EOSC433/536:

Geological Engineering
Practice I – Rock Engineering

Lecture 10:
Deformation Analysis
and Elasto-Plastic
Yield

1 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

Numerical Modelling
Numerical methods of stress and deformation analysis fall into two
categories:
incl. boundary-element method
only problem boundary is defined
Integral
& discretized
Methods
Pro: more computationally
efficient; Con: restricted to
elastic analyses

incl. finite-element/-difference
& distinct-element methods

Differential problem domain is defined &

discretized
Methods
Pro: non-linear & heterogeneous
material properties
accommodated; Con: longer
solution run times
2 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

1
Numerical Analysis – Differential Methods
Differential methods are more difficult and time consuming than boundary
analyses (BEM), both in terms of model preparation and solution run times. As
such, they require special expertise if they are to be carried out
successfully.
… finite-difference method
continuum
… finite-element method

… discrete-element method
discontinuum
… distinct-element method

New Considerations (relative to BEM):

• Division of problem domain (i.e. meshing efficiency & element types).
• Selection of appropriate constitutive models (i.e. stress-strain response of
elements to applied forces).
• Determination of material properties for selected constitutive models (generally
derived from lab testing with scaling to field conditions).
• Limiting boundary conditions and special loading conditions.

3 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

Numerical Analysis – Differential Methods

Continuum Methods Discontinuum Methods
 Rock/soil mass behaviour  Rock mass represented as a
represented as a continuum. assemblage of distinct interacting
 Procedure exploits approximations to blocks or bodies.
the connectivity of elements, and  Blocks are subdivided into a
continuity of displacements and deformable finite-difference mesh
stresses between elements. which follows linear or non-linear
stress-strain laws.

Stead et al. (2006)

4 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

2
Numerical Analysis – Continuum Methods

Commercial Software:
FLAC (Itasca) - http://www.itascacg.com/
Phase2 (Rocscience) - http://www.rocscience.com/
DIANA (TNO) - http://www.tnodiana.com/
ELFEN (Rockfield Software Ltd.) - http://www.rockfield.co.uk/
VISAGE (VIPS Ltd.) - http://vips.co.uk/
PLAXIS (PLAXIS BV) - http://www.plaxis.nl/
SVSolid (Soil Vision Systems Ltd.) - http://www.soilvision.com/
ANSYS (ANSYS, Inc.) - http://www.ansys.com/

5 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

Continuum Analysis – The Basics

Continuum methods divide the rock mass into a set of simple sub-
domains called “elements”. These elements can be of any geometric
shape that allows computation or provides the necessary relation to
the values of the solution at selected points called “nodes”.

This technique allows:

… accurate representation finite
of complex geometries and elements
inclusion of dissimilar
materials.
nodes
… accurate representation
of the solution within each
element, to bring out local
boundary
effects (e.g. stress or
condition
strain concentrations).

6 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

3
Steps in a FEM Solution

Division of the problem domain into parts

(both to represent the geometry
as well as the solution of the problem)

Seek an approximate solution for each part

(using a linear combination of nodal values
and approximation functions)

Assemble the parts and solve for the whole

(by deriving the algebraic relations among the nodal values
of the solution over each part)

7 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

Basic Formulation of FEM Equations

Piece-wise approximation: The finite-element method has a central
requirement that the field quantities (stress, displacement) vary
throughout each element in a prescribed fashion using specific functions.
As such, the problem domain is represented by an array of small,
interconnected subregions.

Compatibility Material Behaviour Equilibrium

Potts & Zdravković (1999)

8 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

4
Basic Formulation of FEM Equations
FEM does not solve for a single element, it is assembled and solved as
a whole (FDM, on the other hand, sweeps through a mesh and solves
implicitly, element by element).

