Phase: Stress Analysis Verification Manual

2
Phase
2D finite element program for stress analysis and support design around
excavations in soil and rock
Stress Analysis Verification Manual

Version 7.0
© 1989 - 2008 Rocscience Inc.

Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................1
1 Cylindrical Hole in an Infinite Elastic Medium ...................................................................2
2 Cylindrical Hole in an Infinite Mohr-Coulomb Medium ......................................................8
3 Cylindrical Hole in an Infinite Hoek-Brown Medium ........................................................17
4 Strip Loading on an Elastic Semi-Infinite Mass ...............................................................23
5 Strip Footing on Surface of Purely Cohesive Material ......................................................29
6 Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Jointed Rock ...............................................................34
7 Lined Circular Tunnel Support in an Elastic Medium ......................................................40
8 Cylindrical Hole in an Infinite Transversely-Isotropic Elastic Medium ...........................47
9 Spherical Cavity in an Infinite Elastic Medium .................................................................55
10 Axi-symmetric Bending of Spherical Dome ......................................................................61
11 Lined Circular Tunnel in a Plastic Medium .....................................................................66
12 Pull-Out Tests for Swellex / Split Sets ..............................................................................74
13 Drained Triaxial Compressive Test of Modified Cam Clay Material ..............................81
14 Non-Linear Analysis of Strip Footing in Sand..................................................................95
15 Non-Linear Analysis of Circular Footing on Saturated, Undrained Clay.......................99
16 Classical beam verification ..............................................................................................103
17 Tunnel stability in purely cohesive soil...........................................................................112
18 Circular Load on Surface of a Single Layered Half-Space .............................................118
19 Circular Load on Surface of a Two Layered Mohr-Coulomb Material ..........................126
20 Plane strain heading in a plastic Mohr-coulomb material.............................................136
21 Stress Distribution Along a Grouted Rock Bolt ..............................................................141
22 Circular Tunnel Reinforced by Rock Bolts......................................................................145
1
Introduction
This manual contains a series of example problems which have been solved using Phase2. The
verification problems are compared to the corresponding analytical solutions. For all examples, a
short statement of the problem is given first, followed by the presentation of the analytical
solution and a description of the Phase2 model. Some typical output plots to demonstrate the
field values are presented along with a discussion of the results. Finally, plots of stresses and
displacements are included.
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgment is given to the FLAC verification manual (references are included with the
examples). For purposes of comparison, several of the examples in this manual can also be found
in the FLAC verification manual.
2
1 Cylindrical Hole in an Infinite Elastic Medium
1.1 Problem description

This problem verifies stresses and displacements for the case of a cylindrical hole in an infinite
elastic medium subjected to a constant in-situ (compression +) stress field of:
P0 = 30 MPa
The material is isotropic and elastic, with the following properties:
Young’s modulus = 6777.93 MPa

Poisson’s ratio = 0.2103448
The radius of the hole is 1 (m) and is assumed to be small compared to the length of the cylinder,
therefore 2D plane strain conditions are in effect.
1.2 Closed Form Solution
The classical Kirsch solution can be used to find the radial and tangential displacement fields
and stress distributions, for a cylindrical hole in an infinite isotropic elastic medium under plane
strain conditions (e.g. see Jaeger and Cook, 1976).
The stresses σr, σθ and τrθ for a point at polar coordinate (r,θ) near the cylindrical opening of
radius ‘a’ (Figure 1.1) are given by:
⎛ a3 ⎞
σ rr = P0 ⎜1 − 3 ⎟
⎝ r ⎠
p1 + p2 a2 p1 − p2 3a 4
σθ = (1 + 2 ) − (1 + 4 ) cos 2θ
2 r 2 r
p1 − p2 2 a 2 3a 4
τ rθ = − (1 + 2 − 4 ) sin 2θ
2 r r
The radial (outward) and tangential displacements (see Figure 1.1), assuming conditions of plane
strain, are given by:
p1 + p2 a 2 p1 − p2 a 2 a2
ur = + [ 4(1 − ν ) − 2 ]cos 2θ
4G r 4G r r
p1 − p2 a 2 a2
uθ = − [2(1 − 2ν ) + 2 ]sin 2θ
4G r r
3
where G is the shear modulus and ν is the Poisson ratio.
Fig 1.1 Cylindrical hole in an infinite elastic medium
1.3 Phase2 Model
The Phase2 model for this problem is shown in Figure 1.2. It uses:
♦ a radial mesh
♦ 40 segments (discretizations) around the circular opening
♦ 8-noded quadrilateral finite elements (840 elements)
♦ fixed external boundary, located 21 m from the hole center (10 diameters from the
hole boundary)
4
Fig.1.2 Model for Phase2 analysis of a cylindrical hole in an infinite elastic medium
1.4 Results and Discussion
Figures 1.3 and 1.4 show the radial and tangential stress as well as the radial displacement along
a line (either the X- or Y-axis) through the center of the model. The Phase2 results are in very
close agreement with the analytical solutions. A summary of the error analysis is given in Table
1.1.
Contours of the principal stresses σ 1 and σ 3 are presented in Fig. 1.5 and 1.6, and the radial
displacement distribution is illustrated in Fig. 1.7.
Table 1.1 Error (%) analyses for the hole in elastic medium
Average Maximum Hole Boundary
ur 2.32 5.39 1.10
σr 0.62 2.50 ----
σθ 0.41 1.42 0.43

5
60
Exact Sigma1
50 Phase2 Sigma1
Exact Sigma3
Phase2 Sigma3
40
Stress (Mpa)
30
20
10
1 2 3 4
Radial distance from center (m)
Fig.1.3 Comparison of σ r and σ θ for the cylindrical hole in an infinite elastic medium
0.006
Phase2
0.005
Exact solution
Radial displacement (m)
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
0 1 2 3 4
Fig.1.4 Comparison of ur for the cylindrical hole in an infinite elastic medium

6
Fig.1.5 Major principal stress σ 1 distribution
Fig.1.6 Minor principal stress σ 3 distribution

7
Fig.1.7 Total displacement distribution
1.5 References
1. Jaeger, J.C. and N.G.W. Cook. (1976) Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics, 3rd Ed. London,
Chapman and Hall.
1.6 Data Files
The input data file for the Cylindrical Hole in an Infinite Elastic Medium is:
stress #001.fez
This can be found in the Phase2 installation folder.

8
2 Cylindrical Hole in an Infinite Mohr-Coulomb Medium
elastic-plastic medium subjected to a constant in-situ (compression +) stress field of:
P0 = 30 MPa
The material is assumed to be linearly elastic and perfectly plastic with a failure surface defined
by the Mohr-Coulomb criterion. Both the associated (dilatancy = friction angle) and non-
associated (dilatancy = 0) flow rules are used. The following material properties are assumed:

Cohesion = 3.45 MPa
Friction angle = 30 o
Dilation angle = 0 o and 30 o
The radius of the hole is 1 (m) and is assumed to be small compared to the length of the cylinder,
therefore 2D plane strain conditions are in effect.
The yield zone radius, R0 , is given analytically by a theoretical model based on the solution of
Salencon (1969):
1/( K p −1)
⎛ 2 P0 + K pq−1 ⎞
R0 = a ⎜⎜ q ⎟
⎟
⎝ K p + 1 Pi + K p −1 ⎠
Where P0 = Radius of hole

re Cohesion
σ re Friction angle
9
1 + sin φ
Kp =
1 − sin φ
q = 2c tan( 45 + φ / 2)
P0 = initial in-situ stress
Pi = internal pressure
The radial stress at the elastic-plastic interface is
σ re = P0 − Mσ c
The stresses and radial displacement in the elastic zone are

1
1 ⎡⎛ m ⎞ ⎤
2 2
mP0 m
M = ⎢⎜ ⎟ + + s⎥ −
⎝
2⎣ 4 ⎠ σc ⎦ 8
2
⎛ R0 ⎞
σθ = P0 + ( P0 − σ re )⎜ ⎟
⎝ r ⎠
R02 ⎛ 2P − q ⎞ 1
ur = ⎜⎜ P0 − 0 ⎟
2G ⎝ K p + 1 ⎟⎠ r
where r is the distance from the field point (x,y) to the center of the hole. The stresses and radial
displacement in the plastic zone are
q ⎛ q ⎞⎛ r ⎞ p
( K −1)
σr = − ⎜
+ P+ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
K p − 1 ⎜⎝ i K p − 1⎟⎠ ⎝ a ⎠
q ⎛ q ⎞⎛ r ⎞ p
( K −1)
σθ = − + K p ⎜⎜ Pi + ⎟⎜ ⎟
Kp −1 ⎝ K p − 1⎟⎠ ⎝ a ⎠
r ⎡ ⎛ q ⎞ (1 − ν )( K p − 1) ⎛ q ⎞
2
ur = ⎢( 2ν − 1)⎜⎜ P0 + ⎟⎟ + ⎜⎜ Pi + ⎟
2G ⎢⎣ ⎝ K p − 1⎠ K p + K ps ⎝ K p − 1⎟⎠
⎛ (1 − ν )( K p K ps + 1) ⎞⎛ q ⎞⎛ r ⎞ p ⎤
( K p −1) ( K ps +1) ( K −1)
⎛ R0 ⎞ ⎛ R0 ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ + ⎜⎜ − ν ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ Pi + ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎝ a⎠ ⎝ r ⎠ ⎝ K p + K ps ⎠⎝ K p − 1⎠ ⎝ a ⎠ ⎥⎦
where
1 + sin ψ
K ps =
1 − sin ψ
10
ψ = Dilation angle
ν = Poisson’s Ratio
G = Shear modulus
2.3 Phase2 Model
♦ a radial mesh
hole boundary)
♦ the in-situ hydrostatic stress state (30Mpa) is applied as an initial stress to each
element
Fig.2.1 Model for Phase2 analysis of a cylindrical hole in

an infinite Mohr-Coulomb medium
11
For non-associated plastic flow (Dilation angle ψ = 0 0 ), Figs. 2.2 and 2.3 show a direct
comparison between Phase2 results and analytical solution along a radial line. Stresses σ r ( σ 3 )
and σ θ ( σ1 ) are plotted versus radius r in Fig. 2.2, while radial displacement ur is plotted versus
radius in Fig. 2.3. The comparable results of stresses and displacement for associated flow with
dilation angle ψ = 30 0 are shown in Figs. 2.4 and 2.5. These plots indicate the agreement along
a line in the radial direction.
The error analyses in stresses and displacements are shown in table 2.1. The error of
displacement on the hole boundary is less than (2.37)%, but is relatively high when radial
distance is far away from the hole and in close proximity to the fixed boundary. For example,
error in radial displacement is (5.46)% for non-associated flow and (6.10)% for associated flow
at r=4a (a=radius).
Contours of the principal stresses σ 1 , σ 3 and the radial displacement are presented in Figs. 2.6,
2.7 and 2.8, and the yield region is shown in Fig. 2.9.
Table 2.1 Error (%) analyses for the hole in Mohr-Coulomb medium
Non-Associated Flow Associated Flow
ψ = 00 ψ = 30 0
Average Maximum Hole Average Maximum Hole
boundary boundary
ur 3.34 5.46 1.22 4.20 6.10 2.37
σr 1.39 9.19 --- 2.01 9.23 ---
σθ 1.22 4.58 --- 1.61 6.77 ---

12
Analytical Sol. Sigma1

Phase2 Sigma1
50
Phase2 Sigma3
40
Yield zone radius

Stress (Mpa)
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4
Fig. 2.2 Comparison of σ r and σ θ for Non-Associated flow ( ψ = 0 0 )
0.012
Analytical Sol.
0.010 Phase2
Radial displacement
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
1 2 3 4
Fig. 2.3 Comparison of ur for Non-Associated flow ( ψ = 0 0 )

13

50 Phase2 Sigma1
Phase2 Sigma3
40
Yield zone radius

Stress (Mpa)
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4
Fig. 2.4 Comparison of M and σ 3 for Associated flow ( ψ = 30 0 )
0.030
0.025
Analytical Sol.
Phase2
Radial displacement
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
1 2 3 4
Fig. 2.5 Comparison of ur for Associated flow ( ψ = 30 0 )

14
Fig. 2.6 Major principal stress σ 1 distribution ( ψ = 0 0 )
Fig. 2.7 Minor principal stress σ 3 distribution ( ψ = 0 0 )

15
Fig. 2.8 Total displacement distribution ( ψ = 0 0 )
Fig. 2.9 Plastic region ( ψ = 0 0 )

16
2.5 References
1. Salencon, J. (1969), Contraction Quasi-Statique D’une Cavite a Symetrie Spherique Ou

Cylindrique Dans Un Milieu Elasto-Plastique, Annales Des Ports Et Chaussees, Vol. 4, pp.
231-236.
2. Itasca Consulting Group, INC (1993), Cylindrical Hole in an Infinite Mohr-Coulomb

Medium, Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (Version 3.2), Verification Manual.
2.6 Data Files
The input data files for the Cylindrical Hole in an Infinite Mohr-Coulomb Medium are:
stress #002_01.fez (Non-Associated flow)

stress #002_02.fez (Associated flow)
These files can be found in the Phase2 installation folder.

