GW Byun Comparision Geotech Softwares PDF

Comparison between
Geotechnical Softwares
including ZSoil
2019. 08.30
GwangWook Byun
EG Soft Consulting
Verification Purposes
1. There were many suspicion about numerical analysis
results from commercial geotechnical software in
South Korea.
2. Numerical error should be estimated and considered
in the design and safety analysis.
3. Only solid elements were tested for verification.
이지소프트컨설팅 2019 2
Softwares
1. GEO5 FEM : 2D Finite Element Analysis
2. PLAXIS-2D : 2D FE Analysis
3. PLAXIS-3D : 3D FE Analysis
4. ZSOIL : 2D/3D FE Analysis
5. SoilWorks : 2D FE Analysis
6. Midas GTS NX : 2D/3D FE Analysis
7. Pentagon-2D : 2D FE Analysis
8. GEO5 Slope Stability : Limit Equilibrium Analysis
9. LimitState:GEO : Limit Analysis
이지소프트컨설팅 2019 3
Contents
1. Foundation Settlement
2. Bearing Capacity (Prandtl solution)
3. Vertical Cut Stability
4. Unlined Circular Tunnel
5. In-situ stress and Ko-condition
6. Unconfined Steady-state Flow
EG Soft Consulting 2019 4

• Soil: E=15MPa, ν=0.35, γ=19kN/m3,
c=8kPa, φ=29도, ψ=0도 (dilatancy)
• Loading: 4m-Width Pressure (250kPa)

Horizontal Displacement (mm)
B: GEO5
C:Plaxis
D: Zsoil (Rough*)
D’:Zsoil (Fine*)
H: SoilWorks
H’: Midas GTS
(*) mesh coarseness
Results in highly plastic stress condition under 250kPa pressure

Deviation from average of horizontal displacement (%)
8.0 7.0
Deviation from . Average(%)

6.0
3.8
B: GEO5 4.0
C:Plaxis 2.0
D: Zsoil (Rough*) 0.0
D’:Zsoil (Fine*) -2.0 -0.6 -0.2

H: SoilWorks -4.0
H’: Midas GTS -6.0 -4.4

-5.7
-8.0
(*) mesh coarseness
B C D D' H H'

Vertical Displacement (mm)
B: GEO5
C:Plaxis
D: Zsoil (Rough*)
D’:Zsoil (Fine*)
H: SoilWorks
H’: Midas GTS
(*) mesh coarseness

Deviation from average of vertical displacement (%)
8.0
Deviation from Average(%)

5.7
6.0
B: GEO5 4.0
2.3
C:Plaxis 2.0
0.4
D: Zsoil (Rough*) 0.0
D’:Zsoil (Fine*) -2.0
H: SoilWorks -2.1
-4.0 -2.4
H’: Midas GTS -3.9
-6.0
(*) mesh coarseness B C D D' H H'

Plastic Zone
Midas GTS ZSoil
Plastic strain
Plaxis GEO5
Plastic Zone under 250 kPa
2. Bearing Capacity
• Prandtl solution or failure load (5.14Cu=154.2kPa)
• Soil : E=15MPa, ν=0.35, γ=0kN/m3,
Cu=30kPa, φ=0 deg, ψ=0 deg (dilatancy)
Upper-bound solution (slip line) FEM solution (stress-strain)

2. Bearing Capacity
• Prandtl solution (5.14Cu)
B: GEO5
C: Plaxis
E: Zsoil (Fine*)
F: LimitState:GEO
H: SoilWorks
H’: Midas GTS
(*) mesh coarseness

2. Bearing Capacity
Plastic Zone just before Failure
Midas GTS (Pressure 160kPa) Zsoil (Pressure 155.6kPa)
Plaxis (Pressure 154.7kPa) GEO5 (Pressure 160kPa)

