material properties
- In Fig. 5.16, pore pressures scale has been set to min = -1 and max = 0
in order to identify clearly the free surface, corresponding to zero pressure.
113
Figure 5.16: Pore pressure distribution in time

REFERENCES
References
Aubry, D. and Ozanam, O. (1988). Free surface tracking through non-
saturated models. In Swoboda, editor, Numerical methods in geome-
chanics, volume 1, pages 757–763, Innsbruck. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Yang, H. (2004). Factors affecting drying and wetting soil-water character-

istic curves of sandy soils. Canadian Geotech J, 41:908–920.
115

Chapter 6
TWO-PHASE MEDIA
Contents
6.1 One dimensional Terzaghi consolidation test . . . . . . . . . 119

6.2 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
6.3 Stability of vertical cut with water table as SINGLE PHASE
analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
6.3.1 Total stress analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
ditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
6.3.1.3 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
6.3.1.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
6.3.2 Effective stress analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
ditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.3.2.3 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.3.2.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.4 Stability of vertical cut with flow as TWO-PHASE analysis . 132
6.4.1 Stability of vertical cut with permanent flow . . . . . 132
117
CHAPTER 6. TWO-PHASE MEDIA

ditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
6.4.1.3 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
6.4.1.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
pled case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
ditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
6.4.2.3 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
6.4.2.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
6.4.3 Stability of vertical cut with transient flow, coupled
case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
6.4.3.2 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
6.4.3.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
6.5 Validation test: Superficial foundation on a consolidating
saturated material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
6.5.1 Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
6.5.3 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.5.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.6 Instability due to rain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.6.1 Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
6.6.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

6.1. ONE DIMENSIONAL TERZAGHI CONSOLIDATION TEST
Two-phase media behavior can be strongly or only weakly coupled. We

start here with a 1-dimensional example of fully coupled flow-continuum
interaction.
6.1 One dimensional Terzaghi consolidation test

A confined soil column is loaded instantaneously and load is maintained over
elapsing time. Boundary conditions are: atmospheric (zero pressure) at the
top, no flow at bottom (for symmetry) and lateral boundaries. The load is
initially carried by an overpressure in the interstitial fluid which diminishes
with time until being completely transferred to the solid. An analytical solu-
tion to this problem can be found in (Bowles, 1979) and in the Benchmark
section of ZSOIL manuals. Problem statement, analytical overpressure
function of time and numerical solution are shown in Fig. 6.1 (ZSOIL data:
Ex 6 1 Consolidation1D.inp).
Figure 6.1: One-dimensional Terzaghi consolidation test, problem definition and

overpressure solution as a function of time, exact and ZSOIL solution.
Drivers and analysis type for this problem are shown in Fig. 6.2 and Fig.
6.3. Axisymmetric or plane strain analysis are both appropriate for this
problem and yield the same solution. The axisymmetric case is analyzed
here. Problem is defined as Deformation + Flow (see Fig. 6.2). Drivers
are Initial State followed by Time Dependent/Consolidation. Consolidation
corresponds, we will see it later, to a fully coupled problem. The initial state
analysis generates the gravity pressure state in the sample. The problem is
linear and can be solved in 1 step. As a result, pressure varies linearly from
0 at the surface to −100 N/m2 at the bottom. After having run the analysis
(Analysis/Run Analysis), you may use Postprocessing/Graph Option/Maps,
119
Time/Select current time step = 0 and Settings/Graph Contents/Nodal

Quantities/Pore Pressure to visualize it, as shown in Fig. 6.7. A consoli-
dation analysis is performed next with a time step of 0.02 day (see units).
The time step used is multiplied at each step by a factor of 1.05 which will
progressively increase the size of the time-step as the consolidation process
slows down in amplitude, see Fig. 6.3.
Figure 6.2: Project preselection: Analysis and Problem types for consolidation
problem.
Figure 6.3: Driver setup for consolidation problem.
Remarks:
- There is a time-step lower bound, established by Vermeer and Verruijt

(1981), which must be satisfied in order to avoid pressure oscillations
(see Table 6.1). This time step limitation can be overcome in ZSOIL
by activation of a stabilized formulation (Truty and Zimmermann, 2006),
see Fig. 6.4, but this formulation is associated with an increased a com-
putational effort.
The critical ∆t can easily be calculated for this particular application:

h2 1 (0.0125 m)2
∆t ≥ ∆tcrit = γ c = = 0.0039 day,
θcv 4 m2
1·1
day
where h is taken where the pressure gradient is steepest; this condition is
satisfied by the chosen ∆t = 0.02 day
The load is applied in a single step at time step 1 and maintained, see As-
sembly/Load function (Fig. 6.5), creating an instantaneous overpressure,
uniform over the height of the specimen, which can be observed in Re-
sults/Postprocessing/Maps, setting Time/Select Reference time step to 0
and Time/Select Current time step to 0.02 day or larger values.
Material data, under Assembly/Materials for the solid, assumed elastic, are
E = 100 kN/m2 , ν = 0, γ = 0. For the fluid, the bulk modulus (which

Figure 6.4: Activation of stabilization pressure oscillations for coupled 2-phase

analysis.
Table 6.1: Critical time step for consolidation type computation.
h2
∆t must satisfy: ∆t ≥ γ c
θcv
θ=1 : for the time stepping scheme adopted in ZSOIL
γ c = 1/4 : ZSOIL
h : maximum element size

Eoed · k
cv =
γF
E(1 − ν)
Eoed =
(1 + ν)(1 − 2ν)
k : Darcy coefficient
γF : fluid unit weight
E, ν : elastic constants
must be high), Darcy’s coefficients, e0 and the weight/unit volume are the
data needed as shown in Fig. 6.6. As we have full saturation, α and Sr are
not needed.
Results are illustrated in the next 2 figures. Fig. 6.7 illustrates the initial,
gravity induced pore pressure distribution; use Results/Postprocessing/Graph
Option/Sectional Quantities, Time/Select current time step = 0, Sections/
Sec. Planes (2D) between (0.5; 10) and (0.5; 0) then click Add and Set-
121
Figure 6.5: Load-time function (load q multiplier as a function of time).
Figure 6.6: Input for flow properties of material.
tings/Graph Contents/Pore pressure.

Fig. 6.8 illustrates the overpressure distribution as a function of time; use
Time/Select Reference time step = 0 and Time/Select Current time step
= 0.02 day, then 80 day to visualize overpressures with respect to time

Figure 6.7: Results: initial, gravity induced pore pressure distribution.
t = 0.
Figure 6.8: Results: overpressure distribution at time 0.02 day (max) and 80 day
(after consolidation).
Remarks:
- Sensitivity of results to the initial void ratio is negligible.
123
6.2 Theory
The equations of fully coupled 2-phase totally or partially saturated media
are summarized in Table 6.2 and Table 6.3. Different degrees of coupling
between the solid and the fluid behavior can be distinguished and they are
illustrated on the problem of stability of a vertical cut in presence of a water
table or flow. We will see that some cases can be handled as single phase,
while other require a two-phase analysis.
Figure 6.9: Pore pressure pw and surface load σ v induced by water table.
The presence of a water table induces pore pressures, but also, when the
water table is located above the ground surface, a surface compression which
applies as a total stress on the surface of the two-phase medium and must
be specified as boundary condition, see Fig. 6.9. As a result effective stress
at the soil surface will be ”0”.
A simple two-phase (deformation+flow) test problem illustrates the case
(Ex 6 2 BoxWT.inp). Consider a box-shaped medium and the following
data: water table: hw = 2 m; Poisson’s ratio: ν = 0.2; soil: γ sat =
22 kN/m3 ; water: γ w = 10 kN/m3 .
The stress state at a depth of 6 m below ground surface is, Fig. 6.10:
σ 0v = −pw · [σ v ] = [−γ sat hsat − γ w hw ] + γ w (hw + hsat )
= −γ b hsat = −72 kN/m2
ν
σ 0h = σ 0 = −18 kN/m2
1−ν v
pw = −80 kN/m2

6.2. THEORY
Figure 6.10: Stress state Ex 6 2 BoxWT.inp.
Table 6.2: Equations of 2-phase media (a).
1. σ 0ij + Spδ ij

,j
+ fi = 0 : equilibrium
F
2. S ε̇kk + vk,k − cṗ = 0 : continuity
σ 0ij : effective stress
S : saturation ratio
p : pore pressure (+ in tension
δ ij : Kronecker’s delta
fi : solid body forces
ε̇kk : volumetric strain rate in skeleton
F
vk,k : divergence of fluid velocities
nS dS
c : storage coefficient c = −
KF dp
n : porosity
βF : fluid bulk modulus
ṗ : pressure time derivative
Remarks:
- Saturation ration is a function of pore pressure S = S(p).
e
- Porosity n = , e0 is user defined
1+e
125
Table 6.3: Equations of 2-phase media (b) (van Genuchten, 1980).
σ 0ij = σ ij − Spδ ij , Effective stresses

1 − Sr

 S + if p > 0
 r " 2 #1/2


p
S = S(p) = 1+ α


 γF
if p ≤ 0

1

∗ p
qi = −kij − + z ,j , Darcy flow
γF
∗
kij = kr (S)kij
3
(S − Sr ) 1
kr = 3 ="
(1 − Sr ) 2 #3/2
p
1+ α
γF
Sr [−] : residual saturation

α [1/m] : a measure of the thickness of transition from full to
residual saturation
γF [N/m3 ] : fluid specific weight
kij [m/s] : Darcy’s permeability coefficients, often a scalar k
z [m] : local altitude

6.3. STABILITY OF VERTICAL CUT WITH WATER TABLE AS
SINGLE PHASE ANALYSIS
6.3 Stability of vertical cut with water table as

SINGLE PHASE analysis
Either effective stress or total stress analysis can be performed. In both
cases the continuity equation is deactivated, along with certain terms in the
equilibrium equation; this is obtained by activation of Deformation under
Project properties; also, specific weight data differ in both types of analysis.
6.3.1 Total stress analysis
ZSOIL DATA: Ex 6 3 cut wt.inp

Governing equations are given in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4: Single phase (deformation) total stress analysis governing equa-
tions.

σ ij +
S pδ ij ,j + fi = 0 : equilibrium
specify: (γ D )bi : above water table
specify: (γ SAT )bi : below water table
bi : gravity direction vector
F (( (
S ε̇( +(
kk( vk,k
(( −(cṗ = 0 : continuity
(
Remarks:
- Pore pressures must be explicitly specified in saturated domain using su-
perelements, in preprocesor.
- Compression loads on submerged parts of the solids must be specified see

Fig. 6.12.
6.3.1.1 Data Preparation
The problem is defined as Plane strain/Deformation (i.e. single phase). The

Stability driver is activated with SF varying from 1 to 3 with step 0.1 (Fig.
6.11).
Figure 6.11: Driver for Ex 6 3 cut wt.inp
127
6.3.1.2 Geometry/boundary conditions/initial conditions
Figure 6.12: Geometry, boundary conditions, initial conditions and loads.
Mesh and box solid boundary conditions are generated as usual. The pres-
ence of the water table requires:
1. Specification of the initial water pressure field. Use FE Model/Initial

Condition/Initial Pressure/On 4 Nodes option, and define consecutively
two subdomains (Fig. 6.12), with pressure values from −24 kN/m2 at
nodes 1 & 4 to −64 kN/m2 at nodes 2 & 3 (orange subdomain) and
from 0 kN/m2 at nodes 1 & 4 to −64 kN/m2 at nodes 2 & 3 (yellow
subdomain),
2. Introduction of surface loads corresponding to external water pressure

through option FE Model/Loads/Surface Load/Variable/2 nodes,
3. Introduction of different values of specific weight above and below the

water surface.
6.3.1.3 Materials
Fluid data needed for this problem are: fluid pressure field and surface
pressure on submerged surface.
The introduction of different values of specific weight above (γ dry ) and
below (γ sat ) the water surface requires specification of 2 materials. Both
correspond to the same Mohr-Coulomb material, but with different weights
(Fig. 6.13).

Figure 6.13: Materials for Ex 6 3 cut wt.inp.
6.3.1.4 Results
Instability is detected for a safety factor of 2.1 and last converged step of
2.0, which leads to SF = 2.0, see Fig. 6.14.
Figure 6.14: Displacement intensities increment and safety factor at onset of in-
stability.
Remarks:
- Total stress analysis with initial state. An initial state analysis could be
activated first in order establish first the initial stress state on the unde-
formed configuration, but it does not influence the final safety factor (Fig.
129
6.15). In order to do that, open Drivers screen and insert Initial State
driver with default parameters, exit drivers’ screen, File/Save under name
Ex 6 4 cut wt is.inp and run. Observe that the safety factor obtained is
the same as before.
Figure 6.15: Safety factor for total stress analysis with water table and initial
state.
6.3.2 Effective stress analysis
ZSOIL DATA: (Ex 6 3 Ex 6 4 cut es.inp.inp)

Governing equations
Table 6.5: Governing equations Single phase (deformation) effective stress

analysis.

σ ij +
Spδ
ij ,j + fi = 0 : equilibrium
specify: (γ D )bi : above water table
specify: (γ SAT − γ F )bi : below water table
bi : gravity direction vector
F (( (
S ε̇kk(
+(vk,k
(( −(
cṗ = 0 : continuity
((

There is no change in the Analysis/Problem definition with respect to total

stress formulation. The problem is defined as Plane strain/Deformation (i.e.
single phase). The Stability driver is activated with SF varying from 1 to 3
with step 0.1.
Effective stress analysis does not require specification of the initial water
pressure field, and specific weights must be adapted above (γ dry ) above
and below (γ buoyant ) the water table, see Fig. 6.16.
Figure 6.16: Safety factor for total stress analysis with water table and initial
state.
6.3.2.3 Materials
Only solid data are needed.
6.3.2.4 Results
The safety factor obtained is again 2.0.
131
6.4 Stability of vertical cut with flow as TWO-

PHASE analysis
Either Uncoupled or Coupled analysis can be performed under mode De-
formation +Flow. In both cases the continuity equation is activated. The
active terms in the governing equations are specified in Table 6.6 for uncou-
pled analysis and Table 6.7 for coupled analysis.
6.4.1 Stability of vertical cut with permanent flow
ZSOIL DATA: Ex 6 5 cut PermFlow.inp

Pore pressures are evaluated from second equation and substituted into
equilibrium; this case is uncoupled (or weakly coupled).
Table 6.6: Two-phase (deformation+flow) uncoupled total stress analysis

governing equations.
(σ ij + Spδ ij ),j + fi = 0 : equilibrium

specify: γ D and γ F , fi will be computed using (γ D + nSγ F ) bi
F
kk + vk,k − cṗ = 0
S ε̇ : continuity

Remarks:
- Data needed for the fluid are:

e0 - initial void ratio
k - vector of Darcy’s (permeability) coefficients
α - a measure of thickness of the transition layer from full to residual
saturation
The initial state analysis will compute the steady-state flow pattern and
hence the pressure field, from the fluid boundary conditions, and the gravity
stress state. The stability analysis will then be performed as above, in total

6.4. STABILITY OF VERTICAL CUT WITH FLOW AS TWO-PHASE
ANALYSIS
stress, using pressures and saturation ratios computed during initial state
analysis.
Figure 6.17: Drivers for Ex 6 5 cut PermFlow.inp.
Mesh and solid boundary conditions are defined as usual. As the two-phase
flow problem activates the continuity equation, boundary conditions for the
fluid will be needed (Fig. 6.18). These include:
- Imposed pressures on both sides, compatible with water tables: use

FE Model/Boundary Conditions/Pressure BC/Create...2 Nodes option
in preprocessor, click on the two end nodes and give pressure values,
negative in compression. For instance, on the right side, ptop = 0and
pbottom = −64 kPa
- A seepage boundary condition along the vertical face of the cut, as we
do not know where the flow will hit the face and therefore the height of
seepage. For this, use the FE Model/Seepage/Create...2 Nodes option
- Also, very important: imposed pressures due to water depth at the bot-
tom of the cut (FE Model/Boundary Conditions/Pressure BC/Create...2
Nodes) and corresponding surface loads on both the horizontal and ver-
tical faces (FE Model/Loads/Surface Load/Variable/2 Nodes).
6.4.1.3 Materials
Two materials are needed: one for the continuum, one for seepage, see
Fig. 6.19 The continuum is a standard Mohr-Coulomb material. For two-
phase media (Deformation+Flow), body forces are computed automatically
by the code, given γ dry and e0 , the initial void ratio. Seepage boundary were
discussed in the chapter on flow, the default value of the penalty parameter
kv is used here (1.0).
Data needed for the fluid are: γ F = 10 kN/m3 , e0 = 1.0, β F = 1010 kN/m2 ,
k = 10−6 m/s, α = 5 1/m.
Remarks:
- Values given to are needed but unimportant as flow is permanent.
133
Figure 6.18: Geometry/boundary conditions for Ex 6 5 cut PermFlow.inp.
Figure 6.19: Material data for Ex 6 5 cut PermFlow.inp.

