26/6/2018

KL IEM Workshop on FEM

11 July 2018

Lecture 3A: HS Calibration of Local Soils

using CID Tests

By: Professor Harry Tan

National University of Singapore

Outline
• CID Tests Data
• Regression Method to get E50
• Plaxis Parameter Optimisation Check
• Conclusions

26/6/2018 2

1
 26/6/2018

CID Test1 at Goh&Goh Building Site

DB5-TW2

N=7,
N=8 8
c’=2 kPa, phi’=33 deg

26/6/2018 3

CID Test1 Measured E50 and Eur

E50=14,660 kPa

E50=10,600 kPa Eur=158,825 kPa Eur/E50=10.77

Eur=54,145 kPa Eur/E50=5.11

E50=8,800 kPa
Eur=79,135 kPa Eur/E50=8.99

26/6/2018 4

2
 26/6/2018

Regression for E50 and m CID-1

Finding E50 and m

c' phi' cosphi' sinphi' Sig3' A E50 lnA lnE50

2 33 0.838671 0.544639 45 0.466432 8200 -0.76264 9.011889
2 33 0.838671 0.544639 90 0.902988 10600 -0.10205 9.268609
2 33 0.838671 0.544639 180 1.776098 14660 0.574419 9.592878

9.7
m=0.43 9.6
E50ref=11300 kPa 9.5
9.4
ln(E50)

9.3 y = 0.4347x + 9.3332

9.2
9.1 (c' cos ' '3 sin  ' )
A
(c' cos ' Pref sin  ' )
9
ln( E50 )  m ln( A)  ln( E50ref )
8.9
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
ln(A)

26/6/2018 5

Plaxis vs CID Tests

450

400
Sigc = 45 kPa
350
Sigc = 90 kPa

300 Sigc = 180 kPa

Dev Stres (kPa)

Plaxis-45
250
Plaxis-90
200 Plaxis-180

150

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial Strain (%)

26/6/2018 6

3
 26/6/2018

Plaxis Optimization Program (1)

• Use of Plaxis Soil Test Program for

• CID-Test at Sigc’=90 kPa

26/6/2018 7

Plaxis Optimization Program (2)

• Use of Plaxis Soil Test Program for

• CID-Test at Sigc’=180 kPa

26/6/2018 8

4
 26/6/2018

Ratio of Eur/E50 for Bukit Timah RS

18

16 G VI Residual soil

14 G V Completely Weathered Granite

12

10
Eur/E50

4
Use 3 as safe
2 value for design
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Depth (m)

26/6/2018 9

OA Soils for C925 of DTL3 at

Tampines Site
• Review of Factual Soil Report, GIBR and Soil
Parameters
• HS Soil Models and Soil Parameters based on
CID Tests

5
 26/6/2018

 Extensive SI works have been done for C925 and are generally well-
summarized in the GIBR Report by MEINHARDT 2011
 General features of the subsurface ground conditions:
(1) Shallow top fill material exists at some boreholes, followed directly
by the very competent OA soils with high SPT N values, indicating
very good ground conditions;
(2) Some boreholes reveals hard OA soils (Grade A or B) exist at very
shallow depth; with SPT N values increasing steadily with depth;
(3) Ground water table is generally high at site, and can be assumed at
GL for ERSS analysis;
(4) The recommended soil parameters in GIBR are generally found in
order; one particular comment regarding lab CID tests are presented
in the next slide.

 It is noted that only set of CID test was available during preparation of
the GIBR report (Subsequently Contractor’s Additional SI work includes
about 11 sets of CID tests).
 Generally speaking, CID tests are more advantageous over CIU tests in
that CID tests directly measure total stress which is itself effective stress,
while CIU introduces another uncertainty of measuring excess pore
pressure during triaxial shearing in order to derive effective stress. What is
more, pore pressure transducer is generally installed at the base of triaxial
sample which is actually not accurate representation of average excess
pore pressure of whole sample, and thus can lead to certain erroneous test
result interpretation.
 For calibration of Hardening Soil Parameters, CID instead of CIU tests
should be conducted, as CID test provide constant effective confining
pressure while CIU tests have varied effective confining pressure
throughout test which cannot be easily calibrated against numerical soil
model stress path.
 However, in terms of effective soil parameters c’, ’, the values
recommended by GIBR are deemed to be reasonable.

