Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Plaxis Users
Dates
Location
INTRODUCTION: This course will follow in the tradition of the International Course for Experienced Plaxis
Users, held annually in The Netherlands. The course is
scheduled to be held 4 days before the 12th Asian
Regional Conference on Geotechnical Engineering in Singapore, so as to allow for maximum participation of
Plaxis users in Asian countries.
COURSE CONTENT: It is aimed to teach the use of
advanced soil models and advanced features in the new
Plaxis V8, and an introduction of the 3D Tunnel programs. The basic course covers the Mohr-Coulomb
model, attention is now focused on the Hardening Soil
model and the Soft Soil Creep model. These model and
advanced features of Plaxis V8 are employed in handson practice in practical problems of excavations,
ratory soil investigations. As before, lectures will be followed by related exercises, which are real case studies.
Also the 3D tunnel program will be introduced.
Deep excavations - Prof H. Tan
Consolidation in excavations and cut slopes Prof H. Tan
Tunneling - Prof P.A. Vermeer
Modeling of shield tunnels - Prof P.A. Vermeer
Introduction to 3D aspects of NATM tunneling Prof P.A. Vermeer
The third day focused on the Soft Soil Creep model and
its applications to embankments on weak foundations
improved with PVD and geosynthetics.
Soft Soil Creep model - Prof P.A. Vermeer
Embankments on weak foundation with PVD and
geosynthetics - Prof H. Tan
SOFTWARE: Exercises and case studies are based on
the PLAXIS computer program V8, which is used by geotechnical engineers worldwide. This user-friendly code
has been developed for deformation analyses, stability
Organizers
During the second day, the focus is on advanced engineering in the field of deep excavations and tunnels, and
the determination of parameters from in-situ and labo-
assessment, groundwater flow and consolidation. It contains special options for soil-structures involving retaining walls, ground anchors,geosynthetics, tunnels linings, etc. The latest V8 has a fully automatic mesh
generator based on graphical input of soil-layer geometries, and several new features to facilitate input and
analysis of complex situations. Amongst other things,
Plaxis V8 allows for fully coupled deformation-consolidation during staged construction.
FORMAT: The course begins with registration on Thursday morning and ends on Saturday afternoon. Each session begins with 60 minutes of lectures followed by an
application exercise of about the same length. Lectures
are in English, and individual assistance will be provided
by graduate students during exercises.
COST: The cost of the course is $1200 per participant.
This includes a full set of instruction manuals and the use
of a computer. The fees also covers all lunches and two
tea-breaks per day.
leader)
neering at NUS. He has been a Plaxis user over the last 10 years,
elling and finite element analysis since the early seventies and
neering at NUS.
The Lecturers
SCHEDULE
1st Asian Course for EXPERIENCED PLAXIS USERS
Dates: 31/07, 1/08 and 2/08 2003
Thursday, 31 July 2003
0900-0915
0915-1000
1000-1015
1015-1100
1100-1200
1200-1300
1300-1345
1345-1415
1415-1515
1515-1530
1530-1615
1615-1700
CG01 Opening
CG02 Concepts of Plasticity
Break
CG03 Stiffness of Soils
CG04 Foundation (Exercise)
Lunch
CG05 Hardening Soil Model
CG06 Drained and Undrained Soil Behavior
CG07 Pile Loading Test (Exercise)
Break
CG08 Selection of Parameters for HS
CG09 Pore Pressures and Groundwater Flow
Tan SA
Tan SA
Vermeer
Vermeer
Tan SA
Vermeer
Tan SA
Tan SA
Tan SA
Vermeer
Vermeer
Vermeer
Tan SA
Vermeer/Tan
Concepts of Plasticity
Ronald Brinkgreve
Plaxis BV /
Delft University of Technology
Contents
Aspects of real soil behaviour
Stresses and strains
Stress paths in standard soil tests
Standard drained triaxial test (CD-test)
Oedometer test
Consolidated undrained triaxial test (CU-test)
Concepts of Plasticity
Concepts of Plasticity
xy yz zx ]T
= '+ w
= total stresses
= effective stresses
w = pore pressure (isotropic):
Hydrostatic
(constant head)
Non-hydrostatic (variable head groundwater flow)
Excess pore press. (undrained behaviour consolidation)
PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES
Concepts of Plasticity
s * = 12 ' xx + ' yy
2 = zz
3 = s * +r *
t*=
1
4
p=
1
1
xx + yy + zz = ( 1 + 2 + 3 )
3
3
q=
1
2
2
( xx yy ) 2 + ( yy zz ) 2 + ( zz xx ) 2 + 6 xy
+ 6 2yz + 6 zx
2
Concepts of Plasticity
Cartesian strains: = xx
Normal strains
ux
x
uy
yy =
y
xx =
zz =
uz
z
yy zz xy yz zx ]T
Shear strains
xy =
ux u y
+
y x
u y uz
+
z y
u u
zx = z + x
x z
yz =
Concepts of Plasticity
-1
p-axis
q-axis
p-axis
1
-3
2= 3
-2
-32
Rendulic plane
Concepts of Plasticity
-1
-1
p-axis
Deviator plane
-3
-2
-3
-2
Principal stress space
Concepts of Plasticity
1-3
1
-1
-1
Concepts of Plasticity
Loose sand
PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES
Dense sand
Concepts of Plasticity
10
-3
n
-3
-3
Concepts of Plasticity
11
1
3
pw
-1
-1
Concepts of Plasticity
12
Concepts of Plasticity
13
-3
-3
-3
Concepts of Plasticity
14
1
-1
ln 1
-1
PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES
Concepts of Plasticity
15
Axial loading
-3
PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES
Concepts of Plasticity
16
xy
dxy
xy
v
xy
PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES
Concepts of Plasticity
17
-1
Shearing
-3
PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES
Concepts of Plasticity
18
(strains)
d = d e + d p
(strain increments)
Concepts of Plasticity
19
d e
yy
e
d zz
e
d xy
d eyz
d e
zx
1
=
2 + 2
2 + 2
Concepts of Plasticity
d ' xx
0 d ' yy
0 d ' zz
0 d ' xy
0 d ' yz
2 + 2 d ' zx
0
20
10
g
'
d
= magnitude of plastic strains (multiplier)
dg/d = direction of plastic strains (vector)
g
= plastic potential (function)
Classical plasticity: g = f
(associated plasticity)
(non-associated plasticity)
f = yield function
PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES
Concepts of Plasticity
21
Concepts of Plasticity
22
11
Not acceptable
f=0
Plasticity
f<0
Elasticity
Concepts of Plasticity
23
xy
c cos
t*
xy
xx
c
-3
-s* sin
-1
-s*
t* c cos - s* sin
Concepts of Plasticity
24
12
t *=
s* = (3+1)
s*=
1
2
(
(
)
)
2
1 ' '
xx
yy
4
1 ' + '
xx
yy
2
2
+ xy
f = 12 ( '3 '1 ) +
1
2
Concepts of Plasticity
25
1
2
1
2
Concepts of Plasticity
26
13
Yield directions in
deviator plane:
= 30
= 0
-2
-3
Concepts of Plasticity
27
Youngs modulus
Poissons ratio
(effective) cohesion
(effective) friction angle
Dilatancy angle
Concepts of Plasticity
[kN/m2]
[-]
[kN/m2]
[]
[]
28
14
- 1
E=
d1
d1
d 3
d1
1
- 1
3
PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES
Concepts of Plasticity
29
d xy
d xy
dxy
dxy
E
=
2(1 + )
dp
Bulk modulus:
K=
E
dp
=
d v 3(1 2 )
- d1
Oedometer modulus:
Eoed
E (1 )
d
= 1=
d1 (1 + )(1 2 )
dv
Concepts of Plasticity
- d1
30
15
1
a
c
n
-3
a=
b=
1 + sin '
1 sin '
Concepts of Plasticity
31
xyxy
xy
xy
xy
xy
p
d yy
p
d xy
xy
= tan
yy
xy
dilatancy
PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES
Concepts of Plasticity
32
16
Plasticity parameter:
d ije = (D e )ijkl d 'kl = 0
1
d ijp = d
g
'ij
d xx = 0
d xxp = d
' ' yy 1
g
+ 2 sin =
= d xx
' xx
4 t*
d yyp = d
' ' xx 1
g
= d yy
+ 2 sin =
' yy
4 t*
d sin
d xyp = d
'
g
= d xy =
' xy
t*
p
d yy
d cos
p
d xy
= tan
Concepts of Plasticity
33
3 = confining pressure
-1
2 sin
1 sin
1-2
PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES
-1
Concepts of Plasticity
34
17
-1
1
Eoed
1-
-1
-3
Concepts of Plasticity
35
Concepts of Plasticity
36
18
Concepts of Plasticity
37
Questions ?
Concepts of Plasticity
38
19
(in MC-model)
(in HS-model)
IGS, Stuttgart
By Pieter A. Vermeer
University of Stuttgart, Germany
Axial load
Soil sample
Porous filter
Containing ring
The soil sample is enclosed in an impermeable rigid cylindrical ring with top and bottom porous filter
stones. Hence, the pore water flow and the strain are one-dimensional. The water pressure in the
porous filter stones is always zero. The pore water pressure in the soil sample varies with varying
axial load.
In common oedometer tests the axial load on the upper plate is varied and the change in height of the
sample is measured.
lx
l0
x =
lz
ly
y =
l0
z =
lz
l0
l0
x = y = 0
Oedometer test
Part I:
1
(x y z )
E
1
( y z x )
y =
E
1
(z x y )
z =
E
x =
... (1)
... (2)
... (3)
= Poissons ratio
Eoed
1
h0
z =
elastic material
(1) ...
(2) ...
1
( x y z ) = 0
E
1
=
( y z x ) = 0
E
x =
y
x = y =
z
1
K0 =
hence:
h
h0
h
h0
(3) ...
1
( z x y )
E
x = y =
z
1
z =
hence:
z =
(1 2 ) (1 + ) z
E
(1 )
Eoed =
(1 )
(1 2 )(1 + )
rock
The soil deformation under the centre of a wide dam resembles that of an oedometer test.
0
0
= representative initial stress
= q
h
s = h =
Eoed = /
Eoed
midpoint
final stress
initial stress
secant modulus
Eoed
tangent modulus
Eoed
d
d
40 kPa
representative point
= 10 kN / m
0 = 6 10 = 60 kPa
0 + = 100 kPa
12 m
0 + / 2 :
40
=
= 0.05
Eoed 800
s = h 12 0.05 = 0.6 m
sublayer A
sublayer B
sublayer C
4m
4m
4m
A = 40 kPa
Eoed = 400 kPa
= 0.1
s = 0.4 m
B
= 80
Eoed = 800
B = 0.05
s = 0.2 m
C = 120
Eoed = 1200
C = 0.033
s = 0.133 m
s = 0.733 m
z'
q o= d
z
representative point
for z0 and z
1
Eoed
limiting depth
z
b
q
qo
z = 0.5 b
z=b
zo
z = 1.5 b
1
Tangent modulus for z 0 + z might be used in elastic FE-analysis or one might use the
2
2
settlement
1
s=
b q factor
E
formula
.
EA
Eoed from
z 0 +
A
Eoed
EB
EBoed
EC
ECoed
ED
EF
1
z 0
2
460 kPa
70 kPa
59 m
15 m
soft clay
Constance, Germany
settlement 3 6 cm
Many buildings in Constance have raft
foundations. Settlement would be considerably
overpredicted when limiting depth and
geological factor would not be considered.
cal s
s = cal s
Type of clay
Very sensitive clays (soft alluvial, estuarine and marine clays)
1.0 1.2
0.7 1.0
0.5 0.7
0.2 0.5
Tomlinson: Although the geological factor has some theoretical basis it is generally regarded
as a means whereby the apparently high settlements calculated from oedometer test results
can be reconciled with the much smaller settlements as measured in foundations on stiff
overconsolidated clays. It is possible that oedometer tests on good samples taken by pistondriven thin-wall tubes will give higher stiffness values than those obtained from conventional
hammer-driven thick-wall tube samples and hence the geological factor will no longer be
required.
Tomlinson (1995): Foundation Design and Construction, Pitman Publishing Inc.
MAIN TOWER
1996-99
PRF, s = 2.5 cm
Citibank EUROTHEUM
1985-86
1997-99
RF,
PRF,
s = 11 cm s = 3.2 cm
Helaba
high-rise
building
1975-77
RF,
s = 10 cm
Euro tower
1974-77
RF, s = 9 cm
Japan Center
1994-96
PRF, s = 3.2 cm
Commercial
bank I
1972-74
RF, s = 9 cm
Simple elastic calculations give reasonable predictions of the average settlements of raft foundations, but
not the influence of new settlements on existing buildings.
- The practical use of linear elasticity for soils requires an appropriate linearization of
real stress-strain curves.
- Appropriate methods of linearization exist for estimating settlements of
dams and foundations.
- The accuracy of elasticity methods can be increase by sublayering.
- In this lecture we did not consider the use of linear elasticity beyond the field of
foundation settlements, as there is no appropriate way to get suitable stiffnesses.
- Beyond the field of foundation settlement, analytical elasticity solutions can be used
for verification of computer codes. The direct practical use is very limited, as it is not
easy to linearise stress-strain curves for problems of: excavations, tunnelling, etc.
Part 2
Exponential compression law
(embedded in Hardening Soil model)
Eoed = m
Es
0.87
0.01
dense ID = 0.91
loose
approximation
with m = 0.7
0.85
void ratio e
axial strain
U = 1.7
d50 = 0.35 mm
nmin = 0.39
nmax = 0.5
0.83
0.67
dense
m = 0.55
loose ID = 0.32
0.02
0.65
0
200
400
stress [kPa ]
100
10
1000
stress [ kPa ]
Ohde (1939):
ve and we :
more general:
m 1.0
sands:
m 0.5
+ a
ref
Eoed = Eoed
pref + a
E
clays:
We
ref
oed
= v e at =
Ohde (1939): Zur Theorie der Druckverteilung im Baugrund. Bauingenieur Nr. 20, 451-459.
10
sat
E oed [MPa ]
kN / m 3
n
%
= 100 kPa
21
18
35
50
50
20
0.6
silt
wL = 0.2
19
45
0.75
wL = 0.6
16
65
1.0
von Sooss (2002) provides much more detailed information on many soil types
Data from:
105
rock
104
Janbu :
103
Eoed = E
sandy gravel
ref
oed
102
pref
sand
10
more general:
Norwegian
clays
+ a
Eoed = Eref
oed
pref + a
with
0
50
porosity n [%]
a = c cot
100
After Janbu ( 1963 ), Soil Compressibility as Determined by Oedometer and Triaxial Tests; Proceedings
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Publisher: DGEG
11
ref
* = pref / Eref
oed
Eref
oed =
500 kPa
w L 0 .1
Liquid limit wL
Liquid limit wL
Engel (2002): Verfahren zur Festlegung von Kennwerten fr bodenmechanische Nachweise. Report Nr. 10, Institute of
Geotechnical Engineering, University of Dresden.
Terzaghi & Peck (1961: Die Bodenmechanik in der Baupraxis. Publisher: Springer.
Qualitative
description
Coefficient of
volume
compressibility
mv [m2/MN]
Eoed
[MPa]
Very low
compressibility
Below 0.05
> 20
Low
compressibility
0.05 0.10
10 20
Medium
compressibility
0.10 0.30
3 10
High
compressibility
0.30 1.50
0.7 - 3
Very high
compressibility
Above 1.5
< 0.7
Note: Tomlinson does not indicate a stress level, but data seem to correspond to pref = 100 kPa.
Tomlinson (1995): Foundation Design and Construction, Pitman Publishing Inc.
12
M0 = 4qc
M0 = 2qc + 20 (MPa)
M0 = 120 MPa
Lunne and Christophersen also included OC sands in their study and recommended as a rough
guideline to use:
M0 = 5qc
M0 = 250 MPa
M = M0
v 0 + v / 2
v0
Lunne, T. and Christophersen, H. P. (1983): Interpretation of cone penetrometer data for offshore sands.
Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Richardson, Texas, Paper No. 4464.
Part 3
The logarithmic compression law as a special case for m=1
m=1 :
Literature :
pref d
d
=
Eoed
Eref
oed
e = CC log
pref
ln
Eref
oed
CC ln
1 + e0 ln10
Eref
oed = (1 + e 0 ) ln 10
pref
CC
CC = Compression Index
e0 = Initial Void Ratio
13
1,4
e
1 + eo
1,4
Cc
1,2
1,2
1,0
1,0
200
400
600
800
10
100
[kPa ]
1000
[kPa ]
Data from an oedometer test on a reconstituted clay sample (kaolin), wL = 69%, wP = 38%
after: Wood (1990), Soil Behaviour and Critical State Soil Mechanics, Cambridge University Press.