ANALYSIS
6.4.1.4 Results
The displacement intensity field at failure, use Graph Option/Maps and

Settings/Graph Contents/Displacement/ABS is plotted and corresponding
safety factor of SF = 1.7 are shown in Fig. 6.20. The water pressure field
with free surface identification is shown in Fig. 6.21, use Graph option/Maps
and Settings/Graph Contents/Pore pressure and scale: Min = -64 and Max
= 0.
Figure 6.20: Safety factor and displacement intensities at failure for

Ex 6 5 cut PermFlow.inp.

pled case
When transient inflow boundary conditions are present, either Uncoupled or

Coupled analyses are still possible. The driver associated with Uncoupled
analyses is Time dependent/Driven load + Steady state flow, flow will be
handled as a succession of steady state (or permanent) flows; the driver
associated with Coupled analyses is Time Dependent/Consolidation, the
flow inside the medium may then have a delayed reaction, we have seen
that in the chapter on flow problems. Initial state and Stability drivers can
be associated with either coupled or uncoupled analyses.
For the Uncoupled case the same governing equations as for the previous
steady state case apply, the transient behavior is computed as a sequence
135
Figure 6.21: Water pressure field for Ex 6 5 cut PermFlow.inp.
of steady states.
6.4.2.1 Data preparation
ZSOIL DATA: Ex 6 6 cut trbc unc.inp
An initial state analysis is performed first which will define the initial stress
state and the initial water conditions, see results. A stability analysis follows
which yields a safety factor of SF = 1.9. A driven load analysis follows with
time dependent flow boundary conditions; this is performed as a succession
of steady states, in this case in one step. Stability is evaluated again at the
end of the procedure and yields SF = 1.85
Figure 6.22: Drivers for Ex 6 6 cut trbc unc.inp.

ANALYSIS
Mesh and solid boundary conditions are defined as usual. Fluid bound-
ary conditions are input using fluid heads (Fig. 6.23), coupled with load
functions to manage the level of the water head (to do that: select bound-
ary edges and apply Preprocessing/FE Model/Boundary Condition/Pressure
BC/Fluid head on selected edges) and associated with seepage elements, a
must since the type of boundary condition cannot be anticipated (we have
seen that in the chapter dedicated to Flow).
Figure 6.23: Fluid heads, associated surface pressure, load functions LF1 for left
fluid head, LF2 for right fluid head.
Observe that fluid head on the right side is at level 1 m, associated with load
function (and level multiplier) number 2, constant and equal to 6.4. This
could also be handled with a fixed pressure BC. The fluid head on the left side
is at level 1 m, associated with load function 1, varying from 6.4 at t = 0 h
to 4 at t = 0.1 h, this fluid head is also associated with a surface pressure
(a total stress ”head”, in red in Fig. 6.23, check Create load when using
Preprocessing/FE Model/Boundary Condition/Pressure BC/Fluid head on
selected edges) induced by the water load and acting on submerged surfaces,
observe that the direction of this load must be specified (here: opposite to
external normal).
6.4.2.3 Materials
k = 10−6 m/s, Sr = 0.0, α = 2 1/m.
137
Also, γ dry = 13 kN/m3 must be specified for the solid; γ = γ dry + nSγ F ,
with n = e/(1 + e) will be calculated automatically in each finite element.
6.4.2.4 Results
Figure 6.24: Initial water pressure field: use Graph Option/Maps & Set-
tings/Graph Contents/Pore pressure and scale Min = -64, Max =
0. Set also Time = 0
Stability evaluated at the end of the procedure yields SF = 1.85, the steady
state solution (with Ex 6 5 cut PermFlow.inp) gave SF = 1.70 previously.
6.4.3 Stability of vertical cut with transient flow, cou-

pled case
For the coupled flow case, governing equations are given in Table 6.7.
6.4.3.1 Data preparation
The only change with respect to the previous analysis is the Time Depen-
dent/Consolidation driver which replaces Driven load.
ZSOIL DATA: Ex 6 7 cut trbc co.inp

ANALYSIS
Figure 6.25: Initial effective vertical stress state: Graph option/Maps and Set-
tings/Graph Contents/Continuum/Effective stresses/YY. Set also
Time = 0.
Figure 6.26: Drivers and units for coupled analysis: Ex 6 7 cut trbc co.inp
Remarks:
- Time is real for consolidation analysis, we select intuitively ∆t = 0.01.
6.4.3.2 Materials
k = 10−6 m/s, Sr = 0.0, α = 2 1/m. Also, γ dry = 13 kN/m3 must be
139
Table 6.7: Two-phase (Deformation+Flow) coupled, consolidation, total

stress analysis governing equations.
(σ ij + Spδ ij ),j + fi = 0 : equilibrium

specify: γ D and γ F , fi will be computed using (γ D + nSγ F ) bi
F
S ε̇kk + vk,k − cṗ = 0 : continuity
Remarks:
- Data needed for the fluid are:

e0 - initial void ratio
k - vector of Darcy’s (permeability) coefficients
α - a measure of thickness of the transition layer from full to residual
saturation
specified for the solid; γ = γ dry + nSγ F , with n = e/(1 + e) will be

calculated automatically in each finite element.
The critical ∆t can easily be calculated for this particular application:
E(1 − ν) (1.0 − 0.4)

Eoed = = 104 = 2.14 · 104 kN/m2 (6.1)
(1 + ν)(1 − 2ν) [1.4 · 0.2]
Eoed · k 2.14 · 104 · 10−6

cv = = = 2.14 · 10−3 m2 /s (6.2)
γF 10
h2 1 0.64
∆t ≥ ∆tcrit = γ c = = 74.8 s (6.3)
αcv 4 1 · 2.14 · 10−3
which cannot be met.
6.4.3.3 Results
The chosen ∆t = 0.01 h violates the lower bound condition on the time step.
As a consequence the pressure field presents oscillations see Fig. 6.27. These

6.5. VALIDATION TEST: SUPERFICIAL FOUNDATION ON A
CONSOLIDATING SATURATED MATERIAL
oscillations can be eliminated using a stabilized formulation, activated, in

ZSOIL, under Control/Finite elements (in the Advanced version of ZSOIL),
see Fig. 6.28.
The safety factors obtained are SF = 1.90 after initial state, and SF = 1.45
at the end of consolidation with Ex 6 6 cut trbc co Wst.inp.
Figure 6.27: Oscillatory pressure field for Ex 6 7 cut trbc co.inp.
6.5 Validation test: Superficial foundation on

a consolidating saturated material
This test is taken from the benchmarks of ZSOIL: Ex 6 7 Schiffmann.inp.
6.5.1 Drivers
The initial state driver will solve the steady state flow and establish hydro-
static pressure. The time dependent driver will activate the loading and
consolidation processes. Notice that time is real time in a consolidation
analysis, meaning time units are important (Fig. 6.29).
141
Figure 6.28: Stabilized pressure field, and stabilization activation screen activa-
tion, for Ex 6 6 cut trbc co Wst.inp.
Figure 6.29: Drivers for Ex 6 7 Schiffmann.inp.
6.5.2 Geometry, boundary conditions and load
The problem is similar to the footing presented in chapter 4 as far as geo-

metric preprocessing is concerned, box boundary conditions are applied on
the solid (fixed at the bottom and sliding on both sides). Zero water pres-
sure which corresponds to the water table is imposed on the free surface at
the top, through Preprocessing/FE Model/Boundary Conditions/Pressure
BC/2 Nodes option and no boundary conditions are needed on the three
other sides, which corresponds to ”no flow” (q = 0) conditions (Fig. 6.30).
A surface load associated with load function No 1 is applied on the footing,
observe that load will be rapidly increased from 0 to 100 kN/m2 between
time 0 and 0.01 day. The load time function, and hence the load, will then
remain constant by default till the end of the analysis at t = 0.1 day.

6.6. INSTABILITY DUE TO RAIN
Figure 6.30: Geometry, boundary conditions, load and load function.
6.5.3 Materials
The soil is considered elastic and weightless in this test; but all fluid param-
eters must be specified (Fig. 6.31).
6.5.4 Results
The load is initially carried as an overpressure (difference of pressure between

time tref = 0 and tcurr ), then it transfers to the solid, see Fig. 6.32.
Remarks:
- The introduction of more realistic soil parameters with e.g. γ sat =

20 kN/m3 and ν = 0.3 leads to only minor changes in the overpressures.
6.6 Instability due to rain

Slope instabilities induced by rain have always happened. Simulation of
such instabilities with ZSOIL is easy but of course reliable material data are
necessary if reliable results are expected. In this section, we will go through
a simple academic example which illustrates what data are needed for such
analyses: Ex 6 7 rain2D.inp.
143
Figure 6.31: Material data
6.6.1 Drivers
The corresponding screen is shown in Fig. 6.34. A fully coupled 2-phase

consolidation analysis is performed with repeated safety factor evaluation.
6.6.2 Geometry, boundary conditions and load
Rain is simulated as an inflow boundary condition (see Fig. 6.35), the value
of inflow, resulting from the product of the inflow value ”1” and associated
load function (Fig. 6.36) varies from 0 to 0.04 m/s in time. To define
the inflow in the preprocessor, first select the edges on which the rain will
be applied, and then use FE Model/Distributed Fluxes/Fluid/Create...on
Edge(s) option. A seepage boundary condition is needed everywhere flow
can cross a boundary (see Fig. 6.35).
Remarks:
- This value needs to be smaller than the Darcy coefficient, 0.1 m/s here, for
inflow to be possible, otherwise the medium will perform as impermeable,

Figure 6.32: Redistribution of overpressure in time.
Figure 6.33: Distribution of excess pore water overpressure at t = 0.1 day. Verti-
cal distribution of pw at axis (left); horizontal distribution of pw at
depth 0.5 m (right).
surface flow will occur and possibly erosion, but these phenomena are not
simulated yet in ZSOIL.
6.6.3 Results
Examining the saturation ratio distribution at time t = 45.5 h, Results/

Postprocessing/Maps and Settings/Graph contents/Continuum/Saturation
145
Figure 6.34: Drivers sequence for continuous safety evaluation of slope under rain.
Figure 6.35: Fluid boundary conditions, impermeable at bottom.
ratio plus Time/select current time step and choose t = 45.5 h, we observe a
water table identified by the fully saturated region (blue corresponds to satu-
ration S = 0, red to S = 1), in addition, surface saturation starts increasing
as inflow starts pouring through the ground, as indicated by the top yellow
layer, Fig. 6.37. The safety factor, resulting from the successive stability
analyses diminishes with time and ultimately failure occurs, as indicated by
the failure mechanism identified by displacement increment intensities (red is
max, blue is min, see Fig. 6.38), use Results/Postprocessing/Maps and Set-
tings/Graph contents/Nodal values/displacements/ABS plus Time/select
current time step t = 45.5 h and Time/select reference time step t = 45 h.

Figure 6.36: Load function associated with rain inflow q.
Figure 6.37: Saturation ratio distribution at time t = 45.5 h (red S = 1.0, blue
S = 0.0).
Figure 6.38: Displacement intensities, slope failure mechanism at time t = 45.5 h.
147
References
Bowles, J. (1979). Physical and Geotechnical Properties of Soil. McGraw-
Hill.
Truty, A. and Zimmermann, T. (2006). Stabilized mixed finite element
formulations for materially nonlinear partially saturated two-phase media.
Comp Meth Appl Mech Engng, 195:1517–1546.
van Genuchten, M. (1980). A closed form of the equation for predicting the
hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Am Soc, 44:802–808.
Vermeer, P. and Verruijt, A. (1981). An accuracy condition for consolidation

by finite elements. Int J Num Anal Meth Geomech, 5:1–14.

Chapter 7
TUNNEL EXCAVATION - CASE STUDY
Contents
7.1 Tunnel excavation in urban environment, acounting for initial

state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
7.1.1 Problem definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
7.1.2 Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
7.1.3 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7.1.4 Geometrical input pre-processing . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7.1.5 Macro model subdomains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
7.1.6 Meshing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
7.1.7 Structural elements, boundary conditions and loads . 157
7.1.8 Excavation steps, Existence functions, Load functions 159
7.1.8.1 Existence functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
7.1.8.2 Convergence and Load functions . . . . . . 161
7.1.9 Materials and initial state data . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
7.1.10 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
7.2 Tunnel excavation in urban environment with hydromechan-
ical aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
7.2.2 Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
149
CHAPTER 7. TUNNEL EXCAVATION - CASE STUDY
7.2.3 Boundary conditions for two-phase problem . . . . . 166

7.2.4 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
7.2.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
7.2.6 Advanced post-processing options . . . . . . . . . . 170
7.2.7 Creation of sections and computation of inflow into
tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
7.2.8 Computing bending moments from continuum elements171

7.1. TUNNEL EXCAVATION IN URBAN ENVIRONMENT,
ACOUNTING FOR INITIAL STATE
The main goal of this tutorial is to get user familiar with the basic features
in the context of a real tunnel excavation presented as a case study.
7.1 Tunnel excavation in urban environment,

acounting for initial state
7.1.1 Problem definition
The simulation of initial state, construction and excavation stages are the
main new features presented with the aid of this case study. The problem
is described on an engineering draft, Fig. 7.1. The illustration represents
a tunnel excavation in urban environment. The case is characterized by
existing surface constructions and a water table. The water around the
future excavation zone requires freezing in order to be able to excavate the
tunnel. In this chapter, we a single-phase case will by analyzed, then the
two-phase case will be examined.
Figure 7.1: Tunnel excavation in urban environment, an engineering draft.
The main steps in the analysis are as follows:
151
- Running an initial state analysis which includes all loads present before the
beginning of construction: gravity and loads due to existing structures.
- Simulating the excavation of the small pilot tunnel, then the soil freezing
procedure, the excavation of the main tunnel and evaluating the safety
factor at the end of the excavation (NB. safety factors can be evalu-
ated in the middle of the analysis by tunning stability analyses after each
excavation step).
- Drivers are used to pilot the different stages, in association with load
functions, which control the evolution of load amplitudes, and existence
functions, which control the key events.
Open ZSOIL and, under File/Save as save: Ex 7 1 tunnelzh 1ph.inp.
7.1.2 Drivers
The drivers input screen (Fig. ??) explains the essential aspects of the
analysis that is about to be carried out:
- Initial state analysis starting with the application of 50% of gravity and
50% of surface loads present at t = 0, progressively increased to 100%
by increments of 10%.
- Time dependent/Driven load analysis, starting at time t = 0 and pro-
gressing to time t = 10, with time increments of ∆t = 1 this part is split
into several construction stages, as we will see.
- Stability analysis, starting with a safety factor of 1.0 tentatively progress-
ing to 30, until instability is detected
Remarks:
- There is no real time-dependent behavior here, time can be considered as

fictitious, and it only controls the sequence of excavation steps.
- Progressive unloading of the excavated medium, which is used to simulate
distance to front in two-dimensional analysis, will be driven by ”pseudo-
time” driven unloading functions.
Remarks:
- Additional stability analyses could be inserted anywhere in the analysis

progress in order to define the safety factor corresponding to a particular
construction stage.
- Modifications of the stress state occurring during stability analyses are
ignored for follow-up analyses.