6
 26/6/2018

Hardening Soil Model – a shear and cap double yield surfaces model
which can capture more realistic soil behavior.

Shearing

Realistic reflection of stress dependent soil stiff

m
 c cos  ' '3 sin  ' 
E50  E 50ref  
 c cos  ' p sin  ' 
ref

 c cos  ' '3 sin  ' 

ln( E50 )  ln( E50ref )  m ln 
 c cos  ' p ref
sin  ' 

Let _ Y  ln( E50 )

b  ln( E50ref )

 c cos  ' '3 sin  ' 

X  ln   ln( A)
 c cos  ' p sin  ' 
ref

So, Y  b  mX

7
 26/6/2018

Take the only CID test in GIBR report as illustrative example

Sample: MZ1
Borehole: BH-R121A
Sample depth = 21m
SPT N value = 94
CID test strength: c’ = 15kPa, ’ = 36

Let’s find the E50 for 3 confining stresses: 100kPa, 200kPa & 400kPa

Find the E50 for 3 confining stresses: 100kPa, 200kPa & 400kPa

1400

1200

1000
Deviator stress (kPa)

800

600

400

200

0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14

Axial strain

8
 26/6/2018

E50,ref
sigma3' E50 (kPa) c'(kPa) fi' (degree) A ln(A) ln(E50)
100 21593 15 36 1.000 0.000 9.980
200 75264 15 36 1.829 0.604 11.229
400 91569 15 36 3.487 1.249 11.425

A=

From the plot:

m= 1.0
Ln(E50,ref) = 10.17

So, E50,ref = exp(10.17) = 26108

SPT N = 94
So, E50,ref = .3 N (in MPa)

It can be seen that the E50,ref is only 0.3N (in MPa)

which is very low, and is most likely due to sample
disturbance when using Mazier sampler to obtain
such Hard sample with very high SPT N values.
Similar observations have been made in other
projects with hard residual soils.

9
 26/6/2018

Summary from all CID tests

DEPTH E50,ref E50,ref Pc 'v
BH No. SAMPLE SOIL [m] SPT N [kPa] = ?N (in Mpa) Eur/E50 m (kPa) (kPa) OCR

BH-A1 MZ1 Clayey sand 5.5 45 52053 1.2 N 1.5 1.0 430 55 7.8

BH-A1 MZ2 Clayey sand 19.0 69 97636 1.4 N 3.4 1.0 600 190 3.2

BH-A1 MZ3 Clayey sand 30.5 100 34269 .3 N 2.8 1.0 620 305 2.0

BH-A2 MZ1 Silty sand 13.5 51 37987 .7 N 1.9 1.0 780 135 5.8

BH-A2 MZ2 Silty sand 14.5 77 54122 .7 N 2.3 0.8 280 145 1.9

BH-A2 MZ3 Silty sand 31.5 100 53051 .5 N 2.6 0.6 580 315 1.8

BH-A3 MZ1 Clayey sand 16.5 50 16134 .3 N 3.9 0.5 500 165 3.0

BH-A3 MZ2 Clayey sand 19.5 62 18845 .3 N 3.7 0.5 800 195 4.1

BH-A3 MZ3 Silty sand 29.5 100 25059 .3 N 3.5 1.0 930 295 3.2

BH-A4 MZ1 Clayey sand 10.5 64 18043 .3 N 4.3 1.0 630 105 6.0

BH-A4 MZ2 Sandy silt 29.5 100 20074 .2 N 2.6 1.0 430 295 1.5

R121A MZ1 Silty sand 21 94 26108 .3 N 2.6 1.0 - 210 -

Ave = .6 N 3.0 0.9 3.7

1.6 N

1.4 N

1.2 N
E50, ref (kPa)

1.0 N

.8 N

.6 N

.4 N
Safe value for design
.2 N
is 3.0 as used in Plaxis

.0 N
25 50 75 100 125

SPT N

The average of E50,ref of 0.6N (in MPa) is too low as explained earlier.
The Eur/E50 has average of 3 which match typical default value of 3. In
that case, Eur = 1.8N which is almost the same of the E50 = 1.74N used
in GIBR for Mohr-Coulomb model. As such, it is recommended to use:
(1) E50,ref = 1N as we have used for many other projects with hard residual soils,
while setting Eur = 3E50;
(2) Pure clay has m=1.0, thus the derived m=0.9 is deemed too high and m=0.75 is
preferred to be used for OA.
(3) Eoed=E50 can be adopted for stiff soils.
(4) OCR=3.7 and is set to 2.0 as recommended in GIBR report.

