Plaxis Vietnam Seminar: Finite Element For Soil and Rock Analyses 15 JUNE 2007

finiteelementforsoilandrockanalyses
15JUNE2007
PlaxisVietnamSeminar
No
Title
The PlaxisApproach Geotechnics,Deep

Excavation,Foundationsandetc
SoilModelsandStructural Elements
Geometry,ModelSpace, MeshandInitialStresses
Notes onusageofPlaxisCodesonthemodelling of
ExcavationsandTunnels
Time
F I N I T E E L E M E N T C O D E F O R S O I L A N D R O C K A N A LY S E S
Vietnam2008
PLAXISSEMINARHOCHIMINH
15JUNE2007
finiteelementcodeforsoilandrockanalyses
PLAXIS SEMINAR
KUCHING 2008
Malaysia
C
ComputationalGeomechanicsinRoutineGeotechnicalAnalysis
t ti
lG
h i i R ti G t h i lA l i
THE PLAXIS APPROACH

VISUALISE ANALYSE OPTIMISE> T H E W A Y F O R W A R D
Contributed
William W.L. CHEANG

Regional Technical Manager
PlaxisAsia (Plaxis BV)
Ir. Erwin BEERNINK

Ir. Dennis WATERMAN
Dr. Erick SEPTANIKA
Dr. Ronald BRINKGREVE
Dr. Siew Wei LEE
Dr. Andy PICKLES
Prof. Pieter .A.VERMEER
PROF. Yasser EL. MOSSALLAMY
L A XI S P R O F E S S I O N A L v e r s i o n 8 . 5 - P L A XF L O W v e r s i o n 1 . 5 - D Y N A M I C S m o d u l e - 3 - D F O U N D A T I O N v e r s i o n 2 . 0 3 - D T U N N E L v e r s i o n 2 . 0 3 - D G E O T H E R M I E v e r s i o n 1 .
SEMINAR
1. GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING
2. GEOTECHNICALANALYSIS
G O C
C
SS
3. MODELLINGOFSOILSTRUCTURE
INTERACTIONPROBLEMSWITHPLAXIS
4. REALCASEHISTORIES
5. CONCLUSIONS
Vietnam2008
15JUNE2007
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
TUNNELLLING
EXCAVATION
FOUNDATIONS
LANDRECLAMATIONS
SLOPE(EMBANKMENT)STABILITYAND
REINFORCEMENT
1.GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING
1 GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING
TUNNELLING
N E W A U S T R I A N T U N N E L L I NG
SHIELD TUNNELLING
Vietnam2008
15JUNE2007
The design of sequential excavations depends on

the quality of the ground
The smaller the
excavated area the
smaller the settlements.
Vietnam2008
Vietnam2008
Vietnam2008
15JUNE2007
Case study: Heinenoord tunnel near Rotterdam
Vietnam2008
10
15JUNE2007
Vietnam2008
11
Vietnam2008
12
15JUNE2007
EXCAVATIONS
Vietnam2008
13
Vietnam2008
14
15JUNE2007
Vietnam2008
15
Vietnam2008
16
15JUNE2007
FOUNDATIONS
Vietnam2008
17
PILEDRAFTSFOUNDATIONS
Vietnam2008
18
15JUNE2007
LANDRECLAMATION
Deformed mesh at completion of staged