17
3 Cylindrical Hole in an Infinite Hoek-Brown Medium
elastic-plastic medium subjected to a constant in-situ (compression +) stress field of:
P 0 = 30 MPa
The material is assumed to be linearly elastic and perfectly plastic with a failure surface defined
by the Hoek-Brown criterion, which has non-linear, stress-dependent strength properties. The
following properties are assumed:

Uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock = 100.00 MPa
The Hoek-Brown parameters for the initial rock are:
m = 2.515
s = 0.003865
The residual Hoek-Brown parameters for the yielded rock are:
mr = 0.5
sr = 0.00001
The radius of the hole is 1 (m) and is assumed to be small compared to the length of
the cylinder, therefore 2D plane strain conditions are in effect.
18
The closed form solution of the radial and tangential stress distribution to this problem can be
found in Hoek and Brown (1982) and also the FLAC verification manual (1993).
In the elastic region:

2
⎛r ⎞
σ r = P0 − ( P0 − σ re )⎜ e ⎟
⎝ r⎠
2
⎛r ⎞
σθ = P0 + ( P0 − σ re )⎜ e ⎟
⎝ r⎠
Where P0 = Magnitude of in-situ isotropic stress

re = radius of plasticity
σ re = radial stress at r = re
In the broken region:

2
mσ ⎡ ⎛ r ⎞⎤ ⎛ r⎞
( )
1
σr = r c ln ⎜
⎢ ⎝ a⎠⎥⎟ + ln ⎜ ⎟ m σ P + s σ 2 2
+ Pi
4 ⎣ ⎦ ⎝ a⎠ r c i r c
σθ = σ r + ( mrσ cσ r + sr σ c2 )
1
2
where Pi is the radial pressure applied at the wall of the hole, a is the radius of the hole and σ c
is the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock. The values σ re and re are defined by:
σ re = P0 − Mσ c
1
1 ⎡⎛ m ⎞ ⎤
2 2
mP0 m
where M = ⎢⎜ ⎟ + + s⎥ −
2 ⎣⎝ 4 ⎠ σc ⎦ 8
⎡
⎢N −
2
mr σ c
(
mrσ c Pi + s rσ c2 )
1
2
⎤
⎥
re = ae ⎣ ⎦
2
(m σ P + srσ c2 − mrσ c2 M )
1
N=
2
where
mrσ c r c 0
19
3.3 Phase2 Model
♦ a radial mesh
♦ to reduce the mesh size and computer memory storage, infinite elements are used on
the external boundary, which is located 5 m from the hole center (2 diameters from
the hole boundary).
♦ the in-situ hydrostatic stress state (30Mpa) is applied as an initial stress to each
element
Fig.3.1 Model for Phase2 analysis of a cylindrical hole in

an infinite Hoek-Brown medium
Figure 3.2 shows the radial σ r and tangential σ θ stresses calculated by Phase2 compared to the
analytical solution along a radial line.
20
The error analyses in the stress are indicated in table 3.1. The errors in the principal stress σ 1
( σθ ) at the limit of the broken zone are (1.49)% and (4.23)% respectively in the elastic region
and the plastic region.
Contours of the principal stresses σ 1 , σ 3 are presented in Figs. 3.3 and 3.4.

Phase2 Sigma1
Analytical Sigma3
50 Phase2 Sigma3
Yield zone radius

40
Stress (Mpa)
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Fig. 3.2 Comparison of M and σ 3 for the cylindrical hole in an

infinite Hoek-Brown medium
Table 3.1 Error (%) analyses for the hole in Hoek-Brown medium
Elastic Region Plastic

Region
Average Maximum At the limit of At the limit of
the broken zone the broken zone
σθ 2.11 2.60 1.49 4.23
σr 6.01 13.7 13.7 6.74

21
Fig. 3.3 Major principal stress σ 1 distribution
Fig. 3.4 Minor principal stress σ 3 distribution

22
3.5 References
1. Hoek, E. and Brown, E. T., (1982) Underground Excavations in Rock, London: IMM, PP.
249-253.
2. Itasca Consulting Group, INC (1993), Cylindrical Hole in an Infinite Hoek-Brown Medium,
Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (Version 3.2), Verification Manual.
3.6 Data Files
The input data file for the Cylindrical Hole in an Infinite Hoek-Brown Medium is:
stress #003.fez

23
4 Strip Loading on an Elastic Semi-Infinite Mass
This problem concerns the analysis of a strip loading on an elastic semi-infinite mass, as shown
in Fig. 4.1. The strip footing has a width of 2b (2m), and the field stress is set to zero for this
model. Considering the isotropic elastic material model and the plane strain condition, the
following material properties are assumed:
Young’s modulus = 20000 MPa

Fig 4.1 Vertical strip loading on a semi-infinite mass

24
The closed-form solution for this problem can be found in the book “Elastic Solutions for Soil
and Rock Mechanics” by H.G. Poulos and E.H. Davis (1974). The stress tensor at Cartesian
coordinates (x,y) (Fig. 4.1) under the surface is given by:
P
σx = [α − sin α cos(α + 2δ )]
π
P
σy = [α + sin α cos(α + 2δ )]
π
P
τ xy = sin α sin(α + 2δ )
π
and the principal stresses are
P
σ1 = (α + sin α )
π
P
σ3 = (α − sin α )
π
P
τ max = sin α
π
4.3 Phase2 Model
For this analysis, boundary conditions are applied as shown in Fig. 4.2. Custom discretization
was used to discretize the external boundary. The graded mesh is composed of 2176 triangular
elements (3-noded triangles). The strip loading on the surface is 1 MPa/area.
Fig. 4.3 shows the principal stresses σ 1 and σ 3 under the strip surface at x=0. The stresses σ 1
and σ 3 calculated by Phase2 are compared to the analytical solution along these lines. The error
analyses in the stress are presented in table 4.1.
Contours of the principal stresses σ 1 , σ 3 and the total displacement for a strip loading on a
semi-infinite mass are presented in Figs. 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6, respectively.
25
Fig. 4.2 Model for Phase2 analysis of strip loading on a semi-infinite mass
Table 4.1 Error (%) analyses for a strip load on a semi-infinite mass
σ1 Average Maximum
x=0.0
in Fig 4.3 3.34 6.41
26
Anal. Sol. Sigma1

Phase2 Sigma1
Anal. Sol. Sigma3
1.0 Phase2 Sigma3
0.8
Stress (Mpa)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Distance from (0,0) to (0,5)
Fig. 4.3 Comparison of stresses σ 1 and σ 3 along x=0 under the strip loading
Fig.4.4 Major principal stress σ 1 for a strip load on a semi-infinite mass

27
Fig.4.5 Minor principal stress σ 3 for a strip load on a semi-infinite mass
Fig.4.6 Total displacement distribution for a strip load on a semi-infinite mass

28
4.5 References
1. H.G. Poulos and E.H. Davis, (1974), Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.London.Toronto.
4.6 Data Files
The input data file for Strip Loading on the Surface of an Elastic Semi-Infinite Mass is:
stress #004.fez
This can be found in Phase2 installation folder.

29
5 Strip Footing on Surface of Purely Cohesive Material
The prediction of collapse loads under steady plastic flow conditions can be a significant
numerical challenge to simulate accurately (Sloan and Randolph 1982). A classic problem
involving steady flow is the determination of the bearing capacity of a strip footing on a rigid-
plastic half space. The bearing capacity is dependent on the steady plastic flow beneath the
footing, and is obviously practically significant for footing type problems in foundation
engineering. The classic solution for the collapse load derived by Prandtl is a worthy problem for
comparison purposes.
The strip footing with a half-width 3(m) is located on an elasto-plastic Mohr-Coulomb material
with the following properties:

Cohesion ( c ) = 0.1 MPa
Friction angle ( φ ) = 0
The collapse load from Prandtl’s Wedge solution can be found in Terzaghi and Peck (1967):
q = ( 2 + π )c
≅ 514
. c
where c is the cohesion of the material, and q is the collapse load. The plastic flow region is
shown in Figure 5.1.
Fig 5.1 Prandtl’s wedge problem of a strip loading on a frictionless soil

30
5.3 Phase2 Model
For this analysis, half-symmetry is used and the boundary conditions are shown in Fig. 5.2. The
problem is solved using both 6-noded triangles and 8-noded quadrilaterals, and the mesh
densities are shown in Figures 5.3 and 5.4.
Fig. 5.2 Model for Phase2 analysis
Fig. 5.3 Triangular mesh for Phase2 analysis

31
Fig. 5.4 Quadrilateral mesh for Phase2 analysis
Fig. 5.5 shows a history of the bearing capacity versus applied footing load. The pressure-
displacement curve demonstrates that 6-noded triangular and the 8-noded quadrilateral elements
accurately predict the limit load.
0.7
0.6
Strip load (Mpa/area)
0.5
0.4
0.3 Quadratic quadriateral

Quadratic triangle
Limit load
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Maximum Displacement
Fig. 5.5 Pressure-deflection history of the bearing capacity
Contours of the principal stresses σ 1 , σ 3 and total displacement distributions are presented in
Figures 5.6 through 5.10, respectively. The plastic region shown in figure 5.11 is reasonable
compared to the solution in Figure 5.1, as the analysis of the Prandtl’s wedge problem was
obtained from incompressible materials.
32
Fig.5.6 Major principal stress σ 1 for strip footing on a purely cohesive material
Fig.5.7 Minor principal stress σ 3 for strip footing on a purely cohesive material
33
Fig.5.8 Total displacement distribution for strip footing on a purely cohesive material
5.5 References
1. S. W. Sloan and M. F. Randolph (1982), Numerical Prediction of Collapse Loads Using

Finite Element Methods, Int. J. Num. & Anal. Methods in Geomech., Vol. 6, 47-76.
2. K. Terzaghi and R. B. Peck (1967), Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd Ed. New
York, John Wiley and sons.
5.6 Data Files
The input data files for Strip Loading on Surface of a Purely Cohesive Material are:
stress #005_01.fez (triangular elements)

stress #005_02.fez (quadrilateral elements)

34
6 Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Jointed Rock
In two dimensions, suppose that the material has a plane of weakness that makes an angle β with
the major principal stress σ1 in Figure 6.1. The uniaxial compressive strength of the jointed
rockmass is a function of the angle β and the joint strength. The behavior of the plane of
weakness can be modeled by using a joint boundary in Phase2.
Fig 6.1 Geometry of uniaxial compressive strength of a jointed rock
Both the rock medium and the joint are assumed to be linearly elastic and perfectly plastic with a
failure surface defined by the Mohr-Coulomb criterion. The rock sample has a height / width
ratio of 2, and plane strain conditions are assumed, so the sample is infinitely long in the out-of-
plane direction. The following material properties are assumed for the rock mass:

Cohesion ( c ) = 0.002 MPa
Friction angle ( φ ) = 40 o
Dilation angle ( ψ ) = 0 o
The joint properties are:
35
Normal stiffness ( k n ) = 1000 MPa/m

Shear stiffness ( k s ) = 1000 MPa/m
Cohesion ( c jo int ) = 0.001 MPa
Friction angle ( φ jo int ) = 30 o
The nature of the plane of weakness model (Jaeger and Cook 1979) predicts that sliding will
occur in a two-dimensional loading (figure 6.2) when
Fig 6.2 Compressive test of a jointed rock
2( c jo int + σ 3 tan φ jo int )

σ1 − σ 3 ≥
(1 − tan φ jo int tan β ) sin 2β
where β is the angle formed by σ1 and the joint. According to the Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion, the failure of the rock matrix will occur for:
σ1 − σ 3 σ1 + σ 3
= c cos φ + sin φ
2 2
where
c = Cohesion of the rock matrix
φ = Friction angle of the rock matrix
In a uniaxial compressive test, σ 3 = 0 , so we have

36
2c jo int
σ1 ≥
(1 − tan φ jo int tan β ) sin 2β
for slip of joint
2c cos φ
and σ1 =
1 − sin φ
for failure surface of rock mass. So, the maximum load ( σ c ) for a uniaxial compressive test
should be
⎧ ⎧⎪ 2c cos φ 2c jo int ⎫⎪
⎪min ⎨ , ⎬ if (1 − tan φ jo int tan β ) > 0
⎪ ⎪⎩1 − sin φ (1 − tan φ jo int tan β ) sin 2β ⎪⎭
σc = ⎨
⎪ 2c cos φ if (1 − tan φ jo int tan β ) < 0
⎪⎩ 1 − sin φ
6.3 Phase2 Model
For this analysis, boundary conditions were applied as shown in Fig. 6.1, and 3-noded triangular
elements were used to model the rock mass. The effect of the variation of β was studied every
50 from 30 0 to 90 0 . Figure 6.3 shows one of the meshes for angle β = 30 0 .
Fig. 6.3 Mesh for Phase2 analysis of jointed rock

37
Table 6.1 presents the results obtained using Phase2 and the analytical solution. The results from
Phase2 and the exact solution are almost identical. The reason is that in an elastic analysis the
displacement distribution of this model is linear and the stresses are constant so that the linear
triangular finite element can simulate them accurately. Two different modes of failure are
observed.
(i) Slip at range of β from 30 0 to 50 0
The compressive strength can be predicted by only around 0.003% higher than the value
of the exact solution. No failure of the rock mass is involved in this model.
(ii) No slip at range of β from 550 to 90 0
Plastic failure of the rock mass is at the critical load 8.5780276 kPa/m. The results of Phase2
show that the compressive stress σ1 is 8.57800 kPa/m and 8.57805 kPa/m respectively
before and after failure of the rock mass. The match is excellent. Joint slip is not involved at
these angles of β .
Figure 6.4 shows the contours of displacement in the Y-direction for angle β = 30 0 .
Table 6.1 Results for Uniaxial Compressive Strength (kp)
Analytical Phase2
Solution
β Critical Load Joint Slip Rock Failure
no yes no yes
30 3.464101 3.4640 3.4642
35 3.572655 3.5726 3.5727
40 3.939231 3.9392 3.9393
45 4.732051 4.7320 4.7321
50 6.510383 6.5102 6.5105
55 8.578028 8.57800 8.57805
60 8.578028 8.57800 8.57805
65 8.578028 8.57800 8.57805
70 8.578028 8.57800 8.57805
75 8.578028 8.57800 8.57805
80 8.578028 8.57800 8.57805
85 8.578028 8.57800 8.57805
90 8.578028 8.57800 8.57805
38
Fig.6.4 Displacement distribution in Y ( β = 30 0 )
6.5 References
1. J. C. Jaeger and N. G. Cook, (1979), Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics, 3rd Ed., London,
Chapman and Hall.
6.6 Data Files
The input data files for Uniaxial Compressive Strength of a Jointed Rock Sample are:
stress #006_30.fez (β = 30 0 )
stress #006_35.fez (β = 350 )
stress #006_40.fez (β = 40 0 )
stress #006_45.fez (β = 450 )
stress #006_50.fez (β = 50 0 )
stress #006_55.fez (β = 550 )
stress #006_60.fez (β = 60 0 )
stress #006_65.fez (β = 650 )
stress #006_70.fez (β = 70 0 )
39
stress #006_75.fez (β = 750 )

stress #006_80.fez (β = 80 0 )
stress #006_85.fez (β = 850 )
stress #006_90.fez (β = 90 0 )
These files can be found in the Phase2 installation folder.

