Seminar-Advanced Geotechnical Finite Element Modeling in Analysis Using PLAXIS PDF

PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
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. Section 1: Geotechnical Analysis using PLAXIS Programs
B. Section 2: Modelling of Deep Excavations
C. Section 3: Modelling of Piled Foundations
D. Section 4: Modelling of Tunnel‐Soil‐Structure Interaction Problems
E. Conclusions
F. References
Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012
1
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS USING PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODES
SECTION 1.0
SECTION 1
A. Versions
1. Pre 2010 (Version 7.x, 8.x and 9.x)
2. Post 2010 (Version 2010, 2011, 2012…)
B. New Developments (2011…2012)
1. On‐going software developments
2. Research projects
3. Conclusions
2
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Plaxis 2D: Features
The PLAXIS 2D (Currently at v2010 moving to v2011)
•Program including the PLAXIS Dynamics and PLAXIS PlaxFlow modules
• A finite element package intended for the two dimensional analysis of deformation
and stability in geotechnical engineering
The PLAXIS Dynamics Module
•An extension to PLAXIS 2D
•The Dynamics module offers the tools to analyse the propagation of waves through the soil and their influence
on structures.
•This allows for the analysis of seismic loading as well as vibrations due to construction activities.
•PLAXIS Dynamics offers the possibility to perform dynamic calculations in individual calculation phases.
PlaxFlow
• An add on module to the PLAXIS 2D program.
• Simulation of the non‐linear, time dependent and anisotropic behaviour of soils
and/or rock in saturated and partially saturated situations.
Plaxis VIP These special extensions are:
• CAD Interfaces
• New Material Models
• User Defined Soil Models
• Multiphase Calculations
• Sensitivity Analysis
Plaxis 2D v2011
Plaxis 2D Workflow can be found at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMy895GCsBQ&list=PLF7F3CDD69090AF3A&index=1&feature=plpp_video
3
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Plaxis 3D, 3DF & 3DT
1. PLAXIS 3D is a finite element package intended for three‐
dimensional analysis of deformation and stability in geotechnical
engineering. It is equipped with features to deal with various
aspects of complex geotechnical structures and construction
processes
1. 3DFoundation is a finite element package intended for the three‐
dimensional deformation analysis of foundation structures
2. 3DTunnel is a geotechnical finite element package which is
specifically intended for the three‐dimensional analysis of
deformation and stability in tunnel projects.
Plaxis 3D v2011
4
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
PLAXIS 3D INPUT
General toolbar
Mode switches
Selection explorer
Drawing area
Model explorer
Mode toolbar
Command line
Plaxis 3D Input : Modes
Definition of soil stratigraphy Definition of structural elements,
loads
and boundary conditions
SOIL STRUCTURES
Creation of the FE mesh Definition of pressure Definition of construction stages

distribution
MESH WATER LEVELS STAGED CONSTRUCTION
Let me demonstrate!
5
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
SECTION 1.1: FEM MODELS
Tunnel‐Pile‐Soil Interaction 1
Bldg. load
“Plate” modelling
Building superstructure EI & EA
40m
Fill
1m 48 Franki piles
CDG (Embedded Piles)
Tunnel
Tunnel 120m advance
140m
6m Ø tunnel
• Analysis by Plaxis 3D ( 70,000 Tets)
6
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Tunnel‐Pile‐Soil Interaction 1
Iso-surface of soil total displacements Pile group deformations
Isometric view Front view
Tunnel Tunnel
advance advance
Animation
Piled Foundations 1
7
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Piled Foundations 2
Piled Foundations 2
Piled Raft Foundation for a storage platform and Stacker Reclaimer Runways
8
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Piled Foundations 3
Deep Excavation
Video
9
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Dam:CFRD Malaysia
10
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Model: CFRW‐CH300‐2D (South Sumatra 2007‐09‐12)
11
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Model: Domain Mesh
Stability Analysis: MUDMAT
12
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Filling of Spudcan Footprints:
13
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
SECTION 1.2: NEW DEVELOPMENTS
LATEST PRODUCT RELEASES

