You are on page 1of 113

PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Plaxis Seminar, Binus University, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2012


Advanced Geotechnical Finite Element Modeling using
PLAXIS
Dr William WL Cheang
Principal Geotechnical Consultant
Plaxis AsiaPac
Lecture notes are contributed by:
Dr Lee Siew Wei
Prof. Harry Tan
A.Prof. Ronald Brinkgreve
Dr Shen Rui Fu
Ir Dennis Waterman

CONTENTS

A. Section1:GeotechnicalAnalysisusingPLAXISPrograms

B. Section2:ModellingofDeepExcavations

C. Section3:ModellingofPiledFoundations

D. Section4:ModellingofTunnelSoilStructureInteractionProblems

E. Conclusions

F. References

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

1
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

GEOTECHNICALANALYSISUSINGPLAXISFINITEELEMENTCODES

SECTION1.0

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

SECTION1

A. Versions

1. Pre2010(Version7.x,8.xand9.x)

2. Post2010(Version2010,2011,2012)

B. NewDevelopments(20112012)

1. Ongoingsoftwaredevelopments

2. Researchprojects

3. Conclusions

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

2
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Plaxis2D:Features

ThePLAXIS2D(Currentlyatv2010movingtov2011)
ProgramincludingthePLAXISDynamicsandPLAXISPlaxFlowmodules
Afiniteelementpackageintendedforthetwodimensionalanalysisofdeformation
andstabilityingeotechnicalengineering

ThePLAXISDynamicsModule
AnextensiontoPLAXIS2D
TheDynamicsmodule offersthetoolstoanalysethepropagationofwavesthroughthesoilandtheirinfluence
onstructures.
Thisallowsfortheanalysisofseismicloadingaswellasvibrationsduetoconstructionactivities.
PLAXISDynamicsoffersthepossibilitytoperformdynamiccalculationsinindividualcalculationphases.

PlaxFlow
AnaddonmoduletothePLAXIS2Dprogram.
Simulationofthenonlinear,timedependentandanisotropicbehaviourofsoils
and/orrockinsaturatedandpartiallysaturatedsituations.

PlaxisVIPThesespecialextensionsare:
CADInterfaces
NewMaterialModels
UserDefinedSoilModels
MultiphaseCalculations
SensitivityAnalysis

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Plaxis2Dv2011

Plaxis2DWorkflowcanbefoundat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMy895GCsBQ&list=PLF7F3CDD69090AF3A&index=1&feature=plpp_video

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

3
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Plaxis3D,3DF&3DT

1. PLAXIS3Disafiniteelementpackageintendedfor three
dimensionalanalysisofdeformationandstabilityingeotechnical
engineering.Itisequippedwithfeaturestodealwithvarious
aspectsofcomplexgeotechnicalstructuresandconstruction
processes

1. 3DFoundationisafiniteelementpackageintendedforthethree
dimensionaldeformationanalysisoffoundationstructures
2. 3DTunnel isageotechnicalfiniteelementpackagewhichis
specificallyintendedforthethreedimensionalanalysisof
deformationandstabilityintunnelprojects.

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis3Dv2011

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

4
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

PLAXIS3DINPUT

Generaltoolbar
Modeswitches
Selectionexplorer

Drawingarea
Modelexplorer
Modetoolbar

Commandline

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Plaxis3DInput:Modes

Definitionofsoilstratigraphy Definitionofstructuralelements,
loads
andboundaryconditions

SOIL STRUCTURES

CreationoftheFEmesh Definitionofpressure Definitionofconstructionstages


distribution

MESH WATERLEVELS STAGEDCONSTRUCTION

Letmedemonstrate!

5
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

GEOTECHNICALANALYSISUSINGPLAXISFINITEELEMENTCODES

SECTION1.1:FEMMODELS

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

TunnelPileSoilInteraction1

Bldg. load

Plate modelling
Building superstructure EI & EA

40m
Fill
1m 48 Franki piles
CDG (Embedded Piles)

Tunnel
Tunnel 120m advance
140m
6m tunnel
Analysis by Plaxis 3D ( 70,000 Tets)

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

6
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

TunnelPileSoilInteraction1

Iso-surface of soil total displacements Pile group deformations

Isometric view Front view

Tunnel Tunnel
advance advance

Animation

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

PiledFoundations1

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

7
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

PiledFoundations2

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

PiledFoundations2

Piled Raft Foundation for a storage platform and Stacker Reclaimer Runways
Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

8
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

PiledFoundations3

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

DeepExcavation

Video
Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

9
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Dam:CFRD Malaysia

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

10
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Model:CFRWCH3002D(SouthSumatra20070912)

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

11
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Model:DomainMesh

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

StabilityAnalysis:MUDMAT

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

12
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

FillingofSpudcanFootprints:

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

13
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

GEOTECHNICALANALYSISUSINGPLAXISFINITEELEMENTCODES

SECTION1.2:NEWDEVELOPMENTS

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

LATEST PRODUCT RELEASES


PLAXIS2D2011(December2011)

1. Designapproaches

2. Anisotropicplatesandgeogrids

3. Directinputofbendingmoments

4. SekiguchiOhtamodel

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

14
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Design Approach Facility


1. Possibility to enter a coherent set of partial factors in one location

(according Eurocode 7, LRFD, etc.)

2. More structured and efficient way of modeling

3. Easy exchange of Design Approaches between different projects

4. Partial factors definition remain the entire responsibility of the user (no

default values for different building codes)

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Orthotropic Plates and Geogrids

Independent definition of stiffness and strength properties with


respect to element local axis

2
1

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

15
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

DIRECT INPUT OF BENDING MOMENTS

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

LATEST PRODUCT RELEASES

PLAXIS3D2011

1. Shapedesigner
2. Steadystategroundwaterflowanalysis
3. Sectioncontraction(tunnelsandshafts)
4. Anisotropicgeotextiles
5. Parallelcomputing
6. Outputvisualizationduringcalculation

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

16
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Shape Designer
Definitionofpolycurve (seriesofcurvedsections)whichcanthenbe
extruded

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Steady State Groundwater Flow


Analysis

Porepressuredistributioninadamduringfullpoolconservation

17
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

SECTION CONTRACTION

Tomodelvolumelossduring
constructionoftunnelsor
shafts

Applicabletoplatesonly

Contractiondefinition:

section section
Ainitial - Afinal Contraction
c[ % ] = section
Ainitial

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

PARALLEL COMPUTING
Reducecomputationtimeby
usingdomaindecomposition
Twonewsolversavailable
PICOSsolver(multicore
iterative)
PARDISOsolver(multicore
direct)

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

18
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

PARALLEL COMPUTING EXAMPLE

Multilayerground withtunnel:
100000elements
148000nodes
414000d.o.fs

Tot Dec Back Iter Cores Speedup


175 57.5 90.1 62 1 1.000
133 21.5 84.2 74 2 1.396
84 18.5 40.5 39 4 2.501
69 13.7 29.3 45 8 3.432
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

