INTERNATIONAL COURSE ON COMPUTATIONAL GEOTECHNICS Civil Engineering Department, Itenas 21-23 September 2010, Bandung, Indonesia Lecture | Finite Element Modelling in Geotechnical Engineering Prof. Paulus Rahardjo Pitenas atu, Graz University of TechnologyBEBE ERR EEE INTERNATIONAL SHORTCOURSE on FINITE ELEMENT METHOD (PLAXIS) THE USE OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS 5 IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING by Prof. Paulus P. Rahardjo, Ph.D : Steps of Finite Element MethodExample : Footing Foundation 15-noded element Importantio consider: (1) Boundary must be far enough > avoid boundary effect (2) Certain Area should be refine for better accuracy Strain controlled: example direct shear test of triaxial test + Known/given : displacements at nodal points * calculate strains ¢ * build up the stiffness matrix D-matrix * Calculate stresses using stress-strain relation (constitutive law) o + Calculate: Forces at boundary F Stress controlled: example consolidation test + Known/given: acting Forces F + calculate stresses at integration points o + build up the stiffness matrix D-matrix calculate strains using stress-strain relation (constitutive law) + calculate: displacements at nodal points 8Spe Scone ota eeten Isa function to describre distribution of primiary unknwon in the area of an element Primary unknowns: nodal displacements Displacements within elements 3 ==> described by (u,v) 1 H+ ==>Express displacements ee using global co-ordinate system (x,y) ‘Transformations done using interpolation functions: 6-noded elements: quadratic interpolation U(RY) = apt ax + ayy + ag? ary + acy? vOuy) = byt Bix + bay + byx? + byxy + bey? a, +2ax+ay by = ab, + bax +265 y 9 = (6 + 0, a, + 25,)x + (2a, 4 b)y Ig = Fi Em (Bb as Nag +2 + (2a +B)B-matrix relates strains to displacements where: [ur \% ba U, inj je us With U; and V, are the displacement at node i Constitutive law: relation stresses and strains o-De D is material stiffness matrix For plane strain isotropic elasticity: 2+ vy) E = Young's modulus [kN/m?] Y= poisson’s ratio [-] lasticity: relation stress rate to strain rateRaieretreg + Mohr Coulomb model * Cam Clay model + Soft Soil Creep model Src cima al Increase of complexity eee RS Soil elasticity Hooke’s laws: If shear stress is applied: G: Shear modulus [kN/m?]Plane strain ¢,,0, so: E Tapa Mts) Ca E om Goad) A Mn + en) t; = Gy, K: Bulk modulus [kN/m?] G: Shear modulus [kN/m?] vy: Poission’s ratio [-] E: Young's modulus [kN/m?] Elastic material fully specified when 2 parameters are known‘Two dimensional elastic analysis + plane stress analysis => o,,= 0 * plane strain analysis <=> ¢,=0 <— most common Element stiffness matri Derivation can be done by the Energy Equation Forces P® at nodes due to Body forces and surface tractions acting on element Relation nodal Forces to nodal displacements: K“Ut= Pe With K* is element stiffness matrix given by: K* = B'DBdv (B,J Where: D material stiffness matrix B matrix relating displacements with strainsK' { B'DBdv to evaluate K®, integration must be performed for each element @ numerical integration scheme must be employed (Gaussian integration) essentially, the Integral of a function is replaced by a weighted suri Of the function evaluated at a number of integration points Combining all element stiffness matrices K* for WHOLE mesh: Using Compatibility Rule Ik] [U] =[P] number of dofe Band matrix KBEER RRRERERER ERR | FOLLOWING STEPS in FEM = STEP 6 : PROVIDE BOUNDARY