reclamation (exaggerated scale)
Sandfill
W.T.
PVD
Soft CLAY
Sandy SILT
Vietnam2008
19
SEMINAR
G O C
C
SS
5. CONCLUSIONS
Vietnam2008
20
10
15JUNE2007
2.GEOTECHNICALANALYSIS
2 GEOTECHNICALANALYSIS
2.GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Vietnam2008
22
11
15JUNE2007
23
Vietnam2008
GEOMETRY SPACE
1.
2DPlaneStrainSpace
2.
Axisymmetricspace
3.
3DSpace
30 m
45 m
45 m
8m
Vietnam2008
24
12
15JUNE2007
AXI-SYMMETRY AND NON AXI-SYMMETRY
AX I - S YM M E T RY
N O T AX I - S YM M E T RY
Vietnam2008
25
SEMINAR
G O C
C
SS
5. CONCLUSIONS
Vietnam2008
26
13
15JUNE2007
PlaxisFiniteElementCodes
3.SOILSTRUCTUREINTERACTION
3 SOIL STRUCTUREINTERACTION
3.FINITEELEMENTANALYSISWITHPLAXIS
R E A L I T Y O R V I RT U A L D R E A M ?
Vietnam2008
28
14
15JUNE2007
F I N I T E E L E M E N T C O D E F O R S O I L A N D R O C K A N A LY S E S
29
Vietnam2008
PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODES

Overviewofcurrentproducts:
CURRENT SUITEOFPROGRAMS
+ADDONSMODULES
Plaxis Version8.6
Dynamics
PlaxisPlaxFlowVersion 1.5
(VI Package)
Plaxis3DTunnelVersion2.2
Plaxis3DFoundationVersion2.1
P L A X I S V 8
Vietnam2008
PLAXFLOW
3DTUNNEL
3DFOUNDATION
30
15
15JUNE2007
PLAXIS PROGRAMS AND ANALYSIS TYPE

AnalysisType
Product(Code)
2DAnalysis StressDeformation
3DAnalysis
PlaxisProfessionalVersion8.6
1.StressDeformation
2.DynamicProblems
Combine PlaxisProfessionalVersion8.6+
Dynamicsmodule
11.StressDeformation
StressDeformation
2.Transient Flow
Problems
CombinePlaxisProfessional Version8.6+
Version8 6+
PlaxFlow
Tunnels*
Excavation
Slope
ReinforcedWall
Plaxis3DTunnelVersion2.4
Foundations*
Piled Foundations
PiledRaftFoundations
l d f
d
Excavations
Plaxis3DFoundationVersion2.1
31
Vietnam2008
Vietnam2008
Version4
Version5
Version6
Version7
Dynamics
3DTunnel
Version8
PlaxFlow
3DFoundv11
3DFoundv1.6
3DFoundv2.0
2DVersion9
9
19
991
19
993
19
995
19
998
20
000
20
001
20
002
20
003
20
004
20
005
20
007
20
008
Version3
19
990
19
989
19
987
Version1
Version2
PLAXIS DEVELOPMENT TIME-LINE
32
16
15JUNE2007
PROGRAMS (CODES): 2D AND 3D
PLAXIS2D
PLAXIS3D
Vietnam2008
33
PLAXISPROFESSIONALv8.6
Vietnam2008
34
17
15JUNE2007
PLAXIS V8
Excavations
Vietnam2008
35
PLAXIS V8
Soilreinforcement
Vietnam2008
36
18
15JUNE2007
PLAXIS V8
Tunnels
Vietnam2008
37
PLAXIS PROFESSIONAL VERSION 8.5
MOVIE
1
Vietnam2008
38
19
15JUNE2007
PLAXISPLAXFLOWv1.5
39
Vietnam2008
PLAXFLOW
Vietnam2008
40
20
15JUNE2007
PLAXFLOW + PLAXIS 8
Deformations
Groundwaterheads
MOVIE
1
RAINWATERINFILTRATIONONPARTIALLYSATURATEDSLOPE
Vietnam2008
MOVIE
2
41
DYNAMICSMODULE
Vietnam2008
42
21
15JUNE2007
PLAXIS DYNAMICS MODULE

Forvibrationsandearthquakesimulation
1.
2.
3.
Singlesourcevibrations
Earthquakeanalysis
Absorbingboundaries
S TRON GMOTION IN PUTFROMS MC
MOVIE
Vietnam2008
43
PLAXIS3DTUNNELv2.2
Vietnam2008
44
22
15JUNE2007
PLAXIS 3D TUNNEL
45
Vietnam2008
PLAXIS 3D TUNNEL APPLICATIONS