OUTPUT VISUALIZATION DURING CALCULATION

WillopentheOutputprogram
whenthecalculationisstill
running

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

19
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

ON-GOING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENTS

NewmodellingworkflowPLAXIS2D
SoilConstitutiveModels
Modelparametersdefinitionfromlaboratorytestresultsbyinverse
analysisinSoilLabtest
Freefieldboundaryelements
ReinforcementelementforpilemodellinginPLAXIS2D
StructuralforcesinsolidelementinPLAXIS2D
Thermohydromechanicalcoupling
NewPLAXIS3Daddonmodules:DynamicsandTransientGWF

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

NEW MODELLING WORKFLOW PLAXIS 2D

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

20
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

SOIL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS

Userdefinedsoilmodels: 15

10

5
1. AnisotropicSClay1(S)model

xy[kPa]
0
0 50 100 150 200
-5

2. AnisotropicCreepModel -10

-15
p'[kPa]

3. BarcelonaBasicmodel(unsaturatedsoil)

4. Hypoplasticmodelwithintergranularstrain

5. UBCSANDmodel(liquefaction)

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

PARAMETER OPTIMIZATION BY INVERSE ANALYSIS

1. BasedonSoilTestfacility
2. Importofreallabtestdata(triaxial,oedometer)
3. Optimisationofselectedmodelparametersbasedonparticleswarm
algorithm
4. Differentcurvescanbeconsideredsimultaneously

Bestmatchbetweencurvesfromrealtestsandmodelsimulation

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

21
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

PARAMETER OPTIMIZATION BY INVERSE


ANALYSIS - EXAMPLE

Experimentalparameters: Hardening Soil model fit

=24 180

c=5.5kN/m2 160

Eoed=9700kN/m2 140

E50 =9700kN/m2

|Sigma1 - Sigma 3|
120

100

80
CalculatedHSparameters:
60
=24.30 40
c=4.68kN/m2 20
Experimental

Eoed=9627kN/m2 0
Calculated

E50 =9509kN/m2 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12


Strain 1

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

FREE FIELD BOUNDARY ELEMENTS

Freefieldconditiondefinition
1Dsoilcolumn
Tiedhorizontaldisplacementonleftand
rightboundaries(Ux2=Ux1)

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

22
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

FREE FIELD BOUNDARY ELEMENTS

PracticalapplicationoffreefieldelementsinPLAXIS

Structure Structure

Freefieldcondition

Freefieldcondition
Viscousboundary

Viscousboundary

Viscousboundary

Viscousboundary
Soil Soil

Dynamicinput(accorvel) Dynamicinput(accorvel)

FreeField
elements

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

REINFORCEMENT ELEMENT IN PLAXIS 2D

Offerpilemodellingcapabilitiesin2D
Developmentoflineinterfaceelementsinsertedbetweensoilandthe
pile(Samemodellingstrategyas3Dembeddedpile)
Thebeamrepresentingthepileslidesoverthe2Dgeometryandnot
throughthe2Dgeometry

2Dmodel 3DEquivalentrepresentation

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

23
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

REINFORCEMENT ELEMENT IN PLAXIS 2D

Differentthancombiningplatewithsurroundinginterfaces
Soilcannotflowfreely(asitshouldinbetweenthepiles)
Interfacesintroduceunrealisticfailuresurfaces

2Dmodel
3DEquivalentrepresentation

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Structural Forces in Solid Element


in 2D
Beammodelledassolidelementsunderpureflexion

Viewofintegratedstressesalongdrawnneutralaxis

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

24
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

THERMAL FLOW, THERMAL EXPANSION, THM COUPLING


1. Takingtemperatureeffectsintoaccount:
A. Expansion
B. Soilfreezing
C. Phasetransition(ice,water,vapour)
D. Changeofproperties
2. Geoenergyapplications
A. Heat/coldstorage
B. Geothermalenergy

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Research Projects
ParticipationinResearchprojects:

Piles(inst.effects,embeddedpiles) i.c.w.TUD,TUGraz
Liquefactionofunderwaterslopes i.c.w.TUD
GeoInstall(soilmodelling,MPM) EUproject(#partners)
Notes(dynamics) EUprojecti.c.w.TCD
Cyclicliquefaction,geotech EQ.eng. i.c.w.UCBerkeley,UIUC
StochasticFEA i.c.w.TUD

25
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

MODELLINGOFDEEPEXCAVATIONS

SECTION2.0

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

GEOMETRY MODELDISCRETIZATION
3-D MODEL
2-D Plane Strain

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

26
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

GEOMETRY MODELDISCRETIZATION

Axi-symmentry

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

27
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

3DMODELS

Piled building
Tower crane

Strut layout
Piled building

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

28
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

3DMODELOFANEXCAVATION

Top of PW (70/90)

N
Top of Grade III or Better

Complex Soil-Structure Interaction


Plaxis Seminar,Problem
Jakarta 2012

CONSTITUTIVEMODELS

1. Linear elastic, perfectly plastic


2. Hyperbolic stress-strain curve
(stiffness degradation for > 1E-4)
3. Non-linear stiffness from very small
strains (1E-6)

1: Mohr Coulomb

1e-6 1e-5 1e-4 1e-3 1e-2 1e-1

2: Hardening Soil
3:Hardening Soil + Small Strain Overlay
Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

29
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

SURFACEHEAVEININITIALEXC./CANTILEVERWALL
3 m deep excavation with cantilever wall
20kPa
5m
3m

7m

Dry sandy material


FSP III sheetpile

3 analyses with Mohr Coulomb, Hardening Soil & Hardening Soil-Small models
using equivalent soil input parameters
Compare ground movements, wall displacements & wall stability
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

SOILINPUTPARAMETERSFOR3ANALYSES
Parameters for soil strength & initial stress state
Analyses Material c' ' Rinter
Model (or ur)
3
(kN/m ) (kPa) (Deg) [-] [-]
1 MC 20 5 35 0.3 0.426 0.67
2 HS 20 5 35 0.2 0.426 0.67
3 HSsmall 20 5 35 0.2 0.426 0.67

Parameters for soil stiffness prior to failure


Analyses Material Eref Eurref pref m G0 0.7
Model (or E50ref or Eoedref)
(MPa) (MPa) (kPa) [-] (MPa) [-]
1 MC 30 - - - - -
2 HS 30 90 100 0.5 - -
3 HSsmall 30 90 100 0.5 150 210-5

For derivation of soil stiffness parameters,


a. HS model from standard drained triaxial compression tests
b. HSsmall model from small-strain triaxial tests or field tests (e.g.
downhole / crosshole seismic survey)

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

30
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

PREDICTEDSURFACESETTLEMENTBEHINDWALL
Distance behind wall (m)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.006

0.004 Heave
0.002
Settlement (m)

0.000

-0.002

-0.004

-0.006 Settlement
MC
-0.008 HS
HSsmall
-0.010

MC predicts unrealistic surface heave 4 mm


HS & HSsmall predict max. surface settlement 9 mm

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

PREDICTEDHEAVEATEXC. LEVEL INCOFFERDAM


Distance in front of wall (m)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
0.025
MC
HS
0.020
Wall HSsmall

