26/6/2018

KL IEM Workshop on FEM

11 July 2018

Lecture 8: Advanced Model for Cement

Treated Soil
USDM: SHOTCRETE MODEL
PLAXIS 2018: New CONCRETE MODEL

By: Professor Harry Tan

National University of Singapore

Overview
 Introduction
 Objectives
 Analysis and Results
 Model Verifications
 Application: Concrete Structures
 Field Study 1: Japan Lateral Load Test of Soil Cement Column
 Field Study 2: Nivy Shotcrete NATM Tunnel Lining
 Conclusion

1
 26/6/2018

Introduction

Cement Treated Soil

 Widely used to improve engineering properties of the soft soil.
 Feasible solution to overcome soft ground conditions in the shallow excavation.
 Mixing cement with soil increases strength and stiffness of the in-situ soil but it leads to a
brittle material.

Effect of cement treatment on unconfined stress-strain behaviour of Aberdeen soil,

unsoaked samples (Muhunthan and Sariosseiri, 2008)

2
 26/6/2018

Motivation
 Current design practice:
 Group columns are regarded as composite material assuming there is no failure
had taken place within the cement treated soil columns and untreated soil
 Averaging properties of two materials with very different behaviour may lead to
potential errors in judgement

 Existing soil models unable to fully represent:

 Tension brittle failure and softening effect
 Creep, shrinkage and thermal strains
 Non-linear time-dependent material properties

Shotcrete Model
 Developed by Dr. Bert Schӓdlich and Prof Helmut Schweiger with PLAXIS
 Applications
 Tunnelling applications
 Concrete and Shotcrete with time dependent properties during hydration
 Jet grouting
 Other cement-based soil materials
 Model features
 Time-dependent material properties
 Strain hardening/softening in tension and compression
 Creep
 Shrinkage

3
 26/6/2018

Shotcrete Model (Concrete

Model)


4
 26/6/2018

Objectives

Objectives
 To examine and validate the user-defined shotcrete model (Plaxis
2018 name as Concrete Model) and investigate its applications on
the cement treated soil columns.
 To validate model features compared with published experimental data.
 To evaluate the applicability of the shotcrete model in simulating non-linear
material behaviour.
 To simulate the behaviour of the cement treated soil columns in open
excavation when subjected to a lateral load test (Babasaki et al., 1997) and
compare the numerical simulations with the field observations.

5
 26/6/2018

Analysis and
Results

Part I:
Model
Verification

6
 26/6/2018

Model Structure
 Elastoplastic strain hardening and softening framework

𝝴 = 𝝴e + 𝝴p + 𝝴cr + 𝝴shr

elastic shrinkage
strains plastic creep strains
strains strains

Model Structure
 Uniaxial compression/tension test

7
 26/6/2018

Model Structure
 Input Parameters
No. Parameter
1 E28
2 ν
3 Ψ
4 Leq
5 a
6 φmax
7 fc
8 ft
9 thydr
Description Recommended Values
Young's modulus of cured shotcrete at thydr 25 ~ 30 GPa
Poisson's ratio 0.15 ~ 0.25
Dilatancy angle 0 ~ 10°
0 in FE-calculations, in soil test >0 based on
Equivalent length (if no regularization is used)
average element size
Increase of εcp with increase of p' 16 ~ 20
Maximum friction angle 35 ~ 43°
Safety factor for compressive strength Depending on design standard
Safety factor for tensile strength Depending on design standard
Time for full hydration (usually 28 days) 28d

Model Structure
 Input Parameters (Cont’d)
Compression Parameters Recommended Values

10 fc,28 Uniaxial compressive strength of cured shotcrete at thydr Depending on strength class

11 fc0n Normalized initial mobilized strength in compression 0.1 ~ 0.25

12 fcfn Normalized failure strength in compression 0.1 (1 for no softening)

13 fcun Normalized residual strength in compression 0.1 (1 for no softening)

14 εpcp,1h Uniaxial plastic failure strain at 1h -0.01 ~ -0.03

15 εpcp,8h Uniaxial plastic failure strain at 8h -0.001 ~-0.0015

16 εpcp,24h Uniaxial plastic failure strain at 24h -0.0007 ~ -0.0012

17 Gc,28 Compressive fracture energy of cured shotcrete at thydr 30 ~ 70 kN/m

8
 26/6/2018

Model Structure
 Input Parameters (Cont’d)
Tension Parameters Recommended Value
18 ft,28 Uniaxial tensile strength of cured shotcrete at thydr 0.05 ~ 0.1 fc,28
19 ftun Normalized residual strength in tension 0 (1 for no softening)
20 Gt,28 Tensile fracture energy of cured shotcrete at thydr 0.05 ~ 0.15 kN/m (for plain shotcrete)
Time Dependent Parameters
21 E1/E28 Time dependency of elastic stiffness 1 (no time dependency), 0.5 ~ 0.7 (for shotcrete)
1 (no time dependency)
22 fc,1/fc,28 Time dependency of strength 0.2 ~ 0.3 (for cast concrete)
-1 (J1), -2 (J2), -3 (J3) (for shotcrete)