Figure 7.2: Defining analysis type and drivers for the tunnel excavation problem.
7.1.3 Geometry
The geometrical data of the finite element model are illustrated in Fig. 7.3.
The ground water table is located 4.9 m below the terrain surface.
Figure 7.3: Geometry of planned excavation.
7.1.4 Geometrical input pre-processing
Enter the geometrical preprocessor by selecting menu option Assembly/ Pre-

processing. We will first create the two tunnels, and define the extension of
the zone to be freezed.
Select option Macro Model from the method list located on the right
hand side of the screen, then Objects and then Circle (referred to later
as blueMacro Model/Objects/Circle).
Create three circles from the Circle dialog box, using each time the Apply
button:
- The first for the main tunnel, with center (0;0) and radius 6.05 m, see
153
Fig. 7.4
- the second for the limit of the frozen zone with center (0;0) and radius
7.25 m
- the third for the small tunnel, with center (9.65;7.65) and radius 2.4 m
Figure 7.4: Dialog box for creating a circle.
Leave third coordinate of the center z = 0 and number of segments = 20,

this defines the refinement of the discretization of the tunnel.
Now, click on the Close button and press CTRL-F to optimize zoom with the
newly created objects. You should obtain the image similar to that shown
in Fig. 7.5).
Figure 7.5: Creating the circles that define the shape of the tunnels.
Hide auxiliary pre-processing components, i.e. the grid (press the G key)
and the axes (press the A key), respectively.
In the next step, we well define the contour of the mesh, including the
position of the building and the bottom boundary. For this, move to Macro

Model/Point/Create/Point option, and create the following points, using

the Apply button:
Top and building boundary:
(−40; 19.55) (−12; 19.55) (−12; 12.55) (9.65; 12.55) (40; 12.55) Sides:
(−40; 0) (40; 0) Bottom boundary:
(−40; −30) (9.65; −30) (40; −30)
Remarks:
- Leave third coordinate z = 0.
Press CTRL-F to optimize zoom with the newly created points.

Now move to Macro Model/Objects/Line and define the contour of the
mesh, clicking on the ten nodes of the mesh contour (as Continue option is
switched on in the dialog box, you do not have to click twice on each node
to indicate the end of a line and the start of a new one).
Then, uncheck the Continue option, and create two crossing lines between
points (−40; 0) (40; 0) and points (9.65; 12.55) (9.65; −30). When
prompted, accept the automatic intersection of objects. Then click on the
Close button.
Finally, delete the two lines inside of the tunnels with option Delete/Delete.
You should end up with the following screen, Fig. 7.6.
Figure 7.6: Macro modeling for tunnel excavation problem.
7.1.5 Macro model subdomains

and click successively inside the 8 defined subdomains.
Click on Update/Parameters and assign Initial material number 2 to the
three subdomains which define the frozen zone, as shown below, Fig. 7.7.
Notice that replacement materials can be defined here. These correspond
155
to a situation where the initial material is replaced by a new one after being
excavated; activation of the new material is controlled by a corresponding
existence function.
Figure 7.7: Creating subdomains inside the defined boundaries.
Remarks:
- You can use the tool located on the right hand side of the screen in
order to zoom on this part of the mesh. A general view can be restored
by pressing CTRL-F.
Still using the Update/Parameters tool, assign Existence function 1 and

Unloading function 1 to the small tunnel, and assign Existence function 5
and Unloading function 2 to the main tunnel (see Fig. 7.8). You may check
the values assigned to materials, existence and unloading functions using
the selection list located just below the right method list (see red arrow in
Fig. 7.8). Default visualization is set to Initial material.
Remarks:
- The actual definition of excavation steps and progressive convergence is

controlled by the existence and load functions, which are defined later on.
7.1.6 Meshing
Now, select the Mesh/Create virtual mesh method and click inside of the
small tunnel. Select Unstructured mesh type, and set approximate element

Figure 7.8: Defining existnence and unloading functions in the macro model.
size to 1 m. Click on Create virtual mesh. Then, click inside of the main
tunnel, select unstructured mesh type, and set approximate element size to
1.5 m. Click on Create virtual mesh. Then click inside of the upper frozen
zone. Structured mesh type is selected by default, as this subdomain has
four control points. Set Edge 1-2 split to 10 and Edge 1-4 split to 2. Then
click on Create virtual mesh. Repeat the same operation for the lower frozen
zone.
Remarks:
- As the Adjust split to existing subdomains option is checked On, split

along Edge 1-2 is automatically set to 13 instead of 10 to retain mesh
compatibility.
Click successively inside of the two remaining upper subdomains, select un-
structured mesh type, and set approximate element size to 1.6 m. Click on
Create virtual mesh. Click successively inside of the two remaining lower sub-
domains, select unstructured mesh type, and set approximate element size
to 2 m. Click on Create virtual mesh. Press CTRL-F. Select Mesh/Virtual
− > Real mesh method and click successively inside of the 8 subdomains.
Then, press CTRL-M in order to hide the macro model, and to leave only the
FE model (nodes and elements). You should end up with a finite element
mesh as shown in Fig. 7.9.
7.1.7 Structural elements, boundary conditions and loads
Zoom on the main tunnel zone, and select edges along the tunnel lining
with the button located below the Windows menu, Fig. 7.10.
Then select FE model/Beam/On edge(s) method and set Initial material to
4 and Existence function to 6. Move to Unselect all button. Repeat the
same operation for the small tunnel lining. Set Initial material to 3 and
Existence function to 3. Move to Unselect all button. Now select edges
along the building’s wall and mat foundation with the button or the
157
Figure 7.9: Finite element mesh for the tunnel excavaiton problem.
Figure 7.10: Selecting edges on the FE mesh in order to create beam elements.
Select edges in zoom box button.

Then select FE model/Beam/On edge(s) method and set Initial material to
5 and Existence function to 0. Move to Unselect all button.
Move to FE model/Loads/Surface Loads/PRESSURE/2 nodes (P) method,
click on the two extremity nodes of the building’s mat foundation and set
Value 1 and 2 to −150, Fig. 7.11. Finally, move to FE model/Boundary
Conditions/Solid BC/On box (indicated by the red arrow in Fig. 7.12) in
order to create default plane strain box displacement boundary conditions,
and press CTRL-F, Fig. 7.12.

Figure 7.11: Defining a surface load.
Figure 7.12: Automatic generation of displacement boundary conditions for solid.
You may now exit the graphical preprocessor and save your work (File/Exit.
7.1.8 Excavation steps, Existence functions, Load func-

tions
The excavation sequence is illustrated next (Fig. 7.13).

A small pilot tunnel is excavated first; its liner is installed next. The area
of the main excavation is then frozen. The main tunnel is excavated next.
The liner of the main tunnel is installed after partial convergence. The key
steps are enumerated below (Fig. 7.14). Steps 2, 3, 7 concern the 2-phase
159
Figure 7.13: Excavation stages.
case, this will be discussed later on.
Figure 7.14: Excavation progress schedule.
7.1.8.1 Existence functions
The management of the excavations is done via Assembly/Existence func-

tions dialog which is accessible from the main ZSOIL’s window or in the

Pre-Processor.
Existence functions are multi-step Heaviside functions which take value 1
when an object that they are attached to, exists, and zero when the object
disappears. Existence functions are defined under Assembly/Existence func-
tions by entering one to three active periods, see Fig. 7.15 and Fig. 7.16.
For instance, existence function number 5, associated with the big tunnel
excavation has one active period, from t = 0 till t = 4.
Remarks:
- It is worth noting that changes from existance to inexistance, and vice-

versa, indicated at time t will influence computations starting from time
t + ∆t, with one exception t = 0.
- If the time stepping adopted under Analysis/Drivers does not match to

events identified by existence functions, the code will automatically add
intermediate time stepping in order to capture all significant events. For
example: a time stepping like t = 1 · · · 2 · · · 3 · · · 4 · · · etc. in an analysis
which uses an existence function with a switch at t = 1.5, will automati-
cally add an intermediate step at 1.5.
- Existence functions can be used to activate or deactivate various actions

like presence of elements, existence of pre-stress, etc.
- Default existence function number 0 corresponds to permanent existence.
Figure 7.15: Specifying existence functions.
Remarks:
- After the definition of the existence functions, use View/Verify excavation

steps option in the pre-processor to view the excavation sequence.
7.1.8.2 Convergence and Load functions
As regards 2D modeling of tunnel excavation problems, it is often necessary

to delay the installation of the lining in order to account 3D unloading effect
which depends on a distance between the excavation front and the lining
(support takes only a part of total unbalanced forces). Such an effect can be
161
Figure 7.16: Representation existence functions.
simulated in 2D using unloading functions which are associated with a set of

”excavated domain equivalent” forces which are calculated automatically by
the program when the excavation takes place. The procedure exactly equili-
brates the domain, replacing the excavated part by forces. These forces are
then gradually reduced, first till installation of the lining and then, typically,
to 0 value.
Load (time) functions are needed to define the evolution in time of loads,
imposed displacements, and tunnel convergence effects, via Unloading func-
tions (unloading of in situ stress). The load functions needed in this example
are listed in Fig. 7.17.
Figure 7.17: Definition of loading/unloading functions.
Remarks:

- Unloading functions 1 and 2 will introduce partial unloading of the domain

before lining is installed; 70% for the small tunnel, 80% for the large one.
- Load functions 3, 4, 5 are associated with the freezing process.
Load functions can be defined under Assembly/Load function. Load func-

tions are introduced as time-value pairs. An example of the load function 4
is illustrated in Fig. 7.18.
Figure 7.18: Definition of load function number 4 - increase of cohesion due to

freezing.
7.1.9 Materials and initial state data
Materials present no difficulties in the single-phase case, see the input file
for details. However, the initial state input deserves a word of explanation.
We have seen in previous chapters that the initial state driver superposes
gravity, which requires specification of weight for each material (Assem-
bly/Materials/Unit weights, set γ), gravity direction (Assembly/ Materi-
als/Gravity −1 in vertical ”y” direction), and K0 state (Assembly/Materials/
Initial K0 state K0 (x0 ) = K0 (z 0 ) = 0.45). As illustrated in Fig. 7.19, the
K0 state is specified locally at the material level (especially for soils for
which in situ K0 typically depends on friction angle or overconsolidation
state) and not globally under Gravity, as some materials (beams e.g.) do
not require it.
Remarks:
163
Figure 7.19: Materials - imposing the initial K0 state.
- Notice that in the preprocessor, the load function associated with the
surface load, which represents a preexisting building, has number ”0”, see
(Assembly/Preprocessing/FE model/Surface load/ update parameters),
which corresponds to a permanent value of ”1”. This load is therefore
present at time t = 0 and will be taken into account in the evaluation of
the initial state.
7.1.10 Analysis
The single phase case Ex 7 1 tunnelzh 1ph.inp can be computed by select-

ing Analysis/Run analysis, and results can be analyzed. However, in this
chapter, only the results obtained for two-phase case will be discussed.

7.2. TUNNEL EXCAVATION IN URBAN ENVIRONMENT WITH
HYDROMECHANICAL ASPECTS
7.2 Tunnel excavation in urban environment

with hydromechanical aspects
The single-phase data are valid for the 2-phase problem with the exception
of water presence. Open ZSOIL and, under File/... menu, first open:
Ex 7 1 tunnelzh 1ph.inp and save it as Ex 7 2 tunnelzh 2ph.inp.
7.2.2 Drivers
The input screen for analysis drivers (Fig. 7.20) explains the essential as-
pects of the analysis that is about to be carried out:
- Modify the problem type to: Deformation+flow.
- Initial state analysis starting with the application of 50% of gravity and
50% of surface loads present at t = 0, progressively increased to 100%
by steps of 10%.
- Time dependent/Driven load + Steady state flow analysis, starting at

time t = 0 and progressing to time t = 7, this part is split into several
construction stages, as in the single-phase case.
- Stability driver can be added.
There is no real time-dependent behavior in this example, time can be con-

sidered as fictitious, and it only controls the sequence of excavation steps
(i.e. stress-strain solution corresponds to the end of consolidation).
Figure 7.20: Defining analysis steps in Control/Drivers.
Remarks:
- Permanent flow solution will automatically be computed at the beginning

of each time-step.
- Replacing Driven load driver by Consolidation driver results in full coupling

for two-phase medium, and time is considered as real time, and the time
units become then important.
165
7.2.3 Boundary conditions for two-phase problem
Return to the geometrical preprocessor and hide the macro model with
CTRL-M, axes with A-key and grid with G-key. You can also hide nodes
with N-key and solid boundary conditions with CTRL-B.
Select edges along the right boundary of the domain (x = 40 m) with the
button or the Select edges in zoom box button.
Create seepage elements selecting the FE Model/Seepage/On edge(s) method.
Set material number to 6 and existence function to 0. Move to FE Model/
Boundary Conditions/Pressure BC/Fluid head on selected edges method,
and set water level to 7.65 m. Move to Unselect all button. Repeat the
same steps for the left boundary (x = −40 m). Remember to unselect
edges at the end, using Unselect all button.
Figure 7.21: Introduction of seepage elements and water boundary conditions.
Now select edges surrounding the small tunnel with the button (Fig.
7.22). You should select the external edges with respect to the beam ele-
ments.
Create seepage elements selecting the FE Model/Seepage/On edge(s) method.
Set material number to 6 and existence function to 3. Move to Unselect all
button. Repeat the same for the main tunnel, with material 6 and existence
function 6 (Fig. 7.23).
You may now exit the graphical preprocessor and save your work (File/Save
model and return to main Menu).
7.2.4 Materials
Make sure that flow data are specified and active for continuum and seepage
material, which is a new material. For more details on seepage elements,
see Chapter 5.

Figure 7.22: Selection of edges for generation of seepage elements imposing null
pore pressures at the tunnel boundary.
Figure 7.23: Creating seepage slements.
Finally, the computing can be carried out (Analysis/Run Analysis).
7.2.5 Results
Open the postprocessor. We will first take a look at the evolution of the
fluid velocities throughout the excavation stages. In the first step, move to
Time/Select current time step, select time step 0 and press OK.
Move to Graph. Option/Fluid velocities and then to Settings/Graph. Con-
tents. Set scale to 20, and press OK. You may then press the ”+” or the
167
”-” keys to navigate through time steps. Finally, at time t = 7, you should
obtain the fluid velocity vectors as illustrated in Fig. 7.24.
Figure 7.24: Tunnel excavation problem: Field of fluid velocity vectors.
In order to examine corresponding water pore pressures, move to Graph Op-

tion/Maps and to Settings/Graph Contents. Select Pore pressure, uncheck
the Default option, and set minimal value to −300 kN/m2 and the maximal
one to 0; in this way only the negative pore pressure values are visualized
highlighting an actual position of the ground water table. Click OK to get
the image similar to that presented in Fig. 7.25.
Figure 7.25: Distribution of negative pore water pressures (negative ≡ below free
water table).
Now, let us examine internal forces in the lining. :ove to Graph Option/MNT
for beams/anchors/rings in order to see the magnitude of bending moments.

In order to to hide foundation beam elements, you can first select them
with the Selections/Elements/List windows menu, selection rule = Material,
number = 5, click on the bottom black arrow, then on the top black arrow,
then on Select and Close. Then you can hide the selected elements with
the aid of Selections/Hide selected windows menu. You can also adjust
the scale with the Settings/Graph Contents menu, uncheck the automatic
scaling, and set the scale to 0.002. Press H-key to show continuum elements,
and the image presented in Fig. 7.26 should be obtained.
Figure 7.26: Visualization of bending moments in the main tunnel.
169
7.2.6 Advanced post-processing options
In this section, two specific post-processing options are presented, i.e. cal-
culation of the inflow in the tunnel and obtaining internal forces diagrams
based on the stress integration technique, respectively.
7.2.7 Creation of sections and computation of inflow

into tunnel
It will be presented now how to define sections around the main tunnel, set
the displayed value to normal fluid velocities, and integrate them in order
to compute the inflow in the tunnel. In the post-processor, move to Graph
Option/Sectional quantities and then select Sections/Sec. Planes (2D).
Click on two points in order to define the position of the section, here on
the left side of the main tunnel (see points 1 and 2 in Fig. 7.27). Then click
on Add button. Repeat the actions for the section below the tunnel (points
3 and 4) and on the right hand side (points 5 and 6). Click on Close.
Figure 7.27: Fluid velocities.
Move to Settings/Graph. Contents and set value to Continuum/Fluid Ve-

locities and component to N (see Fig. 7.28). Click on OK.
Then, under Misc./Sections-2D/Integral INT(rsl) dA, create a file filename.csv
and open it with ASCII file editor (e.g. MS Excel). The inflow will be inte-
grated from normal fluid velocities for each section, and also for the sum of
the three created sections (see Fig. 7.29).