Compatibility Material Behaviour Equilibrium

matrix that relates matrix of material

the strains inside the behaviour or the
constitutive matrix interpolation of
element with the
for the element displacements
nodal displacements
across element
(i.e. through shape
 = B∙ae  = D∙B∙ae functions matrix)

strains stress solved for

nodal strain
displacements

9 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

Finite-Element Matrix Assembly

Potts & Zdravković (1999)

10 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

5
 Numerical Analysis – Continuum Methods
In geotechnical engineering, there are two key continuum-based
differential approaches used (to find an approximate solution to a set of
partial differential equations):
Finite-Difference Finite-Element
- method is an approximation to the - method is an approximation to the
differential equation solution of the differential equation
- solves a problem on a set of points - solves a problem on the interiors of
that form a grid the grid cells (elements) and for the
grid points
- easier to implement, but
approximation between grid points can - can more easily handle complex
be problematic. geometries

FLAC – Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (by Itasca)

finite difference

Phase2 (by RocScience)

finite element

11 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

Numerical Problem Solving

3. Choose constitutive
model & material
2. Mesh properties
y = 600 m

1. Build geometry

x = 800 m

4. Define boundary &

initial conditions

6. Visualize & interpret

5. Compute

12 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

6
Analysis in Geotechnical Design
Geotechnical analyses involve complex systems! Often, field data required
for model input (e.g. in situ stresses, material properties, geological
structure, etc.) are not available or can never be known
completely/exactly. This creates uncertainty, preventing the models from
being used to provide design data (e.g. expected displacements).
Such models, however, may prove useful in providing a picture of the
mechanisms acting in a particular system. In this role, the model may be
used to aid intuition/judgement providing a series of cause-and-effect
examples.

 complicated geology  simple geology

Situation  inaccessible  $$$ spent on site
 no testing budget investigation

Data none complete (?)

Approach investigation of predictive

failure mechanism(s) (design use)

13 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

Problem Solving: 2-D or 3-D?

Many geotechnical problems can be assumed to be plane strain
(2-D assumption) without significant loss of accuracy of the
solution.

… in plane strain, one

dimension must be considerably
longer than the other two;
… strains along the out-of-
plane direction can be assumed
to be zero;
… as such, we only have to
solve for strains in one 2-D
plane.
Potts & Zdravković (1999)

14 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

7
Problem Solving: Meshing
The intention of grid generation is to fit the model grid to the physical
domain under study. When deciding on the geometric extent of the grid
and the number of elements to specify, the following two aspects must be
considered:
1. How will the location of the grid boundaries influence model results?

2. What density of zoning is required for an accurate solution in the

region of interest?

Do’s and Don’ts

- The density of elements should be highest in
regions of high stress or strain gradients.
- The greatest accuracy is achieved when the
element’s aspect ratio is near unity; anything
above 10:1 is potentially inaccurate (5:1 for
FDM).
- The ratio between adjacent elements should
not exceed 4:1 (using a smooth transition to
zone from fine to coarse mesh).

15 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

Material Properties
A key advantage of differential
methods over integral methods is
that by discretizing the problem
domain, the assignment of varying
material properties throughout a
heterogeneous rock mass is
permitted.

Material properties required by the

chosen constitutive stress-strain
relationship are generally derived from
laboratory testing programs.
Laboratory values should be
extrapolated to closely correlate with
the actual in situ conditions.

16 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

8
Problem Solving: Constitutive Models
During deformation, solid materials undergoes irreversible strains
relating to slips at grain/crack boundaries and the opening/closing
of pore space/cracks through particle movements. Constitutive
relations act to describe, in terms of phenomenological laws, the
stress-strain behaviour of these particles in terms of a collective
behaviour within a continuum.

   

   
elastic rigid – perfectly elastic - perfectly elastic - plastic
plastic plastic (strain
hardening/softening)

17 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

Constitutive Models
“Most fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple and may,
as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone”.
Einstein
… the more complex the constitutive model, the more the number of
input parameters it requires and the harder it gets to determine these
parameters without extensive, high quality (and of course, expensive)
laboratory testing;

… as such, one should always begin by using the simplest model that can
represent the key behaviour of the problem, and increase the
complexity as required.