3. Vertical Cut Stability
• Soil: E=30MPa, ν=0.30, γ=16kN/m3,
c=16kPa, φ=30 deg., ψ=0 deg.(dilatancy)
• Excavation Depth: 4m
Upper-bound solution (slip line) FE model (16m width, 8m height)

3 . Vertical Cut Stability
Comparison between FEM(strength reduction), LE and Limit Analysis (upper-bound)
A: GEO5 (N-R)
B: GEO5 (A-L)
C: Plaxis
D: Zsoil (rough*)
E: Zsoil (fine*)
F: Limit Analysis
G: Limit Eqilibrium
H: SoilWorks
H’: Midas GTS
(*) mesh coarseness

N-R: Newton-Rapson
A-L: Arc-Length

Plaxis Total Displacement
Midas Total Displacement
At failure, SF=1.37
At failure, SF=2.05

GEO5 Y-Displacement
Zsoil Total Displacement
At failure, SF=1.5
At failure, SF=1.47

Limit Equilibrium Result from Slope Stability Program

• Soil : E=500MPa, ν=0.3, γ=25kN/m3,
c=50, 100, 200, 300kPa, φ=35 deg,
ψ=0 deg(dilatancy), Ko=1.0, ν/(1-ν)
• Tunnel: 25m depth, dia: 10m
• Loading: Unlined excavation

Roof Settlement for Ko= 1.0
B: GEO5
C: Plaxis
D: Zsoil
H: SoilWorks
H’: Midas GTS

Roof Settlement for Ko= ν/(1-ν)
B: GEO5
C: Plaxis
D: Zsoil
H: SoilWorks
H’: Midas GTS

Roof Settlement for Ko= 1, cohesion 300kPa
9.0 8.6
8.0 7.6 7.5 7.4 7.5
B: GEO5 7.0
C: Plaxis
6.0
D: Zsoil
H: SoilWorks 5.0
H’: Midas GTS 4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
B C D H H'

16.0 15.2
14.0
B: GEO5 12.0
12.0
11.7
11.0
10.6
C: Plaxis
10.0
D: Zsoil
H: SoilWorks 8.0
H’: Midas GTS 6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
B C D H H'

60.0
52.9
50.0
B: GEO5
C: Plaxis 40.0
D: Zsoil 32.0
H: SoilWorks H: skip 30.0

24.0 23.6
H’: Midas GTS
20.0
10.0
0.0
B C D H H'

Roof Settlement for Ko= ν/(1-ν) , cohesion 300kPa
12.0
9.7 9.7 9.6 9.5 9.6

10.0
B: GEO5
C: Plaxis 8.0
D: Zsoil
H: SoilWorks 6.0
H’: Midas GTS
4.0
2.0
0.0
B C D H H'

14.0 13.0
12.7 12.4
12.0 12.2
12.0
B: GEO5
C: Plaxis 10.0
D: Zsoil
H: SoilWorks 8.0
H’: Midas GTS 6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
B C D H H'

90.0
77.4
80.0
B: GEO5 70.0
C: Plaxis 60.0
D: Zsoil 50.0
H: SoilWorks H: skip 40.0
H’: Midas GTS
30.0 23.5
21.0 21.1
20.0
10.0
0.0
B C D H H'

Plastic Zone for cohesion 50kPa, Ko=1.0
Plaxis
GEO5 (plastic strain)

Plastic Zone for cohesion 50kPa, Ko=1.0
Midas GTS ZSoil

Midas problem: Tension failure intended to
occur within plastic zone regardless of
tensile strength.

5. In-situ stress
• Ko-condition is correct? (Sxx = Ko Syy ?)
• Effects of In-situ stress
1. Inclined Topology effect
2. Excavation load Inclined principal stress
3. Stress Path vectors

5. In-situ stress
• Effects of In-situ stress
2. Start point of stress path

initial = 1. excavation force M-C Yield surface
Ko-Line
current(plastic)
current
Tunnel Loading
excavation Tunneling
initial(elastic)


5. In-situ stress
• Ko-condition is correct? (Sxx = Ko Syy ?)
 B: GEO5(VG)
 C: Plaxis
 D: Zsoil
 H’: SoilWorks
(Midas)
Difference due to
Max. values from
Color Shading

5. In-situ stress
• Inclined surface effect (Natural Slope)
ZSoil Plaxis-3D
Principal stress vectors from “default” Initial stage
If “natural slope“ model is impossible at initial stage, “excavated slope” model

may be an alternative method (initial stage + construction stage (exca)).

