A Nite Element Approach To Solve Contact Problems in Geotechnical Engineering

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL METHODS IN GEOMECHANICS Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech.
, 2005; 29:525550 Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/nag.424
A nite element approach to solve contact problems in geotechnical engineering

Jianqiang Maon,y
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, Peoples Republic of China
SUMMARY This paper presents a nite element approach to solve geotechnical problems with interfaces. The behaviours of interfaces obey the MohrCoulomb law. The FEM formulae are constructed by means of the principle of virtual displacement with contact boundary. To meet displacement compatibility conditions on contact boundary, independent degrees of freedom are taken as unknowns in FEM equations, instead of conventional nodal displacements. Examples on pressure distribution beneath a rigid strip footing, lateral earth pressure on retaining walls, behaviours of axially loaded bored piles, a shielddriven metro tunnel, and interaction of a sliding slope with the tunnels going through it are solved with this method. The results show good agreement with analytical solutions or with in situ test results. Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS:
interface; contact problem; principle of virtual displacement; nite element; geotechnical
1. INTRODUCTION The interfaces, such as interface between the structure and geotechnical media, the joints in rock mass, failure surfaces in soil mass, etc., eect the mechanical behaviours of the structures and the surrounding geotechnical media signicantly. Various numerical interface models have been developed by Goodman et al. [1], Zienkiewicz et al. [2], Clough and Duncan [3], Ghaboussi et al. [4] and Desai et al. [5]. These models or their derivative forms have been widely applied in geotechnical engineering, as they can be readily incorporated into an FEM process. However, a common and distinct disadvantage of these models is that additional constitutive equations and mechanical parameters have to be employed for the interfaces. As we know, in spite of the variety of interfaces, the following characters are essential for an interface model, as shown in Figure 1: (1) if the tangential force at a point on interface reaches the limiting value of resistance, relative slip will occur, else will keep in sticking status (2) whether relative slip occurs or not, the contact bodies cannot penetrate each other in any way.
Correspondence to: J. Mao, Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, Peoples Republic of China. E-mail: jqmao@home.swjtu.edu.cn
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 21 January 2004 Revised 10 November 2004
526
J. MAO
pn n
ps
pn
s
ps
a pair of contact points
contact status when slip does not occur

relative slip along tangential direction
pn
pn
pn
pn
cannot penetrate each other in normal direction
contact status when slip occurs
Figure 1. Illustration of the contact forces and displacements on interface.
In fact, almost all the problems containing interfaces can be uniformly described as a contact problem through the following mathematical form: assuming the two contact bodies are O and O0 ; respectively, and on the contact boundary (i.e. the interface) Gc : (1) n is the normal direction 2 O and s is the slipping direction. Accordingly, es and es0 are unit vectors corresponding to s and s0 (opposite to s: Also we note that for twodimensional problems, the possible slipping direction is uniquely along the tangential direction, while for three-dimensional problems, the slip will occur in the direction of maximum tangential force, which will depend on the contact forces at the point. (2) The contact forces on O0 are pn and ps ; and on O are p0n and p0s : (3) The displacements in incremental form (for contact problems are nonlinear) are du0n ; du0s and dun ; dus : Moreover, d0 is the initial gap between contact bodies (for most of n geotechnical problems, d0 0). n (4) The slip on the interface is govern by the MohrCoulomb law jps j cB mjpn j 1 where cB and m are cohesion and coecients of friction of the interface, respectively. When slip occurs, the cohesion at the slipping point will be lost, i.e. cB 0: The conditions to be satised on interface are summarized in Table I. There are many contact problems in mechanical and civil engineering, hence numerous eorts has been made in last few decades to develop corresponding numerical algorithms. A number of techniques such as iteration method [68], mathematics programming [912], penalty method [13], Lagrange multiplier [1416], have been developed and used in mechanical engineering problems. However, these methods are rarely applied in geotechnical engineering [17, 18] due to their complex techniques in computation. A practical approach applicable to geotechnical problems is presented in this paper.
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2005; 29:525550
A FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH TO SOLVE CONTACT PROBLEMS
527
Table I. Conditions to be satised on interface. Traction Contact status Sticking p p or pn p0n Slipping and ps p0s
0
Displacement s n dun du0n s dus du0s
ps 5cB mjpn jes p0s 5cB mjp0n jes0 ps mjpn jes p0s mjp0n jes0
jun u0n j d0 n
dus =du0s
2. FEM FORMULATION BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF VIRTUAL WORK WITH CONTACT BOUNDARY 2.1. Principle of virtual work for contact problems The principle of virtual work is one of the important principles in analytical mechanics concerning the kinematics of particles or rigid bodies. For a deformable body, if the body is divided into a series of innitesimal elements and is taken as particles in sense of kinematics, then the whole body will lead to an assembly of particles. Figure 2 illustrates three dierent types of innitesimal elements: (1) in bodies O and O0 ; (2) on stress boundaries Gs and G0s ; and (3) on contact boundary Gc : Gc consists of sticking part Gc1 and slipping part Gc2 ; which Gc Gc1 [ Gc2 : The innitesimal elements are same as those used in continuous mechanics to construct the equations of equilibrium. The expressions of resultant forces acting on dierent innitesimal elements are summarized in Table II. According to the principle of virtual displacement, the virtual work of whole system should be equal to zero. So we obtain Z Z % % r r F du dO r0 r F0 du0 dO
O
Z Z
Gs
O0
% p du dG p
Z
G0s
% 0 p0 du0 dG p
Gc1
pn p0n dun ps p0s dus
p0n pn du0n p0s ps du0s dG Z pn p0n dun p0n pn du0n ps mjp0n jes0 dus
Gc2
p0s mjpn jes du0s dG 0
where du; du0 are virtual displacements which should satisfy the displacement conditions on displacement boundary Gu ; G0u and contact boundary Gc in prior, i.e. du 0 on Gu ;
du0 0 on G0u
3a
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2005; 29:525550
528
J. MAO
Figure 2. Stresses and resultant forces on innitesimal elements.
Table II. Resultant forces acting on innitesimal elements. Innitesimal element In O In O0 On Gs On G0s On Gc1 (to O) Direction of the resultant force x1 ; x2 ; x3 x1 ; x2 ; x3 x1 ; x2 ; x3 x1 ; x2 ; x3 n s On Gc1 (to O0 ) n0 s0 On Gc2 (to O) n s On Gc2 (to O0 ) n0 s0 Resultant of the forces on innitesimal element % r r F dO % r0 r F0 dO % p dG p % 0 p0 dG p pn p0n dG ps p0s dG p0n pn dG p0s ps dG pn p0n dG ps mjp0n jes0 dG p0n pn dG p0s mjpn jes dG Virtual work % r r F du dO % r0 r F0 du0 dO % p du dG p % 0 p0 du0 dG p pn p0n dun dG ps p0s dus dG p0n pn du0n dG p0s ps du0s dG pn p0n dun dG ps mjp0n jes0 dus dG p0n pn du0n dG p0s mjpn jes du0s dG
dun du0n ; dus du0s dun du0n ; dus =du0s