MODELLINGOFSHIELDTUNNELLINGPROCESS
Vietnam2008
46
23
15JUNE2007

SIMULATIONOFSOILSTRUCTUREINTERACTION:EFFECTOFTUNNELLINGONSTRUCTURE
MOVIE
47
Vietnam2008

TWINTUNNELS
Vietnam2008
48
24
15JUNE2007
PLAXIS3DFOUNDATIONv2.1
49
Vietnam2008
PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION: PILES
Vietnam2008
50
25
15JUNE2007
PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION: PILED FOUNDATIONS
51
Vietnam2008
STRUCTURE ON SLOPE
Vietnam2008
52
26
15JUNE2007
PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION: PIERS
Vietnam2008
53
COMPLEX SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION MODEL
Vietnam2008
54
27
15JUNE2007
MULTI-SUCTION BUCKETS (OFFSHORE)
55
Vietnam2008
TANK ON PILED RAFT FOUNDATION
Vietnam2008
56
28
15JUNE2007
COMPLEX SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION PROBLEMS
MOVIE
E X C AVAT I O N S
MOVIE
COFFERDAM
57
Vietnam2008
DEVELOPMENTS
Vietnam2008
58
29
15JUNE2007
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 3D FOUNDATION

Plaxis3DFoundationVersion2
Embeddedpiles
Groundanchors
Phicreduction
Simulationofsoiltests
Smallstrainstiffness(HSsmall)
Userdefinedsoilmodels
Groupingofelements
NewOutputprogram
N O t t
13
5
101
15
14
6
11
102
10
1
7
2
10
3
12
9
8
3
Vietnam2008
59
Vietnam2008
60
30
15JUNE2007
QUAY WALLS
Vietnam2008
61
ANCHORING OF QUAY WALLS
Vietnam2008
62
31
15JUNE2007
MICROPILES
Vietnam2008
1.
63
ConstitutiveSoilModels
LinearElastic
2. LinearElasticPerfectlyPlastic:
MohrCoulomb
3. IsotropicHardeningModels:
HardeningSoilModel(FailureCriterion,MC,Lade&Matsuoka
Nakai)
DoubleHardening
CamClayClassofmodels(Softsoil&Softsoilcreep)
1.
SSomeotherelementsthatmaybeimportant:
th
l
t th t
b i
t t
Anisotropy
Smallstrainstiffnesseffects
Cycliceffects
Vietnam2008
64
32
15JUNE2007
SEMINAR
G O C
C
SS
5. CONCLUSIONS
Vietnam2008
65
2DMODELLINGOFEXCAVATIONS
3DMODELLINGOFEXCAVATIONS
3DPILEDRAFTFOUNDATIONS
4 REALCASEHISTORIES
4.REALCASEHISTORIES
33
15JUNE2007
OVALCOFFERDAM
NICOLLHIGHWAYINVESTIGATION
EFFECTOFTENSIONPILES
EFFECTOFPASSIVEPILES
APPLIED1:EXCAVATION
APPLIED1 EXCAVATION
Oval Cofferdam Structure Details

Plan View
Cross Section
32m
32m
24m
27m
Vietnam2008
68
34
15JUNE2007
Oval Cofferdam Details

Excavation for a pumping station
Ground conditions: Fill, Clay, Alluvium, CDG, Rock
Oval cofferdam size 24 m 32 m (plan view)
27 m deep excavation in 6 stages
DWall thickness 1.2 m
Ring beams size 0.8 m 1.8 m
Original
Oi i ld
design
i used
d 2D modelling
d lli
Struts size 305 406 287 (necessary?)
3D modelling explores early struts removal
Vietnam2008
69
Designers Original Analysis in 2D
Model plane strain excavation