Figure 7.28: Selection of result content for sectional quantities.
Figure 7.29: ASCII file containing integral of fluid velocities.
7.2.8 Computing bending moments from continuum el-

ements
Visualization of internal forces in beam elements is straightforward (see

Fig. 7.26). In the following section, it will be demonstrated how to integrate
stresses in order to retrieve bending moments from continuum elements.
Suppose that we would like to integrate stresses in the frozen zone above
the tunnel arch. First move to Graph.Option/MNT for continuum 2D.
Then, select the continuum elements oner which would like to integrate
stresses using Selection/Pick Elements. Then, the edges at the ends of the
arch in order to define an ”equivalent beam”; use Selection/Edges/Zoom
box. Finally, under Settings/Graph.Contents give a name to the ”equivalent
beam” and click on Add beam with label − >. By default, bending moment
Mz is selected. Click on OK and bending moments will be represented as
171
illustrated in Fig. 7.30.
Figure 7.30: Obtaining bending moments based on integration of stresses com-

puted in continuum elements.
Remarks:
- Highly accurate results for beams/shells which are modeled with aid of
continuum elements can only be obtained using the Continuum for
structures formulation which is defined at the material level, cf.Fig. 7.31.
Figure 7.31: Continuum for structures formulation at the material definition level.

Chapter 8
2D TUTORIAL: EXCAVATION WITH

RETAINING WALL
Contents

8.2 Data Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
8.2.2 Pre-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
8.2.3 Analysis and drivers definition . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
8.2.4 Material definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
8.2.5 Existence function definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
8.2.6 Loading function definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
8.3 Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
8.4 Post-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
173
CHAPTER 8. 2D TUTORIAL: EXCAVATION WITH RETAINING WALL
The goal of this exercise chapter is to learn how a numerical analysis of an

anchored retaining wall using ZSOIL, and to get the user familiar with the
practical use of the Hardening Soil Small-Strain (HSS) constitutive model
(Obrzud and Truty, 2012).
8.1 Problem Description
A deep excavation in Berlin sand (Schweiger, 2002) will be studied in this ex-
ample. An engineering draft of the problem and the sequence of excavation
is given in Fig. 8.1.
Figure 8.1: Deep excavation in Berlin Sand.
8.2 Data Preparation
8.2.1 Project creation
Open the ZSOIL program. Click ”Continue” on the welcome screen.

Then choose New Project, Plane strain.

8.2. DATA PREPARATION
Figure 8.2: Deep excavation in Berlin Sand.
The Preferences window can be recalled at any time from the menu Con-
trol/Project preselection (Fig. 8.2). Set Problem type to Deforma-
tion+Flow, and click OK.
Save the project with File/Save As... and give the name to the project as
Ex 8 1 excSand Basic.inp.
8.2.2 Pre-processing
From the main window of the software launch the pre-processor Assem-
bly/Preprocessing. Choose Construction axes from Draw panel and create
axes with coordinates shown in Fig. 8.3.
Figure 8.3: Creating construction lines.
175
Choose Rectangle from Draw panel and create external rectangle (see Fig.
8.4).
Figure 8.4: Drawing the rectangle of external model boundary.
Figure 8.5: Drawing the first horizontal line.
Use Line method from Draw panel. Unselect Continue in Line dialog box and
create horizontal line at level −40 m. Select Run intersection automatically
and do not show this query again in Object intersection dialog box and press
Yes button (see Fig. 8.5).
Create horizontal line at level Y = −20 m, vertical line at X = 70 m,

vertical line at X = 30 m from level Y = 0m to Y = −40 m and vertical

line at level Y = −32 m from X = 0 m to X = 30 m.
Hide grid in Visibility dialog box in order to have an easy access to charac-
teristic points defined by construction axes.
Create horizontal lines between X = 0 m and X = 30 m at levels Y =
−4.8 m, Y = −9.3 m, Y = −14.35 m and Y = −16.8 m (Fig. 8.6).
Remarks:
- You can use tool located on the right hand side of the screen, in order
to zoom on parts of the mesh. CTRL-F restores the general view.
Figure 8.6: Creating lines.
Subdomains have to be created inside the drawn contours. On the right

menu, select Macro Model/Subdomain/Create/2D continuum inside con-
177
tour and click inside each subdivision of the domain as indicated in Fig.
8.7.
Move to Macro Model/Subdomain/Update/Parameters, click on the six
subdomains located below Y = −20 m and specify Initial material = 2.
Figure 8.7: Creating subdomains and defining material layers.
Figure 8.8: Defining existence functions on subdomains.
Move to Macro Model/Subdomain/Update/Parameters, click on the four

subdomains composing the excavation zone (see Fig. 8.8) and from top to

bottom, specify Existence function = 1, Load function = 1, then respectively

Existence function = 2, Load function = 1, then Existence function = 3,
Load function = 1 and Existence function = 4, Load function = 1.
In order to check if the correct attributes have been attached to the subdo-
mains, we can visualize for instance the existence function distribution by
choosing Existence Function in the list situated in the left Visibility panel,
as indicated above with the red arrow. You should now see subdomain 1 in
light pink (existence function = 1), subdomain 2 in pink (existence function
= 2), subdomain 3 in orange (EF = 3), subdomain 4 in red (EF = 4) and
the remaining subdomains in dark gray (existence function = 0, meaning
these subdomains will always exist).
Figure 8.9: Generating virtual mesh on subdomains.
Now we will create virtual meshes for all subdomains. Click on Macro
Model/Subdomain/Mesh/Create virtual mesh in the right tool bar, and click
inside the subdomain with existence function = 1 (you may use the zooming
tool located on the right hand side of the screen if needed).
There are three possibilities of creating the virtual mesh: structured, un-
structured, or through morphing. Here, we will choose the structured
method, and a 12 × 6 split of the subdomain.
Each subdomain is defined by control points which appear in red on the
screen above. If needed, control points can be added manually, using the
Pick button in the Meshing parameters window and selecting the subdomain
179
corners.
Enter Edge 1-2 = 6 (or 12), Edge 1-4 = 12 (or 6) and click Create vir-
tual mesh. Repeat the same operation for all other subdomains with split
Figure 8.10: Generating virtual mesh on subdomains (cont.).
presented in Fig. 8.10.
Figure 8.11: Creating the retaining wall.
In order to define the retaining wall, select objects in zoom box by means of

Select elements in zoom box tool indicated in Fig. 8.11, and select 6 lines
situated between coordinates (30, 0) and (30, -32).
Then, chose the Macro model/Subdomain/Beam on object(s) tool in the
right tool bar. Click Yes when prompted to create beams on selected objects,
and set Initial material = 3, and Existence function = 5. Leave all other
parameters equal to zero and click OK.
The virtual split for retaining wall can be created by selecting beam subdo-
main objects using the zoom box Select elements in zoom box (Fig. 8.12).
Next, select the Macro model/Subdomain/Create virtual mesh tool in the
right tool bar in order to apply the split on selected subdomains. Leave
default values in Meshing parameters dialog box; the Split for beam subdo-
mains will be automatically adjusted to continuum 2D subdomains to which
the virtual mesh has already been applied.
Figure 8.12: Applying the virtual mesh on selected beam subdomains.
Now, select all beam subdomains (Select elements in zoom box from Global
selection tools panel) and move to Macro Model/Interface/On Structural
Subdomain(s). Create interface (contact) elements on both sides of the
wall, according to Fig. 8.13, with Material = 7 and Existence Function =
5 (use the Modify button to validate your choices).
In order to define boundary conditions that represent ground water table,
select all subdomain edges located at the external right boundary of the mesh
(Fig. 8.14. First create seepage on these edges with Macro Model/Seepage/
On Subdomain edge(s) (specify Material = 8 and Existence Function = 0).
This elements will allow free water flow across this boundary.
Then, move to Macro model/Pressure BC/Fluid head on selected edges and
181
Figure 8.13: Creating interface elements between the retaining wall and soil.
Figure 8.14: Defining water boundary conditions on the right external side of the
model.
define the position of Fluid head = −3 m, according to the ground water

level depicted in Fig. 8.14.
Move to Unselect all objects option.

Select all edges located at the left boundary of the mesh (inside the excava-
tion, Fig. 8.15) Create seepage on these edges with Macro Model/Seepage/
On Subdomain edge(s) (specify Material = 8 and Existence Function = 0).
Then, move to Macro model/Pressure BC/Fluid head on selected edges and
define Fluid head = 1 m, and Load function = 2 (Fig. 8.15). In order
Figure 8.15: Defining water boundary conditions on the left side of the model
(inside the excavation).
to account for excavation stages, update seepage properties using Macro

Model/Seepage/Parameters according parameters given in Fig. 8.16.
Finally, the created virtual mesh has to be converted into a real mesh. Select
all objects (Ctrl-A) and choose the Macro Model/Subdomain/Mesh/Virtual
− > Real mesh tool. This method will automatically generate the finite el-
ement mesh. The newly created elements will automatically inherit their
properties (material, existence and load functions) from their parent sub-
domains. Note that any future update of subdomain parameters will be
applied to the elements in the real mesh.
In the next step, the prestressed anchors will be introduced. Before gen-
erating anchor elements, the node coordinates should be updated as the
anchors will be linked to the wall by sharing the same nodes. Select the
183
Figure 8.16: Setting seepage properties.
Figure 8.17: Automatic generating the real mesh.
FE model/Node/Update/XYZ for one node tool in the right tool bar and
update coordinates of nodes as shown in Fig. 8.18.
The prestressed anchors can be now created using FE model/Anchor/Create/
Point+Vector+Length tool in the right tool bar. Click on the point situated
on the wall at (30, −4.3), and according to Fig. 8.1, introduce a directional
vector of (0.89, −0.45) and a distance (free length) of 11.8 m. Initial mate-
rial is equal to 4 and existence function is equal to 6 (Fig. 8.19). Uncheck
link node 2 in order to let the prestress force dissipate into the sealing. Click
on Fixed anchor zone tab, and according to Fig. 8.1, set the fixed anchor

Figure 8.18: Updating node coordinates.
Figure 8.19: Creating prestressed anchors.
length to 8 m, the fixed anchor zone interface material to 5 and leave the
number of segments (split) equal to 5. Click on Prestress tab, select By
force and according to Fig. 8.1, set the force value to 768 kN and existence
function (of the prestress) to 7. Then accept the setup by clicking OK.
Repeat the same actions for the anchors 2 and 3, with the following char-
185
acteristics:
Element Length Material Existence Force Prestress

Function EF
[m] [kN]
Anchor 1 11.8 6 6 768 7
Anchor 2 15.8 6 8 945 9
Anchor 3 15.3 6 10 980 11
Figure 8.20: Defining the hydraulic barrier by making evolved material permeabil-
ity.
There exist a few ways of modeling the hydraulic barrier depicted in Fig. 8.1.
For example, the flow discontinuity can be modeled by means of interface
elements for which continuity only applies to displacement field, i.e. no flow
available. Another way consists of decreasing permeability of the material.
In this example the latter approach is applied. Now, select the row of
elements located at the wall toe level and inside of the excavation zone using
Select elements in zoom box (see elements in red, Fig. 8.20). Then move
to FE model/Continuum 2D/Update.../Parameters and set Initial material
= 9. We will see later on that this material will have the same mechanical
properties as the surrounding material (Initial material = 2), but much lower

permeability.
Move upon Unselect all option.
Figure 8.21: Automatic defining displacement boundary conditions at the external

boundaries of the FE mesh.
The external displacement boundary conditions will be introduced in the

next step. Select FE model/Boundary conditions/Solid BC/On box in the
right tool bar. This method will automatically create box-type displacement
boundary conditions on the external boundaries of the FE mesh, as shown
in Fig. 8.21 (restrained degrees of freedom are indicated with a red line).
Select menu File/Save model and return to Main Menu. An automatic data
verification will be carried out by the program. In this example, singular
nodes at the end of structural elements are detected Fig. 8.22. It means
that due to the introduction of interface elements, the node defining the toe
of the wall beam and those defining the continuum elements representing
soil are detached.
In order to attach the wall toe to soil elements move to FE Model/Interface/
Select singular interface nodes and choose FE Model/Interface/Link inter-
face node(s).
Finally, you can leave the pre-processor by selecting menu File/Save model
and return to Main Menu.
187
Figure 8.22: Detecting singular nodes at the end of structural elements during
data verification.
8.2.3 Analysis and drivers definition
The analysis sequence consists of an initial state analysis, followed by exca-

vation stages. The anylysis setup is described below.
Figure 8.23: Defining stage dependent process in analysis type and drivers dialog
window.
Select Control/Drivers to define analysis drivers. Define the Initial State

driver as follows: Iniitial Load factor = 0.5, Final Load = 1.0, and Increment
= 0.1. In order to specify a stage dependent process, under Driver, in the
second line, choose Time dependent and leave Driven Load + Steady State
Flow for the Type. Now, set Time start = 0, Time end = 7, Time incrrement
= 1 and Multiplier = 1.
You should get the image as shown in Fig. 8.23.
8.2.4 Material definition
Material paramters can be using Assembly/Materials dialog window. Ma-

terial number 1 is associated with the first layer of sand, until a depth of
20 m. Click on the first line, then Modify, and set Material formulation to
HS-small strain stiffness. Let us assume that at this moment there is no

much information about goemechanical properties of the soil. A prelimi-

nary geotechnical report provides us merely with a general soil description,
for instance. Therefore, we would like to estimate material parameters by
clicking on Determine parameters (see Fig. 8.24).
Figure 8.24: Top part of Materials dialog window.
Once the Parameter Determination Toolbox has been called, choose

Automatic and Interactive Selection (Fig. 8.25).
Figure 8.25: Running parameter estimation from the Parameter Determination

Toolbox.
In absence of further information, the following general soil description

should be introduced for Berlin sand (Fig. 8.26): Soil Behaviour Type:
189
Sand, Stress History: Normally Consolidated, Soil Density: Medium, Gra-

dation: Well-graded, Particle shape: Unknown and State: Humid. Then,
Figure 8.26: Basic soil setup for automatic estimation of HSS model parameters
describing Material 1.
Figure 8.27: Results of automatic parameter estimation for Material 1 (excerpt)

.
click on Run basic parameter selection. As the result, the screen illustrated in
Fig. 8.27 will appear containing estimates of soil parameters for HSS model,
according to general soil description we have defined. For each parameter,
the results of the Automatic estimation are given: minimum, mean and
maximum values, respectively. By default, the mean value are also pasted
into yellow fields. These values will be taken for further consideration, but
clearly the user may modify them values at any moment (for example by
carrying out the Interactive estimation). Click on Update and Exit, and the
parameter values which have been automatically estimated will be presented
in the Automatic and Interactive estimation column in the summary table
in the Parameter Determination Toolbox (Fig. 8.28).
In the Parameter Determination Toolbox check all estimated parameter val-