PLAXIS 2D 2011 (December 2011)
1. Design approaches
2. Anisotropic plates and geogrids
3. Direct input of bending moments
4. Sekiguchi‐Ohta model
14
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
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)
Orthotropic Plates and Geogrids
– Independent definition of stiffness and strength properties with

respect to element local axis
2
1
15
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
DIRECT INPUT OF BENDING MOMENTS
LATEST PRODUCT RELEASES
PLAXIS 3D 2011
1. Shape designer
2. Steady state groundwater flow analysis
3. Section contraction (tunnels and shafts)
4. Anisotropic geotextiles
5. Parallel computing
6. Output visualization during calculation
16
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Shape Designer
– Definition of polycurve (series of curved sections) which can then be
extruded
Steady State Groundwater Flow

Analysis
– Pore pressure distribution in a dam during full pool conservation
17
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
SECTION CONTRACTION
– To model volume loss during
construction of tunnels or
shafts
– Applicable to plates only
– Contraction definition:
section section
Ainitial - Afinal Contraction
c[ % ] = section
Ainitial
PARALLEL COMPUTING
– Reduce computation time by
using domain decomposition
– Two new solvers available
– PICOS solver (multicore
iterative)
– PARDISO solver (multicore
direct)
18
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
PARALLEL COMPUTING EXAMPLE
• Multi‐layer ground with tunnel :
– 100 000 elements
– 148 000 nodes
– 414 000 d.o.f’s
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
OUTPUT VISUALIZATION DURING CALCULATION
Will open the Output program
when the calculation is still
running
19
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
ON-GOING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENTS
– New modelling workflow PLAXIS 2D
– Soil Constitutive Models
– Model parameters definition from laboratory test results by inverse
analysis in Soil Lab test
– Free‐field boundary elements
– Reinforcement element for pile modelling in PLAXIS 2D
– Structural forces in solid element in PLAXIS 2D
– Thermo‐hydro‐mechanical coupling
– New PLAXIS 3D add‐on modules: Dynamics and Transient GWF
NEW MODELLING WORKFLOW PLAXIS 2D
20
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
SOIL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
User‐defined soil models: 15
10
5
1. Anisotropic S‐Clay1(S) model
xy[kPa]
0
0 50 100 150 200
-5
2. Anisotropic Creep Model -10
-15
p'[kPa]
3. Barcelona Basic model (unsaturated soil)
4. Hypoplastic model with intergranular strain
5. UBCSAND model (liquefaction)
PARAMETER OPTIMIZATION BY INVERSE ANALYSIS
1. Based on Soil Test facility
2. Import of real lab test data (triaxial, oedometer)
3. Optimisation of selected model parameters based on particle swarm
algorithm
4. Different curves can be considered simultaneously
 Best match between curves from real tests and model simulation
21
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
PARAMETER OPTIMIZATION BY INVERSE

ANALYSIS - EXAMPLE
Experimental parameters: Hardening Soil model fit
 = 24º 180
c = 5.5 kN/m2 160
Eoed= 9700 kN/m2 140
E50 = 9700 kN/m2
|Sigma1 - Sigma 3|
120
100
80
Calculated HS parameters:
60
 = 24.30º 40
c = 4.68 kN/m2 20
Experimental
Eoed= 9627 kN/m2 0
Calculated
E50 = 9509 kN/m2 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

Strain 1
FREE FIELD BOUNDARY ELEMENTS
– Free field condition definition
– 1D soil column
– Tied horizontal displacement on left and  
right boundaries (Ux2=Ux1)
22
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
FREE FIELD BOUNDARY ELEMENTS
– Practical application of free field elements in PLAXIS
Structure Structure
Free field condition
Free field condition
Viscous boundary
Viscous boundary
Viscous boundary
Viscous boundary
Soil Soil
Dynamic input (acc or vel) Dynamic input (acc or vel)
Free Field
elements
REINFORCEMENT ELEMENT IN PLAXIS 2D
– Offer pile modelling capabilities in 2D
• Development of line interface elements inserted between soil and the
pile (Same modelling strategy as 3D embedded pile)
• The beam representing the pile slides over the 2D geometry and not
through the 2D geometry
2D model 3D Equivalent representation
23
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
REINFORCEMENT ELEMENT IN PLAXIS 2D
– Different than combining plate with surrounding interfaces
• Soil cannot flow freely (as it should in between the piles)
• Interfaces introduce unrealistic failure surfaces
2D model
3D Equivalent representation
Structural Forces in Solid Element

in 2D
– Beam modelled as solid elements under pure flexion
– View of integrated stresses along drawn neutral axis
24
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
THERMAL FLOW, THERMAL EXPANSION, THM COUPLING