10
 26/6/2018

Ground condition and

evaluation of HS soil
parameters for Soft Clays
at Tg Bin4 in Johor

6/26/2018 21

 Quite substantial SI works have been done for the project, notably the
following documents have been reviewed:
(1) Borelogs series BH-1a to BH-20a;
(2) Borehole soil layering probing BH-S1 to BH-S12;
(3) 4 standpipe monitoring readings (typical WL of 0.5m below
ground surface);
(4) 4 site permeability tests;
(5) Multiple site vane shear tests;
(6) Other site resistivity & thermal conductivity tests, etc.;
(7) Large number of Undisturbed (UD) sample lab tests;
(8) A summary General Geotechnical Report – soil Characterization.
6/26/2018 22

11
 26/6/2018

 General features of the subsurface ground conditions at site is quite

consistent, namely:

(1) Top loose to medium sandy soil, thickness = 4m ~ 9m;

(2) Deep deposit of soft clay layer, thickness = 17m ~ 24.5m;
(3) Firm clay to silt with SPT N of about 10;
(4) Stiff to very stiff silty soil with N=10~50;
(5) Hard sandy silty soil with SPT N=100~200;
(6) Underlying weak rocks (mainly highly weathered, highly fractured
siltstone at the affected area, termed as Zone II according to the above-
mentioned General Geotechnical Report).

It should be noted that the elevation of the rock surface is very

variable
6/26/2018
as revealed by the piling record. 23

 For the current focused affected area (Zone II shown below), the
most adjacent borelog, BH-DH-12a, can be used for specific
interpretation of subsurface soil condition to facilitate the present 3D
FEM analysis:

Bunker bay & MILL Turbine Hall (TH) Area

area

6/26/2018 24

12
 26/6/2018

 For the current focused affected area, the most adjacent borelog,
BH-DH-12a, can be used for specific interpretation of subsurface soil
condition to facilitate the present 3D FEM analysis with some
independent evaluation of soil parameters with reference to the
recommended soil parameters in Geotechnical Report :
(1) 0~4.6m below ground level (bgl): Top loose to medium sandy soil
with SPT N=7~8, thus with typical soil parameters of c’=0.1kPa, ’=28,
and E’=8,000kPa
(2) 4.6m~22.5m bgl: Deep deposit of soft clay layer with SPT N=0~2,
the properties of which is most critical in affected the excavation and
impact to the bored piles and will be elaborated in more details in the
upcoming slides.
(3) 22.5m~34.5m bgl: Firm clay to silt with SPT N of about 10 with
adopted c’=5kPa, ’=26, and Eu=300Cu (Cu=5N)=15,000kPa, E’=Eu*87%
= 13,000kPa
(4) 34.5m~40m bgl: Stiff to very stiff silty soil with N=34~50 with
average N=35 with adopted c’=5kPa, ’=30, and Eu=400Cu (Cu=5N),
E’=Eu*87%
6/26/2018 = 60,900kPa. 25

(5) 40m~ variable depth bgl: Hard silty soil with SPT N>200 with
much higher soil parameters of c’=20kPa, ’=34, and E’= 2E+5kPa.
(6) Underlying weak siltstone with adopted parameters of c’=30kPa,
’=40, and E’= 1E+6kPa.

Noted: (1) The bored piles are typically installed with socketed length of
about 6~7m below the underlying weak rocks, and the piling record
shows a highly variable rock profiles as will be presented later on.

(2) The simple elastic perfectly plastic Mohr Coulomb (MC)

Model will be adopted for most of the soils, expect for the deep deposit
of soft clay which will be simulated using advanced Hardening Soil (HS)
model which is able to capture the more realistic highly non-linear
elasto-plastic behavior of soft clay. This is particularly important as this
deep deposit is very critical in governing the ground movement
behavior and impact to the bored piles.
6/26/2018 26

13
 26/6/2018

Hardening Soil Model – a shear and cap double yield surfaces model
which can capture more realistic soil behavior.