The logarithmic law (m=1) is accurate for soft soils, but not for coarse grained soils
and neither for heavily overconsolidated soils
1.4
logarithmic law
m=1
void ratio e
1.2
0.9
loose Hostun sand
m<1
0.7
heavily overconsolidated
clay from Beaucaire site
m<1
log
0.5
1
10
100
1000
[kPa]
10000
14
Compression Index for primary loading and a Swelling Index for unloading and reloading
1.80
1
1.30
void ratio e
void ratio e
Cc = compression index
0.80
Cs
Cs = swelling index
0.30
10
100
1000
10000
log
log [kPa]
e = Cc log
In overconsolidated region:
e = Cs log
Cur = CS
PI = IP
Kulhawy & Mayne (1990): Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design
15
Correlations for Compression Index and Swelling Index of NC-clays and NC-silts
CC
4
IP w L 0.1
3
CC = 0.1 1.5
CS
1
CC
5
CS = 0.02 0.3
primary loading:
unloading-reloading:
N.B.
E oed =
(1 + e 0 ) ln10
500 kPa
CC
w L 0. 1
Eur
oed 5 E oed
(Vermeer)
ur
Wroth & Wood (1987): The correlation of index properties with some basic engineering properties of soils.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.15, No.2, pp 137-145.
.]
Eref
oed 60 Id [MPa
Eref
oed ( 2.5 MPa ) / ( w L 0..1)
16
m
Eref
oed ( / ref )
Question 4
The settlement due to the construction of an embankment has to be determined. Under the embankment is
a compressible soil layer of 10 m thickness resting on a rock horizon. The soil layer is normally consolidated
and has an submerged unit soil weight of = 12 kN/m3 and a porosity of n = 0.3. The surcharge load
imposed by the embankment is 20 kN/m2. The Compression Index Cc as determined from an oedometer
test is 0.23. Please calculate the settlement of the compressible soil layer assuming that the embankment
is wide as compared to the soil layer thickness of 10 m.
17
CG04 Foundation
Eindhoven Warehouse
EINDHOVEN WAREHOUSE
Eindhoven Warehouse
BACKGROUNDS ON EXERCISE
This exercise is based on a practical situation, the excavation and loading of a real foundation. In
addition to soil, structural elements are included in the model. The possibility of staged
excavation and construction is shown by switching elements on and off. Attention is focused on
output options for structural elements. It is shown how the stiffness modulus is determined from
results of oedometer tests.
3.00
P1 = 200 kN/m
2.00 m
3.00 m
P2 = 300 kN/m
P1
2.30 m
0.20 m
d = 4.80 m
0.40 m
d = 2.70 m
0
0.20 m
loam
-7.50 m
gravel
Eindhoven Warehouse
IN GENERAL:
d real
TUNNELS:
dreal
rinside
routside
lining soil
r = 1 ( rinside + routside )
2
w = ( concrete d real ) - ( soil 1 d real )
2
P.S. this also applies to the weight of other structures besides excavated soil !
Eindhoven Warehouse
Wall:
d = 0.2 m
I = 1 (0.2)3 / 12 = 6.67 10-4 m4
A = 1 0.2 = 0.2 m2
EI =0.13 105 kNm2/m
EA =4.0 106 kN/m
wnet = wgross - soil d
= 0.2 24 - 18 0.2
= 3.0 kN/m2
Eindhoven Warehouse
8 m.
2.5
2.5
Reference
point
2.5
loam
gravel
(pre-consolidation)
= maximum stress that reference point has ever experienced in the past
= depth of reference point
= specific soil weight
= this is an assumed pre-overburden pressure at soil surface,
characteristic for the region considered
AFTER EXCAVATION:
0 = 2.5 18 = 45 kPa
0
2.5 m
18 kPa
AFTER LOADING:
2 = 45 + 6.0 + 125 = 176 kPa
2
45 kPa
6.0 kPa
125 kPa
Eindhoven Warehouse
)kPa
0
50
250
350
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
primary loading
3.0
3.4
)
4.0
5.0
N[%]
unloading/reloading
6.0
Unloading from ' to 0 and reloading from 0 to ' does not give deformation
(elastic behaviour)
From unloading/reloading curve from ' to c (from ~90 kPa to 110 kPa):
= 1 + 2 = 1.1 %
= 176 - 90 = 86 kPa
E oed =
86
=
= 7800 kPa
1.1 %
= 0.4
E=
1+
1.4
(1 - 2 ) E oed =
0.2 7800 3640 kPa
1 -
0.6
Eindhoven Warehouse
= 2 = 1.0 %
= 176 - 110 = 67 kPa
E oed =
67
=
= 6700 kPa
1.0 %
E oed = E oed (
ref
pref
1
,
0.5
0.5
) = 6700 (
100
)
143
5600 kPa
'1 is the average vertical stress, that is , = (176 + 110) = 143 kPa
1
2
ref
Assuming E50
Unloading-Reloading
ref
ref
ur
= 16800 kPa
Eindhoven Warehouse
EINDHOVEN WAREHOUSE
3.00
P1 = 200 kN/m
2.00 m
3.00 m
P2 = 300 kN/m
P1
2.30 m
0.20 m
d = 4.80 m
0.40 m
d = 2.70 m
0
0.20 m
loam
-7.50 m
gravel
Eindhoven Warehouse
INTRODUCTION
This exercise concerns a simple practical situation, the excavation and loading of a foundation.
The purpose of this exercise is to get familiar with the Hardening Soil model and to discover the
advantages over the Mohr-Coulomb model.
INPUT
3.00
P1 = 200 kN/m
2.00 m
3.00 m
P2 = 300 kN/m
P1
2.30 m
0.20 m
d = 4.80 m
0.40 m
d = 2.70 m
0
0.20 m
loam
-7.50 m
gravel
As the problem is fully symmetric, it will be sufficient to model only one symmetric half of
the entire geometry. In this example we choose to model the right hand side.
At a depth of 7.5 meter a stiff gravel layer is present. It can be assumed that no significant
deformations occur in this material. To this end the gravel is excluded from the FE model.
Hence we choose the bottom of the geometry at the level of -7.5 m. As no deformations are
assumed to occur, the displacements along this boundary are fully fixed (default option
Standard fixities).
The line loads, indicated as P2 are transfered to the basement bottom by a wall. Hence the
point loads can also be positioned directly on the basement bottom.
Eindhoven Warehouse
GEOMETRY MODEL
(0, 7.5)
(4.0, 7.5)
(10, 7.5)
(1.0, 5.0)
(0, 5.0)
(0, 0)
(4.0, 5.0)
(10, 0)
Create a project with dimensions 10m horizontal. x 7.5 m vertical. Use 15-noded elements in
plane strain.
Use standard fixities.
Use the Load system A to apply the following loads
On point 6, enter a vertical load downwards of 200 kN/m.
On point 7, enter another load of 300 kN/m, downwards.
Eindhoven Warehouse
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
SOIL
Loam
Model
HS
Type
Drained
unsat (kN/m3)
18
sat (kN/m3)
18
kx (m/day)
ky (m/day)
E50ref (kN/m2)
5600
Eoedref (kN/m2)
5600
Eurref (kN/m2)
16800
cref (kN/m2)
' ()
20
()
ur
0.2
pref (kN/m2)
100
power
0.5
K0nc
0.658
PLATES
Type
EA (kN/m)
EI (kNm2/m)
w (kN/m2)
Floor
Elastic
8E6
1E5
6.0
0.2
Wall
Elastic
4E6
1.3E4
3.0
0.2
Eindhoven Warehouse
MESH GENERATION
Generate the mesh, using refinements along the floor and wall.
INITIAL CONDITIONS
The water table is below the area of study. Therefore no water pressure generation is needed.
Deactivate the plate elements (floor and wall).
To generate the initial stresses use K0 = 0.75 and POP = 20 kPa.
CALCULATIONS
Phase 1
Phase 2
Apply vertical forces
Select a point in the 'center' of the floor and one point on top of the wall, to be used in the
Curves program.
Eindhoven Warehouse
OUTPUT
PHASE 1: EXCAVATION
The heave of the basement is around 0.011 m.
Eindhoven Warehouse
PHASE 1: EXCAVATION
HS Model
Bending moments on plates
29 kNm/m
23 kNm/m
Shear forces on plates
34 kN/m
24 kN/m
Axial forces on plates
22 kN/m
30 kN/m
8
36 kN/m
Course for Experienced PLAXIS Users
Eindhoven Warehouse
42 kNm/m
68 kNm/m
56 kNm/m
112 kNm/m
188 kN/m
73 kN/m
-112 kN/m
-167 kN/m
200 kN/m
178 kN/m
69 kN/m
Course for Experienced PLAXIS Users
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
CONTENTS
Influence of dilatancy
Undrained behaviour with Mohr-Coulomb Model
Undrained behaviour with Hardening Soil Model
Summary
DRAINED / UNDRAINED
permeability is high
rate of loading is low
short term behaviour is not of interest for problem considered
T=
k E oed
t
w D2
k
Eoed
w
D
t
Tv
=
=
=
=
=
=
permeability
oedometer modulus
unit weight of water
drainage length
construction time
dimensionless time factor
UNDRAINED BEHAVIOUR
Fig.1 Results from undrained triaxial tests using the Mohr-Coulomb and Hardening Soil Model
a)
b)
Fig.2 Typical results from drained (a) and undrained (b) triaxial tests on normally consolidated soils
(from Atkinson & Bransby, 1978)
a)
b)
Fig.3 Typical results from drained (a) and undrained (b) triaxial tests on overconsolidated soils
(from Atkinson & Bransby, 1978)
pw
Fig.4 Typical results from undrained triaxial tests on (a) normally consolidated
and (b) overconsolidated clay (from Ortigao, 1995)
pw = B [ 3 + A( 1 3 )]
p'
K'
n p w
Kw
K' =
E
3(1 2 )
1 ; 2 = 3
p w =
1 + 2 3 3 pw K w
3K '
n
leading to
pw =
1
nK '
1+
Kw
3 + 3 ( 1 3 )
pw = B [ 3 + A( 1 3 )]
with
B=
1
nK '
1+
Kw
A=
1
3
K total = K ' +
K total =
Kw
Eu
2 G (1 + u )
=
=
n
3(1 2 u )
3(1 2 u )
E' (1 + u )
3(1 2 u ) (1 + ')
assuming u = 0.495
Note:
- this procedure gives reasonable B-values only for < 0.35 !
- real value of Kw/n ~ 1.106 kPa (for n = 0.5)
- NB: in Version 8 B-value can be entered explicitely
E = 3 000 kPa,
K = 2 500 kPa,
with
B=
u = 0.495
1
= 0.978 > reasonable value for saturated soil
nK '
1+
Kw
Example 2:
E = 3 000 kPa,
= 0.45,
K = 10 000 kPa,
u = 0.495
1 'o
x + 'yo sin ' + c' cos '
2
Fig.6 Mohr Circle for evaluating undrained shear strength (plane strain)
Model Number
Eur
E50
kN/m
ref
kN/m
ref
kN/m
Eoed
kN/m
nc
ur
kN/m
0.0
0.2
100
ref
K0
Rf
-
HS_1
30 000 90 000
HS_2
0.0
0.2
100
HS_3
15 000 45 000
15 000 35
0.0
0.2
100
HS_4
30 000 90 000
40 000 35
0.0
0.2
100
HS_5
30 000 90 000
15 000 35
0.0
0.2
100
HS_6
0.0
0.2
100
30 000 35 0 / 10
ur = 0.2
= 35
= 0 and 10
COMPARISON MC HS / INFLUENCE
300
275
250
225
q [kN/m ]
200
175
150
125
100
75
MC non dil
MC dil
HS_1 non dil
HS_1 dil
50
25
0
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
1 [%]
Fig.7 Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test MC / HS model - q vs 1
COMPARISON MC HS / INFLUENCE
300
MC non dil
MC dil
HS_1 non dil
HS_1 dil
total stress path
275
250
225
q [kN/m ]
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
p' [kN/m ]
Fig.8 Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test MC / HS model - q vs p
COMPARISON MC HS / INFLUENCE
100
90
MC non dil
MC dil
HS_1 non dil
HS_1 dil
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
1 [%]
Fig.9 Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test MC / HS model - pw vs 1
10
COMPARISON MC HS / INFLUENCE
1.0
0.9
MC non dil
MC dil
HS_1 non dil
HS_1 dil
0.8
0.7
0.6
parameter A
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
1 [%]
Fig.10 Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test MC / HS model - A vs 1
125
q [kN/m ]
100
HS_1
HS_2
HS_3
HS_4
HS_5
HS_6
total stress path
75
50
25
0
0.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
100.00
125.00
150.00
p' [kN/m ]
Fig.11 Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test HS model - q vs p
11
125
q [kN/m ]
100
75
50
HS_1
HS_2
HS_3
HS_4
HS_5
HS_6
25
0
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
1 [%]
Fig.12 Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test HS model - q vs 1
70
60
50
40
30
HS_1
HS_2
HS_3
HS_4
HS_5
HS_6
20
10
0
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
1 [%]
Fig.13 Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test HS model - pw vs 1
12
parameter A
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
HS_1
HS_2
HS_3
HS_4
HS_5
HS_6
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
1 [%]
Fig.14 Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test HS model - A vs 1
13
SUMMARY
14
REFERENCES
Atkinson, J.H., Bransby, P.L. (1978)
The Mechanics of Soils, An Introduction to Critical State Soil Mechanics. McGraw Hill
Ortigao, J.A.R. (1995)
Soil Mechanics in the Light of Critical State Theories An Introduction. Balkema
Schweiger, H.F. (2002)
Some remarks on pore pressure parameters A and B in undrained analyses with the
Hardening Soil Model. Plaxis Bulletin No.12
Skempton, A.W. (1954)
The Pore-Pressure Coefficients A and B. Geotechnique, 4, 143-147
Vermeer, P.A., Meier, C.-P. (1998)
Proceedings Int. Conf. on Soil-Structure Interaction in Urban Civil Engineering, Darmstadt,
177-191
15
INTRODUCTION
An extensive research program related to bored piles in overconsolidated clay was conducted
by Sommer & Hambach (1974) to optimize the foundation design of a highway bridge in
Germany. Load cells were installed at the pile base to measure the loads carried directly by
pile base. Figure 1 gives the layout of the pile load test arrangement.
The upper 4.5 m subsoil consist of silt (loam) followed by tertiary sediments down to great
depths which are more or less overconsolidated stiff plastic clay similar to the so-cal1ed
Frankfurt clay. Therefore this pile load test is often used to verify the numerical modeling of
the pile behavior in Frankfurt overconsolidated clay. The groundwater table is about 3.5 m
below the ground surface.
The considered tested pile has a diameter of 1.3 m and a length of 9.5 m. It is located
completely in the overconsolidated clay. The loading system consists of two hydraulic jacks
working against a reaction beam. The reaction beam was supported by 16 anchors. The
anchors were installed vertically at a depth between 15 and 20 m below the ground surface at
a distance of about 4 m from the tested pile to minimize the effect of the mutual interaction
between the tested pile and the reaction system (Fig 1.a). Vertical and horizontal loading tests
were carried out. The loads were applied in increments and maintained constant till the
settlement rate was negligible. Both the applied loads and the corresponding displacements at
the tested pile head were measured. Additionally the soil displacements near the pile in
different depths were measured using deep settlement points (Fig 1.b).
Figure 1: Lay of the pile load test and the measured points
AIM
The purpose of this case study is to simulate the pile-loading test, create about the same
amount of settlement and compare the simulation results with the results of Sommer &
Hambach (1974).
A A
(0.65,15)
(0,15)
(4,15)
loam
concrete pile
water table
(4,10.5)
(0,10.5)
clay
(0,5.5)
(0.65,5.5)
(0.65,5.0)
y
(4,0)
(0,0)
0
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
The required soil parameters were determined based on the conducted laboratory and in-situ
tests as well as on experience gained in similar soil conditions (see Table 1). The parameters
for the concrete pile are also given in Table 1.
Parameter
Symbol
Material model
Model
Silt (Loam)
OCR Clay
MohrCoulomb
Drained
19
19
10E+3
0.3
5
27.5
0
HardeningSoil
Drained
20
20
?**
?**
0.7
0.2
100
20
20
2
Concrete
Pile
Linear
Elastic
Non-Porous
25
30E+6
0.2
-
Type of behaviour
Type
Dry weight
unsat
Wet weight
sat
Young's modulus
Eref/50
Oedometer modulus
Eoed
Power
M
Unloading modulus
Eur
Poisson's ratio
Reference stress
pref
Cohesion
c
Friction angle
Dilatancy angle
Interface strength
1.0 (rigid)
1.0 (rigid)
1.0 (rigid)
Rinter
reduction
POP
POP
200
OCR
OCR
Table 1: Geotechnical parameters for the 2 layers and the concrete pile.