on Gc1 on Gc2
3b 3c
529
Substituting Equations (3b), (3c) and Z

O
r r du dO
Z Z
G
p du dG
Z r : de dO
O
pn dun ps dus dG Z
O
Z r : de dO
O
4a
Z
O
r0 r du0 dO
Z Z
G
p0 du0 dG p0n du0n
r0 : de0 dO du0s dG Z
O
p0s
r0 : de0 dO
4b
into Equation (2), nally we get Z

O
r : de dO
Z
O
0
r0 : de0 dO
Z
O
% F du dO Z Z Z
Gs
Z
O
0
% F0 du0 dO Z
G0s
% p du dG
% p0 du0 dG
Gc 1
pn p0n dun ps p0s dus dG pn p0n dun 5
Gc 2
mjp0n jes0 dus mjpn jes du0s dG
The above equation form the basis to construct the FEM formulae in the next section. In the case that one of the bodies, such as O0 ; is sti enough to be taken as a rigid body, the virtual displacement of a generic point in O0 may be expressed as ( 0) dV du0 dV0 R0 dH0 A0 6 A0 dU0 dH0 where V0 is the translation of the rigid body, and H0 is the rotation. R0 is not a tensor and its components are R0ij
3 X k1
eijk x0k
where eijk is Ricci Symbol, x0k k 1; 2; 3 is co-ordinate of the point (the origin is designated at the centre of rotation). The equation corresponding to rigid body-deformable body contact can be obtained by substituting Equation (6) into (5). The expression is omitted here on.
530 2.2. Finite element equilibrium equations
J. MAO
After the discretization, Equation (5) takes the following form: XZ XZ XZ T T% % B r dO N F dO NT p dG

Oe O0e
XZ XZ
Oe O0e
Ge G0e s s
Ge c
NT pn N0T p0n dG n n
1
XZ
Ge c
NT ps s
N0T p0s dG s
XZ
Ge c
2
NT pn N0T p0n n n 7
Ge c
NT mjpn j N0T mjp0n j dG s s