No consideration of hoop force in ring
DWalls and ring beams
Vietnam2008
70
35
15JUNE2007
3D Analysis
Plaxis 3D Foundation
Mesh size 20017040m
Vietnam2008
71
Retaining System for Oval Cofferdam

Volume
element
Spring
Deformation
(150x)
Pile with Shell
Vietnam2008
72
36
15JUNE2007
Stress in Ring Beams & Force in Struts

Mean stress in ring beams
Strut Forces
(kPa)
Layer
2D (kN)
3D (kN)
1st strut
str t
2064
1083
(52%)
2nd strut
4200
1577
(38%)
3rd strut
4552
1584
(35%)
4th strut
7856
1503
(19%)
5th strut
6784
2285
(34%)
6th strut
5848
2271
(39%)
73
Vietnam2008
Comparison of 2D & 3D Deformations

Parameter
2D
3D
Max. ground settlement
31 mm
10 mm
Max. wall deflection
64 mm
25 mm
Bottom-up construction on-going

Field measurements close to 3D predictions
Vietnam2008
74
37
15JUNE2007
Check for One Strut Failure

BS8002:1994, Cl. 4.5.2.2.1 states
The design should also accommodate the possible failure of an
individual strut tie rod or anchor.
CIRIA C580, Cl. 5.6.3, Accidental Load Case considers
loss of a prop (partial support) to the wall,
Ensure failure of one strut would not lead to collapse
Removal of one strut in 2D analysis
1. removes a whole row of struts into-the-plane
into the plane
2. does not consider redistribution of soil stresses and strut forces in
3D space
Carry out 3D analysis using 3D Tunnel/Foundation
75
Vietnam2008

Plaxis 3D Tunnel
Increase in adjacent strut forces due
to one strut removal
One strut
removed
30m
18% 47% 18%

5% 16%
17% 6%
One strut removed

Strut vertical spacing 3m, horizontal spacing 4m
Vietnam2008
76
38
15JUNE2007

Wall bending moment contours
Increase in wall horizontal

deflection contours
Strut removed
(10mm increase)
45m
1400 kNm/m increase
32m
77
Vietnam2008
Modelling of a Gap in Wall
Wall
panel
G
Gap
Wall
panel
Gap in wall
Gap in wall for utility crossing
Modelled by PLAXIS 3D Tunnel
Vietnam2008
78
39
15JUNE2007
Modelling of a Gap in Wall

Wall deflection contours
Wall
Wall
Grouted
slab
160mm deflection
Gap below final exc.
Panel 0.8m thk
Gap infilled by grout
Panel 1.0m thk
Panel 0.8m thk
Panel filling gap as excavating

downward
79
Vietnam2008
Idealisation of Individual Piles as Walls

Singapore
+103
DWall
+96
1.0m pile (6.5m c/c)

24m
+81
8.5m
1.8m pile (13m c/c)
12.5m
DWall
22m deep top down exc. in soft clay
1.0 and 1.8m pile installed within
cofferdam
Vietnam2008
+50
+45
80
40
15JUNE2007
3D Modelling of Individual Piles

PLAXIS 3D Foundation
DWall
Slab
+50m
DWall
1.0m pile (+50m)

1.8m pile (+45m)
1.8m
Models half geometry
81
Vietnam2008
Comparison of Wall Deflection

3D
100
100
95
95
90
90
85
85
80
80
mRL
105
75
60
Wall horizontal disp. (m)
0.055
0.050
0.045
0.040
0.035
0.030
0.025
0.055
0.050
0.045
0.040
0.035
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.010
0.005
45
0.000
50
45
0.020
55
50
0.015
55
65
0.010
60
0.005
65
75
70
2D predicts smaller
DWall deflections, as
soil is not allowed to
flow between piles
0.000
70
0.015
mRL
2D
105
Wall horizontal disp. (m)
Diaphragm wall deflection
Vietnam2008
82
41
15JUNE2007
Comparison of Tension Force in Piles