Figure 8.28: Parameter Determination Toolbox - summary of parameter values

estimated using different approaches.
ues in ”Interactive” column, and press User’s selection << Checked button
in order to update parameters in User’s selection column. Now leave the
Parameter Determination Toolbox by selecting File/Exit, and close Exit di-
alog box with OK button. Parameters which have been estimated have now
been attributed to Material number 1 in the Materials screen.
You may repeat the same actions for Material 2; the only change with
respect to Material 1 being Soil Density = Dense instead of Medium.
The following parameters describe structural elements.
Wall: for Material 3, select the third line in the list and press Modify. Modify
the label to: Wall, and click OK. In the Open dialog box next to Elastic,
enter E = 3 · 107 kN/m2 , and Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.15. In the Open dialog
box next to Unit weight, enter Weight / unit volume = 5 kN/m3 (difference
between concrete and soil unit weight) and click OK. In the Open dialog box
next to Cross section, set b = 1 m (analysis is plane strain) and h = 0.8 m
(wall thickness), then click OK.
Anchors: for Materials 4 and 6: in the Open dialog box next to Elastic,
enter Young modulus = 2.1 · 108 kN/m2 and click OK. In the Open dialog
box next to Geometry, set Area = 0.0015 m2 and Interval between anchors
= 2.3 m (for Material 4) or 1.35 m (for Material 6, according to Fig. 8.1).
Click OK.
Material line 5 corresponds to fixed anchor zone, we leave default parameters
assuming that the sealing resistance in sufficiently large during execution of
the real project.
Interface: Select Material line 7, disable the Flow check box (the wall is
191
considered impermeable) and then move to the Open dialog box next to
Nonlinear. Introduce effective strength parameters: cohesion c = 0 kPa and
friction angle φ = 28o . Finally, in order to limit penetration, move to the
Open dialog box next to Elastic, and set Kn multiplier = 0.05 (if no better
information is available) then click OK.
Material line 8 corresponds to seepage elements, and again, default param-
eters can be left.
Finally, the material describing to the hydraulic barrier should be specified.
First select material 2, and click on Add selected material to database. Then,
click on material 9, click on Modify, then on Take material from database
and select the last added material, corresponding to material 2. Then click
on Take selected material and click on OK. Material number 9 has now the
same parameters as the material number 2. Now move to Flow group, and
set Data mode = Load Function. Set kx0 load function = 3 and Ky0 load
function = 3. The load function which describes evolution of the material
permeability (its reduction) will be described below.
Click on OK to leave Materials screen.
8.2.5 Existence function definition
Existence functions define at which analysis step the model’s components

(excavated soil, wall, anchors) appear or disappear according to the con-
struction stages:
Step in model T Construction stage
1 Undeformed initial state
1 to 2 Construction of the retaining wall
2 to 3 Hydraulic barrier realization (reducing permeability of
material 9)
3 to 4 Excavation 1 with anchoring at 99% of unloading
6 to 7 Excavation 4 (bottom of the excavation achieved)
From the main window select Assembly/Existence function, and define ex-
istence functions as shown in Fig. 8.29.
8.2.6 Loading function definition
In this example load functions define the following phenomena: unloading

rate during element removal, dewatering or evolution of the permeability
coefficients.
In order to define the loading functions, select Assembly/Load function from

Figure 8.29: Defining existence functions for the deep excavation problem.
the main window menu.
Figure 8.30: Defining unloading function associated with excavation stages (re-
moval of initial material elelements).
193
Figure 8.31: Load function associated with dewatering.
Figure 8.32: Load function associated with evolution of permeability coefficient

value.
Unloading due to excavation: Function number 1 is associated with ex-

cavation zone 1, 2, 3 and 4. Set its label to unloading and click on Modify.
Set values as shown in Fig. 8.30. Setting Shift origin to elem. deactivation
time will automatically create unloading function for excavation stage 1, 2,
3 and 4. Point 0.25, 0.5 and 0.75 in load function definition will force addi-
tional time steps in analysis in order to take into account unloading effects.

8.3. CALCULATION
Function number 2 is associated with pressure head boundary condition on

the left side of the model. Set its name to dewatering and click on Modify.
Set values as shown in Fig. 8.31.
Create the 3rd load function which will be associated with material 9 per-
meability. Define load function 3 according to Fig. 8.32.
8.3 Calculation
Figure 8.33: Analysis computing in progress.
Once the data input phase has been completed, launch the computing by
selecting Analysis/Run analysis. The calculation module window will appear
and the calculation progress can be followed.
8.4 Post-processing
When the calculation is finished, launch the post-processor from the main
window menu Results/Postprocessing.
First, let’s analyze the field of displacement vectors under Graph options/
Displacement vectors (Fig. 8.34).
In order to visualize color maps, first select Graph option/Maps and then
chose the content of the results to display with Settings/graph contents.
For instance, in this window, we can select Nodal quantities to visualize
displacements. Graphical settings can be adjusted here. Once a variable
195
Figure 8.34: Deep excavation problem: displacement vectors at time T = 7 (bot-

tom of the excavation achieved).
Figure 8.35: Deep excavation problem: field of horizontal displacements at time

T = 7 (bottom of the excavation achieved).
has been selected, it is possible to switch among the computed steps using
”+” and ”-” keys to see the evolution with time in the overall domain. For
example horizontal displacements are represented in Fig. 8.35.
Sections can also be made through Graph options/Sectional quantities, see
Fig. 8.36 for normal displacements along two sections defined under Sec-
tions/Sec. Planes 2D and Setting/Graph Contents menus.
Bending moments, anchor forces, earth pressures can also be visualized by
choosing the corresponding Graph. Option menu: MNT for beams/anchors/...
(see Fig. 8.37) or Contact stress diagrams.
Finally, we can compare quantitative results like the maximal horizontal

8.4. POST-PROCESSING
Figure 8.36: Using sections to visualize nodal quantities: normal displacements at

time T = 7.
Figure 8.37: Deep excavation: bending moments in the retaining wall at the final
stage of excavation, T = 7.
displacement of the wall or the surface settlement behind the wall with field
measurements, or reference solutions. The wall horizontal displacement had
been measured in situ, and Fig. 8.39 compares the finite element computed
horizontal displacement with the actual one.
Fig. 8.40 compares the model prediction of the surface settlement behind
the wall with the reference computed solution given in Schweiger (2002), as
no in situ measurement is known to be available for this experiment.
The predictions obtained using ZSOIL using the first guess of parameter
values (automatically estimated parameters) are found to be globally close
to measurements and computed reference solution, and could of course
197
Figure 8.38: Deep excavation: normal forces in the retaining wall and pre-stressed
anchors at the final stage of excavation, T = 7.
be refined if more geotechnical data were available (detailed geotechnical

report, laboratory test results, etc.).

Figure 8.39: Computed deflection of the retaining wall deflection vs. the measured
one (Schweiger, 2002).
Figure 8.40: Settlement behind wall (computed and reference solution (Schweiger,
2002)).
199
References
Obrzud, R. and Truty, A. (2012). The hardening-soil model, a practical
guidebook (revised 31.09.2014). Technical Report ZSoil report 100701,
Zace Services Ltd, Lausanne.
Schweiger, H. (2002). Benchmarking in geotechnics. Technical Report

CGG-IR006-2002, Graz University of Technology, Austria.

Chapter 9
3D TUTORIAL: CONCRETE BOX

CONTAINER
Contents

9.2 Data preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
9.2.2 Pre-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
9.2.2.1 Macro-model: creation of the right of the
model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
9.2.2.2 Macro-model: creation of the container . . 207
9.2.2.3 Macro-model: creation of the left part of
the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
9.2.2.4 Macro-model: creation of subsoil below the
container . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
9.2.2.5 Macro model: setting existence function
for continuum 3D subdomains . . . . . . . 210
9.2.2.6 Macro model: creation of interface ele-
ments between container and fill . . . . . . 210
9.2.2.7 Macro model: water inside the container . 211
9.2.2.8 Creating the FE mesh and setting bound-
ary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
9.2.3 Definition of analysis and driver types . . . . . . . . 212
201
CHAPTER 9. 3D TUTORIAL: CONCRETE BOX CONTAINER
9.2.4 Definition of material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

9.2.5 Definition of existence function . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
9.2.6 Definition of loading function . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
9.3 Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
9.4 Post-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
9.5 Updating initial project assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
9.5.1 Updating the geometry of excavation . . . . . . . . . 221
9.5.2 Updating material properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
9.5.3 Dividing excavation stage into two substeps . . . . . 224
9.5.4 Introducing shotcrete wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
9.5.5 Introducing nail elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

9.1. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
9.1 Problem Description
This example concerns modeling of an excavation followed then by a con-

struction of a reinforced concrete shell container. Geometry of the model
is shown in Fig. 9.1. Thank to symmetry with respect to the X-Y plane,
the size of the boundary value problem can be reduced, and a half of the
problem can be considered. After the excavation stage, a two-chamber con-
tainer is built and a trial water pressure load is imposed, first in the left, and
then in the right chamber. Finally, the room between the external walls of
the container and the excavation is filled with soil.
Figure 9.1: Concrete box container - problem description.
9.2 Data preparation
9.2.1 Project creation
When starting ZSOIL program, set the following preferences for the new
project:
203
Analysis type : 3D
Problem type : Deformation
Unit system : Standard
Version type : Basic
The preferences window can be recalled and the project preferences can be
modified at any time from the context menu Control/Project preselection.
Note that there is no obligation to set preferences, however it may facilitate
further data input.
Save the project with File/Save As... and specify the project name as
Ex 9 1 3D-container.inp. It is highly recommended to regularly save the
project using Ctrl+S.
9.2.2 Pre-processing
Run the geometrical preprocessor by selecting menu option
Assembly/Preprocessing or icon. At the beginning, continuum

3D elements inside a left part of the container will be created. Define
construction lines as shown in Fig. 9.2.
Figure 9.2: Macro model: defining construction lines.
9.2.2.1 Macro-model: creation of the right of the model
Select Macro Model/Point/Create.../Cube option from the method list sit-

uated in the right part of the screen or option available in Draw panel, and

create a cuboid which corresponds to the fill of container’s chamber (see

Fig. 9.3).
Figure 9.3: Macro model: container envelope.
Select all object (Ctrl+A) and move to Macro Model/Subdomain/3D Con-

tinuum/3D Continuum on B8 skeleton.
Now, select the face on the right using the face selection tool , and use
Macro Model/Subdomain/3D Continuum/3D Continuum by Face(s) extru-
sion method with vector (2 0 0). Unselect all faces , select face on the
right side of newly created continuum 3D subdomain and create next sub-
domain by extrusion with vector (14 0 0).
Press CTRL-F to optimize zoom with the newly created objects.
Rotate the domain with the hand tool in order to see the back faces.
Unselect all faces , select three back faces. Create next subdomains by
extrusion with the vector (0 0 −2). Repeat operation for next three faces
with the vector (0 0 −14). Press CTRL-F to optimize zoom with the newly
created objects(see Fig. 9.4)
Move to Macro Model/Point/[Un] Select one object and pick four points at
top level with X coordinate equal 6 m. Use Macro Model/Point/Move Point
method with vector (4 0 0). Unselect all object and select four nodes with Z
coordinate equal −4 m. Use Macro Model/Point/Move Point method with
the vector (0 0 −4). See Fig. 9.6 for details.
Select all objects (CTRL-A). Use Macro Model/Subdomain/Parameters in
order to set its initial material to 2. Then use Unselect all from Global
selection tools panel.
Now use the Mesh/Create virtual mesh option and pick successively the 9
205
Figure 9.4: Macro model: creating subdomain using face extrusion.
Figure 9.5: Macro model: creating subdomains by extrusions in Z direction.
continuum 3D subdomains to define the split as shown in Fig. 9.7. Press

Close button.
Remarks::
- As long as Adjust split to existing meshed Subdomains checkbox is on, if

possible, the preprocessor will keep the split compatibility between adja-

Figure 9.6: Macro model: forming slopes of excavation by points translation.
Figure 9.7: Macro model: Creating the virtual split for 3D continuum.
cent subdomains
9.2.2.2 Macro-model: creation of the container
Select two subdomain faces (see Fig. 9.8). Use Macro Model/Subdomain/
3D Shell/3D Shell on face(s) to create shells (2). Set their existence function
207
= 3 and thickness to 0.2 m.

Then pick subdomain inside container faces (3) and hide it by Hide
selected elements (4). Select next two subdomain faces (5) and create two
shell subdomains (6) with existence function = 3 and thickness 0.2 m.
Shell direction is indicated by a black bar in the middle of each subdomain.
Use Update.../Reverse direction option in order to make all of them point
outwards.
Figure 9.8: Macro model: Defining the virtual split and the normal direction for
shells.

9.2.2.3 Macro-model: creation of the left part of the model
Create Auxiliary plane by selecting icon from Draw panel (see Fig. 9.9). Se-
lect all objects (CTRL-A), use Macro Model/Subdomain/Copy by symmetry
and pick created auxiliary plane in order to complete the action. Then use
Unselect all from Global selection tools panel.
Figure 9.9: Macro model: creating the left part of the model using copy by sym-
metry.
9.2.2.4 Macro-model: creation of subsoil below the container
Set the orthogonal camera and the XY projection in View panel. Hide Shell
subdomains in Visibility window. Use Select faces in zoom box option from
Edges/Faces sel. panel and drag with mouse from left to the right in order
to create box containing faces at bottom part of the model (see Fig. 9.10).
Create Continuum 3D subdomain with option Macro Model/Subdomain/3D
Continuum/3D Continuum by Face(s) extrusion. Define vector (0 −12 0),
check on Create virtual mesh and define Split = 9. Close dialog box using
Apply button.
209
Figure 9.10: Macro model: creating subsoil below the container by face extrusion.
9.2.2.5 Macro model: setting existence function for continuum 3D

subdomains
A proper existence function for the container has been already set while
creating the shell subdomains.
Move to Update.../Parameters in order to set existence function = 1 for

the two subdomains inside the container, as well as existence function = 2
and first replacement material = 3 for the six subdomains surrounding the
container (see Fig. 9.11).
9.2.2.6 Macro model: creation of interface elements between con-

tainer and fill
Select the 2 soil subdomains inside the container with , and hide them
with button which is located on the left hand side of the screen. More-
over, hide the shell subdomains with CTRL-D.
Select three lateral faces around the container with the button, and move
to Macro Model/Interface/Create/On Continuum Subd. face(s) method. In
the opening dialog box, define Attribute = Contact with existence function
= 4, and material = 4 and press Modify. Leave ”Automatic generation...”
checkbox on, and click OK (see Fig. 9.12). Move to Selections/Unselect
all Windows menu.

Figure 9.11: Macro model: setting existence functions for excavation.
Figure 9.12: Macro model: setting existence functions for excavation.
9.2.2.7 Macro model: water inside the container
First, unhide shell subdomains with CTRL-D. Also, hide the continuum sub-
domains with CTRL-H.
Move to Macro Model/Interface/Outline.../All and hide them using but-
ton. Select 3 faces with normal pointing outwards of the left container using
211
button (Fig. 9.13).

Move to Macro Model/Surface Load/PRESSURE via fluid head/On selected
faces (SH), and set Fluid head = 1 m, Load function = 2 and Orienta-
tion coincides with external normal. Press OK button, and select Selec-
tions/Unselect all Windows menu.
Repeat the same for the middle wall of the left container, setting Fluid head
= 1 m, Load function = 2 and this time Orientation opposite to external
normal. Press OK button, and select Selections/Unselect all Windows menu.
Repeat the same for all four walls of the right container, i.e. setting Fluid
head = 1 m, Load function = 1 and Orientation coincides to external normal.
Press OK button, and select Selections/Unselect all Windows menu.
Finally, restore all hidden subdomains using button located inVisibility
window and show the continuum subdomains.
Figure 9.13: Macro model: applying water pressure inside the container.
9.2.2.8 Creating the FE mesh and setting boundary conditions
Move to Macro Model/Subdomain/Outline.../all and then to Mesh/Virtual

-> real mesh.
Move to FE Model/Boundary Conditions/Solid BC/On box. Press CTRL-F.
Now, you may exit the graphical preprocessor and save your model (File/Save
model and return to main menu, and answer Yes).
9.2.3 Definition of analysis and driver types
The sequence of the analysis consists of an initial state analysis, followed by

excavation, construction and loading stages.