40
7 Lined Circular Tunnel Support in an Elastic Medium
This problem concerns the analysis of a lined circular tunnel in an elastic medium. The tunnel
support is treated as an elastic thick-walled shell in which both flexural and circumferential
deformation are considered. The medium is subjected to an anisotropic biaxial compressive
stress field at infinity (Figure 7.1):
0
σ xx = 30 MPa
σ 0yy = 15 MPa
The following material properties are assumed for the medium:
Young’s modulus ( E ) = 6000.00 MPa

Poisson’s ratio ( ν ) = 0.2
and the properties for the lined support are:
Young’s modulus ( Eb ) = 20000.00 MPa

Poisson’s ratio ( ν s ) = 0.2
Thickness of the liner ( h ) = 0.5m
Radius of the liner ( a ) = 2.5m
Fig.7.1 Lined circular tunnel in an elastic medium

41
The closed form solution for a tunnel support in an elastic mass without slip at the interface was
given by Einstein and Schwartz (1979), and can be found in the FLAC verification manual
(1993). The axial force N and the bending moment M in the circumferential direction are given
by the following expressions:
aσ yy0
N=
2
[(1 + K )(1 − a ) + (1 − K )(1 + 2a ) cos 2θ ]
*
0
*
2
a 2σ yy0
M= (1 − K )(1 − 2a2* + 2b2* ) cos 2θ
4
C * F * (1 − ν )
where a = *
*
0
C + F * + C * F * (1 − ν )
a 2* = βb2*
C * (1 − ν )
b =*
2
2[C * (1 − ν ) + 4ν − 6β − 3βC * (1 − ν )]
C * ( 6 + F * )(1 − ν ) + 2 F *ν
β=
3C * + 3F * + 2C * F * (1 − ν )
Ea(1 − ν s2 )
C* =
E s A(1 − ν 2 )
Ea 3 (1 − ν s2 )
F = *
E s I (1 − ν 2 )
and σ 0
yy
= Vertical field stress component at infinity
K = Ratio of horizontal to vertical stress ( σxx0 / σ yy0 )
E = Young’s modulus of the medium

ν = Poisson’s ratio of the medium
Es = Young’s modulus of the liner
ν s = Poisson’s ratio of the liner
A = Cross-sectional area of the liner for a unit long section
I = Liner moment of inertia
θ = Angular location from the horizontal
a = Radius of the tunnel
42
7.3 Phase2 Model
♦ a radial mesh
♦ 80 liner elements (Euler-Bernoulli beam elements)
♦ to reduce the mesh size and computer memory storage, infinite elements are used on
the external boundary, which is located 12.5 m from the hole center (2 diameters
from the hole boundary).
♦ the in-situ stress state is applied as an initial stress to each element
Fig.7.2 Model for Phase2 analysis of a lined circular tunnel in an elastic medium
43
Figures 7.3 and 7.4 show the comparison between Phase2 results and the analytical solution
around the circumference of the lined tunnel. Axial force N of the liner is plotted versus θ in
Figure 7.3, while the bending moment M is plotted in Fig. 7.4. The angle θ is measured
counter-clockwise from the horizontal axis. The error analyses are shown in table 7.1. The error
in the axial force is less than (0.48)%. The moments do not agree as closely, showing a
consistent error of (12.3)% which is similar to the results in the FLAC verification manual
(1993).
Contours of the principal stresses σ 1 , σ 3 and the total displacement distribution are presented in
Figures 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7.
Table 7.1 Error (%) analyses for the lined circular tunnel
Average Maximum
Axial force 0.31 0.48

N
Bending 12.3 12.3

moment M
40
35
30
Axial force (Mpa)
25
Anal. Sol.
Phase2
20
15
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Angle (degree)
44
Fig. 7.3 Comparison of axial force N for the lined circular tunnel in an elastic medium
0.8
0.6
0.4
Moment (Mpa.m)
0.2
0.0
-0.2 Anal. Sol.

Phase2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Angle (degree)
Fig. 7.4 Comparison of moment M for the lined circular tunnel in an elastic medium
Fig. 7.5 Major principal stress σ 1 distribution in the medium

45
Fig. 7.6 Minor principal stress σ 3 distribution in the medium
Fig. 7.7 Total displacement distribution in the medium

46
7.5 References
1. H. H. Einstein and C. W. Schwartz (1979), Simplified Analysis for Tunnel Supports, J.

Geotech. Engineering Division, 105, GT4, 499-518.
2. Itasca Consulting Group, INC (1993), Lined Circular Tunnel in an Elastic Medium Subjected
to Non-Hydrostatic Stresses, Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (Version 3.2),
Verification Manual.
7.6 Data Files

The input data file for the Lined Circular Tunnel Support in an Elastic Medium is:
stress #007.fez

47
8 Cylindrical Hole in an Infinite Transversely-Isotropic

Elastic Medium

This problem tests the solution of a circular hole in an elastic transversely-isotropic or
“stratified” medium. Such a material possesses five independent elastic constants. The y axis is
taken to be perpendicular to the strata in Figure 8.1. Both plane stress and plane strain conditions
are examined.
Fig. 8.1 A stratified (transversely-isotropic) material
The in-situ hydrostatic stress state (Figure 8.2) is given by:
P0 = 10MPa
The following material properties are assumed:
Young’s modulus parallel to the strata ( E x ) = 40000 MPa

Young’s modulus perpendicular to the strata ( E y ) = 20000 MPa
Poisson’s ratio associated with the plane xoy ( ν xy ) = 0.2
Poisson’s ratio in the plane of the strata ( ν xz ) = 0.25

48
Shear modulus associated with the plane xoy ( Gxy ) = 4000.00 MPa
Angle of the strata (Counter-clockwise from x-axis θ ) = 0
Radius of the circular tunnel ( a ) = 1m
Fig. 8.2 Cylindrical hole in an infinite transversely-isotropic medium
The closed form solution of displacements and stresses to this problem can be found in Amadei
(1983). Amadei considered the elastic equilibrium of an anisotropic, homogeneous body
bounded internally by a cylindrical surface of circular cross section. The solution is based on a
plane stress formulation and is defined by the following expressions:
σ x = σ x 0 + 2 Re( μ12φ1' + μ22φ2' )

σ y = σ y 0 + 2 Re(φ1' + φ2' )
τ xy = τ xy 0 − 2 Re( μ1 φ1' + μ2 φ2' )
ux = −2 Re( p1 φ1 + p2φ2 )
u y = −2 Re( q1 φ1 + q2 φ2 )
The complex values μk are given by:

49
( 2a12 + a 66 ) − ( 2a12 + a 66 ) 2 − 4a11a 22

μ1 = i
2a11
( 2a12 + a 66 ) + ( 2a12 + a 66 ) 2 − 4a11a22

μ2 = i
2a11
1 ν yx ν xy 1 1
where a11 = , a12 = a 21 = − =− , a 22 = , a 66 =
Ex Ey Ex Ey G xy
the complex functions φk and φk' are
φ1 ( z1 ) = ( μ2 a1 − b1 ) / Δε1
φ2 ( z 2 ) = −( μ1a1 − b1 ) / Δε2
( μ2 a1 − b1 )
φ1' ( z1 ) = −
aΔε1 ( )
Z1 2
a − 1 − μ12
( μ1a1 − b1 )
φ2' ( z 2 ) =
aΔε2 ( ) Z2 2
a − 1 − μ22
and Δ = μ2 − μ1
⎛z 2 ⎞
εk =
1 ⎜ k + ⎛⎜ z k ⎞⎟ − 1 − μ 2 ⎟
1 − iμk ⎜a ⎝a⎠ k ⎟
⎝ ⎠
z k = x + μk y
a
a1 = − (σ y 0 − iτ xy 0 )
2
a
b1 = (τ xy 0 − iσ x 0 )
2
pk = a11μk2 + a12
a
qk = a12 μk + 22
μk
σ xx 0 , σ yy 0 and τ xy 0 = Initial in-situ stress components.
50
8.3 Phase2 Model
♦ a radial mesh
hole boundary)
♦ the in-situ hydrostatic stress state (10 MPa) is applied as an initial stress to each
element
Fig.8.3 Model for Phase2 analysis of a cylindrical hole in an infinite

Transversely-Isotropic Elastic Medium
Figures 8.4 through 8.6 show the displacements and tangential stresses σ θ around the hole
calculated by Phase2 and compared to the analytical solution. Under plane stress conditions, the
51
displacement distribution gives an excellent match, as shown in Figures 8.4 and 8.5. Contours of
the principal stresses σ 1 , σ 3 and the total displacement are presented in Figures 8.7, 8.8 and 8.9.
0.0007
0.0006
Displacement (m) in X
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
Anal. Sol. plane stress

0.0002
Phase2 plane stress
Phase2 plane strain
0.0001
0.0000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Angle (Degree)
Fig. 8.4 Comparison of Displacements in X around the hole
0.0010
0.0008
Displacement (m) in Y
0.0006
0.0004
Anal. Sol. plane stress
Phase2 plane stress
Phase2 plane strain
0.0002
0.0000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Angle (Degree)
Fig. 8.5 Comparison of Displacements in Y around the hole

52
35
30 Ana. Sol. plane stress

Phase2 plane stress
Tangential Stress (MPa)

Phase2 plane strain
25
20
15
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Angle (Degree)
Fig. 8.6 Comparison of tangential stresses σ θ around the hole
Fig. 8.7 Major principal stress σ 1 distribution and plot of

σ 1 (tangential stress) on boundary
53
Fig. 8.9 Total displacement distribution

54
8.5 References
1. Amadei, B. (1983), Rock Anisotropy and the Theory of Stress Measurements, Eds. C.A.
Brebbia and S.A. Orszag, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokyo.
8.6 Data Files
The input data file for the Cylindrical Hole in an Infinite Transversely-Isotropic Elastic Medium
is:
stress #008.fez

55
9 Spherical Cavity in an Infinite Elastic Medium
This problem verifies the stresses and displacements for a spherical cavity in an infinite elastic
medium subjected to hydrostatic in-situ stresses. This three-dimensional model can be solved
using the Phase2 axisymmetric option. The compressive initial stress and material properties are
as follows:
P0 = 10MPa
Young’s modulus = 20000 MPa
The cavity has a radius of 1 m (Figure 9.1).
Fig 9.1 Spherical cavity in an infinite elastic medium

56
The closed form solution of radial displacement and stress components for a spherical cavity in
an infinite elastic medium subjected to hydrostatic in-situ stress is given by Timoshenko and
Goodier (1970, p395) and Goodman (1980, p220).
P0 a 3
ur =
4Gr 2
⎛ a3 ⎞
σ rr = P0 ⎜1 − ⎟
⎝ r3 ⎠
⎛ a3 ⎞
σθθ = σφφ = P0 ⎜1 + ⎟
⎝ 2r 3 ⎠
Where P0 is the external pressure, ur is radial displacement and σ rr , σθθ , σ φφ are the stress
components in spherical polar coordinates ( r , θ , φ ).
9.3 Phase2 Model
♦ a graded mesh
♦ 3-noded triangular finite elements (2028 elements)
♦ custom discretization around the external boundary (80 segments (discretizations)
were used around the half circle)
♦ the in-situ hydrostatic stress state (10 MPa) is applied as an initial stress to each
element
The external boundary defines the entire axisymmetric problem (the hole is implicitly defined by
the shape of the external boundary). The boundary is fixed on all sides, except for the axis of
symmetry, which is free.
Figure 9.3 shows the radial and tangential stresses calculated by Phase2 compared to the
analytical solution for σ r and σ θ , and Figure 9.4 shows the comparison for radial displacement.
These two plots indicate an excellent agreement along a radial line. The error analyses in
stresses and displacements are shown in Table 9.1.
Contours of the principal stresses σ 1 and σ 3 are presented in Figures 9.5 and 9.6, and the radial
displacement distribution is illustrated in Figure 9.7.
57
Fig.9.2 Model for Phase2 analysis of a spherical cavity in an infinite elastic medium
Table 1.1 Error (%) analyses for the spherical cavity in an elastic medium
Average Maximum Cavity Boundary
ur 1.07 2.46 0.553
σθ 0.273 0.616 0.466
σr 0.800 2.78 ---

58
16
14
12
10
Stress (Mpa)
Anal. Sol. Sigma1

6 Phase2 Sigma1
Anal. Sol. Sigma3
4 Phase2 Sigma3
0
1 2 3 4
Fig. 9.3 Comparison of σ r and σ θ for the spherical cavity in an infinite elastic medium
0.00030
0.00025
Radial displacement (m)
Anal. Sol.
Phase2
0.00020
0.00015
0.00010
0.00005
0.00000
1 2 3 4
Fig. 9.4 Comparison of ur for the spherical cavity in an infinite elastic medium
59
Fig. 9.5 Major principal stress σ 1 distribution

60
Fig. 9.7 Total displacement distribution
9.5 References
1. S. P., Timoshenko, and J. N. Goodier (1970), Theory of Elasticity, New York, McGraw Hill.
2. R. E., Goodman (1980), Introduction to Rock Mechanics, New York, John Wiley and Sons.
9.6 Data Files
The input data file for the Spherical Cavity in an Infinite Elastic Medium is:
stress #009.fez

61
10 Axi-symmetric Bending of Spherical Dome

This problem concerns the analysis of a spherical shell with a built-in edge and submitted to a
uniform normal pressure p (Fig. 10.1). The geometry and properties for the shell are:
a = 90m ; t = 3m ; p = 1Mpa ; ν = 1 / 6 ; E = 30000Mpa
Fig10.1 Spherical dome with rigidly fixed edges and under uniform pressure
10.2 Approximate Solution
Approximate methods of analyzing stresses in the spherical shell are given by S. Timoshenko
and S. Woinowsky-Krieger (1959) and Alphose Zingoni (1997). The stress components in both
meridional and hoop directions shown in Figure 10.2 are expressed by:
62
Fig10.2 Axisymmetric shell
⎡ 2λ (1 + K 12 ) ⎤ ap
N φ = − cot(α − φ ) A⎢ sin α sin(λφ ) M o − (sin α ) 3 / 2 sin(λφ − tan −1 K 1 ) H ⎥ +
⎢⎣ aK 1 K1 ⎥⎦ 2
⎧λ ⎫
⎪ [2 cos(λφ ) − (k1 + k 2 ) sin(λφ )]M o ⎪ ap
Aλ sin α ⎪ a ⎪
Nθ = ⎨ ⎬+
⎪− (1 + K 1 ) (sin α ) 2 cos(λφ − tan −1 K ) − (k + k ) sin(λφ − tan −1 K ) H ⎪ 2
2
[ ]
K1
⎪⎩ 2
1 1 2 1 ⎪⎭
⎧[k1 cos(λφ ) + sin(λφ )]M o ⎫