1.0m pile at 6.5m c/c
1.8m pile at 13m c/c

100
100
95
95
3D gives
3000 kN
90
85
70
65
Compression/tension force in pile (kN)
20000
2D gives
20000 kN
15000
45
20000
50
45
15000
50
10000
55
5000
60
55
60
10000
65
3D gives
1400 kN
75
5000
70
80
75
Level (mRL)
2D gives
10000 kN
80
-5000
Level (mRL)
85
-5000
90
Compression/tension force in pile (kN)
Tension force (+ve) in piles due to ground heave in cofferdam
Vietnam2008
83
Notes on Individual Piles as Walls

Widely spaced individual piles within cofferdam modelled as
continuous walls in 2D analysis would predict:
1 Smaller deflection of retaining wall.
1.
wall Continuous wall does not allow
flow of soil between piles, i.e. wall too rigid.
2. Larger tension force in the continuous wall. Larger surface area of
wall for mobilisation of shaft resistance.
Consequences might be:
1. under-design of retaining wall
2. unnecessary sleeving/coating of individual piles in cofferdam
Discrepancy between 2D and 3D prediction increases with the
increase of individual piles spacing into-the-plane.
Vietnam2008
84
42
15JUNE2007
Effect of Excavation on Piles

Macau
Vietnam2008
85
Effect of Excavation on Piles
Piles for supporting high-rise
Dido pile external dia. 0.6 m, internal dia. 0.3 m
Pile spacing 3 - 8 m, length ~ 45 m
Ground conditions: fill, soft clay, stiff soil
Excavation 3 - 4 m for construction of pile caps
3D analysis to investigate
1. effect of excavation on pile deflection

2. contribution of piles to FOS of excavation slope
Vietnam2008
86
43
15JUNE2007
3D Analysis
Individual piles
65m
8m
Individual piles modelled by
plate element
87
Vietnam2008
Deformation of Excavation
Piles resist deformation
20x
Vietnam2008
Localised deformation around piles
88
44
15JUNE2007
Deformation of Piles
200
C
B
A
180
Soft soil
Stiff soil
Pile head deflection (mm)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Measured pile deflection: order

of 100 mm
0
Exc to
+2.5
Exc to
+1.3
Exc to
+0.8
Back exc Back exc

to +2.5
to +4.5
89
Vietnam2008
Phi-c Reduction to Determine FOS

Remember to input moment capacity of piles Mp!
Plastic hinge
Vietnam2008
90
45
15JUNE2007
FOS for Different Excavation Depths

2.40
2.20
piles
FOS
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
no piles
1.20
1.00
Exc to
+2.5
Exc to
+1.3
Exc to
+0.8
Back exc
to +2.5
Vietnam2008
Back exc
to +4.5
91
1.EFFECTOFBARRETPILESONADJACENTINFRASTRUCTURE
2.PILEDFOUNDATIONANALYSIS
3.CALIBRATIONTEST:NUMERICALANDCENTRIFUGE
APPLIED2 FOUNDATIONS
APPLIED2:FOUNDATIONS
46
15JUNE2007
Foundation System for a High-rise

