AUTOMATED

MODEL AND
PARAMETER
SELECTION
Incorporating Expert Input into
Geotechnical Analyses
II By Ronald B J. Brinkgreve. PhD

Excavation for construction of MIT Stata Center in Cambridge.
MA. This complex soil-structure interaction problem required
advanced numerical methods and soil constitutive models A)
nnin computational PLAXIS 3D model of intermediate excavation stage. B) Model
2U19 GEOTECHNICS settlements at intermediate stage. C) Photo showing intermediate
excavation stage; D) Model settlements at near-final state
Graphics courtesy of Zhandos Orazalin and Andrew Whittle.
Numerical analysis has major advantages
over traditional methods regarding the level
of detail and insight that can be obtained
in geotechnical stability analysis, limit-state
design, and soil-structure interaction
problems. A key success factor in numerical
analysis is an appropriate determination of
constitutive model parameters based on the
available, and too often limited, soil data,
and on engineering judgement. Prediction
competitions demonstrate a large variety
of results when different engineers solve
the same problem. This gives rise to the
question of whether automated parameter
determination could narrow the range of
results and increase confidence in using
and accepting the results from numerical
analysis for geotechnical design.
From Traditional Methods to Numerical Analysis
Traditional geotechnical analysis and design methods, imple-
mented in easy-to-use computer software. have been around
for more than 35 years. They are well accepted in geotechnical
design. In this respect, it is good to realize that easy-to-use
numerical analysis software, based o n the finite element or the
finite difference methods, has also been available for 30 years,
but is far less accepted in geotechnical design. It s worth noting
that in those 30 years, numerical methods and constitutive
models have evolved and improved dramatically, whereas
traditional methods are essentially still the same.
So. given the advantages offered In numerical analyses* why
is our geotechnical profession using old and less sophisticated
methods, whereas other disciplines seem to be innovating
and adopting new technolog)- much faster? Here are four key-
reasons, although there may be others:

3 8 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2019 www geomstitute org

0

Fi gure 1 Example model and results of a 3D FE analysis of a complex barette
foundation system.
1. Limited availability' of soil data, variability in the methods of latter may also serve as model parameters. Also note that soil
obtaining and interpreting this data, and the (mispercep-
tion that limits the benefits of advanced numerical analysis
2. limited knowledge about the fundamental mechanics
incorporated in numerical methods and constitutive
models
3. The (mis)perception that numerical analysis is time-
consuming and less productive
4. limited confidence and understanding in the results of
numerical analyses from a "black box" software tool
The too-oftcn-limited availability of soil data and limited
knowledge are the main reasons why geotechnical engineers
are reluctant to perform numerical analysis. The (mis)percep-
tion that numerical analysis is time-consuming and expensive
is a reason why managers persist in using traditional methods,
thereby overlooking the benefits that numerical analysis will
bring (if performed correctly), namely:
■ Solving multiple engineering and design Issues tn one analysis
■ Providing more insight in lire soil response and soil -structure
Interaction, and the sensitivities therein
■ Allowing the ability to realistically model complex situations
and coupled processes (Figure I)
■ Providing the opportunity to further optimise the overall
design
40 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2019
Limited confidence and under-
standing is one of the main reasons that
geotechnical engineering consultants
are reluctant to recommend and
conduct numerical analyses as part of
the scope of geotechnical engineering
and design services.
It s a common perception that
numerical geotechnical analysis is
difficult, mainly because numerical
models require that more parameters be
determined than traditional methods.
In numerical analysis, the soils stress-
strain response is simulated by means
of constitutive models. The models
describe the soil behavior qualitatively,
while model parameters quantify*
specific aspects of that behavior, such as
stiffness and strength. Note that model
parameters (e.g.. a reference stiffness
parameter in a formula for strcss-
dependency of stiffness) are principally
not the same as soil properties (e.g..
partide composition and pores, relative
density, waler content, plasticity index)
or soil parameters (e.g., friction angle,
undrained shear strength), although the
properties may change over time, or, as a result of evolution of
stress and strain during loading (e.g.. grain crushing), whereas
model parameters are supposed to be constant. In principle,
proper selection of the constitutive model and the correspond-
ing model parameters can properly account for the associated
changes in soil behavior.
Once an engineer has crossed the threshold and started
lierforming numerical analysis, it takes another step to
advance from using simplified, linear-elastic perfectly- plastic
constitutive models to more complex, non-linear elastoplaslic
models. In general, more complex models include more
features of soil behavior, but also require more model param-
eters to be determined. Nevertheless, for many engineering
issues it's essential to lake this next step. as illustrated by the
following dialogue:
neighbour: "You're digging a big hole right next
to my house; it will settle and get damagedr
Mr. Wiseguy: “Don't itorry. My numerical analysis
has determined that your house will heme rather
than settle"
Using too -simple constitutive models may lead to the
wrong conclusion. As shown in Figure 2. models o f the same
geometry can produce dramatically different deformation
behavior by using different soil constitutive parameters.
Hence, when performing numerical analysis, i t must be
done thoroughly, using constitutive models that capture the
essential features o f soil behavior required for the applica-
tion considered.
Model Parameter Determination
Ideally, determination of constitutive model parameters
is based upon comprehensive site investigation data and
laboratory testing on high-quality soil samples. Engineers
need to convince project owners that site investigation and lab
testing are not just costs; they are investments that, provided
they are thoughtfully planned and properly conducted, pay off
by reducing project uncertainty and risk.
In my paper in ASCE GSP 128. 1 offered an overview of
methods of parameter determination for various constitutive
models. Proper parameter determination should be performed
in conjunction with the application (e.g.. stress levels, stress
paths, strain levels, and loading rale), at least when simplified
soil models arc used. In this way, soil features lacking i n the
constitutive model can. to some extent, be "compensated"
by adaptation of the model parameters, but this can be risky.
Thus, another reason why more advanced constitutive models
are preferred is that their parameters are generally less depen*
dent on interpretations by the engineer.
Parameter determination can lx* based upon:
■ Correlations with field test data (from SPT, CPT, or DMT )
■ Correlations with soil-index properties like liquid and plastic
limits, plasticity and liquidity indices, and relative density
■ Results from laboratory testing (triaxial, oedometer, direct
simple shear)
■ Tables, charts, databases
■ Engineering judgement
Each method provides different parameter values. Their
selection requires knowledge of the methods and, more
importantly, their validity, restrictions, and limitations. The
outcomes are not unique and must be properly interpreted,
F igure J Deformation results of FE model of same geometry with different constitutive models and parameters.
based o n experience and engineering judgement. This makes
parameter determination a difficult task.
A Paradox
The technical ability to properly execute numerical mod*
elling, with tlx* most appropriate constitutive models and
corresponding parameters selection, is a true sign of modem
geotechnical -engineering expertise and experience. A few
practicing geotechnical engineers who have used numerical
methods and advanced constitutive models for several years
have developed their own workflow process for parameter
determination. They' haw developed databases with local
data, collected correlations from literature, created their own
elaborate formulas, and implemented them in spreadsheets
and tailored software tools. They are tlx* experts. Combined
with their engineering judgement, it gives them a competitive
edge in numerical modelling, and they sit on it; its their bread
and butter.
New or infrequent numerical model users would low it
if they could somehow benefit from the expert ’s wealth of
experience and data they' possess. Such data, as well as sets of
correlations and their valid domain o f application, and other
sources of information, could lx? made available in public soft-
ware to help determine model parameters. Some commercial
software contains collections of correlations to generate soil
parameters, but there's no publicly available software that
automatically determines model parameters for advanced
constitutive models based o n site investigation data.
Most of the experts reject the idea o f automatic parameter
determination, even though, if properly implemented, auto-
mated parameter generation tools could provide a significant
benefit to the industry.
Quality and Reliability of Numerical Analysis
The quality o f results from numerical analysis highly
depends o n the ability of the user to select the right
constitutive model for the application considered and the
model parameters needed for them. Data from prediction
www geomstitute org
0