Figure 9.14: Finite element mesh and boundary conditions.
Figure 9.15: Dialog window for driver type definition.
Go to Control/Analysis & Drivers. For the initial state driver, enter 1 for
Ini. load factor (initial), Fin. load factor (final) and Increment. In order to
define a time dependent process, under Driver, select Time dependent and
leave Driven Load for the driver Type. Set Time start = 0, Time end = 7,
time Increment = 1 and Multiplier = 1.0. You should end up with the final
setup as shown in Fig. 9.15.
Control whether the analysis type is defined as 3D, and set the problem type
as Deformation.
213
9.2.4 Definition of material
Figure 9.16: Dialog window for material definition.
In order to define material parameters select Assembly/Materials from the

main window; the dialog window Material will then appear (see Fig. 9.16).
Now, you can specify the material properties according to Table 9.1.
Table 9.1: Container - material properties to be set.

No Material Mat. form- Unit weight Elastic Nonlinear
Name ulation
1 Container Shell γ = 24 kN/m3 E = 30 GN/m2 -
ν = 0.20
2 In situ soil Mohr- γ = 20 kN/m3 E = 60 MN/m2 φ = 20o
Coulomb ν = 0.32 c = 15 kPa
3 Fill Mohr- γ = 20 kN/m3 E = 60 MN/m2 φ = 20o
Coulomb ν = 0.32 c = 15 kPa
4 Interface Contact - φ = 5o
c = 0 kPa

9.2.5 Definition of existence function
Existence functions define at which analysis step the model components

(excavated soil, container, filling, interface) appear or disappear accord-
ing to the construction progress. From the main window select Assem-
bly/Existence functions, and the define existence functions as shown in Fig.
9.17.
Figure 9.17: Definition of existence functions.
9.2.6 Definition of loading function
In order to define the loading functions, select Assembly/Load functions

from the main window menu. Function number 1 is associated with the
load of the chamber at right, whereas function number 2 with the load of
the left chamber. Define load functions as shown in Fig. 9.18.
215
Figure 9.18: Definition of load functions.

9.3. COMPUTING
9.3 Computing
Once the data input has been accomplished, computing can be run by Anal-
ysis/Run analysis. The calculation module window will appear and the cal-
culation progress can be followed.
Figure 9.19: Calculation progress while computing.
9.4 Post-processing
Once the computing has terminated, run the post-processor from the main
window menu Results/Postprocessing.
In order to visualize color maps, first select Graph option/Maps. Displace-
ment intensities for the last computed time step (T = 7) are plotted (see
Fig. 9.20). It is possible to switch among the calculation steps using key-
board keys + and − to observe the changes in the whole domain over the
time increments.
Move to Graph option/Deformed Mesh, then to Time/Select Current Time
217
Figure 9.20: Absolute displacement intensities at the last time step (T=7).
Step, set T=4, and finally set Time/Select Reference Time Step Tref =3.
You can then adjust amplification of the deformed mesh using Page Down
and Page Up keys, hide continuity elements (which are present before inter-
face elements appear at time T=6) with K key, and show the applied loads
with L key.
You can zoom the model using located in the upper toolbar, and move
in the domain using (rotation) or Ctrl- (translation). In order to come
back to the global view press Ctrl-F.
As the result, Fig. 9.21 represents the deformed configuration of the con-
tainer due to right chamber loading (∆T=T4-T3).
In order to visualize color maps which contain bending moments, first a local
coordinate system shoul be define. Move to Settings/Local coord. System
for/shells-membranes-contact and define direction as Global axis Y. In this
way, XX direction is defined as the projection of the vertical axis on every
shell element, and XX moment is the one which bends around this axis.
Finally, move to Graph option/Maps, then to Settings/Graph Contents and
select Results for Elements: Shells/Membranes, Moment XX (see Fig. 9.22).
The bending moments can also be presented as a sectional quantity, for

example a cut in the middle of the right chamber (see Fig. 9.23). To do so,
move to Graph option/Sectional Quantities, then to Sections/Sec. Planes
(3D) and to Point and Vector.
Set Point = (2; 4; -2) and Vector = (1; 0; 0), and press on Add. Then
move to Settings/Graph Contents and select Results for Elements: Shells/
Membranes, Moment, Component: TT.
Remarks::
- For sections, bending moments are always drawn on the side of structural
element which is subject to tensile stress, and regardless the sign of the

Figure 9.21: Deformed mesh due to loading applied in the right chamber.
Figure 9.22: Color map for bending moment XX developed due to loading applied
in the right chamber.
moment.
Now, you can show interface elements using the shortcut key K, and hide
shell elements with D key.
219
Figure 9.23: In-plane bending moment M-TT.
Move to Time/Select Current Time Step, set T=7, then to Time/Unselect

Reference Time Step, and finally go to Settings/Graph Contents and select
Results for Elements: Contact, Effective stress, component = Sig n.
As the result, Fig. 9.24 represents the normal stress at the interface between
the container and fill.
9.5 Updating initial project assumptions
It has been demonstrated that the excavation of soil assuming 45o slope
inclination in a cohesive material does not reveal instability. Let’s assume
now that the project assumption has changed as follows:
• soil’s cohesion is lower and equal to 5 kPa
• due to some circumstances the excavation should be carried out as a

vertical cut instead of previous assumption of 45o slope inclination.
You will see in the following pages how to update geometry and material
parameters, how to proceed the excavation in two substeps, and finally, how
to add shotcrete and nails in order to stabilize the vertical excavation walls.

9.5. UPDATING INITIAL PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS
Figure 9.24: Normal stresses at the interface elements at the last time step (T=7).
9.5.1 Updating the geometry of excavation
Save the project with File/Save As... and rename the project to Ex 9 2 3D-
container vertical.inp. Run the preprocessor by selecting menu option As-
sembly/Preprocessing.
Hide the real mesh with F-key and use tool, CTRL- and the mouse
wheel in order to rotate and zoom the model.
In order to modify the excavation geometry, use Macro Model/Point/ Up-

date.../Set Point’s position. If needed, you can hide or show 3D subdomains
with J-key. Click twice on each of the four nodes shown in Fig. 9.25, and set
their new coordinates as indicated. Select the 6 subdomains as shown in
Fig. 9.26, using tool. Move to Macro Model/Subdomain/Mesh/Remove
real mesh. Next go to Macro Model/Subdomain/Mesh/Virtual − > Real
mesh.
You can control whether the finite element mesh has been updated using F
key.
Remarks::
• Finite elements inherit the properties of their parent subdomain. Since

the 6 updated subdomains properties have not been changed, there is no
221
Figure 9.25: Updating point coordinates.
Figure 9.26: Selecting the subdomains which require remeshing.
need to redefine existence functions for the newly created elements.

Finally, update boundary conditions with FE Model/Boundary Conditions/

Solid BC/Create.../On box, exit the graphical preprocessor and save the
project.
9.5.2 Updating material properties
Move to Assembly/Materials, and modify the cohesion value from 15 to 5

kPa for the Material no. 2.
Then move to Analysis/Run Analysis. Calculation should fail at time T=2.

Move to Results/Postprocessing and select Graph Option/Maps. Hide conti-
nuity elements with K-key, and notice that displacement color map indicates
a failure of the vertical cut, as presented in Fig. 9.27.
Figure 9.27: Failure of the non-reinforced vertical cut.
It can be easily concluded that the excavation cannot be carried out without
any additional countermeasure. In the next parts of this chapter, you will
see how to divide the excavation stage into two substeps. In addition,
introducing shotcrete wall and nail elements will be demonstrated.
223
9.5.3 Dividing excavation stage into two substeps
Run the geometrical preprocessor and use Ctrl-B in order to hide boundary
conditions.
Click on the Continuum 3D elements selection tool as indicated by the
red arrow in Fig. 9.28. Move to Selection rule... Existence function
and select EF=1, then click New selection (↑). Then repeat for Selection
rule...Existence function and select EF=2, then click Add (↑ +) to complete
the selection of any 3D element with associated existence function. Finally,
press Inverse selection, and Select listed elements (those without attributed
EF, i.e. EF=0) and Close the dialog. All elements located outside the ex-
cavation area should be selected (red contours).
Figure 9.28: Selecting elements through their existence functions.
Hide selected elements with icon marked with the red rectangle in Fig.
9.28. Hide nodes and construction lines with Visibility dialog box (see Fig.
9.29).
In order to show the existence function associated with each visible element,
move to the list located in Visibility dialog box, and in Display color for se-
lect Existence function.
Then, select the XY projection, in an orthogonal view, with icons located
in View panel, and select the first four rows of elements with the FE
Model/Continuum 3D/Outline.../In zoom box option, as shown in Fig. 9.29.
Next, hide selected elements.
Select the Continuum 3D selection tool as indicated in Fig. 9.28. Move to
Selection rule... Existence function, select Existence Function=1, and press

Figure 9.29: Selecting rows of elements using the orthogonal view.
Figure 9.30: Control view of the existance functions associated with two excava-
tion stages.
Add (↑ +). Then press Select to highlight listed elements and Close to close
the dialog. Next, move to FE Model/Continuum 3D/Update.../Parameters
and attribute Existence Function =5 to the selected continuum elements.
Repeat similar steps for the bottom excavation stage. Press again the
Continuum 3D selection tool (Fig. 9.28). Move to Selection rule... Ex-
istence function and select 2, then click Change (↑) (and not Add (↑
+)!). Next, press Select in order to highlight listed elements. Move to
225
FE Model/Continuum 3D/Update.../Parameters, and set Existence Func-

tion=6 for highlighted continuum elements.
Make elements visible using located in Visibility window; you should get
existence function associated with the continuum elements as shown in Fig.
9.30.
You can now exit the graphical preprocessor and save your work (File/Save
model and return to main menu).
Figure 9.31: Preview of existence functions after updating.
Select Assembly/Existence functions from the main window in order to de-

fine the existence functions (Fig. 9.31):
- EF 5: [0; 1.5]
- EF 6: [0; 1.5 and 6; INF]
Then move to Analysis/Run Analysis and run a control computing. Calcu-
lations should converge at time T=1.5 (first excavation stage) and diverged
at time T=2 (after the second excavation stage). Lack of a retaining wall
results in failure, and therefore, 20 cm-shotcrete layer will be introduced in
the next step.

9.5.4 Introducing shotcrete wall
Run the geometrical preprocessor. Use Ctrl-B to hide boundary conditions,

and tool, or CTRL- and the mouse wheel in order to rotate and zoom
the model, respectively.
Click on the Continuum 3D elements selection tool as indicated by the red

arrow in Fig. 9.28. Move to Selection rule...Existence function and select
0:Permanent (elements without prescribed existence function). Then create
new selection by (↑) and press Inverse in order to Select all continuum
elements with a specified existence function.
No you can hide selected elements with icon and hide nodes (N-key),
hide construction lines (Ctrl-G), shells (D-key), interfaces (I-key) and sub-
domains (J-key).
Then using (one by one) or (faces between two points) icons, select
the four first rows of faces, according to Fig. 9.32.
Figure 9.32: Selecting faces in order to create shell elements which represent short-
crete.
Create shells by FE Model/Shell One Layer/Create.../On face(s) and spec-

ify Initial material=5 and Existence function =7. Then move to Selec-
tions/Unselect All.
Repeat the same for the bottom part of the excavation and define Initial
227
material=5 and Existence function=8 for shell elements.
Figure 9.33: Defining thickness of shell elements (shotcrete).
Make shells visible by pressing D-key, and Select all Shell one layer ele-
ments in order to define their thickness using FE Model/Shell one layer/
Update.../Thickness and set T h = 0.20 m (Fig. 9.33).
Now, you can exit the graphical preprocessor and save your work.
You can now define the Existence functions for the shell elements which
represent the shotcrete wall as follows:
- EF 7: [1.5; INF]
- EF 8: [2; INF]
Then you can specify the material properties of the shotcrete wall in the
Material dialog.
No Material Mat. formulation Unit weight Elastic

5 Shotcrete Shell γ = 24 kN/m3 E = 10 GN/m2
ν = 0.20
Once the shotcrete characteristics have been specified you can Run Analysis.
The computing should terminate at T=7 with a relatively large number of
iterations at T=2 due to a larger increment of plastic deformations occurring
in the soil at this stage during the second, deeper excavation.
Now you can control the results by running Postprocessing and Graph Op-
tion/Maps. Move to Time/Select Current Time Step, set T=2 (end of the

Figure 9.34: Displacement intensities for the vertical retained with the shotcrete
retaining wall at the end of excavation (T=2).
second part of the excavation), hide interface elements K, and notice that
displacement color maps indicate the maximal displacements intensities of
3.7 cm for the lateral displacements of the shotcrete wall, as well as the
settlements behind the wall, as shown in Fig. 9.34.
Perhaps, the obtained order of magnitude of displacements is not acceptable
by project requirements and one would like to improve the retaining system.
In the following section, it will be demonstrated that the settlements and
horizontal displacements can be considerably reduced with the aid of nailing.
9.5.5 Introducing nail elements
Run the geometrical preprocessor and hide the following group of elements:
boundary conditions CTRL-B, volumetric elements H, nodes N, and macro
model J.
Move to Macro model/Nail/Create.../Enter XYZ for 2 points and set Point
1 (-5.4; 3.2; -4) and Point 2 (-5.4; 1.5; -8.7). Then leave default options
for the created nails, i.e. Nail material = 6, Nail-soil interface material=7
and Split/Number of segments=5. Finally, set Existence function = 7 (the
same EF as shotcrete for the upper part of the excavation).
Then select all nails Outline.../all and apply Copy with translation.
Set Direction = (0; -1; 0), Step size = 0.6 and Number of steps = 1.
229
Select again all nails and click on Copy with translation.

Set Direction = (1; 0; 0), Step size = 1.2 and Number of steps = 9.
Figure 9.35: Creating new nails by copying with translation.
Figure 9.36: Attaching heads of nail elements to shells and visualization of linked
heads.
Next select again all nails, and move to Macro model/Nail/Update.../Link

Nail head, tick Link head with and select list of elements to which the nails
will be attached, here Visible elements, and apply linking using Link button
(see Fig. 9.36).
You can always control whether there is no unattached nail using Out-
line.../Without linked head.
Remarks::
• The Points which define geometry of Nail elements do not have coincide

with the nodes defining shell elements (shotcrete). On the other hand,
Points which define the nail head should be aligned with the surface of
shell elements.
• The number of segments in the nail element should be adapted to the

mesh size, i.e. the length of a segment should be approximately equal to
length of the volumetric elements which surround the nail element
You can now exit the graphical preprocessor and save your work.
In order to define parameters which describes behavior of nails, go to As-
sembly/Materials and define the parameters as follows:
No Material Mat. formulation Elastic Geometry

6 Nails Nail E= 200 GN/m2 Section: Plane circular
ν = 0.20 Diameter: D = 0.032 m
Temporarily, leave material number 7 (soil-nail interface) unchanged with

infinite ultimate shear resistance.
Then Run Analysis. The computing should converge at time T = 7.

Run Postprocessing and go to Graph Option/Maps. Move to Time/Select
Current Time Step, set T = 2 (end of excavation), hide interface elements
K, and notice that now displacement color maps indicate the maximal dis-
placements intensities of 1 cm instead 3.7 cm.
231

Chapter 10
STRUCTURES
Contents
10.1 Trusses, Anchors, Cables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

10.1.1 Truss data under plane strain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
10.2 Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
10.2.1 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
10.2.2 Adjusting beams to tunnel shapes . . . . . . . . . . 239
10.2.3 Offsetting stiffness of beams to match real tunnel axis 240
10.2.4 Hinges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
10.2.5 Cross-section geometry and materials . . . . . . . . 243
10.3 Membranes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
10.3.1 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
10.3.2 Illustration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
10.4 Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
10.4.1 Elastic simply supported uniformly loaded square plate247
10.4.2 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
10.4.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
10.4.4 Postprocessing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
10.4.5 Elasto-plastic square plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
233
CHAPTER 10. STRUCTURES
10.4.5.2 Geometry and load . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

10.4.5.3 Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
10.4.5.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
10.5 Shells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
10.5.1 A simple example: stairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
10.5.2 Hemispherical shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
10.5.2.2 Geometry, load and boundary conditions . . 255
10.5.2.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
10.5.2.4 Hinges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

10.1. TRUSSES, ANCHORS, CABLES
10.1 Trusses, Anchors, Cables

Truss type elements have been discussed in details in Section 2. Trusses are
typically used in ZSOIL to model truss structures (see Chapter Section 2),
reinforcement bars when defined explicitly (reinforced concrete cross sections
are defined on the material level, see material/beams), anchors (see Section
8), pre-stressing using initial stresses, and other cable systems, which are
modeled as ”non-compressive” truss structures.
10.1.1 Truss data under plane strain
Figure 10.1: Selection of Truss material formulation.
Select Truss under Assembly/Materials. Trusses require specification of the

elastic modulus E, the weight/unit volume γ if the gravity load is important,
the mass/unit mass ρ, for dynamics. The cross-section A has to be specified
too and, in the 2D plane strain case, the distance between bars, say d. The
resulting cross-section/ m is then computed as A/d.
Prestressing, if needed, is specified on elements, in the graphical preproces-
sor, it can be associated with a load function to control a time-dependent
amplitude and an existence function to control the moment and of prestress-
235
Figure 10.2: Elastic and weight truss data.
Figure 10.3: Geometric truss data.
ing.