0.015
Heave (m)

0.010

0.005

0.000

-0.005

MC predicts 20 mm heave at cofferdam centreline


HS & HSsmall predict 11 mm & 8 mm respectively

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

31
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

PREDICTEDWALLRESULTANTDISPLACEMENT
MC
Ux=6mm HS HSsmall
Ux=11mm Ux=10mm Ux: wall horizontal
displacement

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

PREDICTEDSTABILITYOFWALL
3 Sum-Msf = FOS FOS=2.8
2.5
MC Rotation mechanism
2 with FOS 2.8
1.5

Sum-Msf = FOS
3 FOS=2.8
2.5

2
HS
1.5
Phi-c' reduction for predicting FOS
FSP III sheetpile properties:
3 Sum-Msf = FOS FOS=2.8 EI=34440 kNm2/m; EA=3.92106kN/m
2.5 Mp=369 kNm/m; Np=3575 kN/m
2 HSsmall
1.5

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

32
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

SUMMARYOFPREDICTIONS
Analyses Surface settlement Heave at Wall horizontal FOS for wall
behind wall excavation level displacement stability
MC Heave 4 mm Heave 20 mm 6 mm 2.8
(not OK)
HS Settle 9 mm Heave 11 mm 11 mm 2.8
HSsmall Settle 9 mm Heave 8 mm 10 mm 2.8

1. MC predicts incorrect surface heave behind wall


a. related to soil stiffness (E) prior to failure
b. different ways of modelling E in 3 constitutive models
2. Stability of wall has FOS = 2.8 for 3 analyses
a. related to soil shear strength
b. all 3 constitutive models use Mohr Coulomb failure criterion with c'=5
kPa & '=35

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

VARIATIONOFSOILSTIFFNESSINEXCAVATION
1. Soil stiffness is not constant and varies with
a. stress-level. Higher stress, higher stiffness
b. strain-level. Higher strain (or displacement), lower stiffness
c. stress-path (recent soil stress history).
d. Rotation of stress path, higher soil stiffness
2. During excavation, soil elements at different locations experience
different changes in stress, strain & stress-path direction

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

33
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

SOILSTRESSPATHSNEAREXCAVATION
GCO No.1/90

A: unloading compression; B: unloading extension


Rotation of stress paths at A & B

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

SOILSTRESSPATHSNEAREXCAVATION
20kPa 25 20kPa
Failure line
20
3m A K0
15 A
Exc. A
B 10
B

Exc.
t (kPa)

K0 20kPa
7m 5
B

5m
-5

-10
Failure line
A: unloading compression
B: unloading extension -15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
s' (kPa)

Rotation of stress path at A, A 90 w.r.t. K0 direction


Rotation of stress path at B, B 160 w.r.t. K0 direction
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

34
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

STRESSPATHDEPENDENTSOILSTIFFNESS
Stress path rotation,
Shear modulus, 3G (MPa)
t

=0
=180
K0
=90
s'

Atkinson et al. (1990)


Triaxial tests on
London Clay
Shear strain (%)
-1 -0.1 -0.01 0.01 0.1 1
=0, no change in stress path direction
=180, full reversal of stress path direction
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

STRESSPATHDEPENDENTCDG STIFFNESS
Stress-level Test series

Extension
Compress

Compression
Extension

=90

Wang & Ng (2005)


At s 0.01%, shear stiffness in extension 60% higher than in compression

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

35
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

WHYMCPREDICTSINCORRECTSURFACEHEAVE?
1. MC models a constant soil stiffness prior to failure not realistic
2. In reality, stiffness of soil elements near excavation varies according to
a. stress-level
b. strain-level
c. direction of stress-path
3. Realistic prediction of wall deflections & ground settlements in all excavation
stages requires a constitutive model that considers above factors, e.g. HS &
HSsmall models
4. HS & HSsmall consider factors (1), (2) & (3) in determining the operational
soil stiffness (E), i.e. E is changing during excavation

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

INFLUENCEOFSMALLSTRAINSATFARFIELDAREAS

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

36
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

MODELLINGOFDEEPEXCAVATIONS

SECTION2.1:EXAMPLES

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

37
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

38
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

39
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

40
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

41
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

MODELLINGOFDEEPEXCAVATIONS

SECTION2.2:VALIDATIONS

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

42
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Plaxisvs.SAP2000

Model a non-symmetrical deep exc.


DWall, 6 strut layers, 24m deep exc.
Compare structural behaviour - DWall
20m deflections/bending moments/shear
forces, strut forces
Recommendation on design of
reinforcement based on 3D results
Plaxis 3D Foundation V2.2 - analyses
28m by GCG (Asia)
SAP2000 V12.0.2 (BD No. S0749) -
analyses by AECOM

25m

85
Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis 3D Foundation SAP2000

Element size ~1m


Element size ~1.3m
Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

43
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Plaxis 3D Foundation

SAP2000

87
Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Validation3 DeformedMesh
Plaxis 3D Foundation SAP2000

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

44
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Validation3 DWallDeflection

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Validation3 StrutAxialForce

90
Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

45
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Validation3 DWallBendingMoment

91
Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

MODELLINGOFPILEDFOUNDATIONS

SECTION3

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

46
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

OUTLINE
A. Volume piles
B. Embedded piles
1. Concept
2. Model
3. Properties
4. Deformation behaviour
5. Elastic region
6. Output
C. Verification & validation
1. Axial loading, pile groups, lateral loading
D. Further research

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Volumepiles
Volume piles:

Piles composed of volume elements or wall elements with pile properties


Use Cylinder command to create pile geometry
Cylinder 0.6 20 24
(creates a cylinder with 0.6m radius, 20m length and 24 sections)
Alternative: Import cylinder
Pile can be inclined in PLAXIS 3D! (not in 3D Foundation)

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

47
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Volumepiles

Volume piles:

Import
cylinder

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Volumepiles
Volume piles:

After creating pile geometry:


Create soil material set with concrete properties for pile
Tubes: Apply plate around pile volume; create plate material set
Apply interface around pile geometry
To activate pile in calculation phase:
- Assign pile properties
- Tubes: activate plate
- Activate interface

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

48
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Volumepiles
Volume piles:

Limitations of volume piles:


Takes many elements
Limited number of piles feasible
Installation effects not considered
Possibly bad element shapes
(check mesh quality)

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Embeddedpiles Concept
Sadek & Shahrour (2004):
A three dimensional embedded beam element for reinforced geomaterials
Beam arbitrarily through volume elements
Shear interaction between beam element and surrounding soil.