So I property 2
User input
r jure 3 Schematic representation of the automatic parameter determination process
competitions and benchmarks show a large bandwidth of
results, even if the application and corresponding soil data
are clearly defined. This uncertainty does not contribute to
confidence in using numerical analysis for geotechnical-
design purposes. To build confidence, numerical methods
and constitutive models used must be transparent, results
must be validated, and the uncertainty bandwidth should
be narrowed.
The quality and reliability of numerical results can be
improved by combining the following elements:
1. Education - Traching/leaming about the capabilities and
limitations of constitutive models and numerical methods,
and how to properly determine the parameters used i n the
models
2. Experience - Practicing model parameter determination on
published benchmarks and applying it in real applications
to build the necessary experience
3. Exchange - Exchanging and sharing knowledge* and
experience among geotechnical engineers in industry and
academia
Despite decades of attempts to accomplish these three
things via conferences, workshops, communication channels,
online platforms, etc., it seems that the (mis) use of numerical paths (i.e., chains of correlations) that link measured field-test
analysis in geotechnical design is growing at a faster rate than quantities to model parameters via intermediate soil proper-
the quality' of the results.
Automatic Parameter Determination
An effective way to go forward is to develop an online software a correlation having one or mon* input parameters, and one or
tool for automatic characterization and interpretation of the
soil stratigraphy based on standardized site- investigation
data, and the subsequent automatic selection of constitutive
models and corresponding model parameters for the different
42 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2019
soil layers in the profile. The idea is that correlations, and possibly different
automation makes parameter deter- path lengths, that lead to the same
mination less dependent on the user model parameter. The system must be
and reduces the variability of results. able to cope with multiple parameter
It's meant to help mitigate the human values and check the outcomes. After
factor. eliminating the outliers, a mathemati-
interpreting soil-behavior type (SBT) cal procedure (i.c., a weighted average
and soil layering from field tests is or more sophisticated procedure) can
common practice. All geotechnical engi- be applied o n the remaining parameter
neers ought to be familiar with the SPT values to calculate the final param-
interpretation methods of Meyerhof and eter value to be used i n the analysis.
the CPT interpretation diagrams from Parameters determined in this way an*
Robertson and (Campanella. These data supposed to be representative for ser-
provide geometric information about viceability limit state (SLS) situations,
the thickness and lateral distribution whereas for ultimate limit states (ULS)
of soil layers and the corresponding the applicable design approach with
SBTs, which can be automated straight- partial factors can be applied. Doing
forwardly. For numerical analysis, a this for all model parameters and for
certain minimum layer thickness should all soil layers provides a collection o f
be used to avoid the generation of very thin soil layers. This automatically generated material data
means that some manipulation and “averaging' of thin layers sets (constitutive model ♦ parameters, Figure 4 PLAXIS SodTest module and traditional triaxial test apparatus (inset).
is needed while maintaining the influence of weak layers. representing each type of soil) that can
Automated selection of the appropriate soil constitutive
model must recognize and capture the essential features of
soil behavior for the soil type as identified from field testing
and. ideally, good -quality laboratory testing. In the majority'
SAVE THE DATE
of cases, the selected model will be an advanced, nonlinear
constitutive model that takes stress level-, stress path - and
strain -dependency of soil behavior into account. Different INTERNATIONAL AIRFIELD & HIGHWAY
models can lx? used. de|x*rxling on the soil types encountered DI
or the different types of analysis to be conducted. For example, PAVEMENTS CONFERENCE
a dynamic liquefaction analysis of silty soil layers may require Chicago, Illinois | July 21-24, 2019
that a specific constitutive model be used, but it may not be
the best model for a static deformation analysis. The selected
constitutive model implicitly defines which model parameters
need to be determined.
To automate selection of the model parameters, all com-
monly available knowledge should to be implemented in an
expert system. The system must "know" the validity and limita-
tions of the correlations, formulas, charts, and tables in it. The
system must also be flexible and extendable to new informa-
tion as it becomes available and accepted in practice. It should
haw an algorithm to automatically generate valid correlation
ties (e.g.. relative density*, plasticity index) and soil parameters.
Figure 3 provides a conceptual illustration of model parameter
selection based on chains of correlations. Each box represents
more conditions. The resulting parameter value may be used in
another correlation.
ASCE's longstanding specialty conference for
Because in many cases more than one correlation will airfield and highway pavement professionals.
be valid, there are generally different paths, with different
www geomstitute o r g 4 3
0