A sin α ⎪ ⎪
Mφ = ⎨ a (1 + K 12 ⎬
K 1 ⎪−
⎩ 2λ
[ ]
(sin α ) k1 cos(λφ − tan −1 K 1 ) + sin(λφ − tan −1 K 1 ) H ⎪
⎭
⎧ 2λ
[
⎪ aK sin α ((1 + ν )(k1 + k 2 ) − 2k 2 ) cos(λφ ) + 2ν sin(λφ ) M o
2 2
] ⎫
⎪
aA ⎪ 1 ⎪
Mθ = ⎨ ⎬
4νλ ⎪ (1 + K 12
⎡((1 + ν )(k1 + k 2 ) − 2k 2 ) cos(λφ − tan K 1 )⎤ ⎪
2 −1
− (sin α ) ⎢
3/ 2
⎥H ⎪
⎪ K ⎢ + 2ν 2
sin( λφ − tan −1
) ⎥⎦ ⎭
⎩ 1 ⎣ K 1
e − λφ
Where, A=
sin(α − φ )
63
1 − 2ν 1 + 2ν
k1 = 1 − cot(α − φ ) ; k2 = 1 − cot(α − φ )
2λ 2λ
1 − 2ν 1 + 2ν
K1 = 1 − cot(α ) ; K2 = 1− cot(α )
2λ 2λ
pa 2 (1 − ν ) pa(1 − ν )
Mo = ; H=
4λ2 K 2 2λ sin(α ) K 2
10.3 Phase2 Model

The Phase2 axisymmetric model for this problem is shown in Figure 10.3. It uses the
Timoshenko beam formulation for the liner with the properties specified in the problem
description. A uniform load is applied to each segment. A liner Rotation Restraint was added to
the right-hand side of the model to represent the clamped end condition of the dome.
Fig.10.3 Model for Phase2 analysis of a spherical dome
Figures 10.4 and 10.5 show the comparison between Phase2 results and the approximate solution
in the meridional direction. Meridional bending moment M φ of the shell is plotted versus φ in
Figure 10.4, while the hoop force Nθ is plotted in Fig. 10.5. The Phase2 solution appears to be
more accurate than the approximate results, especially near region 0 < φ < 5 .
64
40
35
30
Approximate solution
Phase 2
25
Meridional Moment (MNm)
20
15
10
-5
-10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Angle (°)
Fig. 10.4 Comparison of meridional bending moment
50
45
40
Axial hoop force (MN/m)
35
30
25
20
Approximate solution
Phase 2
15
10
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Angle (°)
Fig. 10.5 Comparison of hoop force N θ

65
10.5 References
1. S. Timoshenko and S. Woinowsky-Krieger (1959), Theory of Plates and Shells, McGRAW-

HILL BOOK COMPANY, INC.
2. Alphose Zingoni (1997), Shell Structures in Civil and Mechanical Engineering, University of
Zimbabwe, Harare, Thomas Telford.
10.6 Data File

The input data file for the spherical dome is:
stress #010.fez

66
11 Lined Circular Tunnel in a Plastic Medium
This problem concerns the analysis of a lined circular tunnel in an plastic medium. The tunnel
supports are treated as elastic and plastic beam elements in which both flexural and
circumferential deformation are considered. The problem is illustrated in Figure 11.1, and the
medium is subjected to an anisotropic biaxial stress field at infinity:
σ xx0 = −30 MPa
σ yy0 = −60 MPa
σ zz0 = −30MPa
The material for the medium is assumed to be linearly elastic and perfectly plastic with a failure
surface defined by the Drucker-Prager criterion.
I1
fs = J 2 + qφ − kφ
3
The plastic potential flow surface is
I
g s = J 2 + qψ 1 − k φ
3
in which
I1 = σ1 + σ 2 + σ 3
J2 =
1
[ ]
(σ − σ y ) 2 + (σ y − σ z ) 2 + (σ x − σ z ) 2 + τ xy2 + τ yz2 + τ zx2
6 x
Associated ( qφ = qψ ) flow rule is used. The following material properties are assumed:
Young’s modulus ( Em ) = 6000 MPa

k φ = 2.9878 MPa
qφ = qψ = 0.50012
The properties and geometry for the lined support using beam element are:
Young’s modulus ( Eb )
Poisson’s ratio ( ν s ) = 0.2
Yield stress = 60 MPa (Perfectly plastic)
Thickness of the liner ( h )
Radius of the liner ( a ) = 1.0m
67
Fig11.1 Lined circular tunnel in a medium
11.2 Phase2 Model
♦ a radial mesh
♦ 40 beam elements (tunnel is completely lined)
♦ fixed external boundary, located 7 m from the hole center (3 diameters from the hole
boundary)
♦ the in-situ stress state is applied as an initial stress to each element
We provide verification of two models:
♦ Elastic lined support in plastic medium

♦ Plastic lined support in elastic medium
68
Fig.11.2 Model for Phase2 analysis of a lined circular tunnel in a medium
The analyses are compared with the ABAQUS response. Both ABAQUS and Phase2 use
Drucker-Prager plastic model for the medium and Euler-Bernoulli beam for the lined support.
Figures 11.3 through 11.6 show the comparison between Phase2 and ABAQUS solutions around
the circumference of the lined tunnel. It assumes the elastic lined support in a plastic medium.
While figures 11.7 through 11.10 show the comparison for the plastic lined support in the elastic
medium. Axial force N and the bending moment M of the liner is plotted versus θ in the
figures. The results plotted on those figures are obtained by varying ratio of E b / E m and beam
thickness h . E b and E m are Young’s moduli of the beam and the medium respectively. The two
solutions are reasonably consistent both for the elastic lined support in a plastic medium and for
the plastic lined support in an elastic medium.
69
-4
ABAQUS Eb/Em=1.5
-6 Eb/Em=2
Eb/Em=2.5
Phase2 Eb/Em=1.5
-8
Eb/Em=2
Eb/Em=2.5
Axial force (MPa)
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Angle (Degee)
Fig. 11.3 Axial force for the lined circular tunnel (h=0.1m) in a plastic medium
0.02
ABAQUS Eb/Em=1.5
Eb/Em=2
Eb/Em=2.5
0.01
Phase2 Eb/Em=1.5
Eb/Em=2
Moment (MPa.m)
Eb/Em=2.5
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Angle (Degree)
Fig. 11.4 Moment for the lined circular tunnel (h=0.1m) in a plastic medium
70
-6
ABAQUS Eb/Em=1.5
-8 Eb/Em=2
Eb/Em=2.5
-10 Phase2 Eb/Em=1.5
Eb/Em=2
-12
Eb/Em=2.5
Axial force (MPa)
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Angle (Degee)
Fig. 11.5 Axial force for the lined circular tunnel (h=0.2m) in a plastic medium
0.15
ABAQUS Eb/Em=1.5
Eb/Em=2
0.10
Eb/Em=2.5
Phase2 Eb/Em=1.5
0.05 Eb/Em=2
Moment (MPa.m)
Eb/Em=2.5
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
-0.20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Angle (Degree)
Fig. 11.6 Moment for the lined circular tunnel (h=0.2m) in a plastic medium
71
0
ABAQUS Eb/Em=1
Eb/Em=2
Phase2 Eb/Em=1
Eb/Em=2
-1
Axial force (MPa)
-2
-3
-4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Angle (Degee)
Fig. 11.7 Axial force for the plastic lined circular tunnel (h=0.05m) in a elastic medium
0.0016
ABAQUS Eb/Em=1
0.0014 Eb/Em=2
Phase2 Eb/Em=1
0.0012
Eb/Em=2
0.0010
Moment (MPa.m)
0.0008
0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
0.0000
-0.0002
-0.0004
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Angle (Degree)
Fig. 11.8 Moment for the plastic lined circular tunnel (h=0.05m) in an elastic medium
72
-2
ABAQUS Eb/Em=1
Eb/Em=2
-4 Phase2 Eb/Em=1
Eb/Em=2
-6
Axial force (MPa)
-8
-10
-12
-14
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Angle (Degee)
Fig. 11.9 Axial force for the plastic lined circular tunnel (h=0.2m) in an elastic medium
0.12
ABAQUS Eb/Em=1
0.10 Eb/Em=2
Phase2 Eb/Em=1
Eb/Em=2
0.08
Moment (MPa.m)
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
-0.02
-0.04
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Angle (Degree)
Fig. 11.10 Moment for the plastic lined circular tunnel (h=0.2m) in an elastic medium
73
11.4 Data Files

The input data files for the lined circular tunnel in a plastic medium are:
File name h Eb / E m
stress #011_01.fez 0.1 1.5
stress #011_02.fez 0.1 2.0
stress #011_03.fez 0.1 2.5
stress #011_04.fez 0.2 1.5
stress #011_05.fez 0.2 2.0
stress #011_06.fez 0.2 2.5
The input data files for the plastic lined circular tunnel in an elastic medium are:
File name h Eb / E m
stress #011_11.fez 0.05 1.0
stress #011_12.fez 0.05 2.0
stress #011_13.fez 0.2 1.0
stress #011_14.fez 0.2 2.0
These can be found in the Phase2 installation folder.

74
12 Pull-Out Tests for Swellex / Split Sets
In this problem, Phase2 is used to model pull-out test of shear bolts (ie. Swellex / Split Set bolts).
Pull-out tests are the most common method for determination of shear bolt properties.
12.2 Bolt formulation

The equilibrium equation of a fully grouted rock bolt, Figure 12.1, may be written as (Farmer,
1975 and Hyett et al., 1996)
F
AEb x
Fig 12.1 Shear bolt model
d 2ux
AEb + Fs = 0 (12.1)
dx 2
where Fs is the shear force per unit length and A is the cross-sectional area of the bolt and E b is
the modulus of elasticity for the bolt. The shear force is assumed to be a linear function of the
relative movement between the rock, u r and the bolt, u x and is presented as:
Fs = k (ur − u x ) (12.2)
Usually, k is the shear stiffness of the bolt-grout interface measured directly in laboratory pull-
out tests . Substitute equation (12.1) in (12.2), then the weak form can be expressed as:
d 2u x
δΠ = ∫ ( AEb − ku x + ku r ) δu dx (12.3)
dx 2
75
⎧ ⎡ d du du dδu ⎤ ⎫
= ∫ ⎨ AEb ⎢ ( x δu ) − x ⎥ − ( ku x − ku r )δu ⎬dx
⎩ ⎣ dx dx dx dx ⎦ ⎭
(12.4)
du dδu
L
⎛ ⎞
+ ku xδu ⎟dx + ∫ (ku rδu )dx
du
= AEbδu x − ∫ ⎜ AEb x
dx 0 ⎝ dx dx ⎠
u1 u2
s
L
Fig 12.2 Linear displacement variation

The displacement field u, is assumed to be linear in the axial coordinate, s (Cook, 1981), see
Figure 12.2. This displacement field linearly varies from u1 at one end to u2 at the other end.
Then, the displacement at any point along the element can be given as:
L−s
or u = ⎣N ⎦{d }
s
u= u1 + u2 (12.5)
L L
⎢L − s s⎥ ⎧ u1 ⎫
where ⎣N ⎦ = ⎢ and {d } = ⎨ ⎬
⎣ L L ⎥⎦ ⎩u 2 ⎭
for the two displacement fields, equation 12.5 can be written as
⎧ u x1 ⎫
⎧u ⎫ ⎡ N N2 0 0 ⎤ ⎪⎪u x 2 ⎪⎪
u = ⎨ x⎬ = ⎢ 1 ⎨ ⎬ (12.6)
⎩ur ⎭ ⎣ 0 0 N1 N 2 ⎥⎦ ⎪ u r1 ⎪
⎪⎩u r 2 ⎪⎭
Equation (12.2) can be written as
⎧ u x1 ⎫
⎛ du dδu ⎞ ⎡K 0 ⎤ ⎪⎪u x 2 ⎪⎪
− ∫ ⎜ AE b x + ku xδu ⎟dx + ∫ (ku rδu )dx = − [u x1 u r 2 ]⎢ b δ⎨ ⎬ (12.7)
− K r ⎥⎦ ⎪ u r1 ⎪
ux2 u r1
⎝ dx dx ⎠ ⎣0
⎪⎩u r 2 ⎪⎭
By introducing the notation ⎣B ⎦ = ⎣N , x ⎦ the strain can be expressed as

76
⎢ 1 1 ⎥ ⎧ u1 ⎫
= ⎣B ⎦{d } = ⎢ −
du
u, x = ⎨ ⎬ (12.8)
dx ⎣ L L ⎥⎦ ⎩u2 ⎭
Hence,
L
⎧ ⎡ N 1, x N 1, x N 1, x N 2, x ⎤ ⎡N N N1 N 2 ⎤ ⎫
[K b ] = ∫ ⎨ AEb ⎢ ⎥ + k⎢ 1 1 ⎬dx (12.9)
0 ⎩ ⎣ N 2, x N 1, x N 2, x N 2, x ⎦ ⎣ N 2 N1 N 2 N 2 ⎥⎦ ⎭
⎡⎛ x ⎞ x⎤
2
x⎞ ⎛
L ⎢ ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎥
AEb ⎡ 1 − 1⎤ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ L ⎠ L⎥
[K b ] = + k∫ ⎢
L
dx (12.10)
L ⎢⎣ − 1 1 ⎥⎦
2
⎢
0 ⎛ x⎞ x ⎛x⎞ ⎥
⎢⎜ 1 − ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎣⎝ L⎠ L ⎝ L⎠ ⎦
AE b ⎡ 1 − 1⎤ kL ⎡ 1 0.5⎤
[K b ] = + (12.11)
L ⎢⎣ − 1 1 ⎥⎦ 3 ⎢⎣0.5 1 ⎥⎦
and
[K r ] = k ⎡⎢
N1 N1 N 1 N 2 ⎤ kL ⎡ 1 0.5⎤
= (12.12)
⎣ N 2 N1 N 2 N 2 ⎥⎦ 3 ⎢⎣0.5 1 ⎥⎦
Equations (12.11) and (12.12) are used to assemble the stiffness for the shear bolts.
12.3 Phase2 Model

Phase2 uses bolts that are not necessarily connected to the element vertices. This is achieved by a
mapping procedure to transfer the effect of the bolt to the adjacent solid elements.
The Phase2 model for a pull-out test is shown in Figure 12.3. The model uses:
• Elastic material for the host rock
• The bolt is modeled to allow plastic deformation.
• The model uses 50cm bolt length
• Three different pull-out forces are used (53.76, 84 and 87.41 kN).
• No initial element loads were used.
77
Fig.12.3 Model for Phase2 analysis of shear bolt pull-out test
The maximum and minimum principal stresses in rock for the pull-out force of 53.76 kN are
presented in Figures 12.4 and 12.5, respectively. These figures closely matched the results
obtained from FLAC.
78
Fig 12.4 Maximum principal stress
Fig 12.5 Minimum principal stress