Unit
kN/m3
kN/m3
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
-
The remaining parameters for the clay (E50ref and Eurref) shall be determined from the
following results of Triaxial tests by Amann (1975).
**
Do not assign the concrete material properties to the pile yet, but instead assign the
loam and clay material properties to the clusters of the pile. Initial stresses are not
correctly calculated if the pile is alread in place. The material properties of the pile
will be assigned in the first calculations phase.
Create a water table at a depth of 3.5 m and generate water pressures.
Generate initial stresses (assign a value for POP to the clay layer).
CALCULATIONS
In the first phase, activate the pile by assigning the material property of concrete to
the pile clusters.
In the second phase the pile load is activated or a prescribed displacement of 35 mm
is applied.
In the third phase the pile load is increased until a settlement of about 35 mm is
observed (ignore this phase if prescribed displacement is used).
OUTPUT
Figure 3 shows the results of the observed pile load settlement behavior by Sommer &
Hambach (1974).
Load [kN]
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
3250
3500
0.00
Total load
Skin friction
5.00
Base load
Settlement [mm]
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
In addition to the total load, check the skin friction (total amount of friction along the
surface of the pile) and the base load of the pile (total load at the base-surface op the
pile).
Plate
element
with negligible
stiffness for the
determination of
normal force in
pile.
REFERENCES
Amann, P., Breth, H., Stroh, D. (1975) Verformungsverhalten des Baugrundes beim
Baugrubenaushub und anschlieendem Hochhausbau am Beispiel des Frankfurter Tons.
Mitteilungen der Versuchsanstalt fr Bodenmechanik und Grundbau der TH Darmstadt, Heft
15
El-Mossallamy, Y. (1999) Load settlement behavior of large diameter bored piles in overconsolidated clay. Proceedings NUMOG VII Graz, Balkema Rotterdam
Sommer, H. & Hambach, P. (1974) Gropfahlversuche im Ton fr die Grndung der
Talbrcke Alzey. Der Bauingenieur, Vol. 49, pp. 310-317
SOLUTIONS
TO THE SIMULATION OF A PILE LOAD TEST
From the Triaxial tests on the Frankfurt clay in figure 2 an E50ref of 20.000 kN/m2 and an
Eurref of 72.000 kN/m2 was found. A Triaxial test of the Frankfurt clay was simulated with
PLAXIS to compare and test the chosen parameters with the Triaxial tests of Amann (1975).
The results are shown in figure 5 and match with the results of Amann (figure 2).
(sig'yy - sig'xx)/2 [kN/m2]
-200
-160
-120
-80
p=300 kN/m2
-40
p=200 kN/m2
p=100 kN/m2
0
0
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
eps-1
10
0 0.033
0.65
X
[m]
Y
[m]
)n
[kN/m2]
0.000
0.033
0.341
0.650
5.475
5.475
5.475
5.475
Average 'n
Base Load [kN]
Initial Load [kN]
Base Load Initial
Load[kN]
-898
-911
-1004
-1442
-1064
1412
248
)n
1164
The Skin Friction of an axissymmetric problem can be calculated from the shear stresses in
the interface of the pile (figure 7). The shear stresses shown in figure 7 and table 2 are the
shear stresses along the perimeter of the pile. To obtain the skin friction of the pile the shear
stresses have to be integrated over the total skin surface of the pile (skin
surface=length*circumference=L*2r). The calculated Skin Friction is plotted in figure 8.
0
)s
X
[m]
Y
[m]
)s
[kN/m2]
0.650005
0.650005
0.650005
:
:
0.650005
0.650005
0.650005
0.650005
5.50
5.64
5.78
:
:
14.58
14.72
14.86
15.00
Average s
Skin Friction [kN]
-89
-91
-98
:
:
-20
-13
-12
-14
56
2183
11
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
3250
3500
0.00
Total load
5.00
Skin friction
Base load
Total Load with Plaxis
10.00
Settlement [mm]
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
12
10
11
12
13
Contents
Water pressures (general)
Water pressure generation:
Concepts of Plasticity
' = w
Total stress:
From weight and external load
Pore pressure: w = w, steady + w, excess
Concepts of Plasticity
Concepts of Plasticity
Concepts of Plasticity
Concepts of Plasticity
Concepts of Plasticity
Concepts of Plasticity
Layer 2
Layer 3
qx = -kx h/x
qy = -ky h/y
Hydraulic head:
h = y + w /w
Continuity condition:
qx /x + qy /y = 0
Concepts of Plasticity
Concepts of Plasticity
10
Concepts of Plasticity
11
Concepts of Plasticity
12
Flow Field
Concepts of Plasticity
13
Flow field
Groundwater head distribution
Pore pressure distribution
Degree of saturation (around phreatic surface)
Total discharge through cross section
Concepts of Plasticity
14
Concepts of Plasticity
15
Concepts of Plasticity
16
Flow Field
Concepts of Plasticity
17
Concepts of Plasticity
18
Concepts of Plasticity
19
Concepts of Plasticity
20
10
Concepts of Plasticity
21
Concepts of Plasticity
22
11
Concepts of Plasticity
23
Concepts of Plasticity
24
Flow Field
12
Concepts of Plasticity
25
Concepts of Plasticity
26
13
Deep Excavations
New OG Basement
by Tan SA
National University of Singapore
Deep Excavations
Majestic Theatre
Food Centre
Yu Hua Building
PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES
Deep Excavations
Deep Excavations
Deep Excavations
101.2m
Other struts:
2H400x400x13x21
99.0m
96.5m
94.5m
91.5m
Total depth of
excavation is 10.7m
Deep Excavations
Excavation Zones
C
A
Food Court
Zone 1
At each excavation
stage, Zone 2 is
excavated before
Zone 1 and Zone 3
Zone 2
E
Majestic
Theatre
Zone 3
Yu Hua Building
Deep Excavations
Note
Heavy Struts
to Restraint Out of
Plane Movements
6
Excavation Zones
Y2
X2
A
Zone 1
Zone 2
F
Zone 3
X1
G
Y1
Deep Excavations
BH1
C6
X2
C7
NB2
C3
C5
C2
C4
C1
C9
NB3
BH2
X1
NB1
Borehole Position
Cone Penetration Test
Position
C10
C8
Y1
BH3
Deep Excavations
16.0m
Zone 1
Zone 2
18.0m
Zone 3
21.0m
Retaining walls
along CD, EF and
GH consist of
majority of grout
mixed piles
Retaining wall
along AB consists
of majority of sheet
piles
Retaining walls
were terminated at
different depths
9
Deep Excavations
X2
0.0
0.0
Fill
-4.2
-5.7
Marine Clay
Depth
(m)
-12.8
-14.5
Stiff Clay
-14.5
-18.0
Siltstone
Deep Excavations
10
Y2
0.0
0.0
Fill
-5.0
-5.7
Marine Clay
Depth
(m)
-10.0
-13.0
-17.0
Stiff Clay
-23.5
Siltstone
11
Deep Excavations
X1
X2
Fill
Marine Clay
Stiff Clay
Siltstone
Deep Excavations
12
X1
X2
Fill
Marine Clay
Stiff Clay
Siltstone
X1:
Grout mixed
pile wall
X2:
13
Deep Excavations
Y1
Y2
Fill
Marine Clay
Stiff Clay
Grout mixed
pile wall
Y2:
Grout mixed
pile wall
Siltstone
Y1:
Deep Excavations
14
Excavation Sequence
Excavation Sequence In Zone 2
Strut 1
-2
Strut 2
-4
Strut 3
-6
Strut 4
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Time (Day)
0
Strut 1
-2
Strut 2
-4
Strut 3
-6
Strut 4
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
0
20
Deep Excavations
40
60
80
Time (Day)
100
120
15
Deep Excavations
16
17
Deep Excavations
(kN/m3)
(o )
c
(kN/m2)
Eur
(kN/m2)
Increment
of Eur
(kN/m2/m)
kv (m/day)
kh (m/day)
Fill
18
30.0
6000
8.64E-3
8.64E-3
Marine
Clay
15
21.5
7127
718
1.14E-4
3.81E-5
Stiff Clay
18
30.0
10
32000
8.64E-3
8.64E-3
Siltstone
20
35.0
20
600000
8.64E-3
8.64E-3
Marine Clay:
Eu = 300 Cu
1+,
E' =
= Eu
1 + u
Deep Excavations
Eur = 2 E
18
Wall Deflection At X1
X1
20
40
60
-20
20
40
60
-20
10
12
20
40
60
80
8
Depth (m)
8
Depth (m)
8
Depth (m)
10
12
10
12
14
14
14
16
16
16
18
18
18
20
20
20
22
22
22
Measured
FEM Analysis
19
Deep Excavations
Wall Deflection At X1
X1
20
40
60
-20
20
40
60
-20
10
12
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
-20
10
12
20
40
60
80
10
12
14
14
14
16
16
16
18
18
18
20
20
20
22
22
22
Measured
FEM Analysis
Deep Excavations
20
10
X2
Wall Deflection At X2
Plot of Measured and Analytical
Wall Deflection On Day 10
50
100
-50
50
100
-50
10
12
10
12
14
16
16
16
18
18
18
20
20
20
22
22
22
21
Deep Excavations
X2
Wall Deflection At X2
Plot of Measured and Analytical
Wall Deflection On Day 66
100
-50
50
100
-50
10
12
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
10
12
50
100
150
12
14
14
16
16
16
18
18
18
20
20
20
22
22
22
10
14
Measured
150
-50
100
12
14
50
10
14
Measured
8
Depth (m)
8
Depth (m)
8
Depth (m)
Deep Excavations
22
11
23
Deep Excavations
Wall Deflection At Y2
Plot of Measured and Analytical
Wall Deflection On Day 13
10
20
30
40
-10
10
20
30
40
-10
10
12
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
-10
Y2
10
12
10
20
30
40
50
10
12
14
14
14
16
16
16
18
18
18
20
20
20
22
22
22
Measured
FEM Analysis
Deep Excavations
24
12
Wall Deflection At Y2
Plot of Measured and Analytical
Wall Deflection On Day 55
10
20
30
40
-10
10
20
30
40
-10
12
10
20
30
40
50
8
Depth (m)
10
Depth (m)
8
Depth (m)
Y2
10
12
10
12
14
14
14
16
16
16
18
18
18
20
20
20
22
22
22
Measured
FEM Analysis
25
Deep Excavations
Y2
Restraints provided
by diagonal bracings
Plain strain condition
cannot be assumed at
Section Y1-Y2
3D Effects are
significant
Deep Excavations
26
13
Ground Settlement At X1
X1
S ettlement (mm)
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
0
20
40
60
Time (Day)
80
100
M easured
FEM Analysis
27
Deep Excavations
Site Condition At X1
X1
Additional settlement
induced by excavation
and construction works
at the Majestic Theatre
Deep Excavations
28
14
X2
Ground Settlement At X2
Plot of Ground Settlement With Time At X2
0
S ettlement (mm)
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
0
20
40
60
Time (Day)
80
100
M easured
FEM Analysis, With Preload
FEM Analysis, No Preload
29
Deep Excavations
Ground Settlement At Y1
Y1
S ettlement (mm)
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
0
20
40
60
Time (Day)
80
100
M easured
FEM Analysis
Deep Excavations
30
15
Y2
Ground Settlement At Y2
Plot of Ground Settlement With Time At Y2
0
S ettlement (mm)
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
0
20
40
60
Time (Day)
80
100
M easured
FEM Analysis
31
Deep Excavations
Site Condition At Y2
Y2
Settlement Point on
Pile Supported floor
slab
Deep Excavations
32
16
Parametric Study
Examine the influence of various parameters on the
response of the excavation support system at
Section X1-X2 of Zone 2, in particular:
33
Deep Excavations
600
600
500
500
400
400
/ o x 100%
/ o x 100%
Marine Stiff
Clay Clay
Siltstone
Stiff
Clay
Marine
Clay
300
300
200
200
100
100
Siltstone
0
10
15
20
25
30
10
15
20
25
30
Deep Excavations
34
17
180
180
160
160
140
140
/ o x 100%
/ o x 100%
120
120
100
100
80
80
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
35
Deep Excavations
500
500
Axial Stiffness of
Struts
Bending Stiffness of
Wall
400
300
/ o x 100%
/ o x 100%
Axial Stiffness of
Struts
Bending Stiffness of
Wall
400
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
10
12
Stiffness Multiplier
10
12
Stiffness Multiplier
Deep Excavations
36
18
175
175
150
150
125
125
Maximum Deflection (mm)
100
75
Grout Mixed
Pile Wall
50
100
Diaphragm Wall
50
Diaphragm Wall
25
25
Grout Mixed
Pile Wall
1.0E+03
1.0E+04
1.0E+05
1.0E+06
1.0E+07
1.0E+08
1.0E+03
1.0E+04
1.0E+05
1.0E+06
1.0E+07
1.0E+08
37
Deep Excavations
Deflection (mm)
-50
50
100
Deflection (mm)
150
200
-200
-150
-100
-50
10
Maximum
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
50
Maximum
10
12
12
14
14
16
16
18
18
20
20
Deep Excavations
38
19
Deflection (mm)
-50
50
100
Deflection (mm)
150
200
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
8
Depth (m)
8
Depth (m)
10
10
12
12
14
14
16
16
18
18
20
20
Deep Excavations
39
50
100
150
200
Retaining wall at X1 is a
fixed earth support system
0
2
Maximum
4
Depth (m)
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Deep Excavations
40
20
-150
-100
-50
50
2
4
6
8
Depth (m)
10
12
14
Maximum
16
18
20
Deep Excavations
41
Lessons Learnt
Correct Geometry
Correct Soil Layers
Correct Soil Parameters
Correct Construction Sequence
Undrained plus Consolidation Effects
Deep Excavations
42
21
CG11 Consolidation
CONSOLIDATION
presented by Tan SA
National University of Singapore
Helmut F. Schweiger
Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Graz University of Technology, Austria
CONTENTS
1D theory of Terzaghi
Summary
1D CONSOLIDATION
initial
ground surface
pw = pw, o
pw, t=o =
t=0
settlement s
settlement st
t=
pw = pw, o
= +
pw = pw, o + pw, t
0<t<
pw, t = t
= + t
1D CONSOLIDATION
the change in pore pressure (pw) with time and
position within the layer can be expressed by the
partial differential equation
p w
2 p w
= cv
t
z 2
with
cv =
k E oed
w
cv . coefficient of consolidation
Ut = 1
Me
m =0
M 2 Tv
M=
1
(2m + 1)
2
1D CONSOLIDATION
Ut average degree of consolidation
Tv dimensionless time factor
Ut =
p w ,o p w , t
p w , 0
s t
s
Tv =
cv t
D
k E oed
t
w D2
NOTE:
D .... drainage path, NOT thickness of layer !