CONDITION AND SOLVE EQUATIONS (displacements) = STEP 7 : SOLVE SECONDARY UNKNOWN (stresses, strains, internal forces) = STEP 8: INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS (need judgment, engineering, experience ete) consolidation d analysis: Constitutive model based on effective stresses using drained parameters Undrained : a) Constitutive model based on total stress analysis using undrainedp: »Prong Preloading in Bandung, Indonesia By : Paulus P. Rahardjo & Stephen Handoko = An office and a warehouse would be built over 14m thick soft layer with CPT tip resistance, q, values range 0—5 kg/cm’. The target is to use shallow foundation and avoid the use of pile foundation improvement, and it was decided to apply igher than design load for a short period of time (approx. 2 months). | Case Study in Bandung Typical CPT results at site: a ‘Case Study in Bandung Main Features in Calculation Use of Soft Soil (SS) model instead of Mohr-Coulomb (MC) model for more realistic settlement since a load-unload sequence would be applied on the field. Use of MC model will over estimate the heave after removing the preload. = Following real construction sequence on site. = Important parameters (taken from field and lab tests) : Cooffient of consolidation, c, > k, and k, in Plaxis codes. Compressibilityindex,C, > 2° in Plaxis codes ‘Swelling indox, C, > xin Plaxis codes | SS Case Study in Bandung Conditions on Site...: Case Study in Bandung Conditions on Site... Use of precast strip footings to expedite the construction progress. | ES Case Study in Bandung Model & Soil Parameters reload Tee. © ef ‘38 model, undrained ‘o07618 | eozs2i ‘3S model, undrained 0.16760 | 0.034293, ‘SS modal, undrained (0.058191 | o0206%4 FSS model, undrained ‘o.082305 | 0.032206 ‘38 medal, undrained ‘Oaesrat | e03e0as| ES ‘Case Study in Bandung Construction Sequence Identification Time [days] nil phase Consoition Fim ee for mata Preloed 3m Consolation Removal poload Foundation Bulang constuction [Consolidation Note : Calculation type : consoldation, Loading input: staged construction * Case Study in Bandung Development of Excess PP< Case Study in Bandung Calculation of Residual Settlement Case Study in Bandung Load, Excess PP & Settlementow LOM a en eeu eters Sue cu ker usenet eee ar) BEER EERESEEE Conérete Box Culvert 15Elevation of the Concrete Box for Jacking under road | SS Jacking Base Cross Section and position EEO ae Fy x KK aN| ESS Jacking Base (Congtuainal eros section) Series of jacks with 200 tons eapacity were ral placed Stel sie Guide + Jacking points| a Method of jacking at every 2 segmental boxes max 10 cm/push Step 1 Step 2 [- CTO” (LST vd oO oe Step 3 = Step 4 [lena #1 (lem! 1 PTT? Tot Td The jacking were conducted in sequence from front to rear Anticipated problems > Soil Drag and Settlement of pavement > Face Stability > Vertical and horizontal Missalignment > Sufficient jacking Force ive the problems! This lecture will demor etc[Face Stability Soil drag around the box eae Provide Two and Three dimensional Calculation following procedure -Ensure the Face Stability during tunneling - Investigate the soil drag surrounding the box culvert ere etic Rr ee SaeedModeling in two dimerisionis somewhat dificult and will need a trick mainly because the problem is 3 dimensional PEPER EEELEELE LLL |Drhckns Coe Cee EMO ier (cm ep.8 Handling of Segment: — B22Pee SCCCCCCEEEE TEEGGGe | Liz ‘e of the berm due to vertical missalignmet 23Landslide Analysis feel) od ee