2
where B is straindisplacement matrix, N (and N0 is displacement interpolation matrix, and similarly Ns and N0s Nn and N0n are tangential (normal) displacement interpolation matrices. Direct solution of equilibrium equation (7) is a very complicated procedure, hence some simplications are made. In Equation (7), tractions pn ; ps and p0n ; p0s on contact boundary Ge1 are computed with the c stresses of dierent P R elements Oe P R O0e ; respectively, and areP R equal. To simplify the and not PR T T 0T 0 0T 0 computation, taking Gc 1 N n p n ; Gc1 Ns ps and Gc 1 N n p n ; Gc1 Ns ps as nodal contact 0 0 forces corresponding to pn ; ps and pn ; ps on Gc1 ; as shown in Figure 3, we can assume approximately XZ X NT pn N0T p0n dG Pni P0ni 0 on Gc1 n n
Ge c
1
Ge c
XZ
Ge c
1
NT ps N0T p0s dG s s
X
Ge c1
Psi P0si 0
on Gc1
e
Psi
Pni
e
Pni Psi
( Pni )s
Pni
e c2
Pn i
( Pni ) s
e c1
e e e
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 3. Nodal contact forces on contact boundary: (a) Denition of n and s at contact node i; (b) contact forces on Ge1 ; and (c) contact forces on Ge2 : c c
531
Similarly, we obtain XZ
Ge c2
NT pn N0T p0n dG n n
X
Ge c2
Pni P0ni 0
on Gc2
and
Z
Ge c2
NT mjpn j dG s
X
Ge c
2
mjPni js
Z
Gc2
N0T mjp0n j dG s
X
Ge c
2
mjPni js0
in which mjPni js and mjPni js0 are tangential nodal contact forces on Gc2 : Finally, we obtain XZ BT r dO F Rc
Oe O0e
in which F
XZ
Oe O0e
N F dO
T%
XZ
Ge G0e s s
% NT p dG
is nodal force corresponding to the applied load, and X X Rc mjPn js mjPn js0
Ge c
2
Ge c
is the nodal contact force on the Gc2 : If all contact nodes are in sticking state, Rc will be equal to zero and the equation becomes same as conventional FEM. For other contact statues, the expressions of Rc will be given in next section. 2.3. Computational procedure for elasto-plastic contact problems By applying the initial stress method usually used for elasto-plastic materials to elasto-plastic contact problems, Equation (8) can be expressed in the following incremental form: Km DUm DFm DFm DRm ep c 9
where superscript m denotes the application of mth load increment, DU is incremental nodal displacement vector, DF is load increment vector, DRc is the increments of Rc ; K is the stiness matrix which depends on the contact status (see Appendix A for details), and XZ DFm BT Drm Drm dO 10 ep e ep
Oe O0e
is the residual force vector in which subscripts e and ep denote elastic and elasto-plastic, respectively. By uncoupling Equation (9) to contact iteration and elasto-plastic iteration , we obtain: Kc m dUm dRc m n n n Km dUm dFep m n n n 11a 11b
in which subscript n denotes iterative step and prex d implies the increments of variables after an iteration. The corresponding iterative procedure in a load step is illustrated in Figure 4.
532
J. MAO
Elasto-plastic iteration with equations (11b)
contact iteration with equation (11a)
Convergent?
Convergent?
T
Contact status changed after iteration with (11b) ?
T T T
Failure points increased after iteration with (11a) ?
F
Iteration end
Figure 4. Iterative procedure.
Theoretically, the iteration may begin with either contact iteration or elasto-plastic iteration and go on till the contact status of all contact nodes does not change and there is no increase in new failure points. In practices, it seems work better that the procedure begins with contact iteration. The iteration of Equation (11b) is same as normal elasto-plastic iteration procedure. But some details concerning iteration of Equation (11a) will be elaborated further. 2.3.1. dU and Kc . Besides sticking status and slipping, there can exist separating status and penetrating status. The former implies that a pair of formerly sticking nodes are separated as the deformation develops. The latter implies that formerly apart nodes may penetrate each other in the process of contact, since we cannot estimate the magnitude of the displacements in prior. Obviously, penetrating status is not physically allowable, so the overlapping part should be forcibly pushed back (see the following text). The four types of contact statuses are illustrated in Figure 5 and corresponding criterions are shown in Table III, in which P and U denote nodal contact force and displacement, respectively, and CB is equivalent nodal cohesion corresponding to cohesion cB : To satisfy the displacement conditions on contact boundary, rstly, nodal displacement increments are dened under local co-ordinate system, as shown in Figure 6. Secondly, as shown in Table IV, independent displacement increments are taken as unknowns, instead of assigning displacement increments for every displacements of contact nodal pairs. Hence, the order of Equation (11a) is the sum of independent displacement increments and is variational with the contact status. Noted that dRc m in Equation (11a) could not be straightaway evaluated with n dRc m Rc m Rc m n n1 n 12 for the order of Rc m may not equal the order of Rc m due to the change of contact status n1 n from n 1th to nth iteration. In order to illustrate how to make Rc m cooperated with Rc m ; here we assume that a n n1 nodal pair i change from sticking status into slipping status after n 1th iteration.
533
Pn
Pn
Pn
Ps
sticking 0 0
slipping
Sn
separating penetrating
Figure 5. Contact statuses in computation.
Table III. Contact status and corresponding criterion. Status Sticking Slipping Separating Penetrating Criterion Pn 50 and jPs j5CB mjPn j Pn 50 and Ps 5CB mjPn j Pn 50
0 Un Un d0 > 0 n
e
dUs
dUn
dUn
dUs
e
Figure 6. Nodal displacement increments on contact boundary.
The equation of n 1th iteration is Kc m dUm dRc m n1 n1 n1

13
534
J. MAO
Table IV. Displacement increments of a contact nodal pair (for two-dimensional problem). Status Sticking Slipping Separating Penetrating Dened displacement increments
0 0 dUn dUn ; dUs dUs 0 0 dUn dUn ; dUs ; dUs 0 0 dUn ; dUn ; dUs ; dUs 0 0 dUn ; dUn ; dUs dUs
Number of independent increments 2 3 4 3
The displacement condition should be satised

