On the use of drucker-prager failure criteria for earth pressure problems

Abstract Numerical methods are of considerable help in obtaining a better understanding of the behaviour of geomaterials and have become a standard tool for analysing complex problems in geotechnical engineering. Highly sophisticated constituttive models have been developed and are employed in the scientific world. However, practical engineers very often prefer relatively simple elastic-perfectly plastic material models. In this paper the response of frequently used failure criteria, namely different forms of the Drucker-Prager criterion, are investigated by solving a simple earth pressure problem. The study reveals that all Drucker- Prager models represent a poor approximation of the Mohr-Coulomb failure surface and may lead to higher computing costs. This fact is well acknowledged by the scientific community but is nevertheless often ignored in practice. The results presented here strongly suggest that for earth pressure problems a proper Mohr-Coulomb failure surface should be used when the application of more refined models is not possible or justified.

[1]  O. C. Zienkiewicz,et al.  Some useful forms of isotropic yield surfaces for soil and rock mechanics , 1977 .

[2]  William Powrie,et al.  Finite element analyses of an in situ wall propped at formation level , 1991 .

[3]  David M. Potts,et al.  Comparison of finite element and limiting equilibrium analyses for an embedded cantilever retaining wall , 1989 .

[4]  David M. Potts,et al.  A numerical study of the effects of wall deformation on earth pressures , 1986 .

[5]  B. Simpson,et al.  Retaining structures: displacement and design , 1992 .

[6]  D. V. Griffiths,et al.  Programming the finite element method (2nd ed.) , 1988 .

[7]  D. V. Griffiths Failure Criteria Interpretation Based on Mohr-Coulomb Friction , 1990 .

[8]  D. V. Griffiths,et al.  Transient passive earth pressure analyses , 1991 .

[9]  Teruo Nakai,et al.  Constitutive Equation for Soils Based on the Extended Concept of “Spatial Mobilized Plane” and its Application to Finite Element Analysis , 1983 .

[10]  R. Pöttler Three‐dimensional modelling of junctions at the Channel Tunnel project , 1992 .

[11]  David M. Potts,et al.  The behaviour of a propped retaining wall: results of a numerical experiment , 1984 .

[12]  Malcolm D. Bolton,et al.  FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF A CENTRIFUGE MODEL OF A RETAINING WALL EMBEDDED IN A HEAVILY OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY , 1989 .

[13]  G W Clough,et al.  Finite Element Analyses of Retaining Wall Behavior , 1971 .

[14]  Teruo Nakai FINITE ELEMENT COMPUTATIONS FOR ACTIVE AND PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE PROBLEMS , 1985 .