Septanika (2005)
A finite element description of embedded pile model
Shaft interaction similar to Sadek & Shahrour (2004)
NEW: - Tip interface
- Shaft interface

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

49
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Embeddedpiles kt
Model t
kn Skinstiffness:
ks tmax
ks:axialstiffness
pile
kt Kn ,kt :lateralstiffness k
1

kn Skintractions: urel
ks
ts =qs/length = ks (uspileussoil)tmax
t skin kt tn =qn/length =kn (unpileunsoil)
tt =qt/length =kt (utpileutsoil)
Ffoot
kn
soil ks
Basestiffness:
s kb:base/footstiffness

t Base/Footforce:
Fb = kb (ubpile ubsoil)Fmax
kb
n
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Embeddedpiles Model
Embedded piles:

Beam nodes: Real nodes; 6 d.o.f.s per node (ux uy uz rx ry rz)


Interface nodes: Virtual nodes, 3 d.o.f.s per node (ux uy uz),
expressed in volume element shape functions

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

50
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Embeddedpiles Properties

Properties (in explorer):

Connection:
Rigid
(only at beams / plates)
Hinged
Free

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

51
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Embeddedpiles Properties

Material set with embedded pile properties:

Pile type and material


- Type: Massive circular pile, Circular tube, Massive square pile
Interaction properties (defines pile bearing capacity)

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Embeddedpiles
BearingCapacity=
(Ttop+Tbot)Lpile +Fmax

Ttop

Lpile

Tbot

Fmax
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

52
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Embeddedpiles Deformation
behaviour

Pile bearing capacity is input and not result of FEM calculation


F t

tmax
Specifiedbearingcapacity k
1

urel

Globalpileresponse F
fromsoilmodelling
andpilesoilinteraction Fmax

k
1

u urel

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Embeddedpiles Withoutelastic
region
.

Load-Displacement Curves - Vertical Pile


EB+CS
1250

Defined Capacity Reached Defined


Pile 1193.2 kN
Capacity
(Premature Failure) Capacity

1000

750
Load (kN)

500

VERY FINE MESH

FINE MESH

MEDIUM MESH
250
COARSE MESH

VERY COARSE MESH

Pile Capacity Defined

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Displacement (mm)

Without elastic region: Early (soil) failure for fine meshes


PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

53
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Embeddedpiles
ElasticRegion
.

Around shaft
Around foot

Soil stress points inside elastic region are forced to remain elastic
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Embeddedpiles Output

Displacements, bending moments, axial forces, shaft friction, foot force

u N Ts

C B
A

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

54
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Verification&validation

Verification & validation by Plaxis, METU, TUGraz, TUDelft *

- Shaft friction, end bearing, total capacity


- Axial loading (compression, extension)
- Lateral loading (external loading, soil movement)

* Related reports and publications:


1. Engin H.K. (2006). Validation of embedded piles, Plaxis Internal Report.
2. Engin H.K., Septanika E.G. and Brinkgreve R.B.J. (2007). Improved embedded beam elements for the modelling of piles. In: G.N. Pande & S.
Pietruszczak (eds.), Int. Symp. on Numerical Models in Geomechanics NUMOG X, 475-480. London: Taylor & Francis group.
3. Engin H.K. (2007). A Report on tension piles testing using embedded piles, Plaxis Internal Report.
4. Engin H.K., Septanika E.G., Brinkgreve R.B.J., Bonnier P.G. (2008). Modeling piled foundation by means of embedded piles. 2nd International
Workshop on Geotechnics of Soft Soils - Focus on Ground Improvement. 3-5 September 2008, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland.
(Accepted for publication)
5. Septanika E.G., Brinkgreve R.B.J., Engin H.K. (2008). Estimation of pile group behavior using embedded piles, the 12th International
Conference of International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG), 1-6 October, 2008, Goa, India.
6. Tschuchnigg F. (2009). Embedded piles 1. Report. CGG_IR021_2009. Technische Universitt Graz.
7. Tschuchnigg F. (2009). Embedded piles 2. Report. Improvements. Technische Universitt Graz.
8. Dao T.P.T. (2011). Validation of PLAXIS embedded piles for lateral loading. MSc thesis Geo-engineering. Delft University of Technology.

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Verification&validation Axial
loading(Plaxis)

Single Layer : = 0 , Cohesive Soil (Case 1): c = 50 kPa = 0

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

55
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Verification&validation Axial
loading(Plaxis)

Single Layer : = 0 , Cohesive Soil (Case 1): c = 50 kPa = 0

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Verification&validation Axialloading
(METU)

Pile load test Alzey Bridge near Frankfurt (Bored Pile)

Hardening Soil model El-Mossallamy, Y (1999)


Pre Overburden Pressure = 50 kPa

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

56
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Verification&validation Axialloading
(METU)
Alzey Brigde Single Pile Load Test

3500
PILE CAPACITY

3000

2500

2000
Load (kN)

1500 Total Load

Skin Friction

1000 Base Resistance

PILE CAPACITY

HS-CS
500
HS-CS-Base Res.

HS-CS-Ave. Skin Friction


0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012
Settlement (mm)

Verification&validation Pilegroups
(TUDelft)

Pile group example by Poulos:

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

57
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Verification&validation Pilegroups
(TUDelft)

(a) Poulos & Davis (1980)


(b) Randolph (1994)
(c) Strip on springs analysis, using the program GASP (Poulos,1991)
(d) Plate on springs approach, using the program GARP(Poulos, 1994a)
(e) Finite element and boundary element method of Ta & Small(1996)
(f) Finite element and boundary elementPlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012
method of Sinha(1996).

Verification&validation Pilegroups
(TUDelft)

AverageSettlement(mm) Moment(MNm/m)
50,0 1,2
45,0
1,0
40,0
35,0 0,8
30,0
25,0 0,6
FETa&Small

FETa&Small
Poulos &Davis

20,0
FE+BESinha

FE+BESinha
Plate(GASP)

Plate(GASP)
Plaxis3DFnd

Plaxis3DFnd
Strip(GASP)

Strip(GASP)

0,4
15,0
Randolph

10,0 0,2
5,0
0,0 0,0

DifferentialSettlement(mm) %LoadonPiles
10,0
100,0
9,0
90,0
8,0
80,0
7,0 70,0
6,0 60,0
FE+BESinha
Plate(GASP)

FETa&Small
Plaxis3DFnd

Randolph

Strip(GASP)

5,0 50,0
FETa&Small

4,0 40,0
FE+BESinha
Plate(GASP)
Plaxis3DFnd

Strip(GASP)

3,0 30,0
2,0 20,0
10,0
1,0
0,0
0,0
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

58
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Verification&validation Axialloading
(TUGraz)

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Verification&validation
3D model - volume piles: 70 mm

2D model: 72 mm 3D model - embedded piles: 74 mm

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

59
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Verification&validation Axialloading
(TUGraz)

Conclusions from research at TUGraz (based on 3D Foundation):


Embedded pile gives good results in serviceability states
Layer-dependent option preferred to obtain realistic shaft friction
Increased interface stiffness needed at pile tip *
Pile should end at corner node *

* Implemented in PLAXIS 3D

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Verification&validation Lateralloading
(TUDelft)
Validation for lateral loading:
Comparison with volume pile
Lateral movement of pile in horizontal soil slice
Lateral loading of pile top
Lateral loading by soil movement (embankment construction)
Comparison with measurements from centrifuge test
Lateral loading by soil movement (embankment construction)

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

60
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Verification&validation Lateralloading
(TUDelft)
Lateral movement of pile in horizontal soil slice:
> Embedded pile almost behaves as volume pile due to elastic region

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Verification&validation Lateralloading
(TUDelft)
Lateral loading by soil movement due to embankment construction
> Bending moments in reasonable agreement with measurements