0 Un Un d0 0 0 Un Un d0 0 0 Un Un d0 50 0 Un Un d0 0
d Uni
e
dUni
dUsi
e c
dUsi
i
P si
d Uni
Psi dUsi
Figure 7. Equivalent transformation of displacements and forces at a sticking nodal pair.
in which dUm dUsi T n1 before nth iteration, we have: Rc m 0 T n Since the slipping nodal pair has two independent displacement increments in tangential direction, thus:
0 dUm dUsi dUsi T n
Accordingly, dRc m will be evaluated with n dRc m Rc m R0 c m n n1 n in which Rc m mjPni j mjPni j T n1 and Rc m in Equation (12) has been equivalently replaced with n R0c m Psi Psi T n as shown in Figure 7.
14
535
dRcin
n
d R c is
dS nj
S nj
i
Adjusted contact boundary
e
dS nj
Figure 8. Diagram for evaluating dRc at penetrating status.
Table V. Nodal tractions Rc at nodal pair i: O Status Sticking Slipping Separating Penetrating Normal Pni Pni 0 dRcin Tangential Psi mjPni j Normal Pni Pni O0 Tangential Psi mjPni j 0
0 0 NP P 0 kin jn dSnj k0in jn dSnj

j NP P j 0 kis jn dSnj k0is jn dSnj
dRcis
2.3.2. Rc . Among the above-mentioned four dierent status, penetrating status is a special case. As shown in Figure 8, the overlapping part in normal direction at nodal pair j is
0 DSnj Unj Unj d0j
15
the normal incremental displacements which have to be pushed back are dSnj 2 O and 0 dSnj 2 O0 ; respectively,thus
0 dSnj dSnj DSnj
16a
or dSnj ZDSnj
0 dSnj Z0 DSnj
Z Z0 1
16b
In computation, it is dicult to determine the exact values of Z and Z0 beforehand, but that has little inuence on the nal result as long as the load increments are small enough. Usually, if the stiness of the two contact objects are close, we may take Z Z0 1: While if one (such as O0 ) is 2 0 much stier than the other O; we may take Z 1 and Z0 0; so that dSnj DSnj and dSnj 0:
536 Sequentially, dRc is evaluated with dRcin

NP X j
J. MAO
0 kin jn dSnj k0in jn dSnj
17a
dRcis
NP X j
0 kis jn dSnj k0is jn dSnj
17b
where subscript n and s denote normal and tangential directions, respectively, and i is all nodes (including j itself) of the element to which j belongs. k denotes stiness component. NP is the sum of penetrating node pairs. Finally, nodal contact forces corresponding to dierent contact status are summarized in Table V. 2.4. Demonstration of the behaviours of interface when taken as a contact problem To demonstrcate the eects to treat interface as a contact problem, a simple example similar to direct shear test is given in Figure 9. Initially the vertical load s is applied. As the horizontal load t increases, relative slip between the contact blocks will occur and this will lead to fast increase of the horizontal displacement of upper block (represented with point A on the interface). When load t reaches to tmax 2ms 0:6s; the displacement of upper block becomes
E = 10000
= 0.2
0.5
1.8 1.6
No interface
= 3.0
interface
( = 0. 3)
Square 1 1
0.5
1.4 1.2
= 2.0
Load
(a)
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
-4
= 1.0
3.0
3.5
Horizontal displacement (10 )

(b) (c)
Figure 9. A simple example to demonstrate the behaviours of interface by taking as contact problem: (a) general description; (b) nite element mesh; and (c) relation between horizontal displacement and load under dierent vertical loads.
537
E = 26MPa
= 0. 3 = 18kN/m3
= 30o
c=0
2.4 m
Interface Infinite
(a)
(b)
Figure 10. Rigid strip footing: (a) general description; and (b) nite element mesh (a half).
38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -1.2
Pressure (kPa)
Analytic solution (P=40kN,e=0) FEM solution (P=4 0 kN,e=0 ) Analytic solution (P=40kN,e=0.4m) FEM solution (P=4 0 kN,e=0 .4 m)
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Horizontal coordinate (m)
Figure 11. Pressure distributions beneath the footing cB 0; m 0:0:
innite, which implies that all nodes on interface have slipped. It is noted that no special stress strain relation is introduced to simulate the mechanical behaviours of interface as in most interface models at present and the properties of interface fully depends on cB ; m of the interface and properties of the deformable bodies.
3. EXAMPLES In this section, several representative examples are presented to assess the validity of the method developed in this paper. In most examples, the geotechnical materials are treated as
538
J. MAO
ideal elasto-plastic materials and obey MohrCoulomb yield criterion. Otherwise, four-node isoparametric element is employed in computation. For material parameters, elastic modulus, Poisson ratio, unit weight, internal friction angle and cohesion are denoted as E; n; g; f; c; respectively. 3.1. Contact pressure beneath strip rigid footing As shown in Figure 10, a rigid strip footing is applied with line distributed force P or moment M: This is a rigid-deformable contact problem. The curves shown in Figure 11 are the contact pressure distributions under load P and M; respectively, when the interface is frictionless m 0:0 and the foundation is elastic. The FEM and analytical solutions show good agreement. Figure 12 shows the pressure distributions corresponding to the increase of P when the interface is frictional m 0:2 and the foundation is elasto-plastic. 3.2. Lateral earth pressure on rigid retaining wall At rst, we compute a rigid retaining wall with frictionless interface m 0; as shown in Figure 13. The computational lateral pressuredisplacement curve is shown in Figure 14. Also, we can get the lateral pressure distributions on wall back corresponding to dierent displacements of the wall. As an illustration, Figure 15 gives the pressure distributions when the displacements are 0.0 and 0.004. We can see that all the computational results show very good agreement with analytical solutions [19]. Especially, it is worthwhile to note that if the interfaces are ignored (take m 1), the computational results (plotted with the dash line) will deviate far away from the correct solution. Therefore, it is critical to simulate interfaces with reasonable model in computation. The second example is an in situ test for lateral pressure on retaining wall shown in Figures 16(a) and (b). Figure 17 depicts the computational result of the displacement of the wall and
750 700 650 600 550 P=80kN/m P=240kN/m P=400kN/m P=560kN/m P=720kN/m
Pressure (kPa)
500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 -1.2
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Horizontal coordinate (m)
Figure 12. Pressure distributions beneath the footing under dierent loads cB 0; m 0:2:
539
Rigid Retaining Wall 16.7m
E = 26MPa
= 0.3
backfill Interface Interface Interface
= 18kN/m3 = 30o
c=0
(a)
(b)
Figure 13. Rigid retaining wall: (a) general description; and (b) nite element mesh.
700 600
Earth pressure (kN)
500 400 300 200 100