In general more complex
models include more features
of soil behavior, but also require
more model parameters to be
determined.
ASCE Member Benefit
Access ►Engineering.
AccessEngineering delivers
multidisciplinary engineering
information through these
dynamic interactive features:
Data Vis
Tutorial Videos
44 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2019
be automatically assigned to the
corresponding soil layers in the
numerical model.
Liability and Validation
Although automated constitutive model
and parameter selection should lead
to more consistent and more reliable
results, the ultimate responsibility and
liability for geotechnical design remains
with the engineer. This means that the
engineer must verify and validate the
material data sets that are automatically
created. Therefore, the procedure of
automatic parameter determination
must be transparent and verifiable.
The validation of the behavior
represented by the constitutive model
and its parameters can be selected by
simulating laboratory tests (Figure 4).
The resulting stress-strain curves can
then be compared with high quality laboratory' test data, ►RONALD B.J. BRINKGREVE, PhD $ manager of the
which is. ideally, part of a standardized site investigation Competence Centre Geo -Engineering of Plaxis in the
report. Such a comparison gives a feel for the accuracy at Netherlands He is responsible for all geo-engineenng related
which real soil behavior is approximated by the model, research and development of the PLAXIS Finite Element soft-
and i t offers insight into the capabilities and limitations ware He rs also an associate professor at Delft University of
of the model. Technology (TUDdft. NL) His mam research interests include
so«l constitutive models and numerical methods He can be
The Next Step reached at r.bj brmkgreve&tudelft nl
Today, geotechnical design is still largely' based o n traditional
methods that are decades old. Numerical analysis continues
to show great potential in providing more insight in under-
standing overall ground behavior and helping optimise the
overall design, and the use of numerical modelling continues
to expand within the industry. However, with increased use
comes increased risk for misuse and misinterpretation.
Automated soil constitutive model and parameter selection
may provide a tool to help mitigate the human factor, reduce
tire variability of residls. and increase confidence in numerical
analysis. I f we join forces, we can develop such a tool together,
for the benefit of our profession. Anyone who may be inter-
ested is welcome to participate.
CALL FOR ABSTRACTS
I PIPELINES 2019
KEY DATES
Coll for Submissions Open: June 20, 2 0 1 8
1 Abstracts Due: August 26, 2 0 1 8
-err-'' CONFERENCE Draft Papers Due: December 1, 2 0 1 8
Registration Opens: January 16, 2 0 1 9
Nashville, TN | July 21 - 24 Final Papers Due: February 2 1 , 2 0 1 9
For up-to-date information, visit
www.pipelinesconference.org
www geo«nstitute o r g