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

61
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Verification&validation Lateralloading
(TUDelft)
1. Conclusions from research at TUDelft:

2. Embedded piles have capabilities for lateral loading behaviour in case


of rough pile-soil contact (full bonding) and small soil displacements

3. When using standard mesh around embedded piles (no local


refinement), stiffness and lateral capacity are over-estimated (~30%)

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Furtherresearch
1. Research at TUDelft on pile installation effects:
2. Press-replace technique to simulate pile installation with the purpose
to generate data for different situations
3. Results are used in generalized model, where (embedded) piles are
wished-in-place and installation effects are superimposed

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

62
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

CONCLUSIONS
A. Volume pile
1. Pile composed of volume elements or wall elements with pile props
2. Massive piles or tubes (wall elements)
3. Not feasible for many piles
B. Embedded piles
1. Efficient way to model different types of piles
2. Validated for axial loading, pile groups and lateral loading
C. Limitations of embedded piles:
1. Primarily for bored piles (no installation effects)
2. Primarily for serviceability states
3. Mesh-dependency of results
4. Full bonding considered in lateral movement

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

TUNNELSANDTUNNELLING

SECTION4.0

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

63
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

CONTENTS

A. 4.1 Introduction to Plaxis Approach

a. Input and construction of FE model

b. Conclusions

B. 4.2 Some Validations

C. 4.3 Case Histories

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

ModellingofTunnellinginPlaxis3D

To be able to:
Model tunnel geometries in different ways
Model construction stages for tunnels
Model volume loss due to tunnel construction
Analyse deformations, stability, lining forces

64
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Geometricmodellingissues
Circular tunnel shapes (TBM tunnels)

Create cylinder using Cylinder command or using Import facility


cylinder 4 100 48

Decompose cylinder volume into surfaces


Apply plate and negative interface features to cylinder contour

Geometricmodellingissues
Circular tunnel shapes (TBM tunnels) Example

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

65
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Geometricmodellingissues
Cross passages and entrance shafts Example
Hint: Draw cross section surface and use Extrude command to create shafts
PLAXIS 3D will automatically create intersections

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Geometricmodellingissues
Non-circular tunnel shapes

Using shape designer* to create tunnel contour


Create surface from tunnel contour using right-hand mouse button
Extrude surface
Decompose tunnel volume into surfaces
Assign Plate and Negative interface features to tunnel surface

* new in 3D 2011

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

66
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Geometricmodellingissues

Non-circular tunnel shapes Example

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

67
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Geometricmodellingissues

Importing tunnel geometry using CAD model

DXF triangulated surface model


- Model should be cleaned before importing in PLAXIS 3D
3DS model

Use Import command or corresponding tool in Structures mode

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Constructionstages

Creating geometry for construction stages

Divide tunnel in excavation sections (top heading, bench, invert)


Divide tunnel in longitudinal steps by defining cross section planes
Intersect tunnel with excavation sections and cross section planes
Remove unnecessary sub-surfaces around tunnel

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

68
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Constructionstages

Creating geometry for construction stages Example (exploded view)

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Modellingvolumeloss

Volume loss can be modelled by:

Defining Contraction* (TBM tunnels) in Structures mode, e.g:


Contraction Fase_Volume_1_1
or use contraction tool or right-hand mouse menu
Activate contraction in Staged construction mode

* New in 3D 2011
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

69
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Contraction

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Modellingvolumeloss

Alternatively, volume loss can be modelled by:

Applying Volumetric strain to volume (Staged construction mode)


- Distinction can be made between xx, yy, zz

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

70
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

TUNNELSANDTUNNELLING

SECTION4.1:VALIDATIONS

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Validation1 Plaxis3DTunnelvs.Plaxis2D
Plaxis 2D Model a plane strain tunnelling
Layered ground Fill, Alluvium, CDG
GWL 2 mbgl
6m dia. tunnel, tunnel axis 23 mbgl
Stress relief by 30% due to tunnel exc.
Linings take 70% initial soil stress
Plaxis 2D V8.2 (BD No. G0133) - 456
nos 6-noded triangular elements
Plaxis 3D Tunnel
Plaxis 3D Tunnel V2.4 - 4,560 nos 15-
noded wedge elements
Fineness of 2D & 3D meshes identical
in-plane

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

71
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Validation1 InputParameters

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Validation1 GroundSurfaceSettlement

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

72
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Validation1 LiningHoopForce&BendingMoment
Plaxis 2D Plaxis 3D Tunnel

Hoop force

Bending moment

145
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Validation2 Plaxis3DTunnelvs.CentrifugeTestinSand
Centrifuge model
Stability of shallow tunnel in sand
Minimum tunnel support pressure (T)
before tunnel collapse
Centrifuge tests by Atkinson & Potts
(1977) in Leighton Buzzard Sand
Acceleration 75g, 60mm dia. model
tunnel is 4.5m dia. prototype tunnel
Centrifuge tests at C/2R ratios of
0.34, 0.63, 1.0, 1.37 & 2.0
Plaxis 3D Tunnel replicates centrifuge
tests in prototype scale
Predicted T compared to measured
T

Atkinson, J. H. & Potts, D. M. (1977). Stability of a shallow circular


tunnel in cohesionless soil. Geotechnique, 27(2), 203-215.

146
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

73
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Validation2 InputParameters

quoted by Atkinson & Potts (1977)

147
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Validation2 CollapseMechanism

148
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

74
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Validation2 Comparison

Atkinson & Potts (1977)

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Validation3 Plaxis3DTunnelvs.CentrifugeTestinClay
Stability of tunnel heading in clay
Minimum tunnel support pressure (T)
in unlined section P before collapse
Centrifuge tests by Kimura & Mair
(1981) in soft kaolin clay
Acceleration 125g, 60mm dia. model
tunnel is 7.5m dia. prototype tunnel
Centrifuge model
Centrifuge tests at C/D of 1.5 to 3.0,
P/D of 0 to 3
Plaxis 3D Tunnel replicates centrifuge
tests in prototype scale with C/D = 3,
P/D = 0, 0.5, 1, 2 & 3
Predicted T compared to measured
T

Kimura, T. & Mair, R. J. (1981). Centrifugal testing of model


tunnels in soft clay. Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. & Found.
Eng., Stockholm, Vol. 1, 319-322.
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

75
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Validation3 Plaxis3DTunnelModel&StabilityRatioN

Stability Ratio, N

Prototype scale

151
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Validation3 InputParameters

152
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

76
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Validation3 CollapseMechanism

P/D=0

P/D=2

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Validation3 Comparison

154
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

77
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Validation4 Plaxis3DTunnelvs.SAP2000
Model 6m dia. circular lining subjected to
Plaxis 3D Tunnel 100 kPa external radial pressure
Lining 0.25 m thick, E=20 GPa, =0.2
Compare lining radial displacement, hoop
force, axial force & bending moment
Plaxis 3D Tunnel V2.4 uses Plate element
SAP2000 Nonlinear V7.40 (BD No. S0476)
uses Shell element
Both predictions compare to known
theoretical solutions
SAP2000

155
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Validation4 TheoreticalSolutionCylinderUnderExternalRadialPressure

Watkins, R. K. & Anderson, L. R. (2000). Structural mechanics of buried pipes.


