Reason for this type of failure when doing safety analysis

Hi all, 

I'm doing MH analysis using axisymmetric model. There are 2 materials, top part is 20mm thk steel plate and bottom 250mm thk RC as shown below. 

While doing un-drained analysis, during safety analysis case, the failure surface looks like near the meeting point of steel and RC part (not happened in drained analysis) and it reduces the value so much (i guess this failure can't be occurred). Please tell what is the reason for this?

Thanks. 

Parents
  • Dear Nitha,

    This might be related to the fact that the excess pore pressures increase quite a lot for the undrained material. Have you considered the following article in your modelling?
    https://communities.bentley.com/products/geotech-analysis/w/plaxis-soilvision-wiki/45955/safety-analysis-and-undrained-behaviour

    It seems relevant to your situation.

  • Dear Mr. Stefanos, 

    Thanks for that material and by providing ignore un-drained behaviour in the safety analysis which provided nice failure surface when compare with the previous unsuitable failure surface. 

    By reading that article, I encounter some unclear matters. Please help to clarify these.

    01. Since the soil i have adopted here is cohesive soil with phi=0, so here I'm eager to know how excess pore water pressure influence in the un-drained shear strength of the soil?

    02. In the above case (circular excavation), previous calculation I didn't provide ignore the un-drained behaviour, that time in safety analysis i cut the section near to and see the current cohesion and the value came as like this (10.91E3 max) and excess pore water pressure also increased from 164kPa (plastic calculation) to 1xE3 (safety analysis). How it is possible? 

    03. In that articles why it is mentioned as considering excess pore pressure depends on the situation? Here in safety analysis we are checking what is the safety of the system under this condition (means same amount of excess pore water pressure from the plastic analysis). So changing the excess pore pressure in the safety analysis is not good approach in my point of view. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

    Thanks. 

Reply
  • Dear Mr. Stefanos, 

    Thanks for that material and by providing ignore un-drained behaviour in the safety analysis which provided nice failure surface when compare with the previous unsuitable failure surface. 

    By reading that article, I encounter some unclear matters. Please help to clarify these.

    01. Since the soil i have adopted here is cohesive soil with phi=0, so here I'm eager to know how excess pore water pressure influence in the un-drained shear strength of the soil?

    02. In the above case (circular excavation), previous calculation I didn't provide ignore the un-drained behaviour, that time in safety analysis i cut the section near to and see the current cohesion and the value came as like this (10.91E3 max) and excess pore water pressure also increased from 164kPa (plastic calculation) to 1xE3 (safety analysis). How it is possible? 

    03. In that articles why it is mentioned as considering excess pore pressure depends on the situation? Here in safety analysis we are checking what is the safety of the system under this condition (means same amount of excess pore water pressure from the plastic analysis). So changing the excess pore pressure in the safety analysis is not good approach in my point of view. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

    Thanks. 

Children