-0.010 -0.005
Analytic solution FEM solution
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0.000
-0.05
0 0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Displacement of the wall (m)

away from the backfill Towards the backfill
Figure 14. Lateral earth pressure against displacement of the wall.
soil, in which relative slip along the interfaces is obvious. Figure 18 shows the lateral pressure distributions obtained with in situ test and computation, respectively. We may observe the similarity between the test and computation results. Moreover, the maximum pressures gained by computation and test are 44.1 and 44:4 kPa; respectively, though the locations are dierent. 3.3. Behaviours of axially loaded bored piles The two piles computed have come from a in situ test studying the behaviours of axially loaded bored piles in the Xigeda mudstone , which is a special mudstone distributed in south of Sichuan
540
J. MAO
Analytical solution Earth pressure at rest (FEM solution, ignoring interfaces) Earth pressure at rest (FEM solution) Earth pressure when the displacement of the wall is 0.004m towards backfill (FEM solution)
Depth (m)
-10
5 -50 -40 -30 -20 0 10 20 30 40
Earth pressure (kPa)
Figure 15. Lateral earth pressure distributions.
province, Peoples Republic of China. The Pile 1 is impact boring pile and the Pile 2 is hand digging pile with open end. To study the mudstone exclusively, the overburden around piles was replaced with loose ll during the test. The piles were also wrapped with sheet iron to reduce the friction between pile and ll. The characterization of the piles and strata are shown in Figure 19(a). The elastic modulus E was obtained from an in situ plate loading test, and c; f of the mudstone were measured in the lab. The other strength parameters of the interface are shown in Table VI, in which m and mR are the coecient of friction before and after slip occurs. Obviously, this can be computed as an axisymmetric problem. Figure 20 depicts the development of relative slip range along the skin of Pile 1 with the increase of load, while Figure 21 shows failure zone near the bottom of the pile. In Figure 22, we can see that the computational loadsettlement curve of Pile 1 shows good agreement with the test curve on the whole. However, when the load exceeds 6000 kN; the development of computational curve is smoother than the test curve. In fact, as the load increases, failure surface occurs and grows in the mudstone near the base of the pile, which cannot be completely simulated with the ideal elasto-plastic model. Also, the result ignoring the interface is given in Figure 22, which is nearly linear and has little similarity with the test curve. Pile 2 was cast as an open-end pile designed to investigate the skin friction exclusively. Unfortunately, the test load did not achieve ultimate load due to the under estimation of the piles bearing capacity. As shown in Figure 23, the loadsettlement curve of test and computation are almost linear before ultimate load. In computation, however, when the load approaches 14 300 kN; the iteration becomes divergent, which implies that all nodes on interface have slipped and the pile lost support so as to subside in whole.
541
E = 5MPa
1: 0. 16
= 0.3
E = 15MPa
= 0.3 = 20kN/m 3 = 25 o
c = 50kPa
5000mm
1: 0. 65
= 18kN/m3 = 15 o
c = 20kPa
Backfill
Excavation boundary
5200mm 3200mm 1200mm
Interface ( = 0 .3)
= 0.35
Interface ( = 0.5)
E = 2.5MPa
= 18.9kN/m3 = 5o
c = 17kPa
(a)
3070mm
(b)
Interface ( = 3.0)
(c)
Figure 16. A retaining wall in engineering: (a) prole; (b) parameters of the soils and interfaces; and (c) nite element mesh.
3.4. A shield-driven metro tunnel As an example for contact problem with initial gap between the two contact bodies, a shielddriven metro tunnel is computed. Usually, the gap between lining and surrounding, which mainly arose due to the dierence between the external diameter of shield machine and that of the lining, can hardly be fully lled. The characterization of the tunnel, strata and computational mesh are shown in Figure 24. In this computation, we take the maximum gap d0max 25 mm: The loads from buildings, vehicles, etc. are simplied to a 20 kPa distributed load. The settlement of ground surface, the internal forces in the lining, etc. can be obtained from the computation results. However, we focus our interest on the contact process between the lining and the surrounding strata here. In Figure 25, 20, 40, 100% are the percentages that the excavation loads were released. The results showed that the contact begins at the top and
542
J. MAO
Original configuration Deformed configuration of the undisturbed soil or displacement of the wall Deformed configuration of the backfill
Figure 17. Displacement of the wall and soil.
Distance to the bottom of the wall (m)
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10 20 30
FEM solution Result of in-situ test
40
50
Horizontal pressure (kPa)
Figure 18. Horizontal earth pressure on the wall.
bottom of the tunnel, then develops towards the middle, and the lining and the surrounding strata become fully contacted in the end. 3.5. Tunnels in landslide The two tunnels are on the ChengduKunming Railway in southwest of Peoples Republic of China. The rst one was constructed in 1971. Since a heavy rains in 1991, the tunnel began to
543
4m (For pile 1) 6m (For pile2)
Earth fill (Formerly boulder or cobble with earth)
Pile
Intensively weathered Xigeda mudstone
2m
E = 150 MPa
= 0 .3
= 18 . 5 kN/m3
= 35 o
c = 70 kPa
Lightly weathered Xigeda mudstone 21m
Interface
Reinforced concrete
(a)
(b)
Figure 19. Two test piles: (a) general characterization of the piles and the strata; and (b) nite element mesh (axisymmetric).
Table VI. The strength parameters of interface. Pile 1 cB (kPa) Earth ll Intensively weathered mudstone Lightly weathered mudstone 0 100 80 m 0.2 0.8 1.00 mR 0.2 0.7 0.8 c (kPa) 0 100 80 Pile 2 m 0.2 0.7 0.9 mR 0.2 0.45 0.50
deform increasingly that the lining spilt and the track was severely bent and moved 0.51:5 m horizontally. Another tunnel was constructed in 1993, at a distance of 60 m from the old one. The similar split occurred after the tunnel was completed in 1994. The subsequent geological survey revealed that the tunnels were situated in a landslide with three sliding surfaces, as shown in Figure 26(a). The three sliding surfaces and the interfaces between tunnel and stratum are taken as contact interfaces in the computation. The nal deformation of the landslide and the tunnels is depicted in Figure 27, in which the slide of sliding bodies, the movement of old tunnel, and the distortion of new tunnel are all salient.
544
J. MAO
2000kN
4000kN
6000kN
8000kN
10000kN
Figure 20. Slip range along Pile 1.
4000kN
6000kN
8000kN
10000kN
12000kN
Figure 21. Failure zone near the bottom of Pile 1.
Load (kN)
0 0 5 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Settlement (mm)
10 15 20 25 30 35
In-situ test FEM FEM(Ignoring interface)
Figure 22. The loadsettlement curve of Pile 1.
545
Load (kN)
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Settlement (mm)
FEM In-situ test
Figure 23. The loadsettlement curve of Pile 2.
0.0m 1.9m 5.2m 6.8m
Earth Fill Alluvial / Diluvial Soil Residual Soil
Excavation Boundary
0 max
Grout Initial Gap