CRC Press.
Young, W. C. & Budynas, R. G. (2002). Roarks formulas for stress and strain.
156
McGraw-Hill, 7th edition. PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

78
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Validation4 Comparison

157
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Validation5 Plaxis3DTunnelvs.ClosedFormSolution+BoundaryElementMethod

Model a 2x2 pile group near a 6m tunnel in


clay
5.7m
Hypothetical example by Loganathan et al.
(2001) analysed using closed form solution
+ boundary element method GEPAN
Not an exact solution, not measurement
Volume loss ratio modelled 1%
20m
Plaxis 3D Tunnel analysed the example
1.1m
25m Compare pile settlement, horizontal
displacement, axial force, bending moment
6m dia.
Front pile Rear pile

0.8m

Loganathan, N., Poulos, H. G. & Xu, K. J. (2001). Ground and pile-group responses
due to tunnelling. Soils and Foundations, JGS, 41(1), 57-67.
158
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

79
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Validation5 Plaxis3DTunnelModel
Deformed mesh

Exaggeration scale 150

159
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Validation5 Comparison
Pile Settlement Horizontal disp. Axial force Bending moment

160
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

80
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Validation6 TunnellingbelowHuaTaiBuilding,SheungWan

Sheung Wan
Crossover Box

30-32 New Market Street

Hua Tai Bldg. built in 1964, 10-storey R.C. frame structure, founded on 73 nos.
of 0.457m dia. Franki piles
5.8m dia. overrun tunnel built in 1980s, trimmed 17 nos pile toes, Fill grouted,
increase size of central raft PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012 161

TunnellingBeneath/NearBuildingPiles
Advantage of 3D over 2D analysis
Proposed U/T tunnel 1. progressive advance of tunnel face
2. assess stability of tunnel
face/heading
Existing overrun tunnel
3. model individual piles
(Proposed D/T tunnel)
4. model plan area of buildings
5. model varying support pressure on
tunnel face & along/around TBM
6. soils vary in tunnel axis direction

-10

-20

-30

-40

162
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

81
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

RemovalofExistingTunnelLinings

3D analysis required because


1. soil arching in x, y, z (tunnel axis)
directions
2. stability of localised unlined
section
3. unlined & lined sections exist
4. shotcrete properties change with
time in z direction
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012
5. soils vary in z direction

Validation6 TunnellingbelowHuaTaiBuilding,SheungWan

WIL Overrun

Open-face shield tunnel 2.6 bar air pressure

Overrun WIL
Bldg settled 6-9 mm, ground settled 4-6 mm

GCO (1985). Technical Note TN 4/85 MTR Island Line: Effects of


Valuable case history for benchmarking
Construction on Adjacent Property. GEO, Eng. Development Dept., HK.

164
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

82
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Validation6 Plaxis3DTunnelModel

40,388 15-noded wedge elements

165
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Validation6 ModellingofTunnelling

Progressive advance of tunnel face


Varying support pressure on tunnel face &
along/around shield (average ~2.6 bar)
Building load, piles & cap modelled
Bldg. stiffness considered Parallel Axis
Theorem or sum of EI for individual storeys
Circular piles idealised as square piles
166
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

83
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Validation6 InputParameters

SGI

167
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Validation6 Ground&PileDisplacement
Front Rear

168
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

84
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Validation6 ComparisonofSettlement

Building Ground surface

169
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Validation7 InterfaceBehaviour

100kN

170
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

85
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Validation7 InterfaceBehaviour

100kPa

171
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Validation7 StraightInterfaceInputShearStrength

172
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

86
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Validation7 CurvedInterfaceInputShearStrength

173
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Validation7 Comparison

Straight interface
50kPa x 1m2 = 50 kN
Input shear strength 50 kN

Curved interface
160kPa x 2.9688m2 = 475 kN Input shear strength 474 kN

174
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

87
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

TUNNELSANDTUNNELLING

SECTION4.2:APPLICATION1

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Scenario1:

Impactoftunnelling
onexistingpiles

88
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Scenario2:

Impactofpiling
loadingonexisting
tunnels

(1)Aproposeddevelopmentwaslocatedadjacenttothefuture
developmentMRTtwintunnels;
(2)ThepilingsystemwithinMRTProtectionZoneadoptsboredpiles
soastominimizethedynamicimpactduringconstruction.
RCpilesoutsideMRT
ProtectionZone

Boredpiles
withinMRT
ProtectionZone

MRTProtection
Zone

Future MRTtwin
tunnels

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

89
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

HOWtosimulatetheproblemusingPlaxis3D?

Mostcritical
sectionadoptedfor
thepresent3DFEM
analysis

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Typicalcrosssection
Roadsurface

Boredpiledia.
1000mmwith40m
lengthwith28minto
underlyingOAsoils

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

90
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Boreholesatthislocalareaareadoptedfortheinterpretation
ofsubsurfacesoilprofile

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

GIBR soilparametersareadoptedfortheanalysis.Effectivedrained
parametersareadoptedduetothelongtermnatureoftheproject

Boredpiledia.
1000mmwith40m
lengthtorestonthe
underlyinghardOA
withSPT N>100

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

91
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

IllustrationofeffectivedrainedsoilparametersfollowingGIBR
adoptedin3DFEManalysis

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

IllustrationofeffectivedrainedsoilparametersfollowingGIBR
adoptedin3DFEManalysis

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

92
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Constructingthe3DFEMmesh

3DFEMmeshwithsubsurfacesoilprofiles,pilegroups,tunnels

Pilegroups
25kPasurcharge

Workingload
Topfill
onpilecap

OA(E) F1
OA(D) F2 Upperand
closertunnel
OA(C)

OA(B) Lowerand
farthertunnel
Underlyinghard
OA(N>100)

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

93
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Hidingofsomesoilelementstorevealthetunnelsandpiles

Pilegroups
25kPasurcharge

Workingload
onpilecap

Boredpiles
dia.1mwith
40mlength

tunnels

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Scenario1:

Pilegroupsassumedtobeconstructedfirst;

Effectof2tunnelling(with2%volumelosseach)
ontheadjacentpilegroups

94
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Simulationsequence:

25kPasurcharge Pilegroupswith
loadingsappliedfirst

TunnelsNOT
constructedyet

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Lowertunnelactivatedwith2%volumeloss

Lowertunnel
activatedwith
2%volumeloss
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

95
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Theinvertofthetunnelwasrestrainedfromheavingup,soas
toinducemaximumtunnelshrinkinginwardwithmaximum
impacttosurroundingground

Crosssectionofmodeltunnel 3Dview

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Asurprise:tunnelhasanoverallshrinkingin,therestraintat
theinverthasNOTeffect

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

96
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Asurprise:tunnelhasanoverallshrinkingin,therestraintat
theinverthasNOTeffect

hexagon
hexagon
tunnel
tunnel
composedof30
composedof24
sides,each12
sides,each15
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Arelieftoremovetheunpleasantsurprise

Correctrestraintof
invertoftunnel

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

97
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Followedbytheuppertunnelactivatedwith2%volumeloss

Followedbythe
uppertunnel
activatedwith
2%volumeloss

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Finaltunnelvolumelossshapes(scaledupby25times)

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

98
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Finalgroundmovementcontourplot
Maxgroundmovementaroundtunnelcrown,anddissipatesawayfromthetunnels
Immediatelyabovethetunnel,theinducedgroundsurfacesettlementisabout25mm;
whilethegroundmovementattheadjacentsiteisabout10mm

10mm

25mm

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Theinducedmaxpiledeflectionisonlyabout6mmduetothe
2tunnelling with2%volumelosseach

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

99
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Theinducedmaxpilesettlementislessthan5mm

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

Maxpileaxialforceof5386kNbeforetunnelling;and5766kNafter2
tunnelling,anincrementof380kN,orabout7%incrementonly.