10.1. TRUSSES, ANCHORS, CABLES
Figure 10.4: Data input for defining a pre-stressed truss.
Figure 10.5: Cable specification.
Cables are modeled as ”non-compressive” material, this means that yield

stress in compression is set to 0 (fc = 0).
Anchors are modeled as trusses which can be attached to a structural

element or to a continuum, see Section 8 for an application.
237
10.2 Beams
Beams are very common in construction, typically in frame structures (Fig.

10.6).
Figure 10.6: Frame structure.
There are three beam formulations in ZSOIL, in 2D and in 3D: a displacement-

based formulation, a more efficient and computationally more expensive flex-
ibility formulation; both are appropriate for structural analysis. The third
one is based on a continuum formulation, useful in particular for beams
embedded in soil. The first two formulations correspond to one-dimensional
structural elements in 2D or 3D, the continuum formulation, which is re-
stricted to linear elasticity, has the same dimension as the continuum, 2D
or 3D.
Flexibility based element allow most of the time the use of a single frame
element per structural member, except the case when the load discretization
requires more elements; the corresponding solution (max. M values) is
exact in the linear case, while displacement based elements require mesh
refinement to reach an approximation of the exact solution, see Fig. 10.7.
The use of continuum as structural elements would require excessive mesh
refinement to reach satisfactory results. An enhanced formulation, restricted
to linear elasticity, is however available in ZSOIL. The performance of the
formulation is illustrated with a cantilever beam in Fig. 10.8. The exact
solution is Mz = 8 kNm/m.
Remarks:
- Superconvergent patch recovery is used at the postprocessing level; that

is why Standard Q4 elements results are still acceptable in bending mode
- To activate enhanced continuum select Materials/Continuum for struc-

tures
- Continuum for structures allows only linear elastic constitutive behavior
- At least 2 elements are needed to model thickness (see Fig. 10.8)

10.2. BEAMS
Figure 10.7: Comparison of flexibility and displacement based beam elements.
10.2.1 Geometry
Geometrical input is similar to truss type elements and will not be discussed
here, except for chosen issues.
10.2.2 Adjusting beams to tunnel shapes
This type of situation is often encountered in underground construction.

Firstly let us construct the tunnel shape, notice that all operations are done
on the macro level. Open the graphical preprocessor and move to Macro
Model/Objects/Create Line/By 2 Points. Click successively on the follow-
ing points: (0; 2), (0; 0), (4; 0) and (4; 2) (by default, Continue option
should be on). Then move to Macro Model/Objects/Create Arc and click
successively on the arc’s center, start and end points: (2; 2), (0; 2) and (4;
2) (by default, clockwise option should be on), see Fig. 10.9.
Now, we match beam elements to the constructed shape, with Macro
Model/Objects/Outline/All, and then Macro Model/Subdomain/Create/
Beam On Object(s).
Use Macro Model/Subdomain/Update/Reverse X axis to change local x axis
239
Figure 10.8: Performance of continuum elements used as beams.
direction, which should not change when circulating around a closed contour,
to avoid spurious output when postprocessing stress resultant diagrams. Use
MacroModel/Subdomain/Update/Reverse direction to change local y axis
orientation which points towards the upper fiber of the beam cross section.
Use MacroModel/Subdomain/Create virtual mesh to create discretization
and later MacroModel/Subdomain/virtual to real mesh.
Remarks:
- Split will preserve correct geometry
10.2.3 Offsetting stiffness of beams to match real tunnel

axis
As beam models are 1-dimensional, offsetting them to match the real tunnel
axis may be needed, Fig. 10.11.
10.2.4 Hinges
Hinges can be defined at both ends of the elements, in local coordinates,

independently on x and/or y displacements (local), and/or on the rotation
(Fig. 10.12).

10.2. BEAMS
Figure 10.9: Creating a tunnel shape.
Figure 10.10: Constructing a beam model on an existing shape.
Use FE model/Beam/Update/Hinge.
Remarks:
- Hinges are available for both the displacement and the flexibility formu-
lation.
Hinges can be defined at both ends of the elements, in local coordinates,
241
Figure 10.11: Offsetting stiffness of beams.
Figure 10.12: Definition of hinges in beam elements.
independently on x and/or y displacements (local), and/or on the rotation

(Fig. 10.12). Several formulations are available, see theoretical and bench-

10.2. BEAMS
mark manuals.
10.2.5 Cross-section geometry and materials
Steel profiles data bases are available in ZSOIL, see Fig. 10.13. Users
can select beams cross-sections from Assembly/Materials/Add/Continuum
& structure type = Beams/Geometry/Type = Profiles.
Figure 10.13: Pre-defined profiles.
Nonlinear beam cross-sections are defined as layered beams: use Assem-

bly/Materials/Add/ Assembly/Materials/Add/Continuum & structure type
= Beams (switch on Non linear checkbox)/Geometry. Activation of Non
linear will activate the Layers editor button (Fig. 10.14).
Shear correction factor κ accounts for non-uniform shear stress distribution
over the beam’s section. According to Timoshenko theory, κ is the ratio
between the average shear strain and the shear strain at the section’s cen-
troid. In ZSOIL, this factor is automatically computed, and Ay = κA is
the shear section area (Fig. 10.15). For massive homogeneous sections, κ
is approximately equal to 5/6, though it depends on Poisson ratio.
Activation of the Layered cross section check box will enable definition of
the core material properties and definition of additional layers. Edit material
opens the Material definition for layered cross section (Fig. 10.16).
Layer material can be defined as linear, elastoplastic, or user-defined, see
Fig. 10.17 and Fig. 10.18.
243
Figure 10.14: Layers editor button.
Figure 10.15: Shear correction factor in 2D
10.3 Membranes
Membranes are structural elements which have only in-plane stiffness, they
have many applications in civil engineering and ZSOIL supports many of
them: as stabilizing elements for steep slopes, as reinforcement in road
construction, as reinforcement of concrete structures or sometimes as stan-

10.3. MEMBRANES
Figure 10.16: Definition of a layer for beam material.
Figure 10.17: Material definition.
dalone structural elements. In most applications membranes will be as-

sociated with a supporting object, e.g. a continuum. To create such
membranes use Preprocessing/Macro model/Objects/Outline first and then
Macro model/Subdomain/Create/2D Membrane on Object(s).
245
Figure 10.18: Fiber constitutive laws.
10.3.1 Materials
Three types of membranes are distinguished at this level, the anistropic

one requiring 3 stiffness components (Kxx , Kyy , Kxy ) defined in local
coordinates and tensile and compressive strengths in 2 orthogonal directions
(ftx , fty , fcx , fcy ).
10.3.2 Illustration
An application of membranes as slope reinforcement is Ex 10 1 rfsslope.inp.

Typical results are shown below, Fig. 10.19.
10.4 Plates
ZSOIL uses shell elements both for plates and shells simulations. Mindlin’s,
so-called, thick plate theory, which includes shear, serves as theoretical ba-
sis in ZSOIL. The type of applications addressed by ZSOIL justifies this
approach.

10.4. PLATES
Figure 10.19: Slope reinforcement with geotextile membranes.
10.4.1 Elastic simply supported uniformly loaded square

plate
Linear analysis of plates, if no soil is present, is done under:
- Preferences/3D/structures
- Analysis and Drivers/Time dependent/Driven Load/1 step
One step is sufficient as the problem is linear, as illustrated below in Fig.

10.20.
Figure 10.20: Driver setup for analyzing the loaded plate problem.
10.4.2 Geometry
To create geometrical data open the preprocessor and proceed as follows:
- FE model/Node/create: create 4 corner nodes
- FE model/Shell one layer/QUAD on 4 nodes: on corner nodes
- FE model/Shell one layer/Update/thickness: select and apply 0.3 m.
- FE model/Shell one layer/Split: select and apply n x n refinement of your

choice
- FE model/Node/outline between 2 nodes: select boundary
247
Figure 10.21: Plate geometry and boundary conditions, n x n elements, n=10.
- FE model/Boundary conditions/Solid BC/ Add BC: set displacements x,

y, z
The best approximation to thin plate theory, which neglects shear, will be
obtained by blocking not only displacements but also boundary torsions as
follows (Fig. 10.22). In graphical preprocessor:
- Block rotation around z, normal to boundary on edges AB and CD, use

FE Model/Boundary Conditions/Soild BC/ Add BC
- Block rotation around x, normal to boundary on edges BC and AD
Figure 10.22: Torsion boundary conditions, n = 16.

10.4. PLATES
Symmetry can of course be exploited; this is illustrated in Fig. 10.23. Pro-

ceed as above to implement symmetry boundary conditions.
Figure 10.23: Square plate with symmetry boundary conditions.
10.4.3 Results
Comparison of thin shell solution and convergence with mesh refinement are
given below in Fig. 10.24.
DATA: E = 200 000 MPa, ν = 0.3, γ = 0, h = 20 cm, q = 10 kN/m2
Comparison of thin shell theoretical solution with ZSOIL’s simply supported

and simply supported with blocked torsion rotations solutions are given in
Table 10.1 for the case considered.
10.4.4 Postprocessing
Bending moment color maps can be plotted using standard postprocess-

ing options, Sectional Quantities also. In postprocessor select: Graph Op-
tions/Sectional Quantities. Assuming we want to exploit bending mo-
249
Figure 10.24: Convergence of simply supported plate with mesh refinement.

MxGP is the moment at the Gauss point closest to center.
Table 10.1: Comparison of thin shell theoretical solution with ZSOIL
DATA:
E = 200 000 MPa, ν = 0.3, γ = 0
t = 20 cm, q = 5 kN/m2 , n = 64
Thin shell theory : 4.105 mm

ZSOIL simply supported : 4.17 mm
ZSOIL simply supp. with blocked rotation : 4.12 mm
ments in a cross-section M3-M2 through the plate’s center, move to Sec-

tions/section planes 3D and define the cross-section as shown in Fig. 10.25:
the section passes through point (0; 0; 0.001) and is normal to (0; 0; 1) vec-
tor. The moment we are interested in is the in-plane moment which bends
the M3-M2 axis. Move to Settings/Graph Contents and choose Elements
= Shells/Membranes, Result = Moment with Component = TT (where T
stands for tangential, in opposition with N which stands for normal).

10.4. PLATES
Figure 10.25: Sectional quantities for shells.
10.4.5 Elasto-plastic square plate
Let’s examine the case of an elastoplastic clamped square plate under uni-
formly distributed load. Results are compared with Hinton and Owen (1984).
10.4.5.1 Problem definition
Problem : 3D/deformation
Driver, type : Time dependent/Driven load
Input file : Ex 10 2 epsqplt.inp
10.4.5.2 Geometry and load
One quarter of the plate is simulated. Size of the full plate is 6 × 6 m,

thickness 0.2 m. A uniform vertical load of −0.5 MPa associated with a
linearly increasing load function is applied. Layered shell model with 10
layers is used.
10.4.5.3 Material
E = 300 000 MPa, ν = 0.3, fy = 30 MPa (shell element, Von Mises mate-
rial)
251
Figure 10.26: Geometry for elasto-plastic clamped square plate.
10.4.5.4 Results
Figure 10.27: Load-deflection plot at plate center, comparison of ZSOIL solution

(Q4) with higher order elements and Hinton-Owen solution.

10.5. SHELLS
10.5 Shells
As already mentioned, plates and shells use the same elements in ZSOIL,
but for plates we do not care about membranes forces.
10.5.1 A simple example: stairs
Linear analysis of shells, if no soil is present, is done under:

Problem : 3D/Deformation/Structures only
Driver, type : Time dependent/Driven load/1 step
Input files : Ex 10 3 stairs1.inp and Ex 10 4 stairs2.inp
One step is sufficient as the problem is linear. Definition of the geometry
proceeds as in the previous example. 10 elements are used for each step.
Two cases are considered:
a. standard vertical/horizontal steps
b. as illustrated below
Figure 10.28: Stairs geometries.
As the problem is essentially 1-dimensional, it is easy to verify that the the-

oretical solution can be retrieved. For this, activate Results/Postprocessing,
and use option Sections/section planes 3D (Fig. 10.29 and Fig. 10.30).
Remarks:
- coherent shell orientation in preprocessing (directors, see Fig. 10.28) is

essential to avoid incoherent flip-flop resultants plots in postprocessing
253
Figure 10.29: Stairs, results, case a.
Figure 10.30: Stairs, results, case b.
10.5.2 Hemispherical shell
A hemispherical shell loaded with two concentrated forces is analyzed. In this

example we compare the performance of single and two-layer shell elements
in ZSOIL with published results (Batoz and Dhatt, 1990).

10.5. SHELLS
10.5.2.1 Problem definition
Problem : 3D/Deformation/Structures only

Driver, type : Time dependent/Driven load/1 step
Input files : Ex 10 5 hemisphere 1L.inp, Ex 10 6 hemisphere 2L.inp
10.5.2.2 Geometry, load and boundary conditions
One quarter of the structure is simulated as illustrated in Fig. 10.31.
Figure 10.31: Hemispherical shell: geometry and data.
In order to generate precise geometrical data we proceed as follows. Move

to Assembly/Preprocessing and create following points with Macro Model/
Point/Create.../Point option, noting that 3.09 m = 10 m x sin (18°) and
that 9.51 m = 10 m x cos (18°):
(0; 0; 0) (10; 0; 0) (0; 10; 0)
(0; 0; 9.51) (3.09; 0; 9.51) (0; 3.09; 9.51)
Then move to Macro Model/Objects/Create.../Arc and create 4 arcs, click-
ing each time on center (C), start (S) and end (E) points, as shown in Fig.
10.32.
255
Figure 10.32: Hemispherical shell macro model.
Select the 4 arcs and move to Macro Model/Subdomain/Create... /3D

Shell.../3D Shell on Contour. Choose subdomain type = Q4, and click on
the 4 points defining the contour. Then click on Mesh/Create Virtual Mesh,
choose a 10 x 10 split and finally select Mesh/Virtual to Real Mesh and click
on the subdomain (Fig. 10.33).
Figure 10.33: Hemispherical shell mesh.