Singapore
High-rise above an existing

tunnel
(12m)
Tunnel
Barrettes straddle tunnel

Barrettes 1.5m thick, 100
m deep
Tunnel settlement criteria
15 mm
High-rise footprint
Ground conditions: 35 m
soft clay underlain by stiff
soil
2D & 3D analyses to
optimise barrette geometries
Vietnam2008
93
Geometry of Existing Tunnel
Bored pile
Supported by three row of bored piles
1.2 - 1.5m @ 4 - 8 m c/c
Bored piles ~60 m long
Tunnel
T
l width
idth 12 m, h
height
i ht 6 m,
floor/wall thickness 1 m
Tunnel 5 m below ground surface
Vietnam2008
94
47
15JUNE2007
2D Analysis
High-rise loading
tunnel
Barrette
Vietnam2008
95
Limitations of 2D Analysis
Line load applied on barrettes is uniform into-the-plane
In real situation
1 line
1.
li lload
d iis applied
li d within
ithi th
the b
building
ildi area
2. barrette section further away from building boundary helps
shed load through skin friction
Existing bored piles supporting the tunnel are modelled as
wall into-the-plane
Changes of axial force in existing piles may not be reliably
predicted
Cannot give settlement profile of the tunnel into-the-plane (for
structural calculation of tunnel deflection/distortion)
Vietnam2008
96
48
15JUNE2007
3D Analysis
Plaxis 3D Foundation - half problem modelled
Pile-soil area
60m
Line load on
barrette
Symmetry
plane
Tunnel
152m
160m
Vietnam2008
97
Structural Items in 3D Analysis

Tunnel
Volume element: barrettes,

transfer beams & piles
Line load on
barrette
Floor element: tunnel roof and

floor slab
Wall element: tunnel walls
Interface element: on barrettes,
transfer beams, wall & piles
Piles
Transfer beam
Barrette
(100 m)
Building load
(equivalent raft foundation)
Vietnam2008
98
49
15JUNE2007
3D Analysis Results
Settlement of tunnel
Settlement
Deformation
500x
roof
floor
Settlement of tunnel
walls
99
Vietnam2008
3D Analysis Results
Longitudinal Settlement Profile of
Tunnel
Increase of Axial Force in

Tunnel Piles
Distance in longitudinal direction of tunnel (m)
95
West pile
90
20
30
40
50
60
West side
East side
East pile
80
75
70
65
60
Soft soil
55
Stiff soil
50
Settlement (m)
Elevation (+mRL)
10
Middle pile
85
45
40
35
Increase of axial force in pile (kN)
Vietnam2008
100
50
15JUNE2007
Summary of Barrette Foundation Analysis

3D analyses predict smaller tunnel settlement than 2D,
reduction by 3 - 5 times
3D analyses model better
1. stress bulb of building load
2. load shedding through skin friction in barrettes
3. increase of axial force in tunnel piles
4. longitudinal settlement profile of tunnel
Vietnam2008
101
Vietnam2008
102
51
15JUNE2007
Vietnam2008
103
Vietnam2008
104
52
15JUNE2007
Vietnam2008
105
Vietnam2008
106
53
15JUNE2007
1.SETTLEMENTOFSTRUCTUREDUETOCONSOLIDATINGGROUND&THE
EFFECTOFNEGATIVESKINFRICTION
2.EFFECTOFEMBANKMENTONSERVICEPIPE
APPLIED3:DEFORMATION
APPLIED3 DEFORMATION
ANALYSIS
SettlementataDepotSite
Taiwan
Plan view area 280m130m

Two-storey depot supported by 0.5m driven piles in alternating layers of clay
and sand,
sand with pile toes founded in sand
Consolidation settlement occurring due to placement of 2-3m surface fill onto
near surface clay layer
Concern for negative skin friction induced on pile groups
Vietnam2008
108
54
15JUNE2007
SETTLEMENT AT A DEPOT SITE

Point load
1.25m
2.5m
+21.5 mRL
FILL
+19.5 mRL
Model pile group

Upper CLAY
+10 mRL
SAND
37m
PLAXIS 3D Foundation
+0 mRL
16m
Lower CLAY
0.5m dia. pile
-10 mRL
Lower SAND
-15 mRL
15m
15m
Toe +5.5 mRL
10
9
Vietnam2008
Excess pwp contours
Modelling sequences
1. Initial equilibrium
2. 2-3 m Fill placement (epwp)
Clay
3. Install pile cap and piles