Breccia Re-sliding on Claystone Topographical remeasurement showed UtaY=Leete eo satel) stole) ON Za —We Tite Naa ee siee mina no and increasing water table 25fore ee limes) By Paulus P. Rahardjo, Yunan Halim and Kwari Pelupessy Use office No. of Storios_: 44 stories and a 7 storeys podium Basement 4 stories basement Thickness of Raft :35 m Basement depth : 15.6 m from existing roadSoil Profile | Typical Soil Profile & SPTParameters from Pressuremeter test Results Sel Modul Atrest pressure Yield Pressure —_Limitpressure : Parameters from Pressuremeter test Results 28| Parameters from Laboratory tests | Parameters from Laboratory testsEREEEREERRERRRRRREEEE : Over Consolidated Stiff Clay o,'=0.45p, Kulhawy and Mayne (1980) Mori and Tajima (1976) reconsolidation pressure yield pressure (p,) with N-SPT and Consolidation yield stress (Imai, Tet al, 1976) * ESE Over Consolidated of Stiff Clay ln Ku Database for Clays «PE apeit-aney on™ sition Sess, ,) (MPa) varcanalsaten Fat, OR» 6! 30| CSE Over Consolidated Stiff Clay | "===ZS EB EB BBB RBERHRERRRRRES |= _ Consideration on use of Raft Foundation 1, The bearing layer is strongly comented sands or silty sand with N-SPT > 60 and high stiffness (E,, = 900 - 1400 kg/cm’). The thickness of this bearing layer under the bottom of raft is 15-24 m. idening the projected area from 2190 m? to 4591 m? with two fold benefit: = Widening of raft reduce the uniform load acting on the lower layer = Widening of raft incease the stabilit agaijst overtutning Consideration on use of Raft Foundation 3. The excavation will be 15.8 m and hence the net pressure to be considered for settlement will be much less : pene = 41.4 ~ (15.8 x 1.5) = 16.12 toni? The above calculation is very rough assuming that the raft foundation is sufficiently rigid. This value is much lower than the elastic stress range of the stiff clay soil represented by net yield pressure (p," = 40 Um?) from pressuremeter test result 4. By the net load of 16.12 ton/m2, the total settlement and differential settlement have been calculated to be less than the requirement (<1/300) as will be demonstrated by the results of FEM analysis. 5. There will be risk of differential settlement at the boundary of the tower ‘and podium, and this may be solved by pouring the podium conerete slab after the tower has reached certain height. It is for this purpose that monitoring by extensometer Is required. 32Analysis of Raft Foundation by Finite Element Method (Plaxis Foundation 3D) Results of settlement of Raft Foundation to.be conservative, the modulus has been reduced to 50% ofthe insitu test results it Late 33™ : | MEE Measurement of Subsurface Settlement by Extensometer Pie errs Locations of Extensometer far Equity Tower. | ES Measurement of Subsurface Settlement by Extensometer 34| Measurement of Subsurface Settlement by Extensometer Load vs settlement (from extensometer roading until November 6, 2008) Summary + The raft foundation can be used for Equity Tower project where the raftis supported by 11.0 — 22.0 m thick of cemented sands and silts. Although the underlying layer is stiff to hard clay, the calculated pressure in this stiff clay layer is stil below the allowable limit + The use of pressuremeter test results for design is very important since they provide the soil parameters at in-situ stress condition. The soil parameters can be represented by + earth pressure at rest, py * yield pressure, p, and + limit pressure, p, The net yield pressure py* determines