10.5. SHELLS
Select boundary nodes located at the bottom of the mesh, move to Do-
main/FE Model/Boundary Conditions/Solid BC/Create/On Node and set
uy = 0, rx = rz = 0 (see Fig. 10.34).
Figure 10.34: Boundary conditions setup for the hemispherical shell problem.
Move to Unselect All, and repeat the same operation for the nodes located
in the YZ plane, this time setting ux = 0, ry = rz = 0.
Move again to Unselect All and set boundary condition uz = 0 for node E in-
dicated in Fig. 10.35. Move to Domain/FE Model/Nodal Loads/Create.../
On Node and create two 1 N nodal loads on nodes A and B, with Load
Function = 1, with directions according to Fig. 10.35.
Move to FE Model/Shell one Layer/[Un]Outline.../In zoom box and select
all the shells. Then move to Update/Thicknessand set Th = 0.04 m.
Finally, move to File/Save model and return to Main Menu.
Remarks:
- due to double-curvature, original input file data (nodal coordinates) have

been smoothed
Select Control/Analysis & Drivers. To define a time dependent process,

under Driver, choose Time dependent and leave Driven Load for the Type.
Set Time start = 0, Time end = 1, Time incr. = 1 and Multiplier = 1.
Select Assembly/Materials. Material number 1 is associated with the 0.04
m shell. In the Open dialog box next to Elastic, enter E = 6.825e7 N/m2 ,
and Poisson ratio = 0.3.
257
Figure 10.35: Nodal loads.
Select Assembly/Load functions from the main window menu. Function

number 1 is associated with both nodal loads. In the table’s first line, set
Time = 0, Value = 0. In the table’s second line, set Time = 1, Value = 1.
10.5.2.3 Results
Results comparison (displacement uAx ):

Reference : 0.0940 [m]
ZSOIL, 1layered shell : 0.0926 [m]
ZSOIL, 2layered shell : 0.0922 [m]
10.5.2.4 Hinges
When modeling real constructions with shells, continuity may not be reflect-
ing the reality. In ZSOIL it is therefore possible to introduce shell hinges
in order to relax the transmission of internal forces between adjacent shell
elements both on rotational or translational degrees of freedom. To intro-
duce hinges, in graphical preprocessor, select the row of edges belonging to
shell elements where you want to introduce the relaxation, and use option
FE Model/Shell Hinge/Create.../On edge(s). Hinges will introduce a total
relaxation of continuity of corresponding degrees of freedom.
In Fig. 10.36, the influence of creating shell hinges in the corners of the
container studied in Chapter 10 is shown. Note that without hinges, the

10.5. SHELLS
maximal value of the bending moment M-YY occurs at the corner.
Figure 10.36: Illustration of shell hinges: top without hinges, bottom with hinges.
This can be especially useful in practical use when modeling slurry walls
with monolithic shells, where transmission of forces through joints between
panels can be overestimated by the numerical solution.
259
References
Batoz, J.-L. and Dhatt, G. (1990). Modélisation des structures par éléments
finis, volume 3. Hermes.
Hinton, E. and Owen, D. (1984). Finite Element Software for Plates and
Shells, volume 2. Pineridge Press.

Appendix A
Solution procedures for linear systems
Finite element stiffness assemblies lead to a linear (linearized if initially non-

linear) system often written: Kd = F, where K is called stiffness matrix, d
the vector of nodal displacements components and F the vector of applied
forces components.
All linear systems solution techniques derive somehow from Gauss elimi-
nation. Numerical efficiency requires however that the specificities of the
linear system are taken into account, like banded structure, skyline profile
and sparseness, all typical features of assembled finite element matrices. In
addition, the stiffness matrix will also often be symmetric for elasticity and
associated plasticity e.g., but only symmetric in profile for non-associated
plasticity (Fig. A.1).
Figure A.1: Truss structure and corresponding stiffness matrix structure.
261
APPENDIX A. SOLUTION PROCEDURES FOR LINEAR SYSTEMS
Gauss elimination
The principle of Gauss elimination is simple; the first equation is used to
explicitly write the first unknown as a function of the others, it is then
replaced in the following equations. The same procedure can then be per-
formed with the second unknown and so on. When the last unknown is
reached a back-substitution procedure can be initiated.
Remarks:
- If difficulties arise during the procedure, e.g. zero-division, an appropriate

switch in the order of equations will solve the problem
- The operations of Gauss elimination can be organized in a systematic
manner as shown below
Table A.1: Gauss elimination applied to a 3x3 system.
Forward reduction
1. Expand the Left-Hand-Side K matrix to include the Right-Hand-Side.

2. Divide line 1 by KK11 , multiply by (KK21 ) and subtract from line 2,
multiply by (K31 ) and subtract from line 3
3. Divide line 2 by KK22 , multiply by (KK32 ) and subtract from line 3
Back-substitution
4. Subtract K23 × line 3 from line 2, subtract K13 × line 3 from line 1
···
5. Subtract K12 × line 2 from line 1
Remarks:
- the solution is read in the last column
- indicial generalization is straightforward

This technique is now applied to the linear system corresponding to the
following structure already examined in Chapter 2.
    
1 0 −0.5 d2x 0
√
100  0 1 −0.5   d2y  =  − 2 
    
−0.5 −0.5 1.5 d3x 0
Figure A.2: Truss structure and the corresponding linear system.
263
Table A.2: Gauss elimination applied to example 2.1.
After division by 100 we get the expanded matrix by inclusion of the

Right-Hand-Side and proceed with Gauss elimination:
 
1 0 −0.5 0
0 1 −0.5 −1.414 E-2 
 

−0.5 −0.5 1.5 0
 
1 0 −0.5 0
 0 1 −0.5 −1.414 E-2 
 
0 −0.5 1.25 0
 
1 0 −0.5 0
 0 1 −0.5 −1.414 E-2 
 
0 0 1 −0.702 E-2
 
1 0 −0.5 0
 0 1 −0.5 −1.414 E-2 
 
0 0 1 −0.702 E-2
 
1 0 0 −0.353 E-2
 0 1 0 −1.767 E-2 
 
0 0 1 −0.707 E-2
The last column finally contains the solution vector which was already found
in Chapter 2.

ZSOIL’s external solver
The same system can be solved with ZSOIL’s external solver, as shown
next.
Example 1. Solution of a linear system using ZSOIL’s exernal
solver
Given the matrix of above example, the syntax of the input

Ex 2 1 trussStruct.txt file for ZSOIL is the following:
3 (number of equations)
100 |
0 | (first column of LHS)
−50 |
0 |
100 | (second column of LHS)
−50 |
−50 |
−50 | (third column of LHS)
150 |
0 |
1.414 | (RHS)
0 |
Run Extras/External solver and get the solution:

0.00353 (d2x )
0.01767 (d2y )
0.00707 (d3x ) (see Ex 2 1 trussStruct.txt file)
The same example can also be analyzed fully within ZSOIL as shown in
Chapter 2; the corresponding data file is Ex 2 1 trussStruct.inp. A choice
between two linear solvers is available in ZSOIL as discussed in the next
section.
265
Skyline and sparse solvers

ZSOIL provides two linear solvers: skyline, a robust direct solver, which
is appropriate for small to medium size problems and sparse, for larger
systems, approximately above 10’000 DOFs. Access to these solvers is
provided under Control/Linear equation solvers.
PP
PP
P
q
P
Figure A.3: Dialog window for solver selection.

Exercise:
Build the stiffness corresponding to the following structure (from truss ele-
ments’ individual stiffnesses, as described in chapter 2) and solve the corre-
sponding linear system using ZSOIL’s external solver. Compare obtained so-
lution with the same problem solved with ZSOIL (file: Ex 2 2 trussStruct.inp).
Figure A.4: Exercise: Soliving linear system using external solver.
267

Appendix B
Dilatancy
Shearing may cause a volume increase for plastic deformation. This volume
increase is called dilatancy. The effect of dilatancy can be observed in the
triaxial test, as illustrated in Fig. B.1. The input dilatancy angle ψ can be
derived from the dilatancy parameter d which defines the maximal slope of
the ε1 − εv curve.
Figure B.1: Determination of the dilatancy angle ψ from εv − ε1 curve obtained

in the triaxial drained compression test.
Remark:
- Dilatancy cut-off is activated when the current void ratio e exceeds maxi-
mum void ratio emax i.e.,
when the accumulated volumetric strain satisfies:
max 1 + emax
εv ≥ ln the dilatancy angle ψ is set to ψ = 0.
1 + e0
Let d be defined as follows; when the perfectly plastic regime is established,

elastic strain can be neglected with respect to plastic strain, so it can be
269
APPENDIX B. DILATANCY
written:
dεv dεv ∼ dεpv
d=− =− =− p (B.1)
dε1 dε1 dε1
The signs correspond to the convention for classical mechanics (i.e. pos-
itive in extension), whereas underlined values are positive in compression
following the usual soil mechanics convention.
The dilatancy slope d is related to the plastic flow direction and its form
depends on the adopted plastic potential.
Considering a Mohr-Coulomb type yield criterion F, with σ 1 > σ 2 > σ 3 :
F ≡ σ 1 (1 − sin φ) − σ 3 (1 + sin φ) − 2c cos φ = 0 (B.2)
and corresponding plastic potential G:
G ≡ σ 1 (1 − sin ψ) − σ 3 (1 + sin ψ) = 0 (B.3)
with ψ = φ for associated plasticity.
The plastic flow components can be expressed as:

∂G
dεp1 = dλ = dλ(1 − sin ψ) (B.4a)
∂σ 1
dεp2 = 0 (B.4b)
∂G
dεp3 = −dλ = −dλ(1 + sin ψ) (B.4c)
∂σ 3
hence:
dεpV = dεpV + dεpV + dεpV = −2dλ(sin ψ) (B.5)
then:
dεpV 2 sin ψ
d=− p = (B.6)
dε1 1 − sinψ
and:
d
ψ = arcsin , which can be used for ZSOIL input.
d+2

Estimation of dilatancy angle
For granular soils

It is typically observed in laboratory tests that for a very dense sand the value
of the dilatancy angle ψ is about 1/3 of the peak friction angle φ0 . In case
of loose sands dilatancy reduces to a few degrees, whereas normally con-
solidated clays may exhibit no dilatancy at all. For example, Bolton (1986)
reports ψ max = 14.7o for a dense sand which corresponded to the peak fric-
tion angle ψ max = 44.8o derived from a drained, plane strain compression
test.
Bolton (1986) proposed that for well-compacted granular soils, the maximal
dilatancy angle can be estimated from:
ψ = 3.75IR under triaxial conditions
ψ = 6.25IR under plane strain conditions
with the relative dilatancy index IR can be estimated for well-compacted
granular soils from:
IR = 5Dr − 1 (0 < IR < 4) (B.7)
with Dr denoting the relative density index (= (emax − e)/(emax − emin )).
For cohesive soils

While for granular soils the maximal dilatancy angle can be related to the
relative density (Dr ), an estimation of ψ for clays is based on geotechnical
experience. For instance, it can be observed in laboratory tests that normally
consolidated clays may exhibit no dilatancy at all.
Therefore, it is proposed that for cohesive soils, it can be assumed that
dilatancy depends on the preconsolidation state and ψ can be approximately
taken as:
• ψ = 0o for normally- and lightly-overconsolidated soils

• ψ = φ0 /6 for overconsolidated soils
• ψ = φ0 /6 to φ0 /4 for heavily overconsolidated soils
271
APPENDIX B. DILATANCY
References
Bolton, M. (1986). The strength and dilatancy of sands. Géotechnique,
36(1):65–78.

Appendix C
Shell orientation and sign of resultants
Element results include (at each numerical integration point) membrane

forces, moments and shear forces.
Fig. C.1 indicates the sign convention, depending on the orientation of the
normal to the shell defined in the preprocessor.
Figure C.1: Sign convention.
These results are evaluated, stored and printed into text file at integration
point and are referred to integration point fiber coordinate system and to
the mid surface. During the visualization phase, a user’s reference system
must be defined.
273
APPENDIX C. SHELL ORIENTATION AND SIGN OF RESULTANTS
References
Aubry, D. and Ozanam, O. (1988). Free surface tracking through non-saturated
models. In Swoboda, editor, Numerical methods in geomechanics, volume 1,
pages 757–763, Innsbruck. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Batoz, J.-L. and Dhatt, G. (1990). Modélisation des structures par éléments finis,
volume 3. Hermes.
Bolton, M. (1986). The strength and dilatancy of sands. Géotechnique, 36(1):65–

78.
Bowles, J. (1979). Physical and Geotechnical Properties of Soil. McGraw-Hill.
Chopra, A. (1995). Dynamics of structures. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River,

NJ.
Hinton, E. and Owen, D. (1984). Finite Element Software for Plates and Shells,
volume 2. Pineridge Press.
Hughes, T. (1987). The Finite Element Method. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,

NJ.
Obrzud, R. and Truty, A. (2012). The hardening-soil model, a practical guidebook

(revised 31.09.2014). Technical Report ZSoil report 100701, Zace Services Ltd,
Lausanne.
Salençon, J. and Matar, M. (1979). Capacité portante des semelles filantes. Revue
française de géotechnique, 9:51–76.
Schweiger, H. (2002). Benchmarking in geotechnics. Technical Report CGG-

IR006-2002, Graz University of Technology, Austria.
Therzaghi, K. (1951). Mécanique théorique des sols. Dunod, Paris.
Truty, A. and Zimmermann, T. (2006). Stabilized mixed finite element formula-

tions for materially nonlinear partially saturated two-phase media. Comp Meth
Appl Mech Engng, 195:1517–1546.
van Genuchten, M. (1980). A closed form of the equation for predicting the
hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Am Soc, 44:802–808.
Vermeer, P. and Verruijt, A. (1981). An accuracy condition for consolidation by

finite elements. Int J Num Anal Meth Geomech, 5:1–14.
Yang, H. (2004). Factors affecting drying and wetting soil-water characteristic

curves of sandy soils. Canadian Geotech J, 41:908–920.

ZSoil GettingStarted

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

ZSoil GettingStarted

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NUMERICS IN GEOTECHNICS AND STRUCTURES

Edition III (2014)

Zace Services Ltd, Software engineering

Lausanne, October 2014 Thomas Zimmermann

3 LINEAR AND NONLINEAR CONTINUA 43

4 SINGLE PHASE SOLID CONTINUA 69

4.2.4 Refined Safety Factor Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . 85

6 TWO-PHASE MEDIA 117

6.3.1.1 Data Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

6.5.2 Geometry, boundary conditions and load . . . . . . . 142

7 TUNNEL EXCAVATION - CASE STUDY 149

7.2.7 Creation of sections and computation of inflow into

8 2D TUTORIAL: EXCAVATION WITH RETAINING WALL 173

9 3D TUTORIAL: CONCRETE BOX CONTAINER 201

9.2.2.8 Creating the FE mesh and setting bound-

10.4.5 Elasto-plastic square plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

A Solution procedures for linear systems 261

C Shell orientation and sign of resultants 273

ZSOIL’s online manuals describe in details theory, data preparation, bench-

GETTING STARTED WITH ZSOIL

1.1 Hardware and software requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.1 Hardware and software requirements

1.2 Installation of ZSOIL

2. Install the online help (optional)

3. Run ZSOIL using desktop icon or list of programs

GETTING STARTED WITH ZSOIL

Figure 1.1: Front screen.

Figure 1.2: Preliminary project preselection.

the Advanced option locally, in specific screens, in order to get access to

Figure 1.3: Detailed project preselection.

1.3 Main menu of ZSOIL

The main menu is the backbone of ZSOIL; it serves as basis to organize

GETTING STARTED WITH ZSOIL

Figure 1.4: Main Menu of ZSOIL

Post-processing of output data is available from here.

1.4 An introduction to nonlinear analysis

Figure 1.5: Linear elastic - perfectly plastic idealization of stress-strain relation-

In order to better understand the procedure, let’s assume that equilibrium

Figure 1.6: Newton-Raphson iteration - schematic of iteration process.

GETTING STARTED WITH ZSOIL

1.5 Getting started

1.5.1 Analysis of a superficial foundation

Under File/Open: open file Ex 1 1 FootPS.inp.

- This file should be located in your Windows My Documents folder, as

Notice the specification of Plane strain and Deformation in the Project

Figure 1.7: Part of Project properties window.

Under Control/Drivers: observe that the driver is: Time dependent/driven

Figure 1.8: Dialog window for defining analysis driver types.

Under Assembly/Preprocessing: geometrical data can be examined, a rigid

Figure 1.9: Plane strain footing: geometry of the problem.

Under Results/Graphical Options, see Deformed Mesh, or Displacement

With option Maps, Settings/Displacements/ABS Fig. 1.13, a failure mech-

GETTING STARTED WITH ZSOIL

Figure 1.10: Plane strain footing: material data input.

Figure 1.11: Plane strain footing: computing run screen.

to modify the scale or to select a different component, see Fig. 1.14.

Use PgUp and PgDn

Figure 1.13: Plane strain footing: failure mechanism identified by displacement

Figure 1.14: Plane strain footing: displacement-time history.

GETTING STARTED WITH ZSOIL

1.5.2 Stability of a vertical cut

Examine next a vertical cut under plane strain conditions.

Figure 1.15: Dialog window for defining analysis driver types.