62 50 m m
Tunnel
Lining
5400mm
Weathered Silty Mudstone
600 0m m
27.85m Silty Mudstone
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 24. Shield-driven metro tunnel: (a) geological section; (b) initial gap between the lining (lling) and the surrounding; and (c) nite element mesh.
4. CONCLUSION Simulation of interface plays an important role in computation of most geotechnical problems. The investigations showed that no additional constitutive relation for interface needs to be introduced when taken as a contact problem. The mechanical behaviours of the interfaces completely depend on the shear strength criterion (such as MohrCoulomb law) of interface and the properties of contact bodies. Therefore, the required parameters are primarily cB and m (or other strength parameters) which are relatively easy to obtain through tests comparing to the interface parameters dened by
546
J. MAO
The excavation boundary before deformation The excavation boundary after deformation The lining after deformation
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 25. The contact process between the lining and the surrounding: (a) 20%; (b) 40%; and (c) 100%.
Figure 26. Tunnels in a landslide: (a) description of the landslide and the tunnels; and (b) nite element mesh.
547
120
After excavation of the new tunnel

100
0.12m
After excavation of the old tunnel After excavation of the new tunnel 0.51m 0.61m Old tunnel
Vertical distance (m)
New tunnel
80
60
40
20
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Horizontal distance (m)
Figure 27. Deformations of the landslide and the tunnels.
other interface constitutive models. Otherwise, the technique developed in the paper make it easier to hold the compatibility conditions on interface in the process of computation. Hence we conclude that, the method presented in this paper is very practical for the application in engineering problems. APPENDIX A: FORMULATION OF STIFFNESS MATRIX FOR RIGID-DEFORMABLE CONTACT PROBLEM The stiness matrix for rigid-deformable contact problem consists of elements corresponding to deformable body and rigid body and depends on the contact status. We can assume " # KRR KRD Kc A1 KDR KDD in which subscript R and D denote rigid and deformable, respectively. Plane problem were taken as an example to illustrate the procedure of formulating the stiness matrix. The displacement vector of the rigid body is V V1 V2 Y T in which V1 and V2 are rigid translations in the directions of x1 and x2 ; respectively, and Y is rigid rotation. The displacement of a node on contact boundary Gc is (as shown in Figure A1) 8 9 ( ) " #> V1 > " # > > An un sin a cos a r cosa b < = u V2 V AV A2 us As cos a sin a r sina b > > > > : ; Y
548
Q2
M
J. MAO
x2
V
x1
Q1
T An Pn + AsT Ps = Q
u s = AsV
u n = A nV
P n
Ps
n
Pn
Ps
(a)
(b)
Figure A1. Relations between the displacements (or forces) of rigid body and the displacements (or forces) of a node on the boundary.
The contact force P Pn Ps T at a contact node will apply force Q Q1 Q2 MT on rigid body. According to the denition of A; we can obtain Q Qn Qs AT Pn AT Ps AT P n s A3
1. KDD According to the denition, the force at node i arising due to displacement at node j is ( )i " #ij ( )j ( )j un Pn knn kns un kij kij Pi n s Ps ksn kss us us " ij T #( )j kn un kij uj A4 ij T us ks in which k is the same as the stiness component in conventional FEM, so we can obtain the components of KDD kij kij DD A5
2. KDR and KRD Notice that the normal displacement un and tangential displacement us on Gc1 ; un on Gc2 depend on the rigid displacement V; us on Gc2 is independent. Therefore, the nodal force P at node i arising due to V is X X X X Pi kij uj kij ujn kij Aj V kij Ajn V n n 0 @
jGc1 jGc2 jGc1
X
jGc1
kij Aj
X
jGc2
jGc2
kij Ajn AV n
A6
in which S means summing the nodes on Gc1 or Gc2 :

549
Finally, we obtain the components in KDR X X kiDR kij Aj kij Ajn n

jGc1 jGc2
A7
By symmetric condition, we have KDR KRD : 3. KRR KRR represents the forces acting on rigid body arising from the unit displacement itself. By the denition, we can obtain X X X X Ai T kij Aj Ai T kij An KRR n
iGc1 jGc1
X X
iGc1 jGc2
Ain T kij Aj
X X
Ain T kij An nn
A8
iGc2 jGc1
iGc2 jGc2
In fact, with Table A1, dierent types of stiness elements can be easily obtained. However, direct application of above formulae in programming is very inconvenient. Therefore, equivalently we rewrite, for example " #ij " j # " ij j # An knn An kij Ajs knn kns ns ij j k A A9 ksn kss Ajs kij Ajn kij Ajs sn ss Ai T kij kij Ajn T kij Ajs T nn sn kij Ajn T kij Ajs T ns ss A10 A11