that the applied load is still in elastic condition, py" in cemented sand layer = 14 - 18 kg/om? Py*instiff clay = 4 kg/em?, 35Summary 3. Anumber of approach have been used to verify overconsolidation Approach by laboratory test result shows underconsolidation which may be attributed to disturbance. On the other hand the result of in situ tests are more consistent and is used for design 4. Analysis of raft foundation using 3D finite element analysis and soil parameters from the pressuremeter sows that settlement of building is estimated 200 mm which occur in the tower while for the podium area, the maximum settlement is 39 mm. This is used for structural design consideration. Using actual results, the settlementis 96 mm 5. The extensometer readings at the time of last measurement (November 6, 2008), the building reach five storeys. Settlement measured at EX-03 is 17 mm and at EX-04 the total settlement is 43.5 mm. The compression of cemented sand is 0-3 mm and the compression of stiff clay is about 14 mm. | Conclusion Summary = Finite Element Method is capable of modeling complex geometry, real time analysis and sequence of construction, interface and many constitutive soil models = FEM provide a more innovative and interactive design in a more realistic way 36RT BUTI!!! ©OeO = Geotechnical engineering is complex. Itis not because you're using the FEM that it becomes simpler = The quality of a tool is important, yet the quality of a result also (mainly) depends on the user's understanding of both the problem and the tool = The design process Involvesconsiderably tore than urralysis| = Amistake on modeling and wrong parameters is not excusable! ‘Whenever your input isa garbage, then the result is also a gargabe! Garbage in, garbage out! Gombal in, gombal out! So you better learn the principles of Geotechnical Engineering ‘as the most important step before using a powerful too! | THANK YOU for your kind Attention! ©O@ 37INTERNATIONAL COURSE ON COMPUTATIONAL GEOTECHNICS Civil Engineering Department, Itenas 21-23 September 2010, Bandung, Indonesia Lecture 2 Introduction to Plasticity and Mohr-Coulomb Model Prof. Paulus Rahardjo @®ijtenas Institut Teknologi Nasional qaeyu. Graz University of Technology‘and DETERMINATION OF Ber 1d D IS) ‘SIN MOHR COLOUMB MODEL 5 Nea Stiffness parameters for linear elastic — perfect plastic soil models (MC) 3D Hook's law v2) anothers E 45, = pl-va0,'+80,-180,') Ae, ~z6 the, -1ha,'+80,') = Young's modulus ‘v= Poisson's ratio Shear modulus odometer modulus 7 EQ-v) Tay) 20+)== =ZEERRRRR RRR E + Method 1 : The Use of Laboratory Test Results Under controlled stress condition + Need to determine the correet stress level + Difficultto sample sands in undisturbed condi + Method 2 : The Use of Empirical Relationship Based on available data or published data GD ~ Mityres be proper tor torent ype and diferent gto condition Gap Metiods The Us onsen Test Ress RUG? sing onder insets condition x) Ccatnanas eer ri = overcome cimeuein sl sampog Gof as snd stn) Ay,” RESrTIncrt cay ted een onion és PMT-> provide direct measurement (best) Abi-linear stress-strain relationship is assumed: Constant average stiffness: Es) and v= Vp must be given by fixed values Stiffness parameters for linear elastie— pertectly plastic soil models (MC)peneeese Reference stiffness for more advanced models (HS) ‘The Hardening Soil model includes a non-linear stress strain-curve controlled by Es™ Eygat a reference pressure of Pror= 100kPa is called