79
Figure 12.6 shows the axial force distribution on the bolt for displacements of 10mm, 15.8mm
and 16.7mm. The first pull-out force of 53.76 kN deforms the bolt at 10mm and the bolt has not
failed. In Figures 12.6(b) and 12.6(c) the light color of blue shown on the bolt represents the
portion of the bolt that has failed. At the second pull-out force of 84 kN, the bolt has a limited
failure zone. The bolt failed completely at the peak force of 87.41 kN. Increasing the load after
the peak load will basically pull the bolt from the rock mass.
(a) at 10mm deformation (b) at 15.8mm deformation (c) at 16.9mm deformation
Fig 12.6 Bolt axial force distribution along bolt length
A plot of pull force versus bolt displacement for a single bolt is shown in Figure 12.7. This
figure illustrates the elastic-perfectly plastic behaviour of the bolt model used in Phase2. This
behaviour is similar to the general force-displacement behaviour recorded from field tests.
80
100
80
Bolt pull force (kN)
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Bolt displacement (mm)
Fig 12.7 Bolt pull force versus displacement
12.5 References
1. Farmer, I.W. (1975), Stress distribution along a resin grouted rock anchor, Int. J. of Rock
Mech. And Mining Sci & Geomech. Abst., 12, 347-351.
2. Hyett A.J., Moosavi M. and Bawden W.F. (1996), Load distribution along fully grouted
bolts, with emphasis on cable bolt reinforcement, Int. J. Numer and Analytical meth. In
Geomech., 20, 517-544
3. Cook R.D., Malkus D.S., Plesha M.E (1981), Concepts and applications of finite element
analysis, 3rd Edition, Wiley
12.6 Data Files
The input data file for this example is:
stress #012.fez

81
13 Drained Triaxial Compressive Test of Modified Cam

Clay Material
The Modified Cam Clay (MCC) constitutive relationship is one of the earliest critical state
models for realistically describing the behaviour of soft soils. As a result it is one of the most
widely applied stress-strain relationship in the non-linear finite element modeling of practical
geotechnical problems. The state at a point in an MCC soil is characterized by three parameters:
effective mean stress p ' , deviatoric (shear stress) q , and specific volume v .
Due to the complexity of the MCC model, very few MCC problems have closed-form solutions,
which can be used to verify the accuracy, stability and convergence of MCC finite element
algorithms. One of the problems with an analytic solution involves the drained triaxial testing of
cylindrical Modified Cam Clay sample. In this test, the sample is compressed axially under a
constant total radial stress, and no build up of excess pore water pressures (i.e. excess pore
pressures are allowed to fully dissipate).
Axial
pressure
Confining
pressure
Fig 13.1: Triaxial compressive test of cylindrical soil sample
In Phase2, the MCC constitutive model is integrated implicitly over a finite strain increment
through the ‘closest point projection’ algorithm described in [1]. A major advantage of the
approach is its robustness and efficiency. The performance of this algorithm in Phase2 will be
tested on two examples of drained triaxial testing. The first test involves post-yield (plastic)
loading only, while the second considers initial elastic behaviour that transitions into plastic
loading. The two load paths considered are shown on Figures 13.1 and 13.2.
82
450
400
( p 'cs , qcs )
350
300
CSL
q (kPa)
250
Yield Envelope
200
150
100
Load Path
50
( p 'i , qi )
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
p (kPa)
Fig 13.2: Triaxial compressive test load path for Example 1.
300
250
200 CSL ( p 'cs , qcs )

Yield Envelope
q (kPa)
150
( p 'y , qy ) Load Path

100
50
( p 'i , qi )
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
p (kPa)
Fig 13.3: Triaxial compressive test load path for Example 2.
For each triaxial test, two plots will be generated to compare the performance of the MCC
implementation in Phase2 in relation to the drained triaxial test benchmark solution. The first
plot examines the relationship between deviatoric (shear stress), q , and axial strain, ε a , of the
test sample, while the second compares volumetric strains, ε v , to axial strains.
Five material parameters are required to specify the behaviour of the MCC sample. These are:
83
1. λ – the slope of the normal compression (virgin consolidation) line and critical state line
(CSL) in v − ln p ' space
2. κ – the slope of a swelling (loading-unloading) line in v − ln p ' space
3. M – the slope of the CSL in q − p ' space

N – the specific volume of the normal compression line at unit pressure
4. or
Γ – the specific volume of the CSL at unit pressure
μ – Poisson’s ratio
5. or
G – shear modulus.
As can be seen from the description of input parameters, the MCC formulation requires
specification of either a constant shear modulus G or constant Poisson’s ratio μ , but not both.
Analysis based on the former assumption is known as ‘constant elasticity’ analysis, and that
based on the latter is termed ‘variable elasticity’. The verification example will examine the
performance of Phase2 on both forms of analysis.
The initial state of consolidation of the MCC soil is specified in terms of a pre-consolidation
pressure, po . (Phase2 also allows users to specify the initial state of consolidation through the
over-consolidation ratio.)
For the test, the following material properties and conditions are assumed:
Parameter Value
N 1.788
M 1.2
λ 0.077
κ 0.0066
G (for the case of constant elasticity) 20000 kPa
μ (for the case of variable 0.3
elasticity)
Initial State of Consolidation
Preconsolidation pressure, po 200 kPa
Initial Loading Conditions
Initial mean volumetric stress, p ' 200 kPa
Initial shear stress, q 0 kPa
84
13.2 Closed-Form Solution
Under triaxial stress conditions, the effective mean stress p ' and shear stress q are related to the
axial stress σ a and radial stress σ r through the equations
σ a + 2σ r
p=
3
q = σa −σr .
States of the Sample during the Drained Triaxial Test

The load path for the drained triaxial compression test in p '− q space is shown on Fig. 13.2. The
initial stresses applied to the MCC soil sample are labeled p 'i and qi . Given the slope of the load
path, the mean effective stress p 'h when q = 0 can be calculated from the relationship
1
p 'h = p 'i − qi .
3
The equation of the load path can then be written as
q = 3 ( p '− p 'h ) .
The mean and deviatoric stresses when the sample is loaded to critical state are
3 p 'h 3Mp 'h
p 'CS = and qCS = .
3− M 3− M
For the general case when testing starts in the elastic region, the stresses at which yielding first
occurs can be determined as
M 2 p 'o + 18 p 'h + M M 2 p 'o 2 + 36 ( p 'o − p 'h ) p 'h
p 'y = and q y = 3 ( p ' y − p 'h ) .
2 (9 + M 2 )
In the elastic region, the specific volume of the sample corresponding to the current stress state
can be calculated from the equation
⎛ p' ⎞
v = N − λ ln ( p 'o ) − κ ln ⎜ ⎟.
⎝ p 'o ⎠
The above equation can be used to determine specific volumes corresponding to stress states that
exceed a current preconsolidation pressure p 'o , with the exception that a new preconsolidation
pressure p 'o, new calculated as
⎛ q2 ⎞
p 'o , new = p ' ⎜ 2 2 + 1⎟
⎝ M p' ⎠
must be used.
Calculation of Elastic Strains
The elastic volumetric strain corresponding to a current stress state ( p 'c , qc ) for the MCC soil
sample under drained triaxial testing can be calculated as
85
κ ⎛ p ' ⎞ κ ⎛ q − qi ⎞
ε ve = ln ⎜ c ⎟ = ln ⎜ 1 + c ⎟
v ⎝ p 'i ⎠ v ⎝ 3 p 'i ⎠
For the case of ‘constant elasticity’ (when the shear modulus G is assumed constant), elastic
deviatoric strains are computed from the equation
dq qc − qi
ε se = ∫
qc
= .
qi 3G 3G
For ‘variable elasticity’, which assumes Poisson’s ratio μ to be constant, elastic deviatoric
strains are determined from
2 (1 + μ ) κ 3 p 'h + qc
ε se = ln .
3μ (1 − 2 μ ) 3 p 'h + qi
Calculation of Plastic Strains
Plastic straining, which begins only after the load path crosses the initial yield curve, is also
computed in terms of volumetric and shear components. Plastic strain components can be
calculated as
qc
λ − κ ⎡ ⎡⎛ M 2 ⎞ q2 q ⎤ ⎛ q ⎞⎤
ε =
v
p
⎢ ln ⎢⎜ 3 + ⎟ + 2 M p 'h + M p 'h ⎥ − ln ⎜ 3 p 'h +
2 2
⎟⎥
v ⎢⎣ ⎣⎝ 3 ⎠ 3 3 ⎦ ⎝ 3 ⎠ ⎥⎦ q
y
while plastic shear strains are computed from the equation

⎛ q (9 + M 2 ) M ⎞
qc
⎡ 2 (λ − κ ) ⎤
⎢− tan −1 ⎜ + ⎟ ⎥
⎢ Mv ⎜ 9 p 'h M 3 ⎟ ⎥
εs = ⎢
p ⎝ ⎠ ⎥
⎢ λ −κ ⎛ 3 3 ⎞⎥
⎢+ ⎜ ln q( M + 3) + 3Mp 'h + ln q ( M − 3) + 3Mp 'h ⎟⎥
⎣ v ⎝ M ( M + 3) M ( M − 3) ⎠ ⎦ qy
Axial and Radial Strains
The volumetric and shear strains calculated in a triaxial test can be related to the axial and radial
strains, ε a and ε r , respectively, of the test sample. The relationships are as follow:
1
εa = εv + εs
3
1 1
εr = εv − εs .
3 2
All the above-described calculations have been implemented in an Excel spreadsheet included
with this document.
13.3 Phase2 Model
The drained compressive triaxial tests of the MCC sample were modelled in Phase2 using a
single 8-noded quadrilateral element, axisymmetric analysis, and staging of the applied axial
86
loads. The mesh, boundary conditions, and an example of the applied axial and radial loads used
are shown on Fig. 13.4.
For each of the two examples, the stage factors for the axial loads were calculated (from the
attached spreadsheet) such that the resulting effective mean and deviatoric stresses conformed to
the selected triaxial loading path. In the first test, which starts with stresses on the initial yield
envelope, the load path (shown on Fig. 13.2) was applied in 32 stages. In Example 2 (Fig. 13.3),
the load path was applied in 36 stages.
Fig. 13.4 Mesh, boundary conditions and loads for axisymmetric Phase2 analysis
Tables 13.1 and 13.2 present the shear stresses, and axial and volumetric strains calculated from
the analytical solution and from Phase2 for the first triaxial test example (Example 1). For this
case both the constant and variable elasticity assumptions produce the same analytical results.
Figures 13.5 and 13.6 show the q − ε a and ε a − ε v plots.
The results for the second test example (Example 2) are summarized in Tables 13.3 and 13.4.
The former table holds the results for the ‘constant elasticity’ case, while the latter has the shear
87
stresses and strains for the case of ‘variable elasticity’. Figures 13.3 and 13.4 present the
respective q − ε a and ε a − ε v plots.
The q − ε a results from Phase2 for both Example 1 and Example 2 compare very well to the
analytical solution. For the volumetric strain – axial strain plot, the error between Phase2 results
and the values predicted by the closed-form solution at 0.02 axial strain for the different
examples range from 18% to 20%. The magnitude of these errors is very similar to that estimated
from the plots in Reference [2].
Table 13.1 Example 1: Results for Case of ‘Constant Elasticity’

Phase2 Results Analytical Solution
No. q Axial strain, εa Volumetric q Axial strain, εa Volumetric
strain, εv strain, εv
1 0.00 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.00 0.0000000 0.0000000
2 12.90 0.0001024 0.0006125 12.90 0.0003698 0.0009756
3 25.80 0.0002609 0.0012397 25.81 0.0009118 0.0021405
4 38.70 0.0004404 0.0021824 38.71 0.0016414 0.0034673
5 51.58 0.0006936 0.0033724 51.61 0.0025692 0.0049303
6 64.47 0.0010612 0.0047866 64.52 0.0037022 0.0065055
7 77.34 0.0015795 0.0063981 77.42 0.0050450 0.0081714
8 90.21 0.0022813 0.0081805 90.32 0.0066006 0.0099089
9 103.08 0.0031985 0.0101149 103.23 0.0083718 0.0117009
10 115.93 0.0043620 0.0121806 116.13 0.0103614 0.0135328
11 128.79 0.0057954 0.0143486 129.03 0.0125732 0.0153922
12 141.63 0.0075195 0.0165925 141.94 0.0150122 0.0172683
13 154.49 0.0095583 0.0188957 154.84 0.0176856 0.0191522
14 167.32 0.0119370 0.0212430 167.74 0.0206026 0.0210364
15 180.19 0.0146880 0.0236260 180.65 0.0237761 0.0229146
16 193.02 0.0178330 0.0260250 193.55 0.0272224 0.0247818
17 205.88 0.0214260 0.0284460 206.45 0.0309626 0.0266339
18 218.71 0.0254920 0.0308640 219.35 0.0350240 0.0284674
19 231.55 0.0300950 0.0332810 232.26 0.0394413 0.0302799
20 244.40 0.0353010 0.0356910 245.16 0.0442590 0.0320691
21 257.22 0.0411800 0.0380860 258.06 0.0495351 0.0338336
22 270.05 0.0478520 0.0404660 270.97 0.0553453 0.0355722
23 282.89 0.0554580 0.0428300 283.87 0.0617909 0.0372840
24 295.72 0.0641560 0.0451660 296.77 0.0690105 0.0389685
25 308.53 0.0742060 0.0474760 309.68 0.0771999 0.0406253
26 321.33 0.0859420 0.0497540 322.58 0.0866470 0.0422543
27 334.12 0.0999250 0.0520070 335.48 0.0977996 0.0438555
28 346.90 0.1169400 0.0542200 348.39 0.1114094 0.0454291
29 359.66 0.1384200 0.0564040 361.29 0.1288864 0.0469753
30 372.39 0.1671300 0.0585500 374.19 0.1533962 0.0484944
31 385.05 0.2095400 0.0606200 387.10 0.1950371 0.0499869
88
Table 13.2 Example 1 Results for Case of ‘Variable Elasticity’