Ai T kij Aj kij Ain T Ajn kij Ain T Ajs kij Ais T Ajn kij Ais T Ajs nn ns sn ss
Take the evaluation of Equation (A9) as an example. Let subscripts l; m 1; 2 denote normal direction n and tangential direction s; respectively, and p 1; 2; 3 denote rigid translations in directions of x1 ; x2 and rigid rotation, then Equation (A9) may be written as ke il p
2 X m1
kij Ajmp lm
l; m 1; 2; p 1; 2; 3
A12
Table A1. The components to constitute elements of stiness matrix. D n D n s R On Gc1 On Gc2 kij nn kij sn Ai T kij n kij Ain T nn s kij ns kij ss Ai T kij s kij Ain T ns On Gc1 kij T Aj n kij T Aj s Ai T kij Aj Ain T kij T Aj n R On Gc2 kij Ajn nn kij Ajn sn Ai T kij Ajn n Ain T kij Ajn nn
550 Hence the procedure is
J. MAO
(1) Compute stiness component kij ; which is same as the component in conventional FEM. lm (2) Use Equation (A12) to evaluate ke il p ; which is the contribution of kij to Kc : lm (3) Let subscripts L and P; which are corresponding to il and p; respectively, denote the location of ke il p in global stiness matrix Kc ; then we can assemble ke il p to Kc with Kc LP Kc LP ke il p A13 in which implies evaluate, not equal to. The above procedure is corresponding to the evaluation of KDR in Kc : For KDR and KRR ; the procedures are similar.
REFERENCES 1. Goodman RE, Taylor RL, Brekke TL. A model for the mechanics of jointed rock. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers SM3 (ASCE) 1968; 94:638659. 2. Zienkiewicz OC, Best B, Dullage C, Stagg K. Analysis of nonlinear problems in rock mechanics with particular reference to jointed rock systems. Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Rock Mechanics, Belgrade, 1970. 3. Clough GW, Duncan JM. Finite element analyses of retaining wall behaviour. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers SM12 (ASCE) 1971; 97:16571673. 4. Ghaboussi J, Wilson EL, Isenberg J. Finite element for rock joints and interfaces. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers SM10 (ASCE) 1973; 99:833848. 5. Desai CS, Zammzn MM, Lightner JG, Sirwardane HJ. Thin layer element for interfaces and joints. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 1984; 8:1943. 6. Wilson EA, Preson B. Finite element analysis of element dierent displacement. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1970; 2:387395. 7. Francavilla A, Zienkiewicz OC. A note on numerical computation of elastic contact problems. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1975; 9:913924. 8. Okamoto N, Nakazawa M. Finite element incremental contact analysis with various frictional conditions. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1979; 14:337357. 9. Conry TF, Seireg A. A mathematical programming method for design of elastic bodies in contact. Journal of Applied Mechanics (ASME) 1971; 2:387392. 10. Campos LT, Oden JT, Kikuchi N. A numerical analysis of a class of contact problems with friction in elastostatics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1982; 34:821845. 11. Fischer U, Melosh RJ. Solving discretized contact problems using linear programming. Computers and Structures 1987; 25:661664. 12. Zhong WX, Sun SM. A nite element method for elasto-plastic structure and contact parametric quadratic programming. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1988; 26:27232738. 13. Peric D, Owen DRJ. Computational model for 3-d contact problems with friction based on the penalty method. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1992; 35:12891309. 14. Bathe KJ, Chaudhary A. A solution method for planar and axisymmetric contact problems. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1985; 21:6588. 15. Chaudhary AB, Bathe KJ. A solution method for static and dynamic analysis of three-dimensional contact problems with friction. Computers and Structures 1986; 24:855873. 16. Heegaard JH, Curnier A. An augmented Lagrangian method for discrete large-slip contact problems. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1993; 36:569593. 17. Katona MG. A simple contact-friction interface element with applications to buried culverts. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1983; 7:371384. 18. Gens A, Carol I, Alonso EE. An interface element formulation for the analysis of soil-reinforcement interaction. Computers and Structures 1989; 7:133151. 19. Mao JQ. A nite element approach for contact problems and its application in geotechnical engineering. Ph.D. Dissertation, Southwest Jiaotong University, 2002 (in Chinese).