Shearing

6/26/2018 27

Determination of soil stiffness in HS model

m
 c cos  ' '3 sin  ' 
E50  E 50ref  
 c cos  ' p sin  ' 
ref

 c cos  ' '3 sin  ' 

ln( E50 )  ln( E50ref )  m ln 
 c cos  ' p ref
sin  ' 

Let _ Y  ln( E50 )

b  ln( E50ref )

 c cos  ' '3 sin  ' 

X  ln   ln( A)
 c cos  ' p sin  ' 
ref

6/26/2018
So, Y  b  mX 28

14
 26/6/2018

There is a limited number of Triaxial Consolidated Isotropically Drained

(CID) lab tests for the soft clay which can be readily utilized for the
determination of the soft clay stiffness.
For example, CID test has been conducted for the Undisturbed (UD)
sample (UD1) retrieved from 6m~6.8m at the present borehole BH-DH-
12a with 3 confining stresses: 50kPa, 100kPa & 200kPa

6/26/2018 29

Find the E50 for 3 confining stresses: 50kPa, 100kPa & 200kPa

160

140

120
Deviator stress (kPa)

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140

6/26/2018 Axial strain 30

15
 26/6/2018

E50,ref
sigma3' E50 (kPa) c'(kPa) fi' (degree) A ln(A) ln(E50)
50 651 4 14 0.569 -0.564 6.479
100 2758 4 14 1.000 0.000 7.922
200 6582 4 14 1.862 0.622 8.792

A=

From the plot:

Ln(E50,ref) = 7.694

So, E50,ref = 2194 kPa

6/26/2018 31

The derived E50,ref = 2194kPa is a quite

reasonable value for the soft clay based on local
analysis experience, and another CID test from
BH-P-3a (retrieved from 6m~6.8m) gives a very
consistent soft clay stiffness result of E50,ref =
2104kPa as illustrated in the next slides.

6/26/2018 32

16
 26/6/2018

CID test conducted for the Undisturbed (UD) sample (UD1) retrieved
from 6m~6.8m at the borehole BH-P-3a with 3 confining stresses:
55kPa, 110kPa & 220kPa

6/26/2018 33

Find the E50 for 3 confining stresses: 55kPa, 110kPa & 220kPa

200.0

180.0

160.0

140.0
Deviator stress (kPa)

120.0

100.0

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200

6/26/2018 Axial strain 34

17
 26/6/2018

E50,ref
sigma3' E50 (kPa) c'(kPa) fi' (degree) A ln(A) ln(E50)
55 721 5 16 0.617 -0.483 6.581
110 3851 5 16 1.085 0.082 8.256
220 5634 5 16 2.022 0.704 8.636

A=

From the plot:

Ln(E50,ref) = 7.652

So, E50,ref = 2104 kPa

6/26/2018 35

Another important soft clay stiffness in HS model

is the reference Oedometer stiffness Eoed, ref,
which can be readily derived from the multiple
Oedometer test results which gives typical Cc
ranging from about 0.7 to 1.1 with average Cc of
about 0.9, and thus:
Cc = 0.9
e0 = 2.7
Pref = 100kPa
Thus,
pref  (1  e0)  2.3 100kPa  (1  2.7)  2.3
E oed ,ref    1064kPa
Cc 0. 9
Taking the previous E50,ref = 2190kPa, the ratio of
E50,ref/Eoed,ref = 2190kPa/1064kPa = 2.0, which
6/26/2018 is a good reasonable and typical value. 36

18
 26/6/2018

GRANDEUR PARK – OA SOILS STUDY

SPT N = ~40

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

σ'3 49.70 σ'3 99.90 σ'3 198.80

250 450 800
400 700
200 350 600
300
150 500
250
400
200
100 300
150
100 200
50
50 100

0 0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10

19
 26/6/2018

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

LAB PLAXIS

Bilogarthmic approach
Casagrande 0.34

0.33

0.32

0.31

0.3
ln(1+e)

0.29

0.28

0.27

0.26

0.25
1 10 100 1000 10000
p

20