U .... depends on Tv and boundary conditions
Tv ... depends on problem (pw, o - distribution)
1D CONSOLIDATION
Assumptions made:
soil is fully saturated
pore water is incompressible
Darcy's law is valid
isotropic (constant) permeability
linear elastic soil behaviour
load
applied instantaneously
2u 2u 2u
u
= Cv 2 + 2 + 2
3D:
t
y z
x
1D CONSOLIDATION
surcharge load
t=0
slope of Isochrones
> hydraulic gradient
t = t1 t = t2
/ w
t = t3
t=
45
impermeable
1D CONSOLIDATION
permeable
Tv
D
permeable
degree of consolidation Ut
Isochrones: lines of excess pore pressures (pw, t) at a given time
reference elastic
pore water compressible
(B=0.85)
permeability e-dependent
Hardening Soil model
settlement [mm]
20
40
60
80
100
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
time [days]
-100
-80
-60
-40
reference elastic
pore water compressible
(B=0.85)
permeability e-dependent
Hardening Soil model
-20
0
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
time [days]
elastic
models investigated:
axisymmetric model
no drainage (reference)
drainage with drain element
(sets zero pore pressure conditions)
applied load
10 kN/m
axisymmetric
model
plane strain
model
kv = kv +
32
H2
kh
D2
k h = k h
3 1
1
n2
ln(n ) + 2 1
n 2 1
4 n 4 n 2
kv , kh
n=
D
d
true permeability
kv , kh equivalent permeability
H
drainage length
diameter of drains
k h =
=
U
kv , kh
B2
kh
D2
k v = k v
n2
3 1
1
ln(n ) + 2 1
2
n 1
4 n 4 n 2
0,5
2,26
0,75
2,75
0,9
2,94
0,95
3,01
n=
D
d
0,99
3,09
true permeability
kv , kh equivalent permeability
H
diameter of drains
0,67
B2
=
k h [ln (n ) 0,75 ] R 2
k hp
n=
R
rw
khp
kh
rw
diameter of drains
Lin.El. - Modell
HS - Modell
degree of consolidation U [ - ]
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
AX I: no drainage
AX I: drainage boundary condition
AX I: drainage drain-elem ent
PS : equivalent vertical C U R 191
PS : equivalent horizontal C U R 191
PS : equivalent horizontal Indraratna
0.2
0.0
1e+3
1e+4
1e+5
1e+6
1e+7
1e+8
1e+9
tim e [sec]
degree of consolidation U [ - ]
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
AXI: no drainage
AXI: drainage boundary condition
AXI: drainage drain-element
PS: equivalent vertical CUR 191
PS: equivalent horizontal CUR 191
PS: equivalent horizontal Indraratna
0.2
0.0
1e+3
1e+4
1e+5
1e+6
1e+7
1e+8
1e+9
1e+10
time [sec]
10
WASSER
KANAL
A1/1
A1/9
PW3
A1/8
A2/9
A2/8
A3/9
A3/8
PW4
A1/7
A1/6
A2/7
A2/6
A1/5
A1/4
A1/3
A1/2
A2/4
A2/3
A2/1
A2/2
A3/4
A3/3
A3/2
E1
A2/5
A3/1
A3/6
A3/7
A4/9
RS1/3
A4/8
A4/7
A5/8
A5/7
A4/1
A4/2
A4/6
A5/5
A5/4
A5/3
A5/1
A5/2
A6/5
A6/4
A6/3
A6/1
A6/2
RS2/9
A5/9
RS2/8
A5/6
PW1
RS2/7
A6/7
Z3/8
E2
A6/6
RS2/6
BRO
X
A
A3/5
R/1
Z4/8
RS2/5
A7/1
A7/2
A7/4
A7/3
RS2/4
uerer Schutzstreifen
RS2/3
A8/3
5.0
5.0
A8/2
RS2/2
A8/1
RS2/1
Schttabschnitt 1
D
Schttabschnitt 2
D
E
Schttabschnitt 3
soil profile:
pre-load - drained
= 18 kN/m3
3m
2,5 m
4,5 m
2m
peat - undrained
kx = ky = 0,005 m/day ; kx = 6,6e-4 m/day
14 m
11
section D-D
A2/4
A4/4
A6/4
settlement [cm]
-20
calculated final
settlement
139 cm
-40
-60
-80
Plaxis
measurement
-100
-120
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
time [days]
12
settlements [cm]
-10
calculated final
settlement
78 cm
-20
-30
Plaxis
measurements
-40
-50
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
time [days]
SUMMARY
13
REFERENCES
CUR 191
Achtergronden bij numeriek modellering van geotechnische constructies, deel 2
Gaube, H. (2003)
Numerische Modellierung von Baugrundverbesserung mittels Vertikaldrainagen und
Tiefenverdichtung. Institut fuer Bodenmechanik und Grundbau, Technische Universitt Graz
Indraratna, B.N., Redana, I.W., Salim, W. (2000)
Predicted and observed behaviour of soft clay foundations stabilised with vertical drains. Proc.
GeoEng. 2000, Melbourne
Terzaghi, K. (1925)
Erdbaumechanik, F. Deutike
14
NEW OG EXCAVATION
NEW OG EXCAVATION
1.
INTRODUCTION
The New OG building, which is located at the Chinatown area in Singapore, consists of a
five-storey commercial complex with a 10.7m deep two-level basement. Figure 1 shows
the layout of the excavation site. In order to understand the behaviour of the excavation
support system, undrained finite element analysis is carried out at Section X1-X2 in this
exercise. Groundwater flow calculation is used to generate the water pressure
distribution.
X2
X1
2.
Four non-uniform soil strata have been identified. The fill layer consists of clayey and
silty soil with localised pockets of organic or sandy material. Underlying the fill layer is a
layer of greenish grey marine clay from the Kallang Formation. It is followed by a layer
of stiff clay and a layer of siltstone from the sedimentary Jurong Formation. The
groundwater table lies in approximately 2m below the ground surface. The soil profile at
Section X1-X2 is shown in Figure 2. Bottom-up construction method is adopted in this
project. A grout mixed pile wall is constructed at X1 to a depth of 18m while a sheetpile
wall is installed at X2 to a depth of 13.7m. Excavation is carried out in five stages and it
COURSE FOR EXPERIENCED PLAXIS USERS
NEW OG EXCAVATION
is supported by four levels of pre-stressed struts. The width of excavation at Section X1X2 is 12.85m.
X1
X2
0.0
-4.2
Depth (m)
0.0
Fill
-5.7
Marine Clay
-14.5
Stiff Clay
-12.8
-14.5
-18.0
Siltstone
Figure 2:
3.
GEOMETRY OF MODEL
Due to the non-uniform soil stratification and different structural properties and
embedment depths of the retaining walls, the excavation cannot be assumed to be
symmetrical. Thus, the whole excavation is modelled, as shown in Figure 3. The
geometry model used in this exercise has a height of 40m and a width of 123m. 15-nodes
elements are used. The retaining walls are modelled as plates. Interface elements around
the plates are included to model the effects of soil-structure interaction. Node-to-node
anchors are used to model the supporting struts.
Figure 3:
Geometry Model
NEW OG EXCAVATION
4.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Both the Mohr Coulomb model and Hardening Soil model are used to simulate the soil
behaviour. Soil parameters are obtained based on a borehole near X1.
Soil
Average SPT
N-value
cu = 5 N
(kN/m2)
Fill
Stiff Clay
Siltstone
3
10
100
15
50
500
Eu
cu
250
400
750
Eu
(kN/m2)
Eur = 2 E
3750
20000
375000
3000
16000
300000
6000
32000
600000
=0
= 21.5o
cu
= c cos +
1
v (1+Ko) sin
2
= 49.6 kN/m2
cu
= 14.8 kN/m2
Eu
= 300 cu
= 3563 kN/m2
Eur
= 2 E
= 7127 kN/m2
= 101.1kN/m2
cu
= 30.3 kN/m2
Eu
= 300 cu
= 7263 kN/m2
NEW OG EXCAVATION
Eur
= 2 E
= 14526 kN/m2
E50
Eur
ref
Eurref
Where pref
= 100 kN/m2
E50
Eur
Mohr-Coulomb
Fill
Marine Clay
Stiff Clay
Siltstone
Type
Undrained
16.00
18.00
8.64E-3
8.64E-3
6000.000
0.200
0.10
30.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.50
Undrained
14.00
15.00
1.14E-4
3.81E-5
7127.000
0.200
0.10
21.50
0.00
718.00
-4.200
0.00
0.50
Undrained
17.00
18.00
8.64E-5
8.64E-5
32000.000
0.200
10.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.50
Undrained
18.00
20.00
8.64E-5
8.64E-5
600000.000
0.200
20.00
35.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.50
unsat
sat
kx
ky
Eref
cref
Einc
yref
cincrement
Rinter.
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[m/day]
[m/day]
[kN/m]
[-]
[kN/m]
[]
[]
[kN/m/m]
[m]
[kN/m/m]
[-]
NEW OG EXCAVATION
Table 3:
Hardening Soil
Fill
Marine Clay
Stiff Clay
Siltstone
Type
Undrained
16.00
18.00
8.64E-3
8.64E-3
14700.00
9685.00
1.00
0.10
30.00
0.00
29410.00
0.200
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.50
Undrained
14.00
15.00
1.14E-4
3.81E-5
11340.00
8500.00
1.00
0.10
21.50
0.00
22680.00
0.200
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.50
Undrained
17.00
18.00
8.64E-5
8.64E-5
25070.00
16000.00
1.00
10.00
30.00
0.00
50140.00
0.200
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.50
Undrained
18.00
20.00
8.64E-5
8.64E-5
295500.00
170000.00
1.00
20.00
35.00
0.00
591000.00
0.200
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.50
unsat
sat
kx
ky
E50ref
Eoedref
power (m)
cref
Eurref
ur(nu)
pref
cincrement
yref
Rf
Rinter
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[m/day]
[m/day]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[-]
[kN/m]
[]
[]
[kN/m]
[-]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[m]
[-]
[-]
Table 4:
Wall Type
EA
(kN/m)
3.832E+06
3.916E+06
EI
(kN/m2/m)
1.080E+05
1.138E+04
Strut No
Size
1
2
3
4
H350x350x12x19
2H400x400x13x21
2H400x400x13x21
2H400x400x13x21
Strut Level
(m)
-1.0
-3.2
-5.7
-7.7
Preload
(kN/m)
31.0
54.3
68.3
68.3
EA
(kN)
3.565E+06
8.967E+06
8.967E+06
8.967E+06
NEW OG EXCAVATION
5.
INPUT
Assign the material sets to the various components in the geometry model as shown in
Figure 4 and generate the finite element mesh. In the Initial conditions, a water weight of
10kN/m3 is entered. The initial water pressures are generated on the basis of a horizontal
general phreatic line though points (0, -2) and (123, -2). All structural components of the
geometry model are inactive. Since the soil is non-uniform, the initial soil stress field is
not generated by means of the Ko-procedure. It will be generated using Gravity Loading
in Calculations.
X1
Strut 1
Fill
Strut 2
Marine Clay
Strut 3
Strut 4
Sheetpile Wall
Stiff Clay
Grout Mixed
Pile Wall
Siltstone
Figure 4:
6.
CALCULATIONS
PHASE 1:
X2
GRAVITY LOADING
This is carried out using a Plastic calculation in which the Loading input is set to
Total multipliers and the Mweight is set to 1.0. Undrained behaviour is ignored.
PHASE 2:
RESET DISPLACEMENTS
NEW OG EXCAVATION
PHASE 3:
PHASE 4:
EXCAVATE TO 1.5m
PHASE 5:
PHASE 6:
EXCAVATE TO 3.7m
Select the Closed flow boundary button from the toolbar. Click on the lower left point
of the geometry model and click on the lower right point of the model.
Click on the General phreatic level button and draw a new phreatic line. Start from
(0, -2), (55, -3.7), (67.85, -3.7) and (123, -2)
PHASE 7:
PHASE 8:
EXCAVATE TO 6.2m
Click on the General phreatic level button and draw a new phreatic line. Start from
(0, -2), (55, -6.2), (67.85, -6.2) and (123, -2)
NEW OG EXCAVATION
PHASE 9:
PHASE 10:
EXCAVATE TO 8.2m
Click on the General phreatic level button and draw a new phreatic line. Start from
(0, -2), (55, -8.2), (67.85, -8.2) and (123, -2)
PHASE 11:
PHASE 12:
EXCAVATE TO 10.7m
Click on the General phreatic level button and draw a new phreatic line. Start from
(0, -2), (55, -10.7), (67.85, -10.7) and (123, -2)
NEW OG EXCAVATION
7.
RESULTS
Deflection of Sheet Pile
Wall (mm)
10
20
-30
30
-20
-10
0
2
4
8
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
10
12
6
8
10
14
16
Mohr Coulomb
Model
18
Hardening Soil
Model
12
Mohr Coulomb
Model
14
20
Hardening Soil
Model
16
Figure 5:
10
20
30
40
50
-40
-20
20
4
8
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
10
12
6
8
10
14
16
Mohr Coulomb
Model
18
Hardening Soil
Model
20
12
14
Mohr Coulomb
Model
Hardening Soil
Model
16
Figure 6:
10
NEW OG EXCAVATION
Deflection of Grout Mixed
Pile Wall (mm)
0
20
40
60
-100 -75
-50
-25
25
4
4
8
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
10
12
6
8
10
14
16
Mohr Coulomb
Model
18
Hardening Soil
Model
12
14
20
Mohr Coulomb
Model
Hardening Soil
Model
16
Figure 7:
20
40
60
-120
-80
-40
4
4
8
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
10
12
6
8
10
14
16
Mohr Coulomb
Model
18
Hardening Soil
Model
20
12
14
Mohr Coulomb
Model
Hardening Soil
Model
16
Figure 8:
11
By Pieter A. Vermeer
University of Stuttgart, Germany
Time of construction:
Length of tunnel:
Cross section:
Cover:
1825 1843
about 400 m
4.8 * 4.2 m
34m
Shield Tunnelling
pf
eah
45 +
active failure
active failure
p f = D N cN c
e ah = z K agh cK ach
Anagnostou (1996):
... drained conditions apply when the ground permeability is higher than
10-7 to 10-6 m/s and the net excavation rate is 2.5 to 25 m per day or
less ...
p f = D N
p f = cN c + D N
c = effective cohesion
Failure pressure:
N c = cot
=
=
=
Nc
N
=
=
p f = N c c + D N
N =
1
0.05
9 tan
IGS, University of Stuttgart
Formula for 20
p f = N c c + D N
N c = cot
N =
1
0,05
9 tan
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Atkinson, J.H.; Mair, R.J.: Soil mechanics aspects of soft ground tunneling. In: Ground
Engineering 14 (1981), No. 2, pp. 20-38.
Krause, T.: Schildvortrieb mit flssigkeits- und erdgesttzter Ortsbrust, Inst. of Geotech. Engng of
the University of Braunschweig, Report No. 24, 1987.
Lca, E.; Dormieux, L.: Upper and lower bound solutions for the face stability of shallow circular
tunnels in frictional material. In: Gotechnique 40 (1990), No. 4, pp. 581-606.
Anagnostou, G.; Kovri, K.: Face stability conditions with earth-pressure-balanced shields. In:
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 11 (1996), No. 2, pp. 165-173.
FEM:
N c = cot
p f = cN c + D N
for 20 and H/D 1.0
N =
1
0.05
9 tan
N c = cot
For layered soil we recommend FE-analyses
N.B.
pf < 0
for
c >
D
(1 0.45 tan ) D
9
10
IGS, University of Stuttgart
10
r
cu
=
=
Ncu =
Nu =
p f = N cu c u + r D N u
( D)
N cu = 5.86 H
0.42
N u = H + 0.5
D
11
f
= shear strength
mob = mobilised strength
mob
Using the Mohr-Coulomb criterion the safety factor can be written as:
c+ tan
cmob + tanmob
cmob =
tan mob =
tan
This definition after Fellenius can be used for shield tunnelling (p > 0),
as well as for NATM-tunnelling with p = 0.
Formula:
c
1
pf = D
0.05
9
tan
tan
9
(p tan +c) + 0.45 tan
D
12
mob
D = 5 m,
H = 1.5 D,
Soil data:
= 30,
c = 5 kN/m,
- c-reduction
d = 0,
pmob = 10 kN/m
= 20 kN/m
formula
13
tan numerical
tan
tan
tan numerical
14
d = 0:
D max =
9c
10c
(1 0.45 tan )
(drained,
non-layered ground)
D max
10 c
If the cohesion is large enough, a tunnel can be driven at its full size. In
case of relatively small values of c, the tunnel can be driven in sections.
In this case of a sequential excavation the equivalent diameter of the
excavated area applies to the previous equations.
15
Dmax does not apply to the entire tunnel, but to a partial excavation section
16
tension cut-off
17
Tunnel data:
D = 5 m,
H = 1.5 D,
Soil data:
= 30,
c = 10 kN/m,
d=0
= 20 kN/m
- c- reduction
- c- reduction
(tensile stresses
allowed)
(tensile stresses
not allowed)
The influence of the tension cut-off criteria is 10% for this problem
IGS, University of Stuttgart
slope talus
= 20 kN/m
= 27.5
c = 5 kN/m
weathered rock
= 21 kN/m
= 30
c = 20 kN/m
18
- c- reduction:
- c- reduction:
tan numerical
tan
tan
tan numerical
19
e.g. d = 50m
Non-supported cutting length is extremely large: c > D /3 (=20)
c > D /6 (=40)
IGS, University of Stuttgart
20
roof collapse
NATM and
TBM with shield
Without a shield the unsupported length is several times the tunnel diameter
and one may perform 2D FE-analyses
IGS, University of Stuttgart
21
b)
c)
In classical literature on NATM one finds the concept of the mobilisation of a supporting
ground ring around tunnels as a function of deformations. We detect such a ring numerically
quite directly. It is nicely visualised by plotting contours of deviatoric stresses |1- 3|.
IGS, University of Stuttgart
22
softening modulus
Vermeer, P. A.; Marcher, T.; Ruse, N.: On the Ground Response Curve.
In: Felsbau 20 (2002), No. 6, pp. 19-24.
IGS, University of Stuttgart
H=8m
D=8m
= 20 kN/m
= 30
= 5
cpeak = 40 kN/m
A = Failure State
B & C = Residual states
IGS, University of Stuttgart
23
A) Failure State
B) Residual State
C) Residual State
24
St. Barbara
takes care off all the miners
25
TUNNELLING
werden kann. In geschichtetem Baugrund sind die Gleichungen schwierig anzuwenden, weswegen dafr eine numerische -c-Reduktion vorgeschlagen wird.