1. Taking temperature effects into account:
A. Expansion
B. Soil freezing
C. Phase transition (ice, water, vapour)
D. Change of properties
2. Geo‐energy applications
A. Heat / cold storage
B. Geothermal energy
Research Projects
Participation in Research projects:
– Piles (inst. effects, embedded piles) i.c.w. TUD, TUGraz
– Liquefaction of underwater slopes i.c.w. TUD
– Geo‐Install (soil modelling, MPM) EU project (# partners)
– Notes (dynamics) EU project i.c.w. TCD
– Cyclic liquefaction, geotech EQ.eng. i.c.w. UC Berkeley, UIUC
– Stochastic FEA i.c.w. TUD
25
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
MODELLING OF DEEP EXCAVATIONS
SECTION 2.0
GEOMETRY‐ MODEL DISCRETIZATION
3-D MODEL
2-D Plane Strain
26
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
GEOMETRY‐ MODEL DISCRETIZATION
Axi-symmentry
27
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
3‐D MODELS
Piled building
Tower crane
Strut layout
Piled building
28
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
3‐D MODEL OF AN EXCAVATION
Top of PW (70/90)
N
Top of Grade III or Better
Complex Soil-Structure Interaction

Plaxis Seminar,Problem
Jakarta 2012
CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
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
29
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
SURFACE HEAVE IN INITIAL EXC./CANTILEVER WALL
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
SOIL INPUT PARAMETERS FOR 3 ANALYSES
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 2×10-5
• 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)
30
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
PREDICTED SURFACE SETTLEMENT BEHIND WALL
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
PREDICTED HEAVE AT EXC. LEVEL IN COFFERDAM

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
31
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
PREDICTED WALL RESULTANT DISPLACEMENT
MC
Ux=6mm HS HSsmall
Ux=11mm Ux=10mm Ux: wall horizontal
displacement
PREDICTED STABILITY OF WALL
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=3.92×106kN/m
2.5 Mp=369 kNm/m; Np=3575 kN/m
2 HSsmall
1.5
32
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
SUMMARY OF PREDICTIONS
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°
VARIATION OF SOIL STIFFNESS IN EXCAVATION
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
33
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
SOIL STRESS PATHS NEAR EXCAVATION
GCO No.1/90
• A: unloading compression; B: unloading extension

• Rotation of stress paths at A & B
SOIL STRESS PATHS NEAR EXCAVATION
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
34
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
STRESS PATH DEPENDENT SOIL STIFFNESS
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
STRESS PATH DEPENDENT CDG 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
35
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
WHY MC PREDICTS INCORRECT SURFACE HEAVE?
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
INFLUENCE OF SMALL STRAINS AT FAR FIELD AREAS
36
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
SECTION 2.1:EXAMPLES
37
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
38
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
39
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
40
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
41
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
SECTION 2.2: VALIDATIONS
42
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Plaxis vs. 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 3D Foundation SAP2000
Element size ~1m

Element size ~1.3m
43
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Plaxis 3D Foundation
SAP2000
87
Validation 3 – Deformed Mesh
Plaxis 3D Foundation SAP2000
44
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Validation 3 – DWall Deflection
Validation 3 – Strut Axial Force
90
45
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Validation 3 – DWall Bending Moment
91
MODELLING OF PILED FOUNDATIONS
SECTION 3
46
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
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
Volume piles
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)
47
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Volume piles
Volume piles:
• Import
cylinder
Volume piles
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
48
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Volume piles
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)
Embedded piles – 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
49
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Embedded piles – kt
Model t
kn Skin stiffness:
ks tmax
ks : axial stiffness
pile
kt Kn ,kt : lateral stiffness k
1
kn Skin tractions: urel
ks
ts = qs/length = ks (uspile‐ussoil) ≤ tmax
t skin kt tn = qn/length = kn (unpile‐unsoil)
tt = qt/length = kt (utpile‐utsoil)
Ffoot
kn
soil ks
Base stiffness:
s kb : base/foot stiffness
t Base/Foot force:
Fb = kb (ubpile ‐ ubsoil) ≤ Fmax
kb
n
Embedded piles – 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
50
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Embedded piles – Properties
Properties (in explorer):
Connection:
• Rigid
(only at beams / plates)
• Hinged
• Free
51
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Embedded piles – 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)
Embedded piles
Bearing Capacity=
½ (Ttop+Tbot)×Lpile + Fmax
Ttop
Lpile
Tbot
Fmax
52
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Embedded piles – Deformation
behaviour
• Pile bearing capacity is input and not result of FEM calculation