Model Structure
 Input Parameters (Cont’d)
Creep Parameters Recommended Value
23 φcr Ratio between creep and elastic strains 2.0 ~ 3.0 (for tunnel linings)
24 tcr50 Time for 50% of creep strains (in days) 1d ~ 5d
Shrinkage Parameters
25 εshr∞ Final shrinkage strain -0.0005 ~ -0.0015
26 tshr50 Time for 50% of shrinkage strains (in days) 28d ~ 100d

9
 26/6/2018

Yield Surfaces
 Mohr-Coulomb yield surface Fc for compression
 Rankine yield surface Ft for tension

Yield Surface (Schӓdlich and Schweiger, 2014)

Yield Surfaces

Failure in Biaxial Conditions:

• Good FIT in Tension Failure (**) Graph of q/fc vs p/fc [Obtained from Plaxis]
• Under-estimate by 16% in Compression
Experimental Results on Concrete Strength in Triaxial Conditions
(Gabet et al., 2008; Balmer, 1949)

10
 26/6/2018

Strain Hardening & Softening

in Compression

 Part I: Quadratic Strain Hardening

 Part II: Linear Strain Softening

 Part III: Linear Strain Softening

 Part IV: Constant Residual Strength

Normalized Stress-Strain Curve in Compression (Schӓdlich and Schweiger, 2014)

11
 26/6/2018

Strain Hardening & Softening in

Compression

Normalized Stress-Strain Curve in Compression (Schӓdlich and

Normalized Stress-strain Curve in Compression [Obtained from PLAXIS]
Schweiger, 2014)

Strain Softening in Tension

 Part I: Linear Strain Softening

 Part II: Constant Residual Strength (usually

taken as zero)

Normalized Stress-Strain Curve in Tension (Schӓdlich and Schweiger, 2014)

12
 26/6/2018

Strain Softening in Tension

Normalized Stress-Strain Curve in Tension (Schӓdlich and Schweiger, 2014)

Normalized Stress-strain Curve in Tension [Obtained from PLAXIS]

Regularization Technique for

Strain Softening Materials
 Fracture energy approach
 To promote material stability induced by initiation of strain localization.
 To overcome mesh dependency

𝑔 = 𝐺 /𝐿
𝑔 = 𝐺 /𝐿

Fracture Energy Concept for Shotcrete Model. Left: in Compression ; Right: in Tension (Schütz et al., 2011)

13
 26/6/2018

Regularization Technique for

Strain Softening Materials

Normalized Stress-strain Curve in Compression [Obtained from PLAXIS] Normalized Stress-strain Curve in Tension [Obtained from PLAXIS]

14
 26/6/2018

Time-dependent Material
Properties:
Plastic Deformability
 Low elastic modulus and high plastic ductility

Experimental Data of εpcp with Time Graph of εpcp [%] vs t [h]

(Golser et al., 1991; Sezaki et al., 1989; Wierig, 1971)

Time-dependent Material
Properties:
Elastic Stiffness
 Due to hydration of cement paste

Experimental Data of Young's Modulus with Time (Chang, 1994) Graph of E [GPa] vs t [h]

15
 26/6/2018

Time Dependent Material

Properties:
Strength
 Due to hydration of cement paste

Graph of fc [MPa] vs t [h]

Early Strength Classes of Sprayed Concrete
(Schӓdlich, 2014)

Creep
 Uniaxial multistage creep test

16
 26/6/2018

Creep
 Viscoelastic approach

Experimental Data of Creep Strains with Time Graph of ε1 [10-3] vs t [h]

(Aldrian, 1991)

Shrinkage
 Isotropic loss of volume with time

Experimental Data of Shrinkage with Time Graph of shrinkage [mm/m] vs t [d]

(Schӓdlich, 2014)

17
 26/6/2018

Shrinkage

Experimental Data of Shrinkage with Time Graph of εshr [%] vs t [h]

[Polymer modified shotcrete] (Galler et al., 2009)

18
 26/6/2018

STATE PARAMETERS TO INTERPRETE RESULTS

• Hc=0-1, compr hardening

• Hc>1, compr softening

• Ht=0, No tens softening

• Ht