“Everything should be made as simple as possible…

but not simpler”.
Einstein

18 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

9
Constitutive Models for Geomaterials

 Linear elastic (isotropic) 

 Linear elastic (anisotropic)

 Viscoelastic
- influence of rate of deformation E

 Elastic-perfectly plastic 
- von Mises
- Drucker-Prager
- Mohr-Coulomb

 Elasto-plastic
- Cam-clay
- strain softening

19 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

The Elastic Compliance Matrix - Isotropy

Isotropy assumptions used for rock:

Hudson & Harrison (1997)

20 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

10
Constitutive Models for Geomaterials

 Linear elastic (isotropic)

 Linear elastic (anisotropic)

 Viscoelastic
- influence of rate of deformation

 Elastic-perfectly plastic
- von Mises
- Drucker-Prager
- Mohr-Coulomb

 Elasto-plastic
- Cam-clay
- strain softening

21 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

Plasticity: An Introduction
Elastic materials have a unique stress-strain relationship given by
the generalized Hooke’s law. For many materials, the overall
stress-strain response is not unique. Many states of strains can
correspond to one state of stress and vice-versa. Such materials
are called inelastic or plastic.

… when load is increased, material

behaves elastically up to point B,
and regains its original state upon
unloading.
… if the material is stressed
beyond point B up to C, and then
unloaded, there will be some
permanent or irrecoverable
deformations in the body, and the
material is said to have undergone
plastic deformations.

22 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

11
 Plasticity & Yield Solution
- Initial stress state.
Step 1
When run elastically, yield
and/or failure within the model
are not considered/enabled.

An elasto-plastic model allows

and solves for yielding within
the model (and the resulting
displacements that arise). All Solution Step 2 - Disequilibrium condition.
plastic models potentially involve
some degree of permanent,
path-dependent deformations.
Once an element has reached
it’s yield state, further
increases in stress must be
supported by neighbouring
elements, which in turn may
yield, setting off a chain
reaction leading to localization
and catastrophic failure.

23 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

Plasticity & Yield

Elastic Analysis
Elasto-Plastic Analysis

 elastic-plastic
(strain softening)
Eberhardt et al. (1997)

 carrying
capacity

residual
strength


24 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

12
 Shear Strength Reduction

2nd strength
reduction

1st “failure”

Displacement
strength
reduction
(Itasca – FLAC\Slope)

Calculation steps (time)

The shear strength is reduced until collapse

Strength reduction: occurs, from which a factor of safety is
produced by comparing the estimated shear
cmob=c/F φmob = φ/F strength of the material to the
reduced/increased shear strength at failure.

25 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

Understanding Shear Strength Reduction

mesh
dependency

Eberhardt (2008)

modelling
“failure”

26 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

13
Good Modelling Practice
The modelling of geomechanical processes involves special considerations
and a design philosophy different from that in other fields of applied
mechanics. This is because situations in earth materials often involve
limited amounts of input data.
As such, the model should never be considered as a “black box” that
accepts data input at one end and produces a prediction at the other. The
model should instead be prepared carefully and tested several times in
progression of increasing difficulty to gain a full understanding of the
problem.

Step 1 - Define the objectives of the model analysis.

In order to Step 2 - Create a conceptual picture of the physical system.
perform a
Step 3 - Construct and run idealized models.
successful
numerical Step 4 - Assemble problem-specific data.
study, several Step 5 - Prepare a series of detailed runs.
steps are
Step 6 - Perform the model calculations.
recommended:
Step 7 - Present results for interpretation.

27 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

Input & Assumptions

The fundamental requirement for a meaningful modelling study
should include the following steps of data collection/evaluation:
– site characterization (geological and hydrogeological conditions);
– groundwater conditions (pore pressure model);
– geotechnical parameters (strength, deformability, permeability);
– instability mechanisms (kinematics or potential failure modes).

“if you do not know what you are looking for,

you are not likely to find much of value”

R. Glossop, 8th Rankine Lecture, 1968

28 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

14
Good Modelling Practice

“numerical modelling should not be used as a

substitute for thinking, but as an aid to thought ”

… results of a survey
of nine commonly
used geotechnical
modelling programs
and their response to
impossible (e.g. E<0)
and implausible
(Esoil>Erock) input
data.

Crilly (1993)

29 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

Good Modelling Practice

Definition of Problem

Establish Controlling Failure Mechanism

Choice of Appropriate Analysis Method

Definition of Input Parameters

Initial Analysis

Detailed Analysis

Rigorous Validation

30 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

15
Case Study: Model Verification & Validation
Palabora: Managing geo-risk through improved data
integration, model input and constraint of 3-D
model uncertainty.