AxialforceBEFORE2tunnelling
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012 AxialforceAFTER2tunnelling

100
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

MaxpileBMtowardstunnels(M22)of90kNmbeforetunnelling;and104kNmafter2
tunnelling,anincrementof14kNmwhichisnegligibleforaboredpileof1mdiameter.

Bendingmomenttowardstunnels Bendingmomenttowardstunnels
M22BEFOREtwotunnelling
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012 M22AFTERtwotunnelling

MaxpileBMparalleltotunnels(M33)of60kNmbeforetunnelling;and63kNmafter2
tunnelling,indicatingnegligibleincrementofBMparalleltothetwotunnelling.

Bendingmomenttowardstunnels Bendingmomenttowardstunnels
M33BEFOREtwotunnelling M33AFTERtwotunnelling
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

101
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Finalpilemaxloading
condition:
FinalMaxworkingaxialforce=
5766kN;
FOS=1.4;
Factoredaxialforce=5766*1.4=
8072kN

MaxworkingBM:
M22=104kNm;M33=63kNm;
SoCompositeBM=122kNm;
FOS=1.4;
FactoredBM=170*1.4=170kNm

Thefinalloadingstateislocated
wellwithintheMNplot
envelope

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

TUNNELSANDTUNNELLING

SECTION4.2:APPLICATION2 Stop

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

102
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

ZonesofInfluence

Zone C Zone B Zone A Zone B Zone C

Pile settlement
C B A

Depth
Selementas et al. (2005)
45 45
For pile toe located in
Zone A: pile head settlement > soil surface settlement; decrease in pile
axial force
Zone B: pile head settlement soil surface settlement
Zone C: pile head settlement < soil surface settlement; increase in pile
axial force

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

ANALYSISOFTUNNELPILEINTERACTION

A. Typicallyusethecombinationof
1.empiricalrelationships/closedformsolutionstoestimate greenfield
groundmovements;and
2.boundaryelementmethodstocomputepiledeformations andstresses
A. Suitableforpreliminaryassessment,withsomelimitations
B. Alternatively,use3Dnumericalanalysis
Pros:modeltunnelling,tunnelpilebuildinginteraction& geotechnical
entitiesinonesingleanalysis
Cons:complicated,relativelylonganalysistime&require advanced
constitutivemodelforsoilnonlinearbehaviour

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

103
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

EXAMPLEOFTUNNELLINGBELOWPILEDBUILDING
25m
25m
0 mbgl P4 P5 Rear P6
2m Pile cap
5 mbgl Fill 9m 10m
1m
4m
MD
10 mbgl P1 P2 Front P3
CDG 10m 6m tunnel
1m
4m

20 mbgl Tunnel advance direction

Tunnel 2m pile
6m Pile design load 15MN (~5MPa)
30 mbgl
31.5 mbgl Rock 3m bell-out
P1/P4 P2/P5 P3/P6

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

INFORMATIONFORTUNNEL,PILES&GROUND

A. 6mdiametertunnelexcavatedbyTBM,tunnelaxisdepthat20mbglin
CompletelyDecomposedGranite
B. 15storeybuildingsupportedby6nosof2mdiameterboredpileswith3m
diameterbelloutsinrockat32mbgl
C. Eachpiletakes15MNdesignload(~5MPa).
D. Buildingplansizeis25mby9m,pilecap2mthick
E. Stratigraphyis5mFill,5mMarineDeposits,20mCDGandrock.
Groundwatertableat2mbgl
F. Tunnelconstructedinbetweenpiles,tunneledgetopileedgedistancesare
1m,4mand10m

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

104
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

SOILSMALLSTRAINNONLINEARSTIFFNESS

0.01% 0.1% 1%

Atkinson & Sallfors (1991)

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

CDGSmallStrainNonlinearStiffness
Laboratory small strain stiffness
results for CDG samples Hardening Soil + Small
Strain Overlay (HSsmall)
Ng et al. (1998) constitutive model to consider
CDG small strain non-linear
stiffness

1600

1400 Triaxial_Upper
Adopted line Triaxial_Low er
1200
HSsmall_Upper
1000
HSsmall_Low er
Gsec /p'

800 HSsmall_Baseline
600
400

200
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain (%)

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

105
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

3DFiniteElementModel(PlaxisGiD)
Rear Load 15 MN

Building Plate
40m Pile cap
Bored pile
Front
Fill Tunnel face
Tunnel MD 149m
CDG
120m Rock TBM
length
Bell-out
43,000 elements Linings

Refined mesh around


tunnel & building piles
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

TUNNELCONFINEMENT(FACESUPPORT)PRESSURE
A
PIV PIII Confinement (face support)
Rear
PI
Front pressure (PI to PII) = hydrostatic
pore pressure + overpressure
6m TBM shield 9m
Higher confinement pressure,
PII lower ground loss
PVI Along TBM shield, tunnel support
PV pressures vary to consider
A 1. conical shape of TBM shield /
PIII over-cutting
2. ground loss into tail void in rear
Any combination of support
pressure profiles can be modelled

Pressure
PV increases
Section A-A with depth
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

106
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

MODELLINGOFTUNNELFACEADVANCE

Soil elements inside TBM


Lining
Lining

TBM shield
(elements nulled) shield are deactivated
Apply tunnel support pressure
1.5 1.5m
profiles
Shield is not modelled
For each face advance, shift
Lining
Lining

TBM shield
(elements nulled) tunnel support pressures
forward & correspondingly erect
new lining behind TBM
1.5 1.5m
The process is repeated as
tunnelling progresses
Lining
Lining

TBM shield
(elements nulled)

1.5 1.5m

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

MODELLINGOFSTRUCTURES

Piles & pile cap modelled by solid elements


Interface elements along pile shafts & on pile cap
vertical faces
Consider flexural stiffness (EI) & axial stiffness (EA)
of superstructure by incorporating a Plate structural
elements on top of pile cap
Superstructure EI estimated by (Potts & Addenbrooke, 1997)
1. Parallel Axis Theorem (bending about building neutral
axis); or
2. Summation of EI for individual building storeys
Tunnel linings modelled by Plate elements