E,," Experience on E,»is therefore relevant and importantalso for more advanced soil models Stiffness of sand, drained triaxial testing: ee ep Boe "ey y Test: * Test3: elk Loose sands: Exf= 15 MPa i= 1008Pa Dense sands: Ef 50 MPaBEEEEEEREERE EERE EEE The parameter E,,"* for sand Drained triaxial test, Hokksund sand, D,= 20% J existe kPa | ef =154ara) -1saac00 — f= 15a 00 Sal 2000, PD Tes, NTNU [Normaliy: Loose sands: Ey'= 15 MPa Dense sands: K*"=50 MPa The Poisson ratio may be estimated from the initial part of the ¢,-&, During loading: 3 often seen igher for dense sand v= lower for loose sand |Stiffness of sand: Oedometer testing (1) Experience: o,’ dependency (2) Hooke’s aw and 5,-3.5. el fam ody a2] [2 @) Comparing this to triaxial results (page): [E"% = B77] Loose sands: B= 15 MPa. Dense sands: P50 MPa Poisson’s ratio v: In codometer conditions a fom Hooke's law with ‘ Poison ratio Stiffunloading response, ‘example: Bigg WOE gg, floating ding Low Poisson ratio: V~ 0,1-0,2Stiffness of sand: Example 1, (loading): To be constructed [Loose sand layer Mahi Coulomb Model, constant average stifiness forthe whole bottom layer during hl constratin: Initial vertical stress: c", = (31212): 10=T0KPa (peat neglected Additonal vertical stress: Ao’ = 3-17 50 kPa Average vertical stress: o', *Ao'/2= 95kPa Average horizontal stress: o', = 95/247 kPa = v Ey =15MPa, Stiffness of sand: Example 2, (unloading assumed 2-3 times stiffer): Ey=2- re ny ons 3 Bottom layer: o'y=4+17+45-10~ 113 kPa =1132= |BEEEEEREEEREEEEEELASE SOIL STIFFNESS : CLAY Stiffness of clay * Undrained triaxial test + Undrained plate loading test + Drained stiffness of clay from oedometer testing + Stiffness of clay fiom insitu testings + Exampes: Estimating moduli for loading and unloading Stiffness of clay ~ Undrained triaxial test (1+VE, 0856, for v'=0,3 Example: Failure strain 1% (linearized)} |Stiffitess of clay ~ Undrained triaxial test & SUnEVEEEEEIeeee ) | Termat, Vermeer, Vergeer (1985): WY Normally consolidated clays: varies fom /500¢, 0150 ¢, Example,1, = 30%-E, =500-c, me plastic iden Stiffness of clay Undrained plate loading test by Duncan &Buchignani (1976): iu Example NCelay, OCR<2 1.730% = Fe 600 Id A 11s 2 3456 8 10 8 Overconsolidation ratio, OCRStiffness of clay ‘Undrained stiffness depends on undrained strength: NC clay: Janbu: 0.250, OC clay: Janbu: 6, = 0,200, Ladd (1991): ¢,= 0,22 6,(OCR)?4 where 6,” is the vertical preconsolidation stress Stiffitess of clay Drained stiffness from oedometer tests Ohde (1956), Janbu (1963): Examples: Soft clay: nectar 5 >02 ©BEEEEERREEECECE eee Stiffness of clay: Example 1, (loading): To be constructed Undrainedstifiness: Initia vorikal steess:@', ~ 4-10 = 40 kPa Undrained strength rained stifiness Average vertkal Stiffhess of clay: Example 2, (unloading): ole Dat sod ache Ww sy_Drsned ong en dfoatons @ 0,008 (17 Note: £ Standard Penetration Test (SPT)PEPER EERE EE EHHHHHHfm Cone Penetration Test (CPT) We ee ener iio 19OSH ee PER URCCOCTOCEPCOCTOOCTOOT |PEREEREREEREREERE REESE we [ten & Gop,23Tama Spee aie) st ce aaa)INTERNATIONAL COURSE ON COMPUTATIONAL GEOTECHNICS Civil Engineering Department, Itenas 21-23 September 2010, Bandung, Indonesia Lecture 3 Non-linear Computation Prof. Paulus Rahardjo razm (Graz University of TechnologyLy Failyresiof Embani ; coo ARITY IN SOIL BEHAVIOR. Fes] LINEAR C. ALCULATION Z ee —Liner Elastic vs Non-linear Behavior Load p / Linear elastic Settiementof Node A. Staged Construction and Load Multiplier Active