Tunnel heading stability is initially considered with a view
towards closed face tunnelling. At the end open face tunnelling is included by assuming face pressures to be equal
to zero. In order to arrive at simple formulas, attention is
initially focused on circular tunnels in a homogenous
Mohr-Coulomb material. Data from non-linear finite element analyses are used to show that stress distributions in
drained ground are dominated by arching. Once the friction angle is larger than about 20, stability appears to be
completely independent of the cover on top of the tunnel.
For drained conditions, open face tunnelling appears to be
possible when the effective cohesion exceeds some 10 % of
D, where is the unit soil weight. Here D may either be
the full tunnel diameter or a subsection diameter of a sequential excavation. Considering typical shapes of NATM
tunnels, it is shown that an equivalent D-value can be calculated for use in the stability formulas. For layered
ground, the formulas are difficult to apply and it is proposed to use a numerical procedure named -c-reduction
method.
FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
TUNNELLING
where c is the effective cohesion and Nc the cohesion stability number. Anagnostou and Kovri
denoted stability numbers by the symbol F instead of N. The stability numbers are analogous
to the bearing capacity factors of footings, in the
sense that they depend on the friction angle .
Vermeer and Ruse (20) presented data from
elastic-plastic finite element analyses to show
that the stability numbers are independent of the
depth of the tunnel, at least for friction angles
beyond twenty degrees. Moreover, simple formulas were put forward for the stability numbers. Later Vermeer and Ruse (21) extended this
study by considering non-circular cross-sections
to show that the shape of the excavation is not
particular important.
TUNNELLING
The present paper summarises first of all previous research on stability numbers for drained
situations. Hereafter the influence of an unlined
wall near the tunnel face is considered, and attention is focused on NATM tunnelling without
any supporting pressure. This paper will concentrate mainly on results from numerical simulations, and for this reason a brief description of
the finite element procedure being used will be
given in the following section.
Finite element-analyses
of failure pressures
Semprich (18) was one of the first to perform
three-dimensional finite element calculations to
analyse the deformations near an open tunnel
face. More recently Baumann et al. (3) studied
the face stability of tunnels in soils and soft rocks
by using the finite element method in combination with the elastic-plastic Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model. Several authors (22, 24) have
shown that the elastic-plastic finite-element
method is well-suited to predict collapse loads of
geotechnical structures. For limit load analyses,
pre-failure deformations are not of great importance and are assumed to be linearly elastic, as is
usual within the elastic-plastic Mohr-Coulomb
model being used in this paper. Elastic strains
are governed by the elasticity modulus E and
Poissons ratio . The particular values of these
input parameters influence load-displacement
curves as shown in Figure 1a, but not the failure
pressure pf. For this reason they will not get any
further attention in this study. In addition to the
elasticity modulus and Poissons ratio, there are
three material parameters for the plastic behaviour: the effective cohesion c, the effective angle
of friction and the angle of dilatancy . Different dilatancy angles give different load-displacement curves and different collapse mechanisms,
but they have very little influence on the failure
load. For this reason, nearly all our computations were performed for non-dilatant material.
As symmetrical tunnels are considered, the
collapse-load calculations are based on only half
a circular tunnel which is cut lengthwise along
the central axis. Figure 1b shows a typical finite
element mesh as used for the calculations. The
ground is represented by 15-noded prismatic
volume elements and the tunnel lining is modelled with 8-noded shell elements. The boundary
conditions of the finite element mesh are as follows: The ground surface is free to displace, the
side surfaces have roller boundaries and the
base is fixed. It is assumed that the distribution
of the initial stresses is geostatic according to the
rule h = K0 v, where h is the horizontal effective stress and v is the vertical effective stress.
K0 is the coefficient of lateral earth pressure.
Vermeer and Ruse (20) investigated the possible
influence of the initial state of stress, by varying
the coefficient of lateral earth pressure and
TUNNELLING
Fig. 2 Principal stresses (a - c) and incremental displacements (d - f) at failure. Close-up around the face for a tunnel with H/D = 5.
Bild 2 Hauptspannungen (a - c) und inkrementelle Verschiebungen (d - f) im Bruchzustand. Ausschnitt aus dem
Bereich der Ortsbrust fr einen Tunnel mit H/D = 5.
N =
TUNNELLING
TUNNELLING
TUNNELLING
N =
2 + 3 (d / D)6 tan
0.05 ....................... [4]
18 tan
TUNNELLING
TUNNELLING
Maximum diameter in
open-face tunnelling
In usual open-face tunnelling, the face pressure
is equal to zero and the failure pressure as computed from equation [1] must be negative; otherwise the situation would not be stable. Open-face
tunnelling is thus subject to the criterion pf < 0.
In order to consider this criterion in more detail,
expressions [3] and [4] for the stability numbers
are substituted into equation [1] to obtain:
2 + 3 (d D)6 tan
c
0.05
pf = D
.... [6]
18 tan
tan
FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
TUNNELLING
18 c
2 + 3 (d D)
6 tan
9c
1
.................................... [8]
1 0.45 tan
TUNNELLING
where f represents the shear strength. This ratio of the shear strength to the mobilised
strength is a safety factor, which is to be considered in the rest of this paper. By introducing the
definition f = c + tan , where is the effective normal stress on a potential slip plane, the
safety factor is found to be
c + tan
cmob + tan mob ................................... [10]
pmob = D
0.05
18 tan mob
...... [11]
c mob
tan mob
0.9 tan + 18 c D
2 + 3 (d D)
6 tan
.......................... [12]
11
TUNNELLING
NATM-tunnel in homogeneous
ground
As a first case study a cross section of the
Rennsteig tunnel in Thuringia is considered.
This relatively new tunnel with a length of nearly
8 km is part of the German motorway A71 (Figure 11). The excavation of the double-tube tunnel was done by a sequential construction of a
top heading followed by bench and invert. Figure 12 shows a particular cross section with a
relatively small ground cover of only 9 m. We
have analysed this cross section both for uniform
ground as well as for a layered ground profile.
The layered ground profile is to be considered in
a subsequent section. In this section a non-layered ground with properties as indicated in Figure 13 is to be considered.
Attention will be focused on the stability of the
non-circular top heading. Here it might be wondered whether or not such an oval shape can be
considered on the basis of equation [12], as this
relation was derived for circular cross sections.
However, it will be shown that equation [12] can
handle non-circular NATM tunnels. In order to
apply this equation, an equivalent tunnel diameter is needed. The top heading of the Rennsteig
tunnel has a width of a = 11.5 m, a height of
b = 5.3 m and a cross sectional area of 44 m2.
The area can be used to calculate an equivalent
diameter of D = 7.5 m. The problem is now fully
characterised by the parameter set in Figure 12.
On using equation [12] this leads to a safety factor of = 1.36.
In order to check the above result of equation [12], a finite element analysis has been carried out for the real non-circular cross section. In
this numerical analysis both c and were stepwise decreased down to failure values, i.e. down
to cmob and mob, as explained at the end of the
previous section. In this manner a safety factor
of = 1.35 was obtained, being practically equal
to the one from equation [12].
The considered cross section of the Rennsteig
tunnel suffers from a relatively small ground
cover of H/D = 1.2, where D is the equivalent diameter. In such a case one might wonder wheth12 FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
TUNNELLING
Method
Equation 12
FEM
FEM
Geometry
circle
shallow top heading
deep top heading
d=0
d=1.5
1.40
1.48
1.36
1.35
1.37
13
TUNNELLING
TUNNELLING
such zones.
Conclusions
Results of three-dimensional finite element calculations have been considered for tunnel headings in drained ground. Restriction has been
made to an isotropic Mohr-Coulomb material,
which excludes materials with a highly anisotropic strength such as jointed rocks and heavily
bedded sediments. Stress distributions around
tunnel headings in soils and soft rocks were
found to be dominated by arching, at least for
friction angles beyond 20. Once the friction angle is beyond this value, stability appears to be
independent of the ground cover as well as possible surface loads. For shield tunnelling, this
leads to an extremely simple expression for the
minimum support pressure required. For open
face tunnelling, it results in rules for the maximum diameter of the excavation and it involves
the cutting-length. Considering small cutting
lengths, the very simple approximate stability
criteria of D < 10 c was found to apply. The diameter D may either be the full tunnel diameter
or a subsection diameter of a sequential excavation. Instead of considering a maximum diameter, it is also possible to calculate a factor of safety for a fixed given value of the diameter.
In the last part of this study non-circular tunnels have been considered. In such cases an
equivalent diameter, for use in the stability criteria, can be computed from the excavation area
considered. Unfortunately the stability equations
do not hold when the tunnel face is dominated by
different ground layers. In such cases it is advocated to apply a non-linear finite element analysis and to use the so-called -c-reduction method. Even in the general case of layered ground
the formulas for non-layered ground remain of
interest for understanding tendencies and for
validating different numerical models and computer codes.
In classical literature on the NATM one finds
the concept of the mobilisation of a supporting
ground ring around tunnels as a function of deformations. It would seem that we detected such
a ring numerically quite directly. It is nicely visualised by plotting contours of deviatoric stresses
|1 - 3|. For circular tunnels such a ground ring
is found to be elliptical.
It should be realised that not all aspects of
tunnel heading stability have been addressed,
e.g. not the destabilising effect of pore water
pressure. When driving a shield tunnel under the
ground-water table and drained conditions apply, the effective failure pressure naturally has
to be increased by the pore water pressure.
Moreover, one would have to use the submerged
weight in all previous formulas. When open
face tunnels are driven under the ground-water
table and drained conditions apply, the water
has an additional destabilising effect due to
FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
15
TUNNELLING
TUNNELLING
17
RUBRIK
BILDERSEITEN VERMEER I
BILD 1
BILD 2
BILD 3
RUBRIK
BILDERSEITEN VERMEER I
BILD 4
BILD 5
BILD 6
RUBRIK
BILDERSEITEN VERMEER I
BILD 7
BILD 8
BILD 9
RUBRIK
BILDERSEITEN VERMEER I
BILD 10
BILD 11
BILD 13
BILD 12
RUBRIK
BILDERSEITEN VERMEER I
BILD 14
BILD 15
BILD 16
Singapore 2003
Pieter A. Vermeer
Institute of Geotechnical Engineering
University of Stuttgart
IGS
IGS
University of Stuttgart
IGS
University of Stuttgart
IGS
University of Stuttgart
Shield Tunnelling
IGS
Detail
University of Stuttgart
NATM-Tunnelling
IGS
University of Stuttgart
IGS
In non-solid rock
large settlements
would occur.
University of Stuttgart
IGS
University of Stuttgart
Causes of Settlements
IGS
Shield Tunnelling
NATM Tunnelling
University of Stuttgart
IGS
Settlements as a function
of time during shield
tunnelling in silty sand
(Moh et al, 1996)
University of Stuttgart
S = S max exp x 2 / 2 i 2
IGS
)
(Peck, 1969)
= settlement
Smax
IGS
i = K z0
(Peck, 1969)
Mair, 1997 :
IGS
Prediction of Settlements
IGS
Whole settlement trough from FEM (Finite Element Method) for NATM
tunnelling
S = S max exp x 2 / 2 i 2
and
VTrough = 2 i Smax
volume loss
University of Stuttgart
IGS
3D FE Models
(spatial models)
Transverse settlement trough
Longitudinal settlement trough
IGS
IGS
IGS
Total displacements:
Excavation of bottom
University of Stuttgart
IGS
IGS
Transverse
settlement trough due
to the excavation of
the top heading
Transverse
settlement trough due
to the excavation of
the bottom
University of Stuttgart
10
IGS
2D FE Models
(plane models)
Only transverse settlement trough
University of Stuttgart
2D FEM Calculation
IGS
11
IGS
x
unit soil weight
z
z
K0 z
K0 (1 sin) OCR
input
University of Stuttgart
12
IGS
0
Support pressure
Step 1: Deactivation of volume elements and installation of support pressure
IGS
13
IGS
IGS
14
IGS
Construction method:
NATM
Cutting length:
1.20m
Considered length of
tunnel:
120m
120m
University of Stuttgart
IGS
15
IGS
Top layer
Upper
Keuper Marl
Lower
Keuper Marl
Lacustrine
Limestone
[kN/m]
20
24
23
23
E [MN/m]
15
100
60
750
[-]
0.375
0.2
0.35
0.2
' [ ]
25
25
25
35
c' [KN/m]
10
25
25
200
University of Stuttgart
IGS
16
IGS
Hardening-Soil
model
Stress dependent
stiffness
(deviatoric and
volumetric)
University of Stuttgart
E50
Eur
Eoed
IGS
University of Stuttgart
17
Point of
initial stress
due to OCR
IGS
OCR = p / yy0
For actual analysis OCR = 2
Overconsolidated stress
state obtained from primary
loading and subsequent
unloading
University of Stuttgart
IGS
18
References
IGS
Conclusions
IGS
University of Stuttgart
19
TUNNELLING
Finite element-analyses
in softening ground
Several authors (16, 17) have shown that the
elastic-plastic finite-element method is well-suited to predict collapse loads of geotechnical
structures. For softening ground, however, such
TUNNELLING
numerical analyses tend to require a considerable computational effort. At present such computations are feasible for two-dimensional problems rather than for three-dimensional ones. In
the present study such a two-dimensional problem is considered. The finite element analyses
were performed with an advanced constitutive
model that accounts for a drop in strength, i.e.
softening. This model will be briefly introduced
in a separate section.
As symmetrical tunnels are considered, calculations are based on only half a circular tunnel.
The ground is represented by 6-noded triangular
elements. The boundary conditions of the finite
element mesh are as follows: The ground surface
is free to displace, the side surfaces have roller
boundaries and the base is fixed. It is assumed
that the distribution of the initial stresses is geostatic according to h = K0 v, where h is the
horizontal effective stress and v is the vertical
one. K0 is the coefficient of lateral earth pressure
at rest as illustrated in Figure 1.
The first stage of the calculations is to remove
the elements inside the tunnel. This does not disturb the equilibrium as equivalent pressures are
applied on the inside of the entire tunnel. The
minimum amount of pressure needed to support
the tunnel is then determined by a stepwise reduction of the supporting pressure.
Upon extending finite element procedures to
include softening, it appears that the entire numerical procedure should be well designed in
order that an accurate assessment of the ground
response can be made. For each decrement of
supporting pressure, equilibrium iterations are
performed and plastic stress redistribution is accomplished using a radial-return algorithm in
combination with so-called arc-length control
(3). In this manner ground response curves, being also known as Fenner-Pacher curves, are
obtained for an assumed plane strain tunnelling
situation. In the following such curves will be
obtained by plotting the average supporting
pressure as a function of the roof settlement.
Within the context of classical continuum mechanics and conventional finite element analyses, softening models create mesh dependency.
Hence, computational results will depend on the
size of the elements being used. In order to obtain objective results that are independent of the
finite element mesh, classical continuum models
have to be enhanced by a so-called regularization technique. In this study the nonlocal method
(1) is used to achieve mesh independent computational results. Within this method the shear
band thickness is governed by an internal length
parameter. Unfortunately this additional input
parameter is difficult to measure and this
renders the use of softening analyses presently
non-attractive for use in engineering practise.
For details on this parameter as well as the socalled nonlocal method being used, the reader is
referred to Marcher (9).
2 FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
TUNNELLING
TUNNELLING
Stiffness parameters
being used
Figure 3 shows a typical curve of a drained triaxial test with constant lateral pressure 3. Under
primary loading the behaviour is distinctly nonlinear and is assumed to be hyperbolic up to a
failure stress. Here compressive stresses and
strains are considered positive. While the maximum stress is determined by the Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion, the hyperbolic part of the curve
can be defined by using a single secant modulus
as additional input parameter. In the hardeningsoftening model this is E50, as shown in Figure 3.
It determines the magnitude of both the elastic
and the plastic strains. In contrast, Eur is an elasticity modulus. In conjunction with a Poissons
ratio ur, the elasticity modulus Eur determines
the soil behaviour under unloading and reloading; the indices ur stand for unloading/reloading. Both the secant virgin loading modulus E50
and the unloading modulus Eur are stress-level
dependent. It yields:
ref c cot + 3
E50 = E50
ref
c cot + p
ref c cot + 3
Eur = Eur
c cot + pref
............................. [2]
............................. [3]
ref
ref
E50
and Eur
are input parameters for a particular reference pressure pref. The exponent m can
be measured both in oedometer tests and in triaxial tests. One tends to find values between 0.4
and 1.0. A value of 0.5 is typical for sands and
clays tend to have m 1.0.