F t
tmax
Specified bearing capacity k
1
urel
Global pile response F
from soil modelling
and pile‐soil interaction Fmax
k
1
u urel
Embedded piles – Without elastic
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

53
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Embedded piles –
Elastic Region
.
• Around shaft
• Around foot
Soil stress points inside elastic region are forced to remain elastic
Embedded piles – Output
Displacements, bending moments, axial forces, shaft friction, foot force
u N Ts
C B
A
54
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
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 Universität Graz.
7. Tschuchnigg F. (2009). Embedded piles – 2. Report. Improvements. Technische Universität Graz.
8. Dao T.P.T. (2011). Validation of PLAXIS embedded piles for lateral loading. MSc thesis Geo-engineering. Delft University of Technology.
Verification & validation – Axial
loading (Plaxis)
Single Layer : ߛ = 0 , Cohesive Soil (Case 1): c = 50 kPa ߶ = 0
55
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Verification & validation – Axial
loading (Plaxis)
Single Layer : ߛ = 0 , Cohesive Soil (Case 1): c = 50 kPa ߶ = 0
Verification & validation – Axial loading
(METU)
Pile load test Alzey Bridge near Frankfurt (Bored Pile)
Hardening Soil model El-Mossallamy, Y (1999)

Pre Overburden Pressure = 50 kPa
56
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
(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
Settlement (mm)
Verification & validation – Pile groups
(TUDelft)
Pile group example by Poulos:
57
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
(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 elementPlaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012
method of Sinha(1996).
(TUDelft)
Average Settlement (mm) Moment (MNm/m)
50,0 1,2
45,0
1,0
40,0
35,0 0,8
30,0
25,0 0,6
FE Ta & Small
FE Ta & Small
Poulos & Davis
20,0
FE + BE Sinha
FE + BE Sinha
Plate (GASP)
Plate (GASP)
Plaxis 3D Fnd
Plaxis 3D Fnd
Strip (GASP)
Strip (GASP)
0,4
15,0
Randolph
10,0 0,2
5,0
0,0 0,0
Differential Settlement (mm) % Load on Piles
10,0
100,0
9,0
90,0
8,0
80,0
7,0 70,0
6,0 60,0
FE + BE Sinha
Plate (GASP)
FE Ta & Small
Plaxis 3D Fnd
Randolph
Strip (GASP)
5,0 50,0
FE Ta & Small
4,0 40,0
FE + BE Sinha
Plate (GASP)
Plaxis 3D Fnd
Strip (GASP)
3,0 30,0
2,0 20,0
10,0
1,0
0,0
0,0
58
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
(TUGraz)
Verification & validation
3D model - volume piles: 70 mm
2D model: 72 mm 3D model - embedded piles: 74 mm
59
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
(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
Verification & validation – Lateral loading
(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)
60
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
(TUDelft)
Lateral movement of pile in horizontal soil slice:
> Embedded pile almost behaves as volume pile due to elastic region
(TUDelft)
Lateral loading by soil movement due to embankment construction
> Bending moments in reasonable agreement with measurements
61
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
(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%)
Further research
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’
62
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
CONCLUSIONS
A. Volume pile
1. Pile composed of volume elements or wall elements with pile prop’s
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
TUNNELS AND TUNNELLING
SECTION 4.0
63
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
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
Modelling of Tunnelling in Plaxis 3D
• 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
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Geometric modelling issues
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
Circular tunnel shapes (TBM tunnels) – Example
65
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Cross passages and entrance shafts – Example
Hint: Draw cross section surface and use Extrude command to create shafts
PLAXIS 3D will automatically create intersections
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
66
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Non-circular tunnel shapes – Example
67
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
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
Construction stages
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
68
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Construction stages
Creating geometry for construction stages – Example (exploded view)
Modelling volume loss
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
69
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Contraction
Modelling volume loss
Alternatively, volume loss can be modelled by:
• Applying Volumetric strain to volume (Staged construction mode)