1 0.00 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.00 0.0000000 0.0000000
2 12.90 0.0001370 0.0006135 12.90 0.0003698 0.0009756
3 25.80 0.0003252 0.0012429 25.81 0.0009118 0.0021405
4 38.70 0.0005304 0.0021886 38.71 0.0016414 0.0034673
5 51.59 0.0008051 0.0033798 51.61 0.0025692 0.0049303
6 64.47 0.0011902 0.0047958 64.52 0.0037022 0.0065055
7 77.35 0.0017212 0.0064038 77.42 0.0050450 0.0081714
8 90.22 0.0024310 0.0081828 90.32 0.0066006 0.0099089
9 103.08 0.0033518 0.0101140 103.23 0.0083718 0.0117009
10 115.94 0.0045155 0.0121797 116.13 0.0103614 0.0135328
11 128.79 0.0059457 0.0143483 129.03 0.0125732 0.0153922
12 141.63 0.0076600 0.0165880 141.94 0.0150122 0.0172683
13 154.47 0.0096863 0.0188917 154.84 0.0176856 0.0191522
14 167.31 0.0120480 0.0212380 167.74 0.0206026 0.0210364
15 180.16 0.0147780 0.0236180 180.65 0.0237761 0.0229146
16 193.00 0.0179030 0.0260190 193.55 0.0272224 0.0247818
17 205.84 0.0214650 0.0284350 206.45 0.0309626 0.0266339
18 218.66 0.0254910 0.0308470 219.35 0.0350240 0.0284674
19 231.50 0.0300540 0.0332620 232.26 0.0394413 0.0302799
20 244.33 0.0352130 0.0356690 245.16 0.0442590 0.0320691
21 257.14 0.0410330 0.0380570 258.06 0.0495351 0.0338336
22 269.97 0.0476460 0.0404340 270.97 0.0553453 0.0355722
23 282.77 0.0551450 0.0427830 283.87 0.0617909 0.0372840
24 295.58 0.0637480 0.0451120 296.77 0.0690105 0.0389685
25 308.37 0.0736590 0.0474110 309.68 0.0771999 0.0406253
26 321.14 0.0852140 0.0496740 322.58 0.0866470 0.0422543
27 333.90 0.0989280 0.0519080 335.48 0.0977996 0.0438555
28 346.65 0.1155900 0.0541080 348.39 0.1114094 0.0454291
29 359.35 0.1364500 0.0562580 361.29 0.1288864 0.0469753
30 372.02 0.1640400 0.0583800 374.19 0.1533962 0.0484944
31 384.60 0.2039400 0.0604200 387.10 0.1950371 0.0499869
89
450
400
350
Deviatoric Stress, q (kPa)
300
250
Phase2
Analytical
200
150
100
50
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Axial Strain
Fig. 13.5 Variation of deviatoric stress with axial strain for Example 1
0.07
0.06
0.05
Volumetric Strain
0.04
Phase2
0.03
Analytical
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
-0.01
Axial Strain
Fig. 13.6 Variation of volumetric strain with axial strain for Example 1
90
Table 13.3 Example 2: Results for Case of ‘Constant Elasticity’

1 0.00 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.00 0.0000000 0.0000000
2 27.85 0.0006293 -0.0004952 27.85 0.0006222 0.0004738
3 55.71 0.0012447 -0.0009486 55.71 0.0012316 0.0009093
4 83.56 0.0018483 -0.0013667 83.56 0.0018302 0.0013123
5 111.42 0.0024418 -0.0017545 111.42 0.0024194 0.0016874
6 114.25 0.0038285 -0.0010543 114.27 0.0042830 0.0024418
7 117.04 0.0058975 -0.0000279 117.13 0.0062200 0.0031920
8 119.87 0.0081056 0.0010084 119.99 0.0082344 0.0039379
9 122.70 0.0104380 0.0020420 122.85 0.0103309 0.0046793
10 125.53 0.0129000 0.0030716 125.70 0.0125149 0.0054160
11 128.36 0.0155000 0.0040966 128.56 0.0147922 0.0061480
12 131.19 0.0182450 0.0051170 131.42 0.0171695 0.0068753
13 134.02 0.0211420 0.0061280 134.28 0.0196543 0.0075976
14 136.84 0.0242080 0.0071380 137.13 0.0222555 0.0083150
15 139.67 0.0274560 0.0081400 139.99 0.0249828 0.0090274
16 142.50 0.0308950 0.0091350 142.85 0.0278476 0.0097347
17 145.33 0.0345440 0.0101240 145.71 0.0308632 0.0104369
18 148.16 0.0384250 0.0111050 148.56 0.0340450 0.0111341
19 150.98 0.0425520 0.0120780 151.42 0.0374111 0.0118260
20 153.81 0.0469540 0.0130440 154.28 0.0409829 0.0125129
21 156.62 0.0516540 0.0140020 157.14 0.0447859 0.0131946
22 159.44 0.0566990 0.0149510 159.99 0.0488513 0.0138711
23 162.26 0.0621250 0.0158930 162.85 0.0532169 0.0145425
24 165.08 0.0679790 0.0168250 165.71 0.0579297 0.0152087
25 167.89 0.0743190 0.0177470 168.57 0.0630492 0.0158698
26 170.71 0.0812210 0.0186590 171.42 0.0686519 0.0165258
27 173.51 0.0887810 0.0195590 174.28 0.0748384 0.0171767
28 176.31 0.0971220 0.0204500 177.14 0.0817453 0.0178225
29 179.11 0.1064000 0.0213340 180.00 0.0895639 0.0184632
30 181.89 0.1168100 0.0221920 182.85 0.0985744 0.0190990
31 184.68 0.1286600 0.0230520 185.71 0.1092111 0.0197297
32 187.46 0.1423400 0.0238860 188.57 0.1222017 0.0203555
33 190.22 0.1585100 0.0247060 191.43 0.1389098 0.0209763
34 192.97 0.1781500 0.0254900 194.28 0.1623962 0.0215923
35 195.69 0.2031000 0.0262800 197.14 0.2024245 0.0222034
91
Table 13.4 Example 2 Results for Case of ‘Variable Elasticity’

1 0.00 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.00 0.0000000 0.0000000
2 27.85 0.0012381 -0.0004953 27.85 0.0011845 0.0004738
3 55.71 0.0023715 -0.0009486 55.71 0.0022733 0.0009093
4 83.56 0.0034166 -0.0013666 83.56 0.0032808 0.0013123
5 111.42 0.0043862 -0.0017544 111.42 0.0042184 0.0016874
6 114.24 0.0057961 -0.0010599 114.27 0.0060820 0.0024418
7 117.05 0.0079118 -0.0000264 117.13 0.0080190 0.0031920
8 119.88 0.0101640 0.0010152 119.99 0.0100334 0.0039379
9 122.72 0.0125440 0.0020546 122.85 0.0121299 0.0046793
10 125.56 0.0150520 0.0030892 125.70 0.0143139 0.0054160
11 128.39 0.0177030 0.0041210 128.56 0.0165912 0.0061480
12 131.23 0.0205010 0.0051470 131.42 0.0189685 0.0068753
13 134.08 0.0234610 0.0061690 134.28 0.0214533 0.0075976
14 136.91 0.0265950 0.0071870 137.13 0.0240545 0.0083150
15 139.75 0.0299070 0.0081970 139.99 0.0267818 0.0090274
16 142.58 0.0334270 0.0092030 142.85 0.0296466 0.0097347
17 145.42 0.0371620 0.0102040 145.71 0.0326622 0.0104369
18 148.25 0.0411310 0.0111950 148.56 0.0358440 0.0111341
19 151.09 0.0453630 0.0121830 151.42 0.0392101 0.0118260
20 153.92 0.0498790 0.0131610 154.28 0.0427819 0.0125129
21 156.75 0.0547130 0.0141330 157.14 0.0465849 0.0131946
22 159.58 0.0599050 0.0150970 159.99 0.0506503 0.0138711
23 162.41 0.0654990 0.0160550 162.85 0.0550159 0.0145425
24 165.23 0.0715490 0.0170030 165.71 0.0597287 0.0152087
25 168.05 0.0781180 0.0179440 168.57 0.0648482 0.0158698
26 170.88 0.0853110 0.0188750 171.42 0.0704509 0.0165258
27 173.70 0.0931910 0.0197970 174.28 0.0766374 0.0171767
28 176.51 0.1019300 0.0207140 177.14 0.0835443 0.0178225
29 179.32 0.1117000 0.0216160 180.00 0.0913629 0.0184632
30 182.13 0.1227400 0.0224960 182.85 0.1003734 0.0190990
31 184.92 0.1354200 0.0233760 185.71 0.1110101 0.0197297
32 187.71 0.1502000 0.0242380 188.57 0.1240007 0.0203555
33 190.49 0.1679500 0.0250900 191.43 0.1407088 0.0209763
34 193.25 0.1899900 0.0259100 194.28 0.1641952 0.0215923
35 196.00 0.2189800 0.0604200 197.14 0.2042235 0.0222034
92
2.50E+02
2.00E+02
1.50E+02
Phase2
Analytical
1.00E+02
5.00E+01
0.00E+00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Axial Strain
Fig. 13.7 ‘Constant elasticity’ analysis: variation of deviatoric stress with axial strain for
Example2
0.03
0.03
0.02
Volumetric Strain
0.02
Phase2
Analytical
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
-0.01
Axial Strain
Fig. 13.8 ‘Constant elasticity’ analysis: variation of volumetric strain with axial strain for
Example 2
93
250
200
150
Phase2
Analytical
100
50
0
0.00E+00 5.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.50E-01 2.00E-01 2.50E-01
Axial Strain
Fig. 13.7 ‘Variable elasticity’ analysis: variation of deviatoric stress with axial strain for
Example 2
0.030
0.025
0.020
Volumetric Strain
0.015
Phase2
Analytical
0.010
0.005
0.000
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
-0.005
Axial Strain
Fig. 13.8 ‘Variable elasticity’ analysis: variation of volumetric strain with axial strain for
Example 2
94
13.5 References
1. R.I. Borja and S.R. Lee, (1990), Cam-Clay plasticity, part I: implicit integration of elasto-
plastic constitutive relations, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 78,
49-72.
2. D.M. Potts and D. Ganendra, (1994), An evaluation of substepping and implicit stress point
algorithms, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 119, 341-354.
3. D.M. Potts and L. Zdravkovic, (1999), Finite Element Analysis in Geotechnical

Engineering: Volume I- Theory, 1st Ed., Thomas Telford, London.
13.6 Data Files
The input data files for the drained triaxial compressive testing of Modified Cam Clay samples
are:
File name Example Assumption

No.
stress #013_01.fez 1 Constant

elasticity
stress #013_02.fez 1 Variable

elasticity
stress #013_03.fez 2 Constant

elasticity
stress #013_04.fez 2 Variable

elasticity

Also included in the installation folder are two Microsoft Excel spreadsheet files – stress #013
Drained triaxial test for modified cam model (constant Poisson's ratio).xls and stress #013
Drained triaxial test for modified cam model (constant Poisson's ratio).xls – that implement the
closed-form solutions for drained triaxial compressive testing for Modified Cam Clay soils.
95
14 Non-Linear Analysis of Strip Footing in Sand
This problem verifies foundation settlements for the case of a strip footing in sand subjected to
incremental loads. This example uses Duncan and Chang hyperbolic model to capture the non-
linear stress-strain relationship. The material properties are as follows:
Modulus Number (KE) = 300
Modulus exp (n) = 0.55
Failure Ratio ( R f ) = 0.83
Cohesion ( c ) =0
Friction angle (φ) = 35.50
Unit Weight (γ) = 91 lb/ft3
Poisson’s Ratio (ν) = 0.35
The model geometry is shown in Figure 14.1. The footing width is 2.44 inch (Tomlinson, 2001).
Due to symmetry, only half of problem geometry is modeled.
Fig. 14.1: Model for non-linear finite element analysis of strip footing in sand
96
The Duncan-Chang Hyperbolic constitutive model is widely used for the modeling of soils with
more generalized stress-strain behavior, and is capable of modeling the stress-dependent strength
and stiffness of soils. The Duncan-Chang Hyperbolic can only be used in conjunction with the
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion in Phase2. The following equations are derived, based on a
hyperbolic stress-strain curve and stress-dependent material properties for the Duncan-Chang
Hyperbolic model.
The tangential modulus, (Et), is given by
⎞ ⎡ R f (1 − sin φ )(σ 1 − σ 3 ) ⎤
n 2
⎛ σ
Et = K E p atm ⎜⎜ 3 ⎟⎟ ⎢1 − ⎥
⎝ p atm ⎠ ⎣ 2c cos φ + 2σ 3 sin φ ⎦
Where
K E = modulus number (dimensionless)

patm = atmospheric pressure
σ3 = minor principal stress
σ1 = major principal stress
Rf = failure ratio
φ = friction angle
c = cohesion
14.3 Phase2 Model
♦ a graded mesh
♦ custom discretization of boundaries at the bottom half (23 discretization segments)
The side boundaries are restrained from lateral movement. The top boundary is unrestrained
(free), while the bottom boundary is fixed.
97
Fig. 14.2 Finite Element representation of the strip footing in Phase2
Figure 14.3 shows relationship between settlement and average footing pressure predicted by
Phase2 compared to the experiment and finite element analysis conducted by Tomlinson (2001).
The plot shows a good agreement between Phase2 and the experimental and analytical solution
provided by Tomlinson (2001).
98
Average footing Pressure-lb/in2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
0.1
Settlement-inches
0.2
Phase2
0.3
Experimental [Tomlinson]
Finite Element Analysis [Tomlinson]
0.4
Fig. 14.3 Comparison of Phase2 results for the strip footing in sand to results provided by
Tomlinson (2001)
14.5 References
1. J. M. Duncan and C. Y. Chang (1970), “Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soils”, J. of
Soil Mech. and Foundation Division, ASCE, 96 (SM5), pp. 1629-1653.
2. M. J. Tomlinson (2001), Foundation Design and Construction, 7th Ed., Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
14.6 Data Files
The input data file for the Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis of Strip Footing in Sand is:
stress #014.fez