Figure 4 shows the typical curve of an oedometer test. For purposes of comparison with the
triaxial curve in Figure 3, the oedometer diagram has been rotated 90 from its normal position, so that the strain axis is horizontal. The virgin oedometer stiffness obeys a stress dependency according to the formula
TUNNELLING
ref c cot + 1
Eoed = Eoed
ref
c cot + p
........................... [4]
In the special case of m = 1 one obtains a linear stress-dependency as usual for a clay. In addiref
ref
tion to the moduli E50
and Eur
, the oedometer
modulus Eoedref is also an input parameter. Together with the parameters m, ur, c, and the
dilatancy angle , there are a total of eight material parameters. Within the hardening-softening
model c is not a constant, but a void ratio dependent parameter as specified by equation 1.
Often, no triaxial test results are available for
ref
ref
determining ur, Eur
and E50
, in which case one
has to rely on oedometer results and general
empirical data, such as ur = 0.1 - 0.2. For sands
ref
ref
and stiff clays, one can mostly use E50
Eoe
.
d
However, this equality of reference stiffnesses
does not mean that the triaxial stiffness E50
equals the oedometer stiffness, Eoed. It should be
noted that the reference triaxial stiffness is obtained by normalizing to the minor principal
stress, 3, and the reference oedometer stiffness
follows after normalizing to the major principal
stress, 1
ref
The elasticity modulus Eur
can be determined
directly from a triaxial test or indirectly with the
help of oedometer results. If the unloading modulus from the oedometer test is termed Eur
, acoed
cording to isotropic linear elasticity the following
relationship holds
Eur = (1 2 ur )
1 + ur ur
Eoed .............................. [5]
1 ur
Hence with proper estimates of Poissons ratio, Eur can be calculated from Eur
.
oed
TUNNELLING
TUNNELLING
Conclusions
Attention has been focused on tunnels in softening ground. To study consequences of cohesion
degradation, ground response curves have been
computed both for a shallow tunnel and a deeper
one. The computed ground response curves appear to depend significantly on tunnel depth. For
a very shallow tunnel, a trough-like FennerPacher curve is computed with a marked minimum as failure pressure. The deeper the tunnel,
however, the smaller the softening behaviour on
the structural level of the tunnel. The present
study suggests that ground response curves for
very deep tunnels will show no softening at all.
This is conform to recent numerical studies by
Bliem and Fellin (2). Moreover it confirms practical experiences by Vavrovsky (15).
References
1. Bazant, P. ; Gambarova, B.: Shear crack in concrete:
Crack band microplane model. In: J. Struct. Engng., ASCE
110 (1984), pp. 2015-2036.
2. Bliem, C. ; Fellin, W.: Die ansteigende Gebirgskennlinie.
In: Bautechnik 78 (2001), Nr. 4, S. 296-305.
3. Brinkgreve, R. ; Vermeer, P.A.: Plaxis, Version 7.2. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 2000.
4. Chen, Z. ; Morgenstern, N.R. ; Chan, D.H.: Progressive
failure of the Carsington Dam: a numerical study. In: Can.
Geotech. J. 29 (1992), No. 6, pp. 971-988.
5. Kolymbas, D.: Geotechnik Tunnelbau und Tunnelmechanik. Berlin: Springer, 1998.
6. Kovri, K.: Probleme der Gebirgsverformung bei der Anwendung von Vollvortriebsmaschinen im Fels. Sonderdruck
aus SIA-Dokumentation 91 Tunnel- und Stollenbau im Fels
mit Vollvortriebsmaschinen, Sammelband d. Ref. d. FGU-
TUNNELLING
RUBRIK
BILD 1
BILD 2
BILD 3
BILD 4
RUBRIK
BILD 5
BILD 6
BILD 7
2 FELSBAU 19 (2001) NO. 1
RUBRIK
BILD 8
Tunnel Designer
Tunnel Designer
Tunnel Construction
1. Initial conditions
2. Excavation
IV
III
II
Remove soil/water
Install TBM,
conicity
Tail void
3. Lining installation
4. Grouting
5. Consolidation/creep
PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES
Tunnel Construction
Activate shield
Remove soil and water
Contraction
Simulate (combined) effects of volume
loss in a staged construction phase
- Method
Settlements
Geometry
The geometry of this urban site, of the layers of soil, and the position of the tubes are given at
figure 1. It should be highlighted that a retaining wall has been built in the past, and that the
upper part of the soil consists in an artificial fill. The depth of the axis of the tubes is 16.4 m at
the right side and only 11.5 m at the left side. The order of construction of the tubes has been
first V1 and then V2.
Figure 1. Subway metro of Lyon Vaise. Section S1, showing the soil layers and the retaining
wall, the water table, the two tubes, and the various systems of measurement during and after
the construction (EX = extensometer ; I = inclinometer ; CP = por pressure cell).
Soil layers
Many triaxial tests, pressuremeter tests, SPT and CPT are available for this site, as indicated in
figure 2 (mean values and standard deviation). The soils are really soft soils except the lower
layer ( sable et graviers roux ), and the sand layer called sable gris . The depth of the water
table, coming from the river Sane is 8.3 m. The alluvium should be considered as permeable
(drained) according to the slow advancement of the tunnel (3 m / day). Only the purple clay
( argile violette ) is less permeable, but its thickness is small.
Figure 2. From the top ( remblai ) to the bottom ( Sables et graviers roux ), physical,
strength and stiffness properties of the soil layers of the Vaise site, after laboratory and in
situ tests. The values displayed are mean values (standard deviation is about 15 %) for each
layer.
Figure 3. Settlement (vertical axis) versus time (horizontal axis) recorded by the extensometer
EX11, placed vertically above the tube V1.
In addition, the procedure of contraction is used to model the gap between the soil excavation
and the lining. Furthermore a special procedure is used for taking into account first the injection
of grouting in this annular zone, and secondly the long term consolidation of this material.
CASE STUDY:
SHIELD TUNNEL IN LYON WITH HS MODEL
GEOMETRY
The situation of the shield tunnel in Lyon is to be modelled by means of a plane strain model
composed of fifteen noded triangular elements. The model should be sufficiently wide to avoid
influence from the boundaries.
The sub soil is to be divided in 5 soil layers, as indicated in Fig. 1. Initially, the massive wall has
the properties of the fill layer. When the wall is constructed, the properties change into concrete.
The wall and the fill behind the wall are constructed in one stage to set the initial situation before
the tunnels are constructed. The two tunnels have an outer diameter of 6.3 m and the lining
segments are 300 mm thick. Both tunnels should have a lining and an interface, representing the
TBM, and volume elements to represent the lining segments. The locations of the tunnel centre
points are indicated in Fig. 1, together with the other relevant geometry coordinates. It is
suggested to create an area around the main section of the geometry for mesh refinement
purposes. Standard fixities are used as boundary conditions.
Fill
MESH
In the mesh generation, sufficient accuracy should be given to the middle area, particularly at the
tunnels (use local element size factors). A possible mesh is shown in Fig. 2.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Except for the Concrete and the Lining (which are assumed linear elastic), the Hardening Soil is
used to simulate the behaviour of all soil layers. All layers are considered to behave drained. The
properties as listed in Table 1 are based on the available soil investigation data.
Table 1. Model parameters
Parameter
Model
Type
dry
wet
E50ref *)
Eoedref *)
Eurref *)
Power
Rinter
Unit
kN/m3
kN/m3
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
Concrete
LE
non-por.
25
25106
0.2
1.0
Lining
LE
non-por
25
1106
0.2
0.5
Fill
HS
drained
16.5
18.0
35000
35000
105000
0.5
0.2
30
38
4
1.0
Silt
HS
drained
16.7
19.1
11650
11650
34950
0.7
0.2
35
27
0
0.5
Sand
HS
drained
18.0
21.0
40000
40000
120000
0.5
0.2
5
35
5
0.5
Clay
HS
drained
16.0
18.5
8000
8000
40000
1.0
0.2
35
27
0
1.0
Gravel
HS
drained
18.0
21.0
50000
50000
150000
0.4
0.2
1
34
4
1.0
TBM tail
3105
2250
0.3
9.25
0.2
INITIAL STRESSES
In the initial conditions, pore water pressures are generated on the basis of a general phreatic line
at a level of 22.7 m. Before generating the initial stresses, the upper part of the fill and the wall
(above 26 m) are deactivated, so that there is a horizontal surface. The initial stresses are then
generated on the basis of the K0-procedure, using the default K0-values. For the active parts of
the fill, an OCR-value of 2.0 should be used.
CALCULATIONS
The first calculation phase is used to create the initial situation before the first tunnel is
excavated. This involves the construction of the wall, including the change of material sets into
Concrete, and the construction of the fill layers.
Phase 1.
Activate the wall and apply the Concrete material set to the two wall clusters.
Activate the Fill layer behind the wall
In phases 2 8 the first (right-hand) tunnel is constructed according to the shield tunnel boring
process. This involves the excavation and dewatering of the tunnel, the activation of the heavy
and stiff TBM front part, the contraction due to conicity of the TBM, the reduction of the TBM
stiffness and weight at the TBM tail, the application of a contraction to simulate the volume loss
behind the tail of the TBM, the grout injection process at the tail and the installation of the tunnel
lining. To compare the load-settlement curves with the measurements, artificial time intervals
should be given to the individual calculation phases.
Phase 2.
Reset displacements to zero. Activate the right-hand tunnel lining and deactivate
the soil inside the tunnel. In the water conditions mode, remove the water from the soil clusters
inside the tunnel by selecting the cluster is dry option and generate the water pressures. Time
interval: 1 day.
Phase 3.
2.5 days.
Apply a contraction of 0.1% to simulate the conicity of the TBM. Time interval:
Phase 4.
Apply the TBM tail data set to the tunnel lining. Time interval: 0 days.
Phase 5.
Apply a contraction of 0.2% to simulate the volume loss behind the tail of the
TBM. Time interval: 0.5 days.
Phase 6.
In the water conditions mode, apply a user defined pore pressure distribution to
simulate the grouting pressure at the tail. Select the (inactive) volume elements representing the
final lining and enter a reference level = 11.25 m, reference pressure = -285 kPa and gradient =
-10 kPa/m. Switch off the beam representing the TBM. Time interval: 1.5 days.
Phase 7.
Apply the Lining data set to the volume elements representing the tunnel lining.
Switch these elements on. Time interval: 1 day.
Phase 8.
Switch off the grouting pressure activated in phase 6, by selecting the cluster is
dry option again for these clusters. Time interval: 1.5 day.
The construction of the first tunnel is now complete. Start the calculation for the construction of
the first tunnel. Before starting the calculations, select five nodes right above the first tunnel for
load-displacement curves. The position of the selected points should correspond with the
position of the measuring points of extensometer EX11.
After the calculation has finished, and there is time remaining, you could also model the
construction of the second tunnel. In that case phases 9 16 model the construction of the second
(left-hand) tunnel, according to the same steps outlined above.
10
C
D
E
11
RESULTS
12
Point B
Point C
-4e-3
Point D
Point E
-8e-3
-0.012
-0.016
-0.02
0
12
16
Time [day]
13
3D ASPECTS OF TUNNELLING
Helmut F. Schweiger
Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Computational Geotechnics Group
Graz University of Technology
helmut.schweiger@tugraz.at
www.geotechnical-group.TUGraz.at/
1. Introduction
2. Typical excavation sequence for NATM-tunnels
3. 2D-Modelling of deformation ahead of face
3.1 Load reduction method
3.2 Stiffness reduction method
4. Summary
5. References
COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP
page 1
1 INTRODUCTION
Tunnelling is a three-dimensional problem and therefore 3D analyses should be carried out if the
deformation behaviour due to tunnelling is investigated with numerical methods. This holds for shield
tunnelling as well as NATM tunnels. For the latter 3D effects are important in particular if the stability of
the tunnel face is to be investigated and indeed there is no simple solution around this problem.
Although a fully 3D analyses would allow a more detailed modelling of the relevant excavation stages,
2D analyses are still common practice for assessing stability and deformation at some distance behind
the tunnel face. In this case some computational steps have to be introduced in order to take into
account 3D effects at least in an approximate way. These will be discussed in section 3.
4
UNSUPPORTED
TOP HEADING
UNSUPPORTED BENCH
5
SUPPORTED BENCH
6
UNSUPPORTED INVERT
7
SUPPORTED INVERT
8
FINAL LINING
Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of a typical excavation sequence for a NATM tunnel and
Figure 2 vertical displacements of the crown, again schematically. A corresponding calculated
settlement curve from a 3D analysis using the Hardening Soil model is plotted in Figure 4 for a top
heading-bench excavation sequence.
COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP
page 2
tunnel face
monitoring section
excavation
sequence
chainage
settlements ahead
of tunnel face
settlements of
unsupported zone
settlements after
installation of
monitoring
section
settlement
Fig. 2 Schematic representation of settlements ahead of tunnel face and measured settlements
The equivalent numerical model for the excavation sequence shown in Figure 1 is given in Figure 3. It
is obvious that the numerical model involves a larger number of elements, basically depending on the
distance between top heading, bench and invert excavation. Much smaller models are needed for
assessing the face stabilty, as indicated in Figure 5. The fully three-dimensional nature of tunnel
excavation is clearly depicted in Figures 6 and 7 where effective stress trajectories are plotted in
longitudinal and horizontal cross sections.
COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP
page 3
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
passing of bench
-2
-1
settlement of crown
-9
-10
COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP
page 4
COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP
page 5
E0
E0
s = 0
FINAL LINING
Fig. 8 Schematic representation of load reduction method
E0
E0
Ec = E0
FINAL LINING
Fig. 9 Schematic representation of stiffness reduction method
ground conditions
advance rate
experience of personel
..
COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP
page 6
0.3 to 0.5
It is emphasized that these values quoted from the literature are estimates, they may vary significantly
depending on ground conditions and construction methods.
The Working Group 1.6 of the German Society for Geotechnics (Meiner, 1996) recommends the use
of the load reduction method because the influence of the constitutive model and the parameters used
inside the tunnel cross section introduce additional complications when the stiffness reduction method
is used. In PLAXIS the load redcution method can be applied easily by defining a value < 1 for Mstage
(Mstage = 1-).
4 SUMMARY
3-D Models:
-
Plane Strain:
-
5 REFERENCES
Laabmayr & G. Swoboda (1986). Grundlagen und Entwicklung bei Entwurf und Berechnung im
seichtliegenden Tunnel - Teil 1. Felsbau 4, 138-143.
Schikora, K. & T. Fink (1982). Berechnungsmethoden moderner bergmnnischer Bauweisen beim UBahn-Bau. Bauingenieur 57, 193-198.
H. Meiner (1996). Tunnelbau unter Tage - Empfehlungen des Arbeitskreises 1.6 "Numerik in der
Geotechnik", Abschnitt 2. Geotechnik 19, 99-108.
COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP
page 7
Helmut F. Schweiger
Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Computational Geotechnics Group
Graz University of Technology, Austria
19_3D_analysis_Tunnel / 1
Three different analyses should be performed, two without face reinforcement and one with fibreglass
reinforcement at the face.
(unsat = (sat
<
Eref
cref
kN/m3
kN/m2
kN/m2
o
o
20.0
0.30
35 000
10.0
30.0
0.0
19_3D_analysis_Tunnel / 2
Shotcrete lining
EA
EI
<
w
kN/m
kNm2/m
kN/m2
9.0E6
67500
0.15
0
Analysis 1
Slices 0-8, 8-10 and 10-11 m have to be excavated, whereas the shotcrete lining is put in place at the
same time for slices 0-8 und 8-10 m. This ensures that the influence of the boundary condition is
minimized for evaluating the stability of the face. Thus the face stability of slice 10-11 is investigated
(Fig. 1). A subdivision within slices 0-8 and 20-28 m is noticed from Fig. 1, these are automatically
generated from Plaxis in order to guarantee acceptable mesh geometries.
As follows from this analysis the tunnel face is not stable under these conditions, which is clearly
indicated by displacement vectors shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 3 shows the failure points in plane E.
19_3D_analysis_Tunnel / 3
Analysis 2
Analysis 2 is similar to analysis 1, but in order to ensure stability of the face
fibreglass reinforcement is applied. Because modelling of each individual
reinforcement rod would require a very fine mesh, it is suggested to model the
reinforcement by geotextile elements with a width of 1-2 m. A possible
arrangement of geotextile elements in the cross section is depicted in Fig. 4. The
geotextil elements should be placed in slices between z = 11 und 18 m.
When reinforceing the face, a stable solution is obtained because the fibreglass
rods provide the required support as can be seen from Fig. 5 which shows a
typical distribution of normal force along a geotextile element.
19_3D_analysis_Tunnel / 4
Analysis 3
Analysis 3 correspond to analysis 1, with the exception that the cohesion is increased to 20 kN/m2, so
that the face becomes stable. In order to determine the factor of safety a /c-reduction should be
performed, which yields a Msf-value of approx. 1.2 (Fig. 6).