- Distinction can be made between xx, yy, zz
70
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
SECTION 4.1: VALIDATIONS
Validation 1 – Plaxis 3D Tunnel vs. Plaxis 2D
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
71
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Validation 1 – Input Parameters
Validation 1 – Ground Surface Settlement
72
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Validation 1 – Lining Hoop Force & Bending Moment
Plaxis 2D Plaxis 3D Tunnel
Hoop force
Bending moment
145
Validation 2 – Plaxis 3D Tunnel vs. Centrifuge Test in Sand
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
73
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
quoted by Atkinson & Potts (1977)
147
Validation 2 – Collapse Mechanism
148
74
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Validation 2 – Comparison
Atkinson & Potts (1977)
Validation 3 – Plaxis 3D Tunnel vs. Centrifuge Test in Clay
• 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.
75
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Validation 3 – Plaxis 3D Tunnel Model & Stability Ratio N
Stability Ratio, N
Prototype scale
151
152
76
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Validation 3 – Collapse Mechanism
P/D=0
P/D=2
154
77
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Validation 4 – Plaxis 3D Tunnel vs. 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
Validation 4 – Theoretical Solution Cylinder Under External Radial Pressure
Watkins, R. K. & Anderson, L. R. (2000). Structural mechanics of buried pipes.

CRC Press.
Young, W. C. & Budynas, R. G. (2002). Roark’s formulas for stress and strain.
156
McGraw-Hill, 7th edition. Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012
78
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
157
Validation 5 – Plaxis 3D Tunnel vs. Closed Form Solution + Boundary Element Method
• 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
79
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Validation 5 – Plaxis 3D Tunnel Model
Deformed mesh
Exaggeration scale 150
159
Pile Settlement Horizontal disp. Axial force Bending moment
160
80
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Validation 6 – Tunnelling below Hua Tai Building, Sheung Wan
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 Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012 161
Tunnelling Beneath/Near Building Piles
• 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
81
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Removal of Existing Tunnel Linings
• 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
5. soils vary in z direction
Validation 6 – Tunnelling below Hua Tai Building, Sheung Wan
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
82
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Validation 6 – Plaxis 3D Tunnel Model
40,388 15-noded wedge elements
165
Validation 6 – Modelling of Tunnelling
• 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
83
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
SGI
167
Validation 6 – Ground & Pile Displacement
Front Rear
168
84
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Validation 6 – Comparison of Settlement
Building Ground surface
169
Validation 7 – Interface Behaviour
100kN
170
85
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Validation 7 – Interface Behaviour
100kPa
171
Validation 7 – Straight Interface Input Shear Strength
172
86
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Validation 7 – Curved Interface Input Shear Strength
173
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
87
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
SECTION 4.2: APPLICATION 1
Scenario 1:
Impact of tunnelling
on existing piles
88
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Scenario 2:
Impact of piling
loading on existing
tunnels
(1) A proposed development was located adjacent to the future
development MRT twin tunnels;
(2) The piling system within MRT Protection Zone adopts bored piles
so as to minimize the dynamic impact during construction.
RC piles outside MRT
Protection Zone
Bored piles
within MRT
Protection Zone
MRT Protection
Zone
Future MRT twin
tunnels
89
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
HOW to simulate the problem using Plaxis 3D?
Most critical
section adopted for
the present 3D FEM
analysis
Typical cross section
Road surface
Bored pile dia.
1000mm with 40m
length with 28m into
underlying OA soils
90
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Boreholes at this local area are adopted for the interpretation
of subsurface soil profile
GIBR soil parameters are adopted for the analysis. Effective drained
parameters are adopted due to the long‐term nature of the project
Bored pile dia.
1000mm with 40m
length to rest on the
underlying hard OA
with SPT N>100
91
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Illustration of effective drained soil parameters following GIBR
adopted in 3D FEM analysis
Illustration of effective drained soil parameters following GIBR
adopted in 3D FEM analysis
92
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Constructing the 3D FEM mesh…
3D FEM mesh with subsurface soil profiles, pile groups, tunnels
Pile groups
25kPa surcharge
Working load
Top fill
on pile cap
OA (E) F1
OA (D) F2 Upper and
closer tunnel
OA (C)
OA (B) Lower and
farther tunnel
Underlying hard
OA (N>100)
93
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Hiding of some soil elements to reveal the tunnels and piles
Pile groups
25kPa surcharge
Working load
on pile cap
Bored piles
dia. 1m with
40m length
tunnels
Scenario 1:
Pile groups assumed to be constructed first;
Effect of 2 tunnelling (with 2% volume loss each)
on the adjacent pile groups
94
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Simulation sequence:
25kPa surcharge Pile groups with
loadings applied first
Tunnels NOT
constructed yet
Lower tunnel activated with 2% volume loss
Lower tunnel
activated with
2% volume loss
95
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
The invert of the tunnel was restrained from heaving up, so as
to induce maximum tunnel shrinking inward with maximum
impact to surrounding ground
Cross‐section of model tunnel 3D view
A surprise: tunnel has an overall shrinking in, the restraint at