4. Apply building load 600 kN to of
pile cap (epwp)
5. Consolidation (dissipation of epwp)
Clay
Dissipation of epwp
Vietnam2008
110
55
15JUNE2007
Consolidation settlement
130mm
100mm
Pile toe
111
Vietnam2008
SETTLEMENT AT A DEPOT SITE
Time (Day)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0.000
F 29
F-29
-0.020
F 30
F-30
F 31
F-31
F 32
F-32
Hand calc.
Settlement (m)
-0.040
-0.060
-0.080
PLAXIS (kclay=110-8 m/s)
-0.100
-0.120
-0.140
6/5/04
25/4/06
-0.160
Vietnam2008
11
2
56
15JUNE2007
Axial force down the corner pile (kN)
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
22
NSF: Negative skin friction

20
metre Reduced Level

m
18
Bldg. load
16
NSF
14
12
10
8
Bldg. load +
consolidation
6
4
113
Vietnam2008
8. Lateral Movement of Buried Service Pipe

Service pipe
Embankment
Australia
Service pipe
15m
Cone
Cone
Vietnam2008
114
57
15JUNE2007
Lateral Movement of Buried Service Pipe

10 m high embankments and 18 m high cone to be
built adjacent to an existing service pipe
Service
S i pipe
i 0
0.4
4 m and
d buried
b i d1md
deep
Loading from embankments and cone may deform the
pipe laterally
Ground conditions: fill, soft clay, stiff clay, residual soil
3D analysis to predict the deformation magnitude and
profile of the pipe
115
Vietnam2008
3D Analysis
Plaxis 3D Foundation
Embankment load
Alignment of buried pipe
35m
Cone load
Vietnam2008
116
58
15JUNE2007
3D Analysis Results
Deformation at Depth 1 m Below Ground Surface (50x)
Deformed Pipe
Pipe modelled by beam element
Vietnam2008
117
3D Analysis Results
Longitudinal distance (m)_
A simple 3D loading scenario

modelled by 3DF
Model the soil-structure
i t
interaction
ti effect
ff t
0
20
40
0.005
0.000
-0.005
-0.010
-0.015
-0.020
-0.025
-0.030
Lateral movement of pipe (m)
Emb.
60
Give pipe deflection, shear

force & bending moment in 3D
80
100
Cone
120
140
160
180
200
Vietnam2008
118
59
15JUNE2007
SEMINAR
G O C
C
SS
5. CONCLUSIONS
Vietnam2008
119
GeneralNotesforFEAnalysis
Soil input parameters and modelling techniques continually
refined as more field data is available
A series of sensitivity analyses are necessary to cover
possible field scenarios
Use of numerical modelling in practice requires:
1. A good knowledge of soil mechanics and finite
element/difference principles
2. An understanding of the programme/model limitations
3. Careful checking of numerical results by competent
engineers
Vietnam2008
120
60
15JUNE2007
References
Breth,H.andChambosse,G.(1975).SettlementbehaviourofbuildingsabovesubwaytunnelsinFrankfurtclay.Proc.Conf.
SettlementofStructures,Cambridge,April1974,London:PentechPress,329 336.
Boscardin,M.D.andCording,E.J.(1989).Buildingresponsetoexcavationinducedsettlement,ASCE,J.Geotech.Engrg.,115(2),
2228.
CIRIA(2003).Embeddedretainingwalls guidanceforeconomicdesign.ConstructionIndustryResearchandInformation
Association,ReportC580.
Davies,R.V.andHenkel,D.J.(1980).GeotechnicalproblemsassociatedwiththeconstructionofCharterStation,HongKong.
Proc.oftheConf.onMassTransportationinAsia,HongKong,paperJ3,31p.
Dickin,E.A.andNazir,R.(1999).Momentcarryingcapacityofshortpilefoundationsincohesionlesssoil.J.Geotech.&Geoenv.
Engrg.ASCE,125(1),110.
Franzius,J.N.,Potts,D.M.andBurland,J.B.(2006).Theresponseofsurfacestructurestotunnelconstruction.Geotechnical
Engineering,Proc.ofICE,159(1),317.
Morton,K.,Leonard,M.S.M.andCarter,R.W.(1980).Buildingsettlementsandgroundmovementsassociatedwith
constructionoftwostationsofthemodifiedinitialsystemoftheMassTransitRailway,HongKong.Proc.of2nd Int.Conf.on
GroundMovementsandStructures,Cardiff,UK,708802;946947,Discussion(publishedunderthetitleGroundMovement
andStructures,Geddes,J.D.,eds.,Pentech,London,1981).
Morton,K.,Cater,R.W.andLinney,L.(1980).Observedsettlementsofbuildingsadjacenttostationsconstructedforthe
modifiedinitialsystemoftheMassTransitRailway,HongKong.Proc.of6th SoutheastAsianConf.onSoilEngineering,
Taipei,415429.
Prasad,Y.V.S.N.andNarasimhaRao,S.(1994).Experimentalstudiesonfoundationsofcompliantstructures I.understatic
loading.OceanEngineering,21(1),113.
PLAXIS(2002).Usersforum beamtopileproperties.PLAXISBulletin,June,2002,p.22,
http://www.plaxis.com/upload/bulletins/12%20PLAXIS%20Bulletin.pdf.
121
Vietnam2008
Thankyou
Vietnam2008
122
61