A Nite Element Approach To Solve Contact Problems in Geotechnical Engineering

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A Nite Element Approach To Solve Contact Problems in Geotechnical Engineering

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL METHODS IN GEOMECHANICS Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech.

, 2005; 29:525550 Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/nag.424

A nite element approach to solve contact problems in geotechnical engineering

interface; contact problem; principle of virtual displacement; nite element; geotechnical

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 21 January 2004 Revised 10 November 2004

contact status when slip does not occur

cannot penetrate each other in normal direction

contact status when slip occurs

Figure 1. Illustration of the contact forces and displacements on interface.

A FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH TO SOLVE CONTACT PROBLEMS

Displacement s n dun du0n s dus du0s

pn p0n dun ps p0s dus

p0s mjpn jes du0s dG 0

Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2005; 29:525550

Figure 2. Stresses and resultant forces on innitesimal elements.

dun du0n ; dus du0s dun du0n ; dus =du0s

Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2005; 29:525550

A FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH TO SOLVE CONTACT PROBLEMS

Substituting Equations (3b), (3c) and Z

p0 du0 dG p0n du0n

into Equation (2), nally we get Z

pn p0n dun ps p0s dus dG pn p0n dun 5

mjp0n jes0 dus mjpn jes du0s dG

530 2.2. Finite element equilibrium equations

After the discretization, Equation (5) takes the following form: XZ XZ XZ T T% % B r dO N F dO NT p dG

NT mjpn j N0T mjp0n j dG s s

A FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH TO SOLVE CONTACT PROBLEMS

Elasto-plastic iteration with equations (11b)

contact iteration with equation (11a)

Figure 4. Iterative procedure.

A FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH TO SOLVE CONTACT PROBLEMS

Figure 5. Contact statuses in computation.

Figure 6. Nodal displacement increments on contact boundary.

The equation of n 1th iteration is Kc m dUm dRc m n1 n1 n1

Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2005; 29:525550

Number of independent increments 2 3 4 3

The displacement condition should be satised

Figure 7. Equivalent transformation of displacements and forces at a sticking nodal pair.

A FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH TO SOLVE CONTACT PROBLEMS

Figure 8. Diagram for evaluating dRc at penetrating status.

0 0 NP P 0 kin jn dSnj k0in jn dSnj

536 Sequentially, dRc is evaluated with dRcin

0 kin jn dSnj k0in jn dSnj

0 kis jn dSnj k0is jn dSnj

Horizontal displacement (10 )

A FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH TO SOLVE CONTACT PROBLEMS

Horizontal coordinate (m)

Figure 11. Pressure distributions beneath the footing cB 0; m 0:0:

Horizontal coordinate (m)

A FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH TO SOLVE CONTACT PROBLEMS

Rigid Retaining Wall 16.7m

Earth pressure (kN)

500 400 300 200 100

Analytic solution FEM solution

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0.000

Displacement of the wall (m)

Figure 14. Lateral earth pressure against displacement of the wall.

5 -50 -40 -30 -20 0 10 20 30 40

Earth pressure (kPa)

Figure 15. Lateral earth pressure distributions.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.