the invert has NOT effect…
96
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
A surprise: tunnel has an overall shrinking in, the restraint at
the invert has NOT effect…
“hexagon”
“hexagon”
tunnel
tunnel
composed of 30
composed of 24
sides, each 12
sides, each 15
A relief to remove the unpleasant surprise
Correct restraint of
invert of tunnel
97
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Followed by the upper tunnel activated with 2% volume loss
Followed by the
upper tunnel
activated with
2% volume loss
Final tunnel volume loss shapes (scaled up by 25 times)
98
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Final ground movement contour plot
Max ground movement around tunnel crown, and dissipates away from the tunnels
Immediately above the tunnel, the induced ground surface settlement is about 25mm;
while the ground movement at the adjacent site is about 10mm
10mm
25mm
The induced max pile deflection is only about 6mm due to the
2 tunnelling with 2% volume loss each
99
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
The induced max pile settlement is less than 5mm
Max pile axial force of 5386kN before tunnelling; and 5766kN after 2
tunnelling, an increment of 380kN, or about 7% increment only.
Axial force BEFORE 2 tunnelling
Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012 Axial force AFTER 2 tunnelling
100
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Max pile BM towards tunnels (M2‐2) of 90kNm before tunnelling; and 104kNm after 2
tunnelling, an increment of 14kNm which is negligible for a bored pile of 1m diameter.
Bending moment towards tunnels Bending moment towards tunnels
M2‐2 BEFORE two tunnelling
Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012 M2‐2 AFTER two tunnelling
Max pile BM parallel to tunnels (M3‐3) of 60kNm before tunnelling; and 63kNm after 2
tunnelling, indicating negligible increment of BM parallel to the two tunnelling.
Bending moment towards tunnels Bending moment towards tunnels
M3‐3 BEFORE two tunnelling M3‐3 AFTER two tunnelling
101
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Final pile max loading
condition:
Final Max working axial force =
5766kN;
FOS=1.4;
Factored axial force =5766*1.4 =
8072kN
Max working BM:
M2‐2 = 104kNm; M3‐3 = 63kNm;
So Composite BM = 122kNm;
FOS=1.4;
Factored BM = 170*1.4 = 170kNm
The final loading state is located
well within the M‐N plot
envelope
SECTION 4.2: APPLICATION 2 Stop
102
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Zones of Influence
Zone C Zone B Zone A Zone B Zone C
Pile settlement
C B A
Depth
Selementas et al. (2005)
45º 45º
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
ANALYSIS OF TUNNEL‐PILE INTERACTION
A. Typically use the combination of
1. empirical relationships/closed‐form solutions to estimate greenfield
ground movements; and
2. boundary element methods to compute pile deformations and stresses
A. Suitable for preliminary assessment, with some limitations
B. Alternatively, use 3D numerical analysis
Pros: model tunnelling, tunnel‐pile‐building interaction & geotechnical
entities in one single analysis
Cons: complicated, relatively long analysis time & require advanced
constitutive model for soil non‐linear behaviour
103
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
EXAMPLE OF TUNNELLING BELOW PILED BUILDING
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 Ø tunnel
1m
4m
20 mbgl Tunnel advance direction
Tunnel 2m Ø pile
6m Ø Pile design load 15MN (~5MPa)
30 mbgl
31.5 mbgl Rock 3m Ø bell-out
P1/P4 P2/P5 P3/P6
INFORMATION FOR TUNNEL, PILES & GROUND
A. 6 m diameter tunnel excavated by TBM, tunnel axis depth at 20 mbgl in
Completely Decomposed Granite
B. 15‐storey building supported by 6 nos of 2 m diameter bored piles with 3 m
diameter bell‐outs in rock at 32 mbgl
C. Each pile takes 15 MN design load (~5 MPa).
D. Building plan size is 25 m by 9 m, pile cap 2 m thick
E. Stratigraphy is 5 m Fill, 5 m Marine Deposits, 20 m CDG and rock.
Groundwater table at 2 mbgl
F. Tunnel constructed in between piles, tunnel edge to pile edge distances are
1 m, 4 m and 10 m
104
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
SOIL SMALL STRAIN NON‐LINEAR STIFFNESS
0.01% 0.1% 1%
Atkinson & Sallfors (1991)
CDG Small Strain Non‐linear Stiffness
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 (%)
105
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
3D Finite Element Model (Plaxis‐GiD)
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
TUNNEL CONFINEMENT (FACE SUPPORT) PRESSURE
A
PIV PIII • Confinement (face support)
Rear
PI
Front pressure (PI to PII) = hydrostatic
pore pressure + overpressure
6m Ø 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
106
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
MODELLING OF TUNNEL FACE ADVANCE
• 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
MODELLING OF STRUCTURES
• 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
107
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
PREDICTION ON GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT
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
Prediction on Pile Transverse
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
108
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Prediction on Pile Longitudinal
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
Prediction on Pile Settlement & 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
109
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Prediction on Pile Bending Moment
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
Check on Potential Structure Damage
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 Burland’s chart
110
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
Comparison with Closed Form Solution
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%
3D FEA vs. Analytical Solution
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
111
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
3D FEA vs. Analytical Solution
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
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.
112
PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012
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 structure’s 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.
113