5. In-situ stress
In-situ slope is natural or excavated ?
Natural slope Trial in-situ
Ko + Stress Ko-only
redistribution
?
= Excavated slope
Stress
redistribution
Tunnel
Tunnel
?
=
5. In-situ stress
In-situ slope is natural or excavated ?
Excavated
Natural
Ko’ = 1.022 for input Ko =1.0

? Ko’ = 1.595 for Ko = 1.0
=
5. In-situ stress
• Inclined surface effect (Natural Slope)
Zsoil (max. |d| = 0.71mm) Plaxis-3D (max. |d| = 10mm)
Tunneling displacement from Initial stage with Ko=1.0

5. In-situ stress
• Inclined surface effect (Excavated Slope)
Zsoil (max. |d| = 0.95mm) Plaxis-3D (max. |d| = 0.96mm)
Tunneling after excavating slope for new equilibrium.

5. In-situ stress
• Inclined surface effect (Excavated Slope)
dz=0.581mm
dx=0.804mm
Midas(max. |d| = 0.95mm) GEO5 (max. |d| = 0.99mm)
Tunneling after excavating slope for new equilibrium.

6. Seepage Analysis
• Model for Unsaturated Flow
• Steady-state with H=8m
• k=1e-5 m/s
• Sr=0.3*
• e0=0.5
• a=0.1
• n=2
(*) Sr : Residual Saturation
6. Seepage Analysis
• Flux Comparison: Almost the same
 B: GEO5(VG*)
 D: Zsoil(VG*)
 E: Pentagon-2D
(Gardner)
 H’: Midas
(Gardner+VG*)
(*)van-Genuchten equation applied

Result Summary
1. In comparison of foundation settlement, the
programs show similar results in moderate
plasticity. Plaxis shows max. settlement and Midas
shows min. value. ZSoil stays at the average.
2. In Prandtl solution, the results of Midas differ from
those of the other programs and exact solution.
3. Reason of 2: Midas uses Associated flow rule unlike
the other programs, and shows severe volume
expansion in plasticity.
4. For vertical cut problem, Midas over-estimates the
safety factor in comparison with the other
programs.

Result Summary
5. Reason of 4: Midas cannot correct diverging state during
nonlinear calculation.
6. In unlined circular tunnel problem, all program shows
similar displacement. At failure, Midas shows at least twice
displacement of those of the other programs.
7. Reason of 6: Volume expansion is weaker in excavation
than in compression. In plasticity, Midas makes tensile
failure zone regardless of tensile strength, once the tensile
stress occurs.

Result Summary
8. In Ko condition of slope, ZSoil can produce Ko equilibrium
state in initial stage, but the other programs can produce
Ko equilibrium only for flat ground and flat layered
ground. So, the other programs need additional
excavation stage with equilibrium procedure. However, the
excavated slope stress state differs considerably from that
of original Ko condition.
9. Reason of 8: Except ZSoil, the other programs do not
properly redistribute the stress redistribution for
equilibrium at initial stage.
10. In unconfied steady state flow problem, all programs
show the same results.

Conclusion
1. The verification project began because there were
many complaints of Midas users in South Korea.
From the results, recommendation is not to use
Midas for foundation problems or compression
increasing condition such as passive earth pressure
problems, embankment and consolidation
problems. The tunnel invert or tunnel bottom
corner may be the candidates to be verified due to
increasing compressive stress.

Conclusion
2. Ko condition needs verification when the
ground surface is not horizontal or the soil
layers are not flat for other softwares except
ZSoil.
3. For unconfined steady state flow, all the
programs show similar and correct results.