Chart
Sum-Msf
1.25
Curve 1
1.2
1.15
1.1
1.05
1
0
20
40
60
80
100
Step
19_3D_analysis_Tunnel / 5
By Pieter A. Vermeer
University of Stuttgart, Germany
Cs swelling index
NC-Line = normal consolidation line
compression index Cc
1
log s
ln s
A
strain
void ratio e
Cs
A=
2.3 (1 + e0 )
Cc
2.3 (1 + e0 )
s0 = existing stress
s p = preconsolidation stress
s0
sp
NC-Line
log s
Many soft soil layers show p - values that cannot be explained by preloading.
IGS, University of Stuttgart
30
300
0
300
NC-Linie
creep
Cs
1
s0
sp
log s
Secondary Compression: Creep is better wording !
Bjerrum (1967): 7th Rankine Lecture, Gotechnique, Vol. 17, pp. 81-118.
0
e
Consolidation
ec
1
C = secondary compression index
log t
tc
tc = end of consolidation
e = ec + CB log
+ t
= ec + CB log t c
tc
tc
t
ec = consolidation strain
tc = end of consolidation
e = compressive strain
Bjerrum (1967) and Garlanger (1972):
e = e c - Ca log
t + t
t
with
Ca = (1+ e 0 ) CB
De e = - C s D log s
e
De c = - C c D log s
24 hours
(NCL)
1
week
log s
log t
tc 30
= 24 h
De = De elastic + Decreep = De e + De c
Strain rate
1.7 x 10-5 s-1
e (%)
NCL
N.B.
e=
De
1+ e0
e = - e
24-hours
NCL
creep
unloading
s0
sp
sp
s0
log s
log s
sp < s0
unusual case :
by creep or unloading
- c s s&
- c a 1 s
de
e&
= e& e + e& c =
+
dt
ln10 s
ln10 t s p
c c -c s
ca
Cs Cc / 10
and
D log s p = - De c /(C c - C s )
Ca Cc / 30
s
s
p
27
Cc - C s
27
Ca
1
OCR 27
It follows that the creep rate is negligibly small for OCR > 1.4
creep rate :
Cs = Cc/10
e& =
c
- Ca
t ln10
Ca = Cc/30
s
s
p
C c -C s
Ca
OCR
Dec/day (%)
Dec/year
0.5
1.1
0.04
0.146
1.2
0.0035
0.013
1.3
0.0004
0.0015
1.4
0.00006
0.0002
1.5
0.000009
0.00003
s
s
p
- 0.005
day
27
- 0.005
1
day OCR 27
e
s
log
NC-line
with s p = s
log s
Part 2:
general
s = oedometer stress
s p = preconsolidation stress
D log s p = - Dec / (Cc - Cs )
- Ca
e& =
t ln10
c
s
s
p
27
-m
e& c =
t
pe
pe
p
l=
Cc
ln10
27
m=
Ca
ln10
Definition of pe and constants and k comes from Modified Cam Clay model
-s 1
-s 1
s2 = s3
p 3
-s 3
-s 2
- s3 2
mean stress:
p =
deviatoric stress:
1
(s1 + s2 + s3
3
1
2
(s1 - s 2 )2 + (s 2 - s3 )2 + (s3 - s1 )2
IGS, University of Stuttgart
p e = p +
CS - Line
p e = ppe
M =
cap
q2
M2p
6 sin jCS
3 - sin jCS
CS = Critical State
e
p
e = ee + ec
ec
ppe
q
MCC: cap is moved by primary loading
SSC: cap is moved by time,
stress well below cap: low creep rate
cap
ppe
e = e& e + e& c
e& c p e
& c = vol
a
& c
e&
e
p
c
vol
e& c
m*
=
= 1 + e0
t
pe
ppe
27
a = p e / p
Part 3:
q
drained
drained
failure
undrained
undrained
vertical strain
-e1
Undrained triaxial tests after Vaid et al. (1977) and simulation with SSC Model
undrained
q
CS-Line
fast shearing
slow
Vaid & Campanella (1977): Time-dependent behaviour of undisturbed clay, J. Geotech. Engng. Div., ASCE;
Vol. 103(7), pp. 693-709
Kulhawy & Mayne (1990): Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design
1
Mcs
Mmc
1
cap
ppe
ccot j
Mmc
6 sin j
3 - sin j
Mcs
6 sin jcs
3 - sin jcs
K0nc = 1 sin j
The more difference between Mmc and Mcs the steeper the cap. The above picture would
suggest the possibility of tensile stresses, but these can be omitted by using a tension cut-off.
10
l* =
l
Cc
=
1 + e0
(1 + e0 ) ln10
k * l* / 10
m * l* / 30
nur 0.2
strength parameters:
special parameters:
sp
Poissons ratio
( or 0.15 )
( or
POP = sp - s0
or
OCR =
sp
)
s
K nc
0 1 - sin j
K 0 K nc
0 OCR
POP = s p - s0
y
x
input of OCR
input of POP
s0 s p
s0 sp
sy
sp
K nc
0
sy 0
1- vur
vur
sx 0
POP
sx
11
k * 3 p ref (1 - 2 n ur ) / E ref
ur
E ref
ur
n ur
n ur
E
l * = p ref / E ref
oed
ref
oed
c , j , y
s p 0 ( input
c , j , y
sp0
E ref
50
m*
always m = 1
m
q
MC
MC
p`
cap hardening
1173
Start of construction
1370
End of construction
1590
12
1370
1278
a = 5 .5
1178
centre of gravity
58 m
22.5 m
wP = 28 %
wL = 38 %
w = 28 %
wP = 30 %
wL = 70 %
w = 52 %
wP = 13 %
wL = 43 %
w = 24 %
wP = 25 %
wL = 51 %
w = 38 %
Laval Cc1
Laval Cc2
Lancellotta e Pepe (1990)
Calabresi et al. (1993)
first analysis
last analysis
13
l* =
Cc
w L -0.1
2.3(1 + e )
5
k* =
3 1 - nur Cs
= l* / 10
2.3 1 + n ur (1 + e )
m* =
Ca
= l* / 30
2.3(1 + e )
sz
[kPa]
[m]
depth
sz0
14
1178
maximum excess pore
pressure 74 kPa
1278
maximum excess
pore pressure 59 kPa
15
1370
maximum excess
pore pressure 3 kPa
16
final analysis:
stiff clay layers and soft fill
1993
relative shear stresses
I MC
I MC
I MC
17
Scope of Presentation
Introduction
Site Condition and PVD Properties
Embankment Constructed To Failure
Unimproved Soil vs. PVD Stabilised Soil
Conclusion
Introduction
Site Condition
Depth, m
+2.5m RL
+0.5
-5.6
-15.2
Soil Description
kh (m/sec)
110
Crust
Upper
Clay
40
4x10-9
Lower
Clay
60
1x10-9
60
2x10-9
Peat
-15.9
-19.9
c (kPa)
Sandy
Clay
Sand
Site Condition
PVD Properties
Drainage
Length, l
(m)
Drain
Spacing, s
(m)
Equivalent
Diameter, dw
(m)
Influence Zone
Diameter, de
(m)
Smeared Zone
Diameter, ds
(m)
18.0
1.3
0.07
1.365
0.4
Triangular Layout
Fill
Crust
Upper Clay (OCR = 1.2)
6.4 m
10 m
Sandy Clay
4.1 m
2m
80 m
sat
(kN/m3)
unsat
(kN/m3)
c
(kPa)
(o)
E
(kPa)
kh
(m/day)
kv
(m/day)
Fill
20.5
20.5
19
26
5200
1.0
1.0
0.3
Crust
+2.5
+0.5
16.5
14.5
20
26
14000
1.3E-4
6.9E-5
0.3
Sandy
Clay
-15.9
-20.0
16.0
16.0
10
22
2500
9.5E-5
6.0E-5
0.3
Material
Materia
l
RL
(m
)
sat
(kN/m3)
c
(kPa)
(o)
kh
(m/day)
kv
(m/day)
Upper
Clay
+0.5
-6.0
15.5
20
0.13
0.05
1.3E-4
6.9E-5
0.15
Lower
Clay
-6.0
-15.9
15.5
22
0.11
0.08
9.5E-5
6.0E-5
0.15
Plan View
Elevation View
Piezometer P2
6
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
0
0
Piezometer P7
2
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
0
0
-1 0
-3
Fill Height = 3m
-5
-7
-9
-11
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
-13
Excess Porewater Pressure (m)
-1 0
10
-3
Fill Height = 4m
-5
-7
-9
Field Measurement
-11
FEM Prediction
-13
Excess Porewater Pressure (m)
-1 0
10
12
-3
-5
Fill Height = 5m
-7
-9
-11
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
-13
Excess Porewater Pressure (m)
FEM Prediction
0.4
Inclinometer I3
0.2
0
0
Lateral Displacement
3
-1 0
-3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Inclinometer I3
-5
-7
-9
Field Measurement
-11
FEM Prediction
-13
Lateral Movement (m)
0
Vertical Movement (m)
10
15
20
25
30
35
-0.2
-0.4
Field Measurement
Fill Height = 3m
FEM Prediction
-0.6
Distance from Centerline of Embankment (m)
10
15
20
25
30
35
-0.2
-0.4
Field Measurement
-0.6
FEM Prediction
Fill Height = 4m
-0.8
Distance from Centerline of Embankment (m)
10
Fill Height = 5m
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
-0.2
-0.4
Field Measurement
-0.6
FEM Prediction
-0.8
Distance from Centerline of Embankment (m)
30m from
toe
11
Upper Clay
30 m
12
Construction Sequence of
Embankment on PVD Stabilized
Foundation Soil
Stage
Fill Periods
(Days)
Fill Thickness
(m)
Rate of Filling
(m/day)
Rest Period
(days)
1 - 14
0.0 2.57
0.18
14 105
105 - 129
2.57 4.74
0.09
129 - present
Fill
PVD Stabilized
Zone
Crust
Upper Clay (OCR = 1.2)
2m
6.4 m
4.1 m
10 m
36 m
135 m
13
where
2l2kh
3qw
2 .5l 2 k h
)k v
D e 2 k v
k
kr
3
4
l
n
=
=
de
dw
s
=
=
=
ds
kh
kr
qw
kv
=
=
=
=
=
= ln( ) + h ln(s) +
k ve = (1 +
Drainage length
de
dw
ds
dw
General
kh / kr
Spacing (m)
H(m)
18
Configuration
Triangular
Equivalent Flow
12
Material
Crust
Upper Clay
Lower Clay
kv (m/day)
6.9E-5
6.9E-5
6.0E-5
Axisymmetric
Radial Flow
12
1.3
qw (m /yr)
100
dw (m)
0.07
de (m)
1.365
19.5
dm (m)
0.2
ds (m)
0.4
5.714
Material
Crust
Upper Clay
Lower Clay
kve (m/day)
5.99E-3
2.66E-3
1.97E-3
qw (m3/yr)
PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES
100
14
15
3
Field Measurement
Piezometer P2
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Time (days)
3
Field Measurement
2
Piezometer P3
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Time (days)
16
7
6
5
4
3
Field Measurement
Piezometer P6
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Time (days)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Ground Surface
-0.8
-1
Field Measurement
-1.2
-1.4
Time (days)
17
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Field Measurement
-0.8
5.5m Below
Ground Surface
0
Verical Movement (m)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-0.2
Field Measurement
-0.4
FEM Prediction (PVD)
At 45 Days
-0.6
Distance from centerline (m)
18
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-0.2
-0.4
Field Measurement
-0.6
At 105 Days
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-0.2
-0.4
At 413 Days
-0.6
-0.8
Field Measurement
-1
19
Factor of Safety
2.2
Height of Fill =
2.57 m
2.1
Factor of Safety
1.9
1.8
1.7
Height of Fill =
4.74 m
1.6
1.5
1.4
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Conclusion
Coupled consolidation was effective in predicting
the excess pore pressure and settlement variation
PVD stabilized foundation soil showed efficient
drainage
Loading rate of embankment on PVD stabilized
foundation can be much faster
20
1. Introduction
This exercise means to demonstrate the use of Plaxis 8 to simulate the
construction of an embankment over soft clay, and to discover the advantages of coupled
consolidation calculation.
1.1 General
The
Malaysian
Highway
Authority
constructed
several
full-scale
test
embankments at a site on the Muar plain. This is a well-documented case history with
high quality instrumentation. The clays, which have low bearing capacity, stretches along
the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia constitute coastal plain marine clay up to 20m
thick, with a lateral extent of about 25km. The site of the test embankment was located
about 20km inland from Muar and 50km due east of Malacca on the southwest coast of
Malaysia shown in Figure 1. Two cases are considered in this exercise, 1) embankment
on unstabilised soil; 2) embankment on PVD (perforated vertical drain) stabilised soil.
Table 1
Depth, m
Soil Description
+2.5m RL
+0.5
-5.6
110
Upper
Clay
40
4x10-9
Lower
Clay
60
1x10-9
60
2x10-9
Peat
-19.9
kh
(m/sec)
Crust
-15.2
-15.9
c
(kPa)
Sandy
Clay
Sand
topographical survey and inclinometer response showed that the circular failure surface
was directly above the upper clay layer and emerged approximately 30m away from the
toe on the ground surface.
Figure 2
2.1 Input
Geometry
This situation is to be solved by plane strain model composed of 15 nodes
triangular element as shown in Figure 3. Because this problem is symmetrical in nature,
only half of the problem is modeled with axis of symmetry at the centerline of
embankment. Mesh refinement is done for elements below embankment due to the
expected high strain gradient.
Distance (m)
20m
Elevation (m)
Fill
5.5m
2.0m
6.4m
Crust
Upper Clay
Lower Clay
10.0m
Sandy Clay
4.1m
80m
Figure 3
Material Properties
In this problem, the fill, crust and sandy clay are modeled by Mohr Coulomb
model while the upper and lower soft clay are modeled by soft soil model. The details
material properties are listed in Table 2 as proposed by Balasubramaniam et al. (1994)
and Indraratna (2000). The soft clay layer was reported to be slightly over-consolidated.
Fill material was assumed to be fully saturated.
Initial Condition
The initial pore water pressure is generated by general phreatic line located at
1.75m below ground surface (Figure 4). The closed consolidation boundaries are set at
both vertical boundary. The initial effective stress is generated through Ko-procedures
with the fill cluster is deactivated. The OCR of upper and lower soft clay are assumed as
1.2.
1.75m
Figure 4
Table 2
Material Properties
Parameter
Material model
Type of behavior
Fill
Crust
Upper
clay
Soft soil
Mohr
Mohr
Coulomb Coulomb
Undrained Undrained Undrained
Lower
clay
Soft soil
Undrained
Sandy
clay
Mohr
Coulomb
Undrained
unsaturated (kN/m3)
20.5
14.5
15.5
15.5
16
saturated (kN/m3)
20.5
16.5
15.5
15.5
16
kx (m/day)
1.3 e-4
1.3 e-4
9.5 e-5
9.5 e-5
ky (m/day)
6.9 e-4
6.9 e-4
6.0 e-5
6.0 e-5
0.3
0.3
0.3
Eref (kN/m2)
5200
14000
2500
cref (kN/m2)
19
20
10
(o)
26
26-
20
22
22
0.13
0.11
0.05
0.08
Rinter
2.2 Calculations
The construction sequence of 0.4m per week is simulated by staged construction
procedures with coupled consolidation. The calculation steps are as below:a) In general tab sheet, switch calculation type to consolidation.
b) In parameters tab sheet, choose staged construction.
c) Click on define button. In the geometry configuration window, activate the fill
layer, ex. the first 2m thick fill layer above ground surface. Click on update
button to back to calculation window.
d) Fill in the time interval according to the construction speed and the thickness of
constructed fill in the calculation phase. As an example, if a 2m thick fill with
construction speed of 0.4m per week is to be constructed in this phase, the
corresponding time interval is 35 days.
e) Step (a) (f) are repeated in the subsequent calculation phase until the maximum
fill height.
2.3 Output
Figure 5 shows the ground surface settlement profile for phase with 5.5m thick
fill, corresponding to the recorded collapsed fill height. Figure 6 shows the incremental
strains plot at that phase. A clear rotational slip circle is formed below the embankment.
Figure 7 presents the plot of excess pore water pressure versus construction time
measured at depth 4.13m below original ground surface under the centerline of
embankment.
embankment
0.4m
-1.0m
Figure 5
Figure 6
90
60
30
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Time [day]
Figure 7
Excess pore water pressure versus construction time, measured at depth
4.13m below original ground surface under the centerline of embankment.