Seminar-Advanced Geotechnical Finite Element Modeling in Analysis Using PLAXIS PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seminar-Advanced Geotechnical Finite Element Modeling in Analysis Using PLAXIS PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLAXIS JAKARTA 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Binus University, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Creation of the FE mesh Definition of pressure Definition of construction stages

MESH WATER LEVELS STAGED CONSTRUCTION

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Iso-surface of soil total displacements Pile group deformations

Isometric view Front view

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

LATEST PRODUCT RELEASES

Design Approach Facility

(according Eurocode 7, LRFD, etc.)

2. More structured and efficient way of modeling

3. Easy exchange of Design Approaches between different projects

default values for different building codes)

Orthotropic Plates and Geogrids

– Independent definition of stiffness and strength properties with

DIRECT INPUT OF BENDING MOMENTS

LATEST PRODUCT RELEASES

Steady State Groundwater Flow

PARALLEL COMPUTING EXAMPLE

Tot Dec Back Iter Cores Speedup

OUTPUT VISUALIZATION DURING CALCULATION

ON-GOING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENTS

NEW MODELLING WORKFLOW PLAXIS 2D

SOIL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS

PARAMETER OPTIMIZATION BY INVERSE ANALYSIS

PARAMETER OPTIMIZATION BY INVERSE

Experimental parameters: Hardening Soil model fit

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

FREE FIELD BOUNDARY ELEMENTS

FREE FIELD BOUNDARY ELEMENTS

REINFORCEMENT ELEMENT IN PLAXIS 2D

REINFORCEMENT ELEMENT IN PLAXIS 2D

Structural Forces in Solid Element

THERMAL FLOW, THERMAL EXPANSION, THM COUPLING

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Complex Soil-Structure Interaction

1. Linear elastic, perfectly plastic

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

Dry sandy material

Parameters for soil stiffness prior to failure

• For derivation of soil stiffness parameters,

• MC predicts unrealistic surface heave 4 mm

PREDICTED HEAVE AT EXC. LEVEL IN COFFERDAM

• MC predicts 20 mm heave at cofferdam centreline

1. MC predicts incorrect surface heave behind wall

• A: unloading compression; B: unloading extension

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

Atkinson et al. (1990) °

Wang & Ng (2005)

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012