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

107
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

PREDICTIONONGROUNDSURFACESETTLEMENT

Overpressure 20 kPa, G/F VL 1.6% Overpressure 20 kPa


Distance from tunnel centreline (m)
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Fill VL 0.31%
0
MD -4

Settlement (mm)
-8 VL 1.61%
-12
Mid-building
CDG
-16
Greenfield
Tunnel -20
Gaussian
-24

Lateral spreading of Gaussian curve with K = 0.45


displacements in MD layer Close to K 0.5 from HK
Settlement trough becomes tunnelling experience
wider

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

PredictiononPileTransverse
Displacement
Overpressure 20 kPa
Transverse horizontal disp. (mm) +10D
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
0
-2D
Front 5

Rear +2D
10
+2D
Depth (mbgl)

+10D 15
Rear
20 1m P2
Front
25

30 -2D

35
Tunnel advance

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

108
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

PredictiononPileLongitudinal
Displacement
Overpressure 20 kPa
Longitudinal horizontal disp. (mm) +10D
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2
0

10 +2D

Depth (mbgl)
15 Rear

-2D 20 1m P2
Tunnel advance
Front Front
25
Rear
30 -2D
+2D

+10D 35
Tunnel advance

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

PredictiononPileSettlement&Axial
Force
Overpressure 20 kPa
Settlement (mm) Increase in axial force (MN)
0 -1 -2 0 1 2 3 4
0 0
P2 -2D P2 -2D
5 Front 5 Front
Rear Rear
10 +2D 10 +2D
+10D
Depth (mbgl)
Depth (mbgl)

+10D
15 7
15

20 20

25 25

A B
30 30

C
35 35

Pile toe
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

109
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

PredictiononPileBendingMoment
Overpressure 20 kPa
Transverse moment (kNm) Longitudinal moment (kNm)
1500 500 -500 -1500 1500 500 -500 -1500
0 0
P2 P2
5 5

10 -2D 10 -2D
Depth (mbgl)

Depth (mbgl)
Front Front
15 15
Rear Rear
+2D +2D
20 20
+10D Tunnel advance
+10D
25 25

30 30

35 35

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

CheckonPotentialStructureDamage

45 OP 10kPa Distance from tunnel centre (m) OP 10kPa


P2 OP 20kPa -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Cat. 4 & 5 OP 20kPa
35 0.0 0.3
OP 30kPa
OP 30kPa
Axial Force, N (MN)_

OP 40kPa
25 OP 40kPa
_
Bldg. settlement (mm)

-0.4 0.2
/L (%)

15

5 -0.8 Cat. 3
0.1
-5 =0.14 mm 2
-1.2 1
-15
0
0.0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Moment, M (MNm) -1.6 h (%)

Pile N-M Interaction Diagram Building deflection Burlands chart

110
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

ComparisonwithClosedFormSolution
Greenfield subsurface settle. (mm) Greenfield subsurface horiz. disp. (mm)
-35 -25 -15 -5 5 15 -15 -10 -5 0
0
0 0
Fill Fill
5 5
MD MD
10 10

Depth (mbgl)

Depth (mbgl)
15 CDG 15
CDG
20 20

25 25

Loganathan Loganathan
et al. (2001) 30 et al. (2001) 30
Rock
3D analysis Rock 3D analysis
35 35

Greenfield subsurface section corresponds to P2 location


3D analysis: Overpressure 20 kPa, G/F VL 1.61%

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

3DFEAvs.AnalyticalSolution
Issues 3D FEA Analytical Solution

Ease of use Complicated Relatively easy


Long analysis time Less analysis time
Ground Layered soil Homogeneous soil
conditions Need realistic Estimated greenfield
constitutive model deformation less good
for layered soil
Tunnelling Model face advance Only pile response in
progress Pile response in transverse direction
transverse &
longitudinal directions

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

111
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

3DFEAvs.AnalyticalSolution
Issues 3D FEA Analytical Solution

Ground loss, Model confinement Assume a certain VL


VL pressure & predict VL
Effect on Model tunnel, piles, Different boundary
piles/building building & their element programs for
interaction in one pile axial and lateral
single analysis responses
Results from piles & Specific analysis for
building used directly pile group effect
in structural check Dedicated modification
factors account for
building rigidity

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

REFERENCES(1)
1. Atkinson, J. H. & Sallfors G. (1991). Experimental determination of soil properties. Proc. 10th
ECSMFE, Florence, Vol.3, 915-956
2. Burland, J. B. (1995). Assessment of risk of damage to buildings due to tunnelling and excavation. 1st
Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotech. Engrg., IS Tokyo.
3. Geotechnical Control Office (GCO) (1985). Technical Note T4/85 - MTR Island Line: Effects of
Construction on Adjacent Property. Civil Engrg. Services Dept., Hong Kong.
4. Hake, D. R. & Chau, I. P. W. (2008). Twin stacked tunnels - KDB200, Kowloon Southern Link, Hong
Kong. Proc. 13rd Australian Tunnelling Conference, 445-452.
5. Loganathan, N., Poulos, H. G. & Xu, K. J. (2001). Ground and pile-group responses due to tunnelling.
Soils and Foundations, 41(1), 57-67.
6. Moller, S. (2006). Tunnel induced settlements and structural forces in linings. PhD thesis, University
of Stuttgart.
7. Moller, S. & Vermeer, P. A. (2008). On numerical simulation of tunnel installation. Tunnelling &
Underground Space Technology, 23, 461-475.
8. Ng, C. W. W., Sun, Y. F. & Lee, K. M. (1998). Laboratory measurements of small strain stiffness of
granitic saprolites. Geotechnical Engineering, SEAGS, 29(2), 233-248.

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

112
PLAXISJAKARTA2012

REFERENCES(2)
1. Pang, C. H. (2006). The effects of tunnel construction on nearby pile foundation. PhD thesis,
National University of Singapore.
2. Potts, D. M. & Addenbrooke, T. I. (1997). A structures influence on tunnelling-induced ground
movements. Geotechnical Engineering, Proc. ICE, 125, 109-125.
3. Schnaid, F., Ortigao, J. A. R., Mantaras, F. M., Cunha, R. P. & MacGregor, I. (2000). Analysis of self-
boring pressuremeter (SBPM) and Marchetti dilatometer (DMT) in granite saprolites. Canadian
Geotechnical J., 37, 796-810.
4. Selementas, D. (2005). The response of full-scale piles and piled structures to tunnelling. PhD thesis,
University of Cambridge.
5. Storry, R. B. & Stenning, A. S. (2001). Geotechnical design & contraction aspects of the Tsing Tsuen
Tunnels KCRC West Rail Phase; Contract DB320. Proc. 14th SEAGC, Hong Kong, 443-448.
6. Storry, R. B., Stenning, A. S. & MacDonald, A. N. (2003). Geotechnical design and construction
aspects of the Tsing Tsuen Tunnels contract DB320 KCRC West Rail Project. Proc. ITA World
Tunnelling Congress, (Re)claiming the Underground Space, Saveur (ed.), 621-626.
7. Vermeer, P. A. & Brinkgreve, R. (1993). Plaxis Version 5 Manual. Rotterdam, a.a. Balkema edition.

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012

113