Plaxis Vietnam Seminar: Finite Element For Soil and Rock Analyses 15 JUNE 2007

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

Plaxis Vietnam Seminar: Finite Element For Soil and Rock Analyses 15 JUNE 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

finiteelementforsoilandrockanalyses

The PlaxisApproach Geotechnics,Deep

THE PLAXIS APPROACH

William W.L. CHEANG

Ir. Erwin BEERNINK

The design of sequential excavations depends on

Case study: Heinenoord tunnel near Rotterdam

Deformed mesh at completion of staged

AXI-SYMMETRY AND NON AXI-SYMMETRY

PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODES

PLAXIS PROGRAMS AND ANALYSIS TYPE

PLAXIS DEVELOPMENT TIME-LINE

PROGRAMS (CODES): 2D AND 3D

PLAXIS PROFESSIONAL VERSION 8.5

PLAXIS DYNAMICS MODULE

S TRON GMOTION IN PUTFROMS MC

PLAXIS 3D TUNNEL APPLICATIONS

PLAXIS 3D TUNNEL APPLICATIONS

PLAXIS 3D TUNNEL APPLICATIONS

PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION: PILES

PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION: PILED FOUNDATIONS

PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION: PIERS

COMPLEX SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION MODEL

MULTI-SUCTION BUCKETS (OFFSHORE)

TANK ON PILED RAFT FOUNDATION

COMPLEX SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION PROBLEMS

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 3D FOUNDATION

ANCHORING OF QUAY WALLS

Oval Cofferdam Structure Details

Oval Cofferdam Details

Designers Original Analysis in 2D

Model plane strain excavation

Mesh size 20017040m

Retaining System for Oval Cofferdam

Pile with Shell

Stress in Ring Beams & Force in Struts

Comparison of 2D & 3D Deformations

Max. ground settlement

Max. wall deflection

Bottom-up construction on-going

Check for One Strut Failure

Check for One Strut Failure

18% 47% 18%

One strut removed

Check for One Strut Failure

Increase in wall horizontal

1400 kNm/m increase

Modelling of a Gap in Wall

Modelling of a Gap in Wall

Gap infilled by grout

Panel 1.0m thk

Panel 0.8m thk

Panel filling gap as excavating

Idealisation of Individual Piles as Walls

1.0m pile (6.5m c/c)

1.8m pile (13m c/c)

3D Modelling of Individual Piles

1.0m pile (+50m)

Comparison of Wall Deflection

Wall horizontal disp. (m)

Wall horizontal disp. (m)

Diaphragm wall deflection

Comparison of Tension Force in Piles