Figure 8
Table 3
Stage
Fill Periods
(Days)
Fill Thickness
(m)
Rate of Filling
(m/day)
Rest Period
(days)
1 - 14
0.0 2.57
0.18
14 105
105 - 129
2.57 4.74
0.09
129 - present
Table 4
Drainage
Length (m)
Drain Spacing
(m)
Equivalent
Diameter (m)
Influence Zone
Diameter (m)
Smeared Zone
Diameter (m)
18.0
1.3
0.07
1.365
0.4
10
3.1 Input
Geometry
The FEM mesh used to solve this situation is shown in Figure 9. The extent of
PVD stabilized soil is located at 36m from the centerline of embankment.
Elevation (m)
Distance (m)
Fill
PVD Stabilized
Soil
Crust
Upper Clay
Lower Clay
Sandy Clay
2.0m
6.4m
10.0m
4.1m
135m
Figure 9
Material Properties
The material properties listed in Table 2 is applicable for this situation, only
modification needed for the PVD stabilized soil.
The function of PVD is assumed to increase the vertical soils permeability only,
without affects the other soils mechanical and strength properties. The equivalent
vertical permeability of PVD stabilized soil can be calculated by the equation below
(Tay, 2002):
11
n
s
= ln( ) +
k ve = (1 +
kh
2l 2 k h
3
ln(s ) +
kr
4
3q w
(6.2)
2.5l 2 k h
)k v
De 2 k v
(6.3)
where l
Drainage length
de
dw
de
dw
Diameter of drain
ds
dw
ds
kh
kr
qw
kv
Table 5
Equivalent vertical
permeability, kve (m/day)
Crust
5.99E-3
2.66E-3
1.97E-3
12
Initial Condition
The initial condition the generated by the same procedures discussed for case with
embankment on unstabilised soil.
3.2 Calculations
By refers to the construction sequence showed in Table 3, the calculation steps are
as below:a) The first loading stage (2.57m of fill) was performed using coupled consolidation
process as discussed in section 2 with time interval equals to 14 days.
b) The second stage involves pure consolidation process of 91 days. The same
coupled consolidation procedures of step (a) is utilized here, but without any
change to the geometry configuration (any increase in fill height). Set the time
interval to 91 days.
c) The second loading stage (up to a height of 4.74m) in 24 days using the coupled
consolidation process was performed by the same procedures as step (a).
d) Follow by pure consolidation process as described in step (b).
3.3 Output
Figure 10 shows the ground surface settlement profile just after the completion of
4.74m fill. Figure 11 presents the excess pore water pressure at point 8.9m below the
ground surface under the centerline of embankment.
13
embankment
0.12m
-0.66m
Figure 10
The ground surface settlement profile just after the completion of 4.74m
fill.
80
60
40
20
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
Time [day]
Figure 11
Excess pore water pressure versus construction time, measured at depth
8.9m below original ground surface under the centerline of embankment
14
CG 23 PILE AND
RAFT FOUNDATIONS
Markus Wehnert
Institut fr Geotechnik
Universitt Stuttgart
IGS
Contents
Axial bearing behaviour
Long large-diameter bored pile in layered soil
Bridge in the harbour of Thessaloniki: D = 1.5 m / L = 45 m
Numerical assessment of axial pile group response based on load tests
Comodromos, E.M. & Anagnostopoulos, C.T. & Georgiadis, M.K., accepted for
publication in Computer & Geotechnics (2003)
Load Q
ts
Settlement s
Qb
sb
Qs
floating pile
Qb
Qs
end-bearing pile
b ^= base
s ^= shaft
0.0m GL + WL
Layer A: ML, SM
Soft Clayey Silt
with thin layers
of Silty Sand
Tension pile
Tension pile
-6.0m
Layer B: CH
High plastic
Soft Clay
-18.0m
Layer C: CL
Medium Stiff
Clay of medium
plasticity
-42.0m
Layer D: GM
Very dense
Sandy Gravel
with Clay
-45.0m
Geometry
y
Pile:
D = 1.5 m
L = 45 m
024
11
326
13
19
527
14
20
728
15
21
929
16
22
10
Model: B = 20.0 m
H = 57.0 m
Mesh refinement: B = 7.5 m
H = 51.0 m
Calculations: with interface
without interface
Constitutive law: Mohr-Coulomb
For exclusive determination of the
load-settlement curve it is not
necessary to generate a very wide
mesh.
17
25
12
31
30
23
18
Material
cu
Soft Clay
Stiff Clay
Sandy Gravel
15 - 25
25 - 45
[kPa]
[]
30
35
[]
10
12
[kN/m]
20
17
21
22
K0
[-]
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.426
[-]
0.25
0.35
0.30
0.25
[MPa]
10
7.5
20
65
Material
g
[kN/m]
[-]
[MPa]
Pile
24
0.20
42000
Finite-element mesh
10
15
20
Some remarks:
5
10
Settlement [mm]
15
20
25
30
40
45
50
4.0
GW
-0.5
stiff
clay
-5.0
9.5 m
Instrumentation:
Levelling
4.0
Load
cells
Geology:
-10.0
1.3 m
Instrumentation
Layout of load test
Geometry
Pile:
D = 1.3 m
L = 9.5 m
y
0 145
6 164
20
21
12
Model: B = 9.0 m
H = 15.0 m
Mesh refinement: B = 3.15 m
H = 12.0 m
111713
7 158
18
10
19
Material parameters
Material
Overconsolidated Clay
Model
Pile
Mohr-Coulomb-Model
Hardening-Soil-Model
Linear-Elastic-Model
[kPa]
20
20
[]
20
20
[]
[kN/m]
20
20
25
K0
[-]
0.8
0.8
[-]
0.3
0.2
[MPa]
60
45
30000
[MPa]
33
[MPa]
90
[-]
0.5
Finite-element mesh
Results of pile-load-test
Settlement s
Load Q
Qb
Qs
Results after
Sommer & Hammbach
Results of FE-calculation
Mohr-Coulomb-Model
1
Hardening-Soil-Model
4
10
10
20
20
30
40
Settlement [mm]
Settlement [mm]
Load [MN]
2
Load [MN]
2
30
40
50
50
60
60
70
70
MC-model
10
20
Settlement [mm]
HS-model
30
50
60
70
1.000
0.960
0.920
0.880
t max
0.840
0.800
0 t rel
0.760
0.720
0.680
0.640
0.600
0.560
0.520
0.480
0.440
0.400
0.360
0.320
0.280
0.240
0.200
0.160
0.120
0.080
0.040
0.000
10
1.000
0.960
0.920
0.880
t max
0.840
0.800
0 t rel
0.760
0.720
0.680
0.640
0.600
0.560
0.520
0.480
0.440
0.400
0.360
0.320
0.280
0.240
0.200
0.160
0.120
0.080
0.040
0.000
1.000
0.960
0.920
0.880
t max
0.840
0.800
0 t rel
0.760
0.720
0.680
0.640
0.600
0.560
0.520
0.480
0.440
0.400
0.360
0.320
0.280
0.240
0.200
0.160
0.120
0.080
0.040
0.000
11
1.000
0.960
0.920
0.880
t max
0.840
0.800
0 t rel
0.760
0.720
0.680
0.640
0.600
0.560
0.520
0.480
0.440
0.400
0.360
0.320
0.280
0.240
0.200
0.160
0.120
0.080
0.040
0.000
Displacements at a
depth of 0.5m
1.65
2.15
2.65
1.15
1.65
2.15
2.65
10
20
30
40
50
60
Displacements
at a depth of 10m
70
12
10
20
30
40
Displacements at a
depth of 0.5m
1.65
2.15
2.65
1.15
1.65
2.15
2.65
10
20
30
40
50
60
Displacements
at a depth of 10m
70
10
20
30
40
Resistance Q
Single pile
Piled raft
Pile group
Settlement s
Pile group
13
Resistance Q
Single pile
E
Settlement s
Corner pile
Edge pile
Inner pile
Conclusion:
Group behaviour and pile-raft-interaction
reduce on the one hand the stiffness of
the piles and increase on the other hand
their bearing capacity!
Pile Foundation
DIN
DIN
DIN
DIN
1054
4014
4026
4128
aPRF
a PRF
sPRF/sRF
14
Q ( s )
P
Qtot ( s )
S QP + QR
Qtot
QP
= Qb + Qs
QR
Qtot
h S Stot
s(x,y) dA
Stot
QP,1
s(x,y)
QP,j
Interaction between
Piled raft and subsoil
s(x,y)
z
ts,j
ss,1
sb,j
diameter 1.5m
length 30m
Model 1: quadratic raft with a width of 50m
64 piles with a distance of 3D
Model 2: quadratic raft with a width of 50m
16 piles with a distance of 6D
Model 1
Model 2
15
D = 1.5m
L = 30m
64 piles
e = 3D
10
20
30
40
Q single pile
Q inner pile
Q edge pile
Settlement [cm]
10
Q corner pile
15
20
25
30
D = 1.5m
L = 30m
64 piles
e = 3D
10
20
30
40
Q centre pile M1
16 piles
e = 6D
Q inner pile M2
Q edge pile M2
Settlement [cm]
10
Q corner pile M2
15
20
25
30
16
Examples
Messe-Torhaus
1984
h = 130 m
30 floors
Normal force [MN]
Inner pile
Depth [m]
Edge pile
Depth [m]
Examples
Messeturm
1991
h = 256 m
60 floors
O
17
Examples
RF:
Raft Foundation
PF:
Pile Foundation
PRF: Piled Raft Foundation
s:
Citibank
1985-86
FG,
s = 11 cm
EUROTHEUM
1997-99
KPP,
s = 3.2 cm
Commerzbank II Hochhaus
1994-97
PG, s = 2.1 cm
Eurotower
1974-77
FG, s = 9 cm
Helaba
Hochhaus
1975-77
FG,
Japan Center
s = 10 cm
1994-96
KPP, s = 3.2 cm
Commerz
bank I
Hochhaus
1972-74
FG, s = 9 cm
Simulation of pile load tests without interface element is very mesh dependent
Big influence of the interface on the load settlement curve of piles, especially when using the MC-model
When using the HS-model the influence is more or less negligible
Results of calculations without interface elements seem to be more exact
This was shown only for examples of bored piles !
Problem of parameter determination - no laboratory tests were available !
FE-calculations are very important for pile groups and for piled raft foundations
Group behaviour and pile-raft-interaction reduce on the one hand the stiffness of the piles and increase on the other
hand their bearing capacity !
References
Comodromos, E.M.; Anagnostopoulos, C.T.; Georgiadis, M.K. Numerical assessment of axial pile group response
based on load tests. accepted for publication in Computer & Geotechnics (2003)
El-Mossalamy, Y. Load settlement behavior of large diameter bored piles in over-consolidated clay. NUMOG VII,
Graz (1999)
Sommer, H.; Hambach, P. Gropfahlversuche im Ton fr die Grndung der Talbrcke Alzey. Bauingenieur 49 (1974)
El-Mossalamy, Y. Ein Berechnungsmodell zum Tragverhalten der Kombinierten Pfahl-Plattengrndung. Mitteilungen
des Instituts und der Versuchsanstalt fr Geotechnik der TH Darmstadt (1996)
Hanisch, J.; Katzenbach, R.; Knig, G. Kombinierte Pfahl-Plattengrndungen. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 2002
Katzenbach, R.; Arslan, U.; Moormann, C. Nachweiskonzept fr die Kombinierte Pfahl-Platten-Grndung (KPP),
Geotechnik 19 (1996)
Katzenbach, R.; Moormann, C.; Reul, O. Ein Beitrag zur Klrung des Tragverhaltens von Kombinierten PfahlPlattengrndungen. Pfahl-Symposium 1999. Mitteilung des Instituts fr Grundbau und Bodenmechanik Technische
Universitt Braunschweig, Heft 60, 261-299
18
INTRODUCTION
This exercise is based on a case from practice, the excavation and the loading of a raft foundation
on soft soil. Beside the modelling of soil also structural elements are included in the model. The
option of both staged excavation of the soil and construction of the building is shown by
switching respective elements on and off. Further more the use of several point loads is shown,
which are simulating the force of the building on the foundation, whereas it will be pointed at
accruing bending moments in the foundation plate. This exercise will use the Hardening Soil
model. For the application of this model the determination of the soil stiffness modulus from
results of oedometer tests will be performed.
s ' +c cot j
E oed = E oed 1
p
c
cot
+
ref
but for s '1 >> c cot j it yields
ref
Eoed
s'
= E ref oed 1
p
ref
with m=1:
Eoed
Result from oedometer test in general
1
E ref oed
=
s '1 =
s 1 '
l*
pref
E ref oed =
pref
A+B
pref
l*
TASK:
In the figure above you see results from oedometer tests of Lacustrine clay. The test data do not
show a clear preconsolidation pressure sp. This is related to sample disturbance. Therefore it is
assumed, that sp = sv0+POP (pre over burden pressure), with POP = 20 kN/m. No unloading
reloading loops were performed. Because of sample disturbance it is not possible to determine the
reloading trajectory. On account of this we assume A = 0,006667.
Use the oedometer test data from above to determine the l*-value.
Afterwards determine Erefoed
Determine E50ref = 2Erefoed
For the derivation of Erefur use the following relations:
(1 + n ) (1 - 2n )
Eur , oed
(1 - n )
(1)
Eur =
(2)
s'
Eur = E ref ur 3
p
ref
s'
= E ur ,oed 1
p
ref
(3)
Eur ,oed
(4)
E ref ur ,oed =
ref
pref
A
ref
ref
ur
(1 + n ) (1 - 2n ) s '1 ref
E ur ,oed
=
s
(1 - n )
'
3
ur
(1 + n ) (1 - 2n ) 1 ref
=
nc E ur ,oed
(1 - n )
K0
INPUT
As the problem is fully symmetric, it will be sufficient to model only one quarter of the entire
geometry. In this case we choose to model the right upper part of the plan view.
At a depth of 28 meter a stiff layer is found and it can be assumed, that no significant
deformations occur in this material. Therefore this soil layer will be excluded from the FE model
and we choose the bottom of the geometry at the level of -28 m. As no deformations are assumed
to occur, the displacements along this boundary are fully fixed (default option Standard fixities).
The point loads, as shown in the figure above, are transferred to the basement bottom by piers.
Therefore this point loads can also be positioned directly to the basement bottom.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Lacustrine clay
Basement
Model
HS
Model
Linear-elastic
Type
Drained
Type
Non-porous
gunsat (kN/m)
18.5
gunsat (kN/m)
11.5
gsat (kN/m)
18.5
gsat (kN/m)
11.5
kx (m/day)
Eref (kN/m)
30000
ky (m/day)
E50ref (kN/m)
Eoedref (kN/m)
Eurref (kN/m)
Model
Elastic
cref (kN/m)
10
EA (kN/m/m)
1.5 E7
j ()
30
EI (kN/m/m)
3.125 E5
y ()
w (kN/m)
nur
0.2
0.2
pref (kN/m)
100
power (m)
K0nc
1 - sinj
Plate
GEOMETRY MODEL
(19.2/0)
(0/0)
(0/-2)
(2.5/-2)
(19.2/-2)
(12.5/-2)
(7.5/-2)
(17.5/-2)
MESH GENERATION
Generate the 2D mesh as described below:
Use one time gobal coarsness Very coarse.
Two times refine the cluster of the basement.
One time refine the line of the foundation plate for a better output of the bending moments.
1.0
0.5
0.25
0.25
Front
1.0
INITIAL CONDITIONS
Set the water table 1m below the surface.
Generate water pressures.
Before generating the initial stresses put in the pre over burden pressure (POP) of 20 kN/m
for the Lacustrine clay. Be careful that no plates or loads are activated.
Now generate initial stresses.
CALCULATIONS
Phase 1:
Deactivate the soil inside the excavation for Slice 1, Slice 2 and Slice 3.
Phase 2:
Activate the foundation plate and the basement for Slice 1, Slice 2 and Slice 3.
Phase 3:
Activate the four point loads on Plane A and Plane B (double click) with a force of
-1306 kN for the Y-Value.
Select 3 points to be used in Curves program:
A (0/-2/0)
Front Plane
B (0/-2/-9.3)
Plane C
C (19.2/-2/-9.3) Plane C
OUTPUT
Phase 3:
Settlements
10
11
12
=
=
=
=
=
=
0.03334
pref / l* = 100 / 0.03334 = 3000 kN/m
2Erefoed = 23000 = 6000 kN/m
pref / A = 100 / 0.006667 = 15000 kN/m
(1 + n) (1 - 2n) / (1 - n) (1 / K0nc)m Erefur,oed
(1 + 0.2) (1 20.2) / (1 - 0.2) (1 / 0.5)1 15000 = 27000 kN/m
l*
0.03334
Eoedref (kN/m)
3000
E50ref (kN/m)
6000
Erefur,oed (kN/m)
15000
Eurref (kN/m)
27000