load = unbalance due to differences im loads & weights compared to previous phase Active load (unbalance) is applied in steps; hhave no physical meani Final step (ZMstage=1) = defined situation (unbalance fully solved) Stiffnesses are applied at the beginning of phase Unbalance is applied gradually during phase (Change of stiffness without change of load has no effect (no driving force!)Calculation Process Stiffness matrix” Basic algorithm per step: 1. additional displacements 2. total increments . strain increment . determine stresses” ai 4 5. internal reaction 6. 9. equilibrium 2? Yes: additional displacement No: next iteration Calculation Process Load increment aq Roiiinear behaviour Seitlementof Node ACalculation Process Phase + Find equilibrium in final Displacements + Divided in load steps Load step + Find equilibrium for load increment ivided in iterations Calculation Process Global system of equations =P « Kau=4P « Kéu=65PGlobal error = "enteral load (incusing weghts) = leternal reaction forces (tear of of) Convergance requirement: ‘Sloe! eparsciTaemped ere BICEP pag, Torated enor = 0.07) % Convergence has tobe reached within max. erations, The total ead has tobe reached before max. seo.INTERNATIONAL COURSE ON COMPUTATIONAL GEOTECHNICS Civil Engineering Department, Itenas 21-23 September 2010, Bandung, Indonesia Lecture 4 The Hardening Soil Model Prof. Helmut F. Schweiger Sitenas qu. (Graz University of TechrologyHARDENING SOIL MODEL WITH HS-Small Helmut F. Schweiger Ccomsutatons Gastshnce Group Insite foe Sol Masts and Paundston Engines Graz Uniersty ef Teawaoay = HARDENING SOIL MODEL ay ‘CONTENTS + Introduction (why advanced model?) = Short description of Hardening Soil Model * Parameters of Hardening Soil Model * Comparison with experimental data «Influence of important parameters « Extension to account for small strain stiffness (HS-Small)HARDENING SOIL MODEL INTRODUCTION Soil behaviour includes: = difference in behaviour for primary loading — reloading/unloading * nonlinear behaviour well below failure conditions * stress dependent stiffness lastic deformation for isotropic or Ky-stress paths not constant latancy * small strain stiffness {at very low strains and upon stress reversal) = influence of density on strength and stiffness L cannot be accounted for with simple elastic-perfectly plastic constitutive models Reais HARDENING SOIL MODEL INTRODUCTION a ‘oedometer test Real test ongHARDENING SOIL MODEL = HARDENING SOIL MODEL Model | mt u | = ws | oo | Atrcunnol |» Almeddle caleulata settoments Nevowaea{—| «Differences in shape of tough secu ‘and maxirum values5 HARDENING SOIL MODEL INTRODUCTION Example for vertical displacements behind a retaining wall > Hardening Sol Model calculates Settlements > Motr-Coular Model calculates Heave HARDENING SOIL MODEL, DESCRIPTION OF HARDENING SOIL MODEL devinoris eress loro) eeee HARDENING SOIL MODEL. wy DESCRIPTION OF HARDENING SOIL MODEL 1 q ee eee ‘2 Ey I-a/aq fora elasticHARDENING SOIL MODEL DESCRIPTION OF HARDENING SOIL MODEL f>0+f,<0 REGION 2 shear hardening surface active HARDENING SOIL MODEL DESCRIPTION OF HARDENING SOIL MODEL Deviatorc yield surface: lines of equal shear stains in taxa testeee HARDENING SO MODEL a. DESCRIPTION OF HARDENING SOIL MODEL f>0+f>0 REGION 3 shear hardening and volumetric hardening surfaces active HARDENING SOIL MODEL my, DESCRIPTION OF HARDENING SOIL MODEL. f<0+f,>0 REGION 4 volumetric hardening surface activeHARDENING SOIL MODEL airy, DESCRIPTION OF