31 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

Case Study: Model Verification & Validation

Collect mine data

(problem geometry, geology &
model constraints)

Build 3-D data

model

32 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

16
Case Study: Model Verification & Validation

Collect mine data

(problem geometry, geology
& model constraints)

Build 3-D data model

Woo et al. (2011)

Build 3-D
numerical model

33 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

Case Study: Model Verification & Validation

Woo et al. (2011)

production data

microseismic data

satellite
imagery
(volume
balance)

34 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

17
Case Study: Model Verification & Validation

Woo et al. (2011)

35 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

Case Study: Model Verification & Validation

average properties

lower-bound properties

Woo et al. (2011)

36 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

18
Case Study: Model Verification & Validation

Model Input
Inputs Confidence
Surface topography Good
Model boundaries Good Digital mine plans
Material boundaries Good
Cave geometry Marginal Limited data
Mesh controls Good Sensitivity testing
Constitutive model
(for each rock unit) Poor
Geological uncertainty
Rock mass properties Poor
(for each rock unit)
In-situ stresses Marginal Inconclusive field data

37 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

Case Study: Model Verification & Validation

Collect mine data
(problem geometry, geology
& model constraints)

Build 3-D data model

Build 3-D numerical

model

Carry out parametric ELASTIC

and constitutive
ELASTO-PLASTIC
analyses
UBIQUITOUS JOINT
Calibrate and
constrain models STRAIN SOFTENING

38 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

19
Case Study: Model Verification & Validation

Rabus et al. (2009)

39 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

Case Study: Model Verification & Validation

28 mm

0 mm
April 10 – July 15, 2009 (96 days separation)
Data courtesy of MDA
40 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

20
Case Study: Model Verification & Validation

Forward Analysis: Predictive Model (2009-2010) Woo et al. (2011)

ascending
10-40mm (red)
10-20mm (yellow)
0-10mm (green)

41 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

Case Study: Model Verification & Validation

Forward Analysis: Predictive Model (2009-2010) Woo et al. (2011)

descending
10-40mm (red)
10-20mm (yellow)
0-10mm (green)

42 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

21
Case Study: Model Verification & Validation

Forward Analysis:
Predictive Model (2009-2010)

Woo et al. (2011)

43 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

Lecture References
Crilly, M (1993). Report on the BGS meeting ‘Validation of Geotechnical software for design’. Ground
Engineering 26(9): 19-23.
Eberhardt, E (2008). Twenty-Ninth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: The role of advanced
numerical methods and geotechnical field measurements in understanding complex deep-seated rock
slope failure mechanisms. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 45(4): 484-510.
Glossop, R (1968). The rise of geotechnology and its influence on engineering practice. Géotechnique
18: 105-150.
Hudson, JA & Harrison, JP (1997). Engineering Rock Mechanics – An Introduction to the Principles .
Elsevier Science: Oxford.
Potts, DM & Zdravković, L (1999). Finite Element Analysis in Geotechnical Engineering: Theory.
Thomas Telford: London.
Rabus, B, Eberhardt, E, Stead, D, Ghuman, P, Nadeau, C, Woo, K, Severin, J, Styles, T &
Gao, F (2009). Application of InSAR to constrain 3-D numerical modelling of complex discontinuous
pit slope deformations. In Slope Stability 2009: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rock
Slope Stability in Open Pit Mining and Civil Engineering, Santiago.
Stead, D, Eberhardt, E & Coggan, JS (2006). Developments in the characterization of complex
rock slope deformation and failure using numerical modelling techniques. Engineering Geology 83(1-3):
217-235.

44 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

22
Lecture References
Valley, B, Thuro, K, Eberhardt, E & Raetzo, H (2004). Geological and geotechnical investigation
of a shallow translational slide along a weathered rock/soil contact for the purpose of model
development and hazard assessment. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on
Landslides, Rio de Janeiro. A.A. Balkema: Leiden, pp. 385-391.
Woo, K-S, Eberhardt, E. Rabus, B, Stead, D & Vyazmensky, A.(2012). Integration of field
characterization, mine production and InSAR monitoring data to constrain and calibrate 3-D numerical
modelling of block caving-induced subsidence. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences: 53(1), 166-178.

45 of 45 Erik Eberhardt – UBC Geological Engineering EOSC 433 (2017)

23