Thank you
for Your Attention!!!

Appendix. Theory of Plasticity
• Flow Rule :
• Plastic potential function F

• Yield function G (in shear)
• F=G : Associated flow rule
• F≠G : Non-associated flow rule

• Non-associated flow rule (vol. strain rate)
윗식에서, ψ = dilatancy angle < φ’
• Associated flow rule (vol. strain rate)

• Associated Flow Rule (ψ = φ’)
Mohr-Coulomb Yield Surface

Volume expansion
τ , γp φ’
εp
φ’
C’
σ , εp

• Non-associated Flow Rule (ψ < φ’)
Mohr-Coulomb Yield Surface

τ , γp εp φ’
Volume control
ψ
C’
σ , εp

• Shear Dilatancy ≠ Tensile Dilatancy
τ σ
ψ < φ’
ψ = dilatancy angle < φ’

• Difficulty of Implementation of Non-
associated Flow Rule
– Stiffness matrix is not symmetric.

– It requires about 2x memory.
– Upgrade time is at least one year.

GW Byun Comparision Geotech Softwares 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

GW Byun Comparision Geotech Softwares PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparison between

EG Soft Consulting 2019 4

EG Soft Consulting 2019 5

(*) mesh coarseness

Results in highly plastic stress condition under 250kPa pressure

EG Soft Consulting 2019 6

Deviation from . Average(%)

D: Zsoil (Rough*) 0.0

D’:Zsoil (Fine*) -2.0 -0.6 -0.2

H’: Midas GTS -6.0 -4.4

Results in highly plastic stress condition under 250kPa pressure

EG Soft Consulting 2019 7

(*) mesh coarseness

Results in highly plastic stress condition under 250kPa pressure

EG Soft Consulting 2019 8

Deviation from Average(%)

(*) mesh coarseness B C D D' H H'

Results in highly plastic stress condition under 250kPa pressure

EG Soft Consulting 2019 9

Midas GTS ZSoil

Upper-bound solution (slip line) FEM solution (stress-strain)

EG Soft Consulting 2019 11

(*) mesh coarseness

EG Soft Consulting 2019 12

Midas GTS (Pressure 160kPa) Zsoil (Pressure 155.6kPa)

Plaxis (Pressure 154.7kPa) GEO5 (Pressure 160kPa)

EG Soft Consulting 2019 13

Upper-bound solution (slip line) FE model (16m width, 8m height)

EG Soft Consulting 2019 14

(*) mesh coarseness

EG Soft Consulting 2019 15

Midas Total Displacement

EG Soft Consulting 2019 16

Zsoil Total Displacement

EG Soft Consulting 2019 17

EG Soft Consulting 2019 18

EG Soft Consulting 2019 19

EG Soft Consulting 2019 20

EG Soft Consulting 2019 21

8.0 7.6 7.5 7.4 7.5

H’: Midas GTS 4.0

EG Soft Consulting 2019 22

H’: Midas GTS 6.0

EG Soft Consulting 2019 23

H: SoilWorks H: skip 30.0

EG Soft Consulting 2019 24

9.7 9.7 9.6 9.5 9.6

EG Soft Consulting 2019 25

H’: Midas GTS 6.0

EG Soft Consulting 2019 26

EG Soft Consulting 2019 27

EG Soft Consulting 2019 28

Midas GTS ZSoil

EG Soft Consulting 2019 29

EG Soft Consulting 2019 30

EG Soft Consulting 2019 31

EG Soft Consulting 2019 32

If “natural slope“ model is impossible at initial stage, “excavated slope” model

EG Soft Consulting 2019 33

Ko’ = 1.022 for input Ko =1.0

Zsoil (max. |d| = 0.71mm) Plaxis-3D (max. |d| = 10mm)

Tunneling displacement from Initial stage with Ko=1.0

EG Soft Consulting 2019 36