HARDENING SOIL MODEL Volumetric yeld surtace: lines of equal volumetric strains in ‘vial test HARDENING SOIL MODEL DESCRIPTION OF HARDENING SOIL MODEL 4DESCRIPTION OF HARDENING SOIL MODEL e-cotp+a} )" (e-cot p+ p™ } (¢ cotp iat e-cat p+ p™ _excotg+ COL P+ Pry le Rmeisccs DESCRIPTION OF HARDENING SOIL MODEL Ss HARDENING SOIL MODEL. Prot! 2; for Ess 0; for Eeg HARDENING SOIL MODELHARDENING SOIL MODEL Eq, refetence pressure = 100 KPa | ie Wt Sed} {~ [, “ oro HARDENING SOIL MODEL DESCRIPTION OF HARDENING SOIL MODEL Volumetric behaviour ‘stress dilataney theory" (Rowe, 1962) sing, ~sin 9, sin Yq = Tsing, sing, sing, =——@=23__ a +o 2e- dilation 1 9 He WO Gn < ta. w= negative > contraction 1"Soioetene | 04g, SOREIDE 2003 ‘consequence of flow rule in Uindrained triaxial compression stross path PARAMETERS OF HARDENING SOIL MODEL @ tticdon angle yilataney angle EG secant modulus from triaxial test (controls deviatoric hardening) ES, tangontial modulus from oedometer test (cantrels valumetric hardening) unloading | reloading modulus default: m power for stress dependency of stiffness oo HARDENING SOR MODEL ay,HARDENING SOIL MODEL ry, PARAMETERS OF HARDENING SOIL MODEL Yu Poisson ratio for unloading reloading (default v, pM reference stress (Gotaut'p*= 100 stress units) Ke Kevalue for normal consolidation (default =1-sing) (Controls volumetric hardening) Ri=q/q, (default R,= 0.9) ee HARDENING SOIL MODEL wy, PARAMETERS OF HARDENING SOIL MODEL SA sa, NDS 604 ES : (MPa) f ayours Sen 205 ‘Karlsruhe Sand ‘estan San Es) [MPa] EDL = 1, © 60MPa_ coretaton or ele dey 13aad HARDENING SOIL MODEL PARAMETERS OF HARDENING SOIL MODEL 140045 050 HARDENING SOIL MODEL PARAMETERS OF HARDENING SOIL MODEL For normally consolidated clays (m=1) Order of magnitude (very rough) Correlation with J, for ®=100 kPa Correlation by Vermeer Relation with Soft Soil model 14HARDENING SOIL MODEL ‘COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA wa dense Hostun sand eee HARDENING SOIL MODEL ‘COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA ec) tes dla dense Hostun sand Harering Sot mode 15Qleiascw HARDENING SOIL MODEL my. COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA HARDENING SOIL MODEL. ay. ‘COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATAINFLUENCE Eye! Esq Beesatice HARDENING Sot MODEL wy, INFLUENCE Ey! Eoag HARDENING SOIL MODEL my, ovate tess ‘Triaxial Compression (rained) + Enincrbased volumetric strain Triaxial Compression (arained) ~ Ejagincreased | | Ew 4 | 17Reies Bk ea ER EEE vertical stresstkNin?) A HARDENING SOIL MODEL, =, ‘OEDOMETER TEST - COMPARISON MC SS /HS Moby-Coutom mode! ratio a, determined by v Hardening (Soft) Soi! mode: rae oy determined be Unioaing: Yr horizontal stress [kN] HARDENING SOIL MODEL. way. emia stress [kM] 18UNDRAINED BEHAVIOUR HARDENING SOIL MODEL. wary. El eeiicies PLASTIC POINTS HARDENING SOIL MODEL wry, 19Re ‘SUMMARY ei HARDENING SOIL. MODEL elastic HARDENING SOIL MODEL ‘SUMMARY couome | Ssrniete stvessdepondonisitiness® | | veg | | No Yes “isnctioni sfness for pinoy pea teading and unieazing losing | yoy ves arcoune) | NO Yes [Tatureseeorangte Mon-couiomD yes yes * (not only dependent on 9 this is possible also Model) 203 HARDENING SOIL MODEL =u ‘SMALL STRAIN STIFFNESS ’ F Ls : cS eo ssn 3 a5 e fe i EH ings ame % =e - Ry veers nat loos shear strain %| (09-scale) ‘ypieal curve of degradation of stifinose with strain us HARDENING SOIL MODEL my, THE ‘-DIMENSIONAL MODEL BY HARDIN & DRNEVICH ‘perimental aut ser Santos & Cora 21eed HARDENING SOIL MODEL my, SMALL STRAIN STIFFNESS BEHAVIOUR IN THE HS-SMALL MODEL \ th smal tain stress made afer Hari & Omevch precisa lifes loner ‘han Gy, raepectivey) fe model siehesehersonng paste o! the anda Herening Sol model _— acattonal input parameters for HS-smal an Rati HARDENING SOIL MODEL ay, ‘SMALL STRAIN STIFFNESS BEHAVIOUR IN THE HS-SMALL MODEL Example Deep Excavation Region of larger Reon of sma 9 Gn=G"! (Gy 10 KAA as 22ii HARDENING SOiL MODEL ILLUSTRATION OF EFFECT OF SMALL STRAIN STIFFNESS 1539 Be 23INTERNATIONAL COURSE ON COMPUTATIONAL GEOTECHNICS Civil Engineering Department, Itenas 21-23 September 2010, Bandung, Indonesia Lecture 5 Modelling of Deep Excavations Prof. Masyhur Irsyam os ey Graz Universiy of TechnslogyMODELLING OF DEEP EXCAVATIONS Helmut F, Schweiger Cemputasond Geotaries rp nett for Sah Mechs and Foundon Enpneeting Graz Unversy oTeetongy ee ‘CONTENTS [MODELLING OF DEEP EXCAVATIONS * Introduction = Benchmark - Example 1 + Show influence of constitutive model (qualitative assessment) + Benchmark - Example 2 + Comparison with hypoplastic model = Analysis of 5 different excavations in soft soil - comparison with in situ measurements, = Note on qle-reduction ‘Summary and conclusionseee MODELLING OF DEEP EXCAVATIONS. ay, INTRODUCTION Numerical analysis of deep excavations involves modelling of + various excavation stages + interaction wall / sol > interface elements + changes in groundwater level + struts or anchors (incuding load transfer to soi) + adjacent structures (buildings, tunnels, piles, ..) requires advanced constitutive model because + stress paths in sll are nat monotonic (significant change in| stress path direction) * primary loading and unloading /reloading occurs in different parts ofthe domain analysed + some areas will experience large strains with significant plastic deformations, others wll be inthe very small strain range fais not suffient atic me elearns MODELLING OF DEEP EXCAVATIONS INTRODUCTIONMODELLING OF DEEP EXCAVATIONS wiry, MODELLING OF DEEP EXCAVATIONSRaa MODELLING OF DEEP EXCAVATIONS = MODELS COMPARED Mohr-Coulomb Mode! 8 sey Has "Note: In this study stifiness for variations of MC analyses is assumed as: Me. "4 Esa + Ele at level of base of wel Mc Ecine a vel of base of wot MC Erg ne atlevel of base of wall Gees MODELLING OF DEEP EXCAVATIONS iy, "MODELS COMPARED 4 Hardening Soll Mode! OER pase = “enedeaeeeies (MODELLING OF DEEP EXCAVATIONS MODELS COMPARED Hardening Soll Small Model __— atonal input parameters for HS: mall my, Essen MODELLING OF DEEP EXCAVATIONS MODELS COMPARED Soft Soll Model a4 Greshald eipseReais MODELLING OF DEEP EXCAVATIONS iy, EXAMPLE 1 - PROBLEM SPECIFICATION = = Wall ength: | Dense sand and mart: m ‘Moolum dense sand 10m [esaertioosee ay. 11m aeer, MODELLING OF DEEP EXCAVATIONS ry, DENSE SAND Parameters for Hardening Soil model (HS) Parameter [Meaning Vatae [Ey | Un weight nome 7a [enim | une wait esturates 0 11__| reson ange werr-couer) a [nPaj_|Conetion (on-Coars) je [| ange ocietaney © 1H [Possors rato wioaaiigvatadng [020 Wa] _| Seca magus for primary ras aang | 000 nPa)_|Tengent modus or ondoneric nsang | 20000 HPs) | Seeantmeqaustorur- and eoacing 0000 E___|Sxponen orn chde anda iw oe B= Ral —| eteronce sess fr he sfoesspararates | 100 KE [HL Coots f earn pressure alest NC) sep) eax | APA] [Tene rent a Additional parameters for Hardening Soil Small model (HSS) [Pal | Sraksvan Shear moans T2800 ie TE —_[Retwarcs shear stan whe CSOT) 002