99
15 Non-Linear Analysis of Circular Footing on Saturated,

Undrained Clay
This problem verifies foundation settlements for the case of a circular footing on saturated,
undrained clay subjected to incremental loads. This example uses Duncan and Chang hyperbolic
model to capture the non-linear stress-strain relationship. The material properties are as follows:
Modulus Number (KE) = 47
Modulus exp (n) =0
Failure Ratio ( R f ) = 0.90
Cohesion ( c ) = 0.5 t/ft2 = 1120 lb/ft2
Friction angle (φ) =0
Unit Weight (γ) = 110 lb/ft3
Poisson’s Ratio (ν) = 0.48
The model geometry is shown in Figure 15.1. The footing diameter is 8 feet (Tomlinson, 2001).
Due to symmetry, only half of problem geometry is modeled.
Fig. 15.1: Model for non-linear finite element analysis of circular footing on saturated,
undrained clay
100
The Duncan-Chang Hyperbolic constitutive model is widely used for the modeling of soils with
more generalized stress-strain behavior, and is capable of modeling the stress-dependent strength
and stiffness of soils. The Duncan-Chang Hyperbolic can only be used in conjunction with the
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion in Phase2. The following equations are derived, based on a
hyperbolic stress-strain curve and stress-dependent material properties for the Duncan-Chang
Hyperbolic model.
The tangential modulus, (Et), is given by
⎞ ⎡ R f (1 − sin φ )(σ 1 − σ 3 ) ⎤
n 2
⎛ σ
Et = K E p atm ⎜⎜ 3 ⎟⎟ ⎢1 − ⎥
⎝ p atm ⎠ ⎣ 2c cos φ + 2σ 3 sin φ ⎦
Where
K E = modulus number (dimensionless)

patm = atmospheric pressure
σ3 = minor principal stress
σ1 = major principal stress
Rf = failure ratio`
φ = friction angle
c = cohesion
15.3 Phase2 Model
♦ axisymmetric analysis
♦ a graded mesh
♦ 4-noded quadrilaterals finite elements (200 elements)
♦ custom discretization of boundaries around the concrete footing
The outer boundary is restrained from lateral movement. The top boundary is unrestrained (free),
while the bottom boundary is fixed.
101
Fig. 15.2 Finite Element representation of the strip footing in Phase2
Figure 15.3 shows relationship between settlement and footing pressure predicted by Phase2
compared to that of the theory of elasticity and plasticity and also to that generated from the
finite element analysis results conducted by Tomlinson (2001). The plot shows a good agreement
between Phase2 and the experimental and analytical solution provided by Tomlinson (2001).
102
Footing Pressure-t/ft2
0 1 2 3 4 5
0
Theory of Elasticity
1
Settlement-feet
Theory of Plasticity
Phase2
3
Theory of Elasticity-Plasticity
Finite Element Analysis [Tomlinson]
Fig. 15.3 Comparison of Phase2 results for the circular footing on saturated, undrained clay to
results provided by Tomlinson (2001)
15.5 References
1. J. M. Duncan and C. Y. Chang (1970), “Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soils”, J. of
Soil Mech. and Foundation Division, ASCE, 96 (SM5), pp. 1629-1653.
2. M. J. Tomlinson (2001), Foundation Design and Construction, 7th Ed., Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
15.6 Data Files
The input data file for the Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis of Circular Footing on Saturated,
Undrained Clay is:
stress #015.fez

103
16 Classical beam verification
16.1 Problem Description

This problem consists of the analysis of various types of classical beams using a Phase2 liner
with the Timoshenko beam formulation.
The properties used in this example are as follows:
w = 10 kPa L = 10 m E = 200 000 kPa ν = 1 × 10-5
Five beam types will be analyzed:
Case 1 Simply supported (Fig16.1)

Case 2 Cantilever (Fig16.2)
Case 3 Propped cantilever (Fig16.3)
Case 4 Propped cantilever with a hinge (Fig16.4)
Case 5 Circular with a hinge in the middle (Fig16.5)
10 kPa
10 m
Fig16.1 Simply supported beam
10 kPa
10 m
Fig16.2 Cantilever
104
10 kPa
10 m
Fig16.3 Propped cantilever
10 kPa
8m 2m
Fig16.4 Propped cantilever with a hinge
10 m
Fig16.5 Circular beam with a hinge in the middle

105
16.2 Analytical Solution
Analytical solutions for the first three cases are given in the Handbook of Steel Construction.
Solutions for the last two cases were developed from equilibrium equations.
16.3 Phase2 Model

The Phase2 model for this problem uses the Timoshenko beam formulation for the liner with the
properties specified in the problem description. A vertical uniform load is applied to each
segment.
Case 1 For the simply supported beam, one end was fixed in both X and Y directions, while the
other end was fixed in the Y direction.
Case 2 For the cantilever beam, one end was fixed in both X and Y directions with the addition
of a liner rotation-resistant node, while the other end was free.
Case 3 For the propped cantilever beam, one end was fixed in both X and Y directions with the
addition of a liner rotation-resistant node, while the other end was fixed in the Y direction.
Case 4 For the propped cantilever beam with a hinge, one end was fixed in both X and Y
directions with the addition of a liner rotation-resistant node, while the other end was fixed in the
Y direction. Also, a liner hinge was added to the beam.
Case 5 For the circular beam, both ends were fixed in both X and Y directions. Also, a liner
hinge was added to the center of the beam.
The Phase2 results match perfectly with the analytical results.

106
50
Phase2
30
Analytical
Shear (kN)
10
-10
-30
-50
20 Phase2
Analytical
40
Moment (kNm)
60
80
100
120
Fig. 16.6 Shear and bending moment diagrams for simply supported beam
107
100
Phase2
80
Analytical
Shear (kN)
60
40
20
500
400 Phase2
Analytical
Moment (kNm)
300
200
100
Fig. 16.7 Shear and bending moment diagrams for cantilever beam
108
80
60 Phase2
Analytical
40
Shear (kN)
20
-20
-40
-60
125
100 Phase2
75 Analytical
Moment (kNm)
50
25
-25
-50
-75
Fig. 16.8 Shear and bending moment diagrams for propped cantilever beam
109
100
80 Phase2
Analytical
60
Shear (kN)
40
20
-20
400
325
Phase2
Moment (kNm)
250 Analytical
175
100
25
-50
Fig. 16.9 Shear and bending moment diagrams for propped cantilever beam with hinge
110
90
80
70 Phase2
60 Analytical
Axial (kN)
50
40
30
20
10
0
15
10
5
0
Shear (kN)
-5
-10
Phase2
-15
-20
Analytical
-25
-30
-35
35
30
Phase2
25
Moment (kNm)
Analytical
20
15
10
Fig. 16.10 Axial, shear and bending moment diagrams for semi-circular beam with hinge (left
half of the beam, because of symmetry)
111
16.5 References
1. CISC (Canadian Institute of Steel Construction) (1982) Handbook of Steel Construction,

3rd Edition, Markham, Universal Offset Limited.
16.6 Data Files

The input data files are as follows:
stress #016_01.fez
stress #016_02.fez
stress #016_03.fez
stress #016_04.fez
stress #016_05.fez

112
17 Tunnel stability in purely cohesive soil

This verification example is of a tunnel excavation in a purely cohesive soil. The problem is
depicted in Figure 17.1 below. The main variables are the depth of cover (C), the tunnel
diameter (D), the soil properties (γ, cu), the load applied at the surface (σn) and the internal
pressure used to support the tunnel walls (σt).
σn
Ground surface
Soil
γ
cu
σt
Tunnel
Fig17.1 Problem geometry
17.2 Overload Factor

Broms & Bennermark (1967) and Peck (1969) introduced an overload factor to characterize
tunnel stability that is calculated as follows:
σ s + γ × H −σt
N=
cu
113
17.3 Phase2 Model

Due to symmetry, only half of the problem was modeled. The soil properties used were a cu of
10 kPa with no initial element loading (thus the effect of the overburden can be neglected when
calculating the overload factor). The Phase2 model for a C/D ratio of 1 is depicted in Figure
17.2 below.
Fig17.2 Phase2 model
Shear Strength Reduction (SSR) was performed on the models, and the critical SSR
obtained (which is equivalent to a factor of safety) was used to modify the cohesion of the
soil to be used in the overload factor equation.
114

The results from the Phase2 SSR are in agreement with published results. These are plotted in
figure 17.3 below.
B.I. Davis et al. (1980)

5
LIMI
B.S. Davis et al. (1980)
Phase2
N 3
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
C/D
Fig17.3 N vs. C/D for a plane strain tunnel in purely cohesive material
The deformation vectors and maximum shear strain contours are depicted in the following 5
figures.
115
Fig17.4 Deformation vectors and maximum shear strain for C/D=0.25
Fig17.5 Deformation vectors and maximum shear strain for C/D=1

116

117
17.5 References
1. Antao A., Magnan J-P., Leca E., Mestat PH., Humbert P., Finite element method and
limit analysis for geotechnical design, 6th International Symposium on Numerical Models
in Geomechanics, Montreal, Quebec (Canada), 2-4 July 1997, Proceedings Balkema, p.
433-438.
17.6 Data Files

stress #017_01.fez
stress #017_02.fez
stress #017_03.fez
stress #017_04.fez
stress #017_05.fez
118
18 Circular Load on Surface of a Single Layered Half-

Space

This problem is taken from the problem in the “Limit loads for multilayered half-space using the
linear matching method” a paper by Boulbibane, M. and Ponter, A.R.S. (2008).
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion was used to calculate the bearing capacity of a circular load on
the single layer of undrained clay shown in Figure 18.1. Several axisymmetric cases with
varying friction angle (φ) were studied. The material properties of the soil are given in Table 1.
The results of this study are compared to those of M. Boulbibane and A.R.S. Ponter.
The circular load is located on an elasto-plastic Mohr-Coulomb material with the following
properties:
Table 18.1 Material Properties
Friction Unit Poisson Cohesion, Young’s

Angle, weight, ratio, ν c (kPa) Modulus, E
φ, ( ˚) γ (kN/m2 ) (kPa)
Case1 0
Case 2 5
Case 3 10
Case 4 15 23 0.3 1 20 000
Case 5 20
Case 6 25
Case 7 30
The collapse load from Prandtl’s Wedge solution can be found in Terzaghi and Peck (1967):
q = ( 2 + π )c
≅ 514
. c
where c is the cohesion of the material, and q is the collapse load. The plastic flow region is
shown in Figure 18.1.
119
Fig 18.1 Prandtl’s wedge problem of a strip loading on a frictionless soil
Table 18.2 Prandtl’s Solution

Internal friction 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
angle
φ, ( ˚)
Prandtl’s Solution 5.14 6.49 8.34 10.97 14.83 20.72 30.14
Load (kN)
18.3 Phase2 Model

For this analysis, half-symmetry is used. The boundary conditions along with 8-noded
quadrilateral mesh density are shown in Figure 18.2.

120

Figures 18.3-18.5. Following the contour display is a graph showing the Load (kN) vs. Total
Displacement (m) for each case (Figures 18.6 to 18.12 respectively).
Fig.18.3 Major principal stress σ 1 for a circular load on a plastic Mohr-Coulomb material
121
Fig.18.4 Minor principal stress σ 3 for a circular load on a plastic Mohr-Coulomb material
Fig18.5 Total displacement distribution for a circular load on a plastic Mohr-Coulomb

material
122
14
12
Phase2
10
Load (kN)
0
0.00E+00 5.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.50E-03 2.00E-03
Total Displacement (m)
Fig. 18.6 – Graph of Load (kN) vs. Total displacement (m) of Case 1
14
12 Phase2
Prandtl's Solution
10
Load (kN)
0
0.00E+00 5.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.50E-03 2.00E-03 2.50E-03 3.00E-03
123
Phase2
14
Prandtl's
12 Solution
10
8
Load (kN)
0
0.00E+00 5.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.50E-03 2.00E-03 2.50E-03
35
30
Phase2
25
Prandtl's
Solution
Load (kN)
20
15
10
0
0.00E+00 1.00E-03 2.00E-03 3.00E-03 4.00E-03 5.00E-03
124
35
30
Phase2
25 Prandtl's Solution
Load (kN)
20
15
10
0
0.00E+00 1.00E-03 2.00E-03 3.00E-03 4.00E-03 5.00E-03 6.00E-03
35
30
25
Load (kN)
20
15
Phase 2
10
Prandtl's
Solution
5
0
0.00E+00 5.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.50E-02 2.00E-02 2.50E-02 3.00E-02 3.50E-02
125
35
30
25
Load (kN)
20
15 Phase2
Prandtl's Solution
10
0
0.00E+00 1.00E-02 2.00E-02 3.00E-02 4.00E-02 5.00E-02 6.00E-02
18.5 References
1. M. Boulbibane, A.R.S. Ponter (2005), “Limit loads for multilayered half-space using the
linear matching method”, Computers and Geotechnics, 32, pp. 535-544.
2. K. Terzaghi and R. B. Peck (1967), Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd Ed.
New York, John Wiley and sons.
18.6 Data Files
The input data files for Circular Load on the surface of a Mohr-Coulomb Material are:
stress #018_01.fez stress #018_02.fez

stress #018_07.fez

126
19 Circular Load on Surface of a Two Layered Mohr-

Coulomb Material

This problem is taken from the problem in the “Limit loads for multilayered half-space using the
linear matching method” a paper by Boulbibane, M. and Ponter, A.R.S. (2005).
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion was used to calculate the bearing capacity of a circular load on
the surface of the two layered undrained clay shown in Figure 19.1. Several axisymmetric cases
with varying strength ratios (c t /c b) were studied. The material properties of the soil are given in
Table 1. The results of this study are compared to those of M. Boulbibane and A.R.S. Ponter.
The circular load is located on a two layered elasto-plastic Mohr-Coulomb half-space with the
following properties:
Table 19.1 Material Properties
Strength Unit weight, Poisson’s Friction Young’s Modulus,

Ratio, ct/cb γ (kN/m2 ) ratio, ν Angle, E (kPa)
(kPa) φ, (˚)
Case1 0.2
Case 2 0.4
Case 3 0.6 23 0.3 0 20 000
Case 4 0.8
Case 5 1.0
Case 6 1.5
Case 7 2.0
Case 8 2.5 23 0.3 0 20 000
Case 9 3.0
Case 10 3.5
Case 11 4.0
The plastic failure for a load placed on stronger soil underlain by weaker soil is shown in figure
19.1 below where B is the Loading, D is the depth to which the load is applied, and H is the
remaining depth to the next material boundary. For the analyses performed in this problem, D =
0 as the load is applied on the surface.
127
Fig 19.1 Das’s bearing capacity of layered soils: Stronger soil underlain by weaker soil
Table 19.2 Prandtl’s Solution
Strength Ratio, ct/cb 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
(kPa)
Prandtl’s Solution 1.06 2.12 3.18 4.24 5.26 6.68 7.64 8.55 9.27 9.84 10.3
Load (kN)
19.3 Phase2 Model

For this analysis, half-symmetry is used. The boundary conditions along with 8-noded
quadrilateral mesh density are shown in Figure 19.2.

128

Figures19.3-19.5. Following the contour display is a graph showing the Load (kN) vs. Total
Displacement (m) for each case (Figures 19.6 to 19.16 respectively).
Fig.19.3 Major principal stress σ 1 for a circular load on a two layered Mohr-Coulomb
material
129
Fig.19.4 Minor principal stress σ 3 for a circular load on two layered Mohr-Coulomb material
Fig.19.5 Total displacement distribution for a circular load on a two layered Mohr-Coulomb material
130
Phase2
4
Prandtl's Solution
Load (kN)
0
0.00E+00 5.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.50E-03 2.00E-03
5 Phase2
Prandtl's Solution
4
Load (kN)
0
0.00E+00 1.00E-03 2.00E-03 3.00E-03
131
5
Phase2
4
Prandtl's Solution
Load (kN)
0
0.00E+00 1.00E-03 2.00E-03 3.00E-03 4.00E-03 5.00E-03
4
Load (kN)
3
Phase2
2
Prandtl's
Solution
1
0
0.00E+00 2.00E-03 4.00E-03 6.00E-03 8.00E-03
132
4
Load (kN)
3
Phase2
2
Prandtl's
Solution
1
0
0.00E+00 2.00E-03 4.00E-03 6.00E-03 8.00E-03 1.00E-02
10
9
8
7
Load (kN)
6
5
4 Phase2
3
Prandtl's
2
Solution
1
0
0.00E+00 1.00E-03 2.00E-03 3.00E-03 4.00E-03 5.00E-03
133
10
9
8
7
6
Load (kN)
5
4 Phase2
2
1
0
0.00E+00 1.00E-03 2.00E-03 3.00E-03 4.00E-03 5.00E-03
10
9
8
7
6
Load (kN)
5
4 Phase2
2
1
0
0.00E+00 2.00E-03 4.00E-03 6.00E-03 8.00E-03
134
14
12
10
Load (kN)
6 Phase2
Prandtl's Solution
4
0
0.00E+00 1.00E-03 2.00E-03 3.00E-03 4.00E-03 5.00E-03
14
12
10
Load (kN)
6 Phase2
Prandtl's Solution
4
0
0.00E+00 5.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.50E-02
135
14
12
Load (kN) 10
6 Phase2
Prandtl's Solution
4
0
0.00E+00 5.00E-03 1.00E-02
19.5 References
1. M. Boulbibane, A.R.S. Ponter (2005), “Limit loads for multilayered half-space using the
linear matching method”, Computers and Geotechnics, 32, pp. 535-544.
2. Braja M. Das (2007), Principles of Foundation Engineering, 6thEdition. Thomson Canada

Limited.
19.6 Data Files
The input data files for a Circular Load on the Surface of a two layered Mohr-Coulomb Material
are:

stress #019_11.fez

136
20 Plane strain heading in a plastic Mohr-Coulomb

material

This verification example is of a plane strain heading in a rigid material. The problem is
depicted in Figure 20.1 below. The main variables are the height (D), the cover (C), the soil
properties (γ, cuo), the load applied at the surface (σs) and the internal pressure used to
support the heading walls (σt).
Fig17.1 Problem geometry
20.2 Load Parameter

C.E. Augarde et al. introduced a load parameter (N) to characterize tunnel stability that is
calculated as follows:
σ s −σt
N=
cuo
Also, another dimensionless parameter (M) was established using the self-weight, height and
cohesion:
γD
M=
cuo
Varying the above parameter, different loading cases were studied and the results were
documented in a graphical format.
137
20.3 Phase2 Model

Plane strain analysis was used. The Phase2 model for a C/D ratio of 5 is depicted in Figure 20.2
below.
Fig20.2 Phase2 plane strain model

The results from the Phase2 plane strain analysis are in agreement with published results. These
are plotted in figure 20.3 below.
138
15
10
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
5
Upper Bound
Load Parameter (N)
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
-5
M=0
-10 M=1
M=2
Lower Bound
Phase2
-15
1 2 3 4 5 C/D 6 7 8 9 10
Fig20.3 Load Parameter (N) vs. C/D for a plane strain wall in purely cohesive material
The deformation vectors and total displacement contours for the case C/D=5 and M=0, 1 and 2
are depicted in the following figures.
139
Fig20.4 Total displacement for C/D=5, M=0

140
20.5 References
1. Charles E. Augarde, Andrei V. Lyamin, Scott W. Sloan (2003), “Stability of undrained

plane strain heading revisited”, Computers and Geotechnics, 30, pp. 419-430.
20.6 Data Files

stress #020_01.fez stress #020_05.fez stress #020_09.fez

141
21 Stress Distribution Along a Grouted Rock Bolt

This problem examines the shear stress in a thin annulus of grout around a grouted rock bolt
subjected to a pullout force. The geometry is shown in Figure 21.1.
t τ
r=a r =
σ0
grout rock
Figure 21. 1. Geometry of grouted bolt
21.2 Analytical solution

Farmer (1975) offers the following equation for the shear stress distribution along a typical
anchor bolt:
τ
= 0.1 exp(− 0.2 x / a )
σ0
Where τx is the shear force in the grout, σ0 is the applied pull out stress, x is the distance from
the head of the bolt and a is the bolt radius. The equation is derived with the following
assumptions:
1. Gg = 0.005×Ea where Gg is the grout shear modulus and Ea is the bolt Young’s modulus
2. R – a = 0.25a where R is the radius of the hole and a is the radius of the bolt
21.3 Phase2 model

The Phase2 model for the test and the bolt parameters used are shown in Figure 21. 2. A dense
mesh was used near the head of the bolt where high stress gradients are expected. A
swellex/split set bolt was used to simulate the grouted rock anchor. The behaviour was set to be
elastic so no failure occurred. The bolt properties were derived as follows:
• The Young’s modulus of the bolt was set to Ea = 98,600 MPa

142
• According to assumption 1 above, the shear modulus of the grout is 0.005 times the Young’s
modulus. Therefore Gg = 493 MPa
• The shear stiffness of the grout was calculated from the following equation
2πG g
Kg = (Itasca, 2004)
ln (1 + t / a )
According to assumption 2 above, the thickness of the grout t = R-a = 0.25a. Therefore the
ratio t/a = 0.25. This yields for the shear stiffness
Kg = 13,882 MN/m
• The tributary area was set to 232.5 mm2. If we assume this represents the equivalent area of
the bolt, then the equivalent radius of the bolt, a = 8.6 mm. By assumption 2, the radius of
the hole, R = 10.825 mm
• The pull out force was set to 0.1 MN
Figure 21. 2. Phase2 model and bolt properties
21.4 Results and discussion

The minimum compressive stress in the model and the shear force per unit length along the bolt
are shown in Figure 21. 3. A plot showing shear stress distribution along the bolt compared to
the analytical solution is shown in Figure 21. 4.
The shear stress is calculated for two different scenarios:

143
1. The shear stress is acting at the boundary between the bolt and the grout. In this case, the
shear stress is calculated by
F
τ= s
2πa
Where Fs is the shear force per unit length.
2. The shear stress is acting at the boundary between the grout and the rock. In this case,
the shear stress is calculated by
F
τ= s
2πR
It can be seen in Figure 21. 4 that these two solutions bracket the analytical solution.
Figure 21. 3. Minimum compressive stress (σ3) in the rock and shear force per unit length in
the bolt
144
Shear stress (MPa)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
Distance along bolt (m)
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14

Shear stress at bolt surface
0.18
Shear stress at hole surface
0.2
Figure 21. 4. Shear stress distributions along the bolt.
21.5 References
1. Farmer, I.W., 1975. Stress distribution along a resin grouted rock anchor, Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 11, 347-351.
2. Itasca Consulting Brout Inc., 2004. FLAC v 5.0 User’s Guide – Structural Elements,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
21.6 Data Files
The input data file for Stress Distribution Along a Grouted Rock Bolt is:
stress #021.fez

145
22 Circular Tunnel Reinforced by Rock Bolts

This problem examines the behaviour of a tunnel excavated in elastic material under a uniform
hydrostatic far-field stress. The tunnel is reinforced by end-anchored or fully-bonded rock bolts.

Carranza-Torres gives the analytical solution for radial displacement, radial stress and tangential
(hoop) stress for the reinforced rock around the tunnel. The solution assumes that the effect of
each rock bolt can be ‘spread’ uniformly throughout its area of influence so that during
deformation, the problem remains axisymmetric and the field quantities depend on the distance
to the center of the tunnel only. The validity of the assumption depends on the spacing of the
rock bolts around the circumference of the tunnel and along the axis of the tunnel and also on the
contrast of stiffness of rock bolt and surrounding medium.
22.3 Phase2 model

The Phase2 model for the test and the parameters used are shown in Figure 22.5. The model
uses:
• A tunnel radius of 1 m with 72 segments around the tunnel
• A radial mesh of 4-noded quadrilateral elements
• An expansion factor of 3 so that the external boundary is 6 m from the hole centre
• Infinite elastic elements on the outer boundary
146
Figure 22.5. Phase2 model used in the reinforced tunnel model.

The far field stresses were set to:
σ1 = 10 MPa
σ3 = 10 MPa
σz = 10 MPa
The following material parameters were used:
Material type = Elastic

Young’s modulus (E) = 250 MPa
Poisson’s ratio (ν) = 0.3
The following bolt properties were used:
Bolt diameter = 25 mm
Bolt modulus (E) = 116.67 GPa
Bolt spacing along the tunnel axis = 1 m
Bolt length = 1 m
Bolt spacing radially = 0.0873 m (72 bolts around the tunnel circumference)
The tensile capacity was set to a high value to ensure no failure occurred.
Two different types of bolts were tested: end anchored and fully bonded. Properties were the
same for both.
22.4 Results and discussion

Graphs of radial deformation and stress for the end-anchored bolts are shown in Figure 22.6 and
Figure 22.7 and for the fully-bonded bolts in Figure 22.8 and Figure 22.9. The Phase2 models
generally match the analytical solution well.
147
40
35
Analytical Phase2
30
Radial displacement (mm)
25
20
15
10
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Radius (m)
Figure 22.6. Radial displacements for the end-anchored model compared to the analytical
solution.
20
18 SigR (analytical) SigT (analytical)
16 SigR (Phase2) SigT (Phase2)
14
12
Stress (MPa)
10
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Radius (m)
Figure 22.7. Radial (SigR) and tangential (SigT) stresses for the end-anchored model
compared to the analytical solution.
148
40
35
Analytical Phase2
30
Radial displacement (mm)
25
20
15
10
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Radius (m)
Figure 22.8. Radial displacements for the fully-bonded model compared with the analytical
solution.
20
18
SigR (analytical)
16 SigT (analytical)
SigR (Phase2)
SigT (Phase2)
14
12
Stress (MPa)
10
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Radius (m)
Figure 22.9. Radial (SigR) and tangential (SigT) stresses for the fully-bonded model
compared to the analytical solution.
149
22.5 References
1. Carranza-Torres, C., (2002). “Elastic solution for the problem of excavating a circular
tunnel reinforced by i) anchored or ii) fully grouted rockbolts in a medium subject to
uniform far-fields stresses”. Note for the International Canada/US/Japan joint cooperation
on rock bolt analysis.
22.6 Data Files
The input data files for Circular Tunnel Reinforced by Rock Bolts are:
stress #022_01.fez (End-anchored)
stress #022_02.fez (Fully Bonded)

Phase: Stress Analysis Verification Manual

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

Phase: Stress Analysis Verification Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2

Stress Analysis Verification Manual

© 1989 - 2008 Rocscience Inc.

1 Cylindrical Hole in an Infinite Elastic Medium

1.1 Problem description

The material is isotropic and elastic, with the following properties:

Young’s modulus = 6777.93 MPa

1.2 Closed Form Solution

where G is the shear modulus and ν is the Poisson ratio.

Fig 1.1 Cylindrical hole in an infinite elastic medium

1.3 Phase2 Model

1.4 Results and Discussion

Average Maximum Hole Boundary

ur 2.32 5.39 1.10

σr 0.62 2.50 ----

σθ 0.41 1.42 0.43

Radial distance from center (m)

Fig.1.4 Comparison of ur for the cylindrical hole in an infinite elastic medium

Fig.1.5 Major principal stress σ 1 distribution

Fig.1.6 Minor principal stress σ 3 distribution

Fig.1.7 Total displacement distribution

1.6 Data Files

This can be found in the Phase2 installation folder.

2 Cylindrical Hole in an Infinite Mohr-Coulomb Medium

2.1 Problem description

Young’s modulus = 6777.93 MPa

2.2 Closed Form Solution

Where P0 = Radius of hole

The radial stress at the elastic-plastic interface is

The stresses and radial displacement in the elastic zone are

2.3 Phase2 Model

Fig.2.1 Model for Phase2 analysis of a cylindrical hole in

2.4 Results and Discussion

Non-Associated Flow Associated Flow

ur 3.34 5.46 1.22 4.20 6.10 2.37

σr 1.39 9.19 --- 2.01 9.23 ---

σθ 1.22 4.58 --- 1.61 6.77 ---

Analytical Sol. Sigma1

Yield zone radius

Radial distance from center (m)

Fig. 2.2 Comparison of σ r and σ θ for Non-Associated flow ( ψ = 0 0 )

Radial distance from center (m)

Fig. 2.3 Comparison of ur for Non-Associated flow ( ψ = 0 0 )

Analytical Sol. Sigma1

Yield zone radius

Radial distance from center (m)

Fig. 2.4 Comparison of M and σ 3 for Associated flow ( ψ = 30 0 )

Radial distance from center (m)

Fig. 2.5 Comparison of ur for Associated flow ( ψ = 30 0 )

Fig. 2.6 Major principal stress σ 1 distribution ( ψ = 0 0 )

Fig. 2.7 Minor principal stress σ 3 distribution ( ψ = 0 0 )

Fig. 2.8 Total displacement distribution ( ψ = 0 0 )

Fig. 2.9 Plastic region ( ψ = 0 0 )

1. Salencon, J. (1969), Contraction Quasi-Statique D’une Cavite a Symetrie Spherique Ou

2. Itasca Consulting Group, INC (1993), Cylindrical Hole in an Infinite Mohr-Coulomb

2.6 Data Files

stress #002_01.fez (Non-Associated flow)

These files can be found in the Phase2 installation folder.

3 Cylindrical Hole in an Infinite Hoek-Brown Medium

3.1 Problem description

Young’s modulus = 10000.00 MPa

The Hoek-Brown parameters for the initial rock are:

The residual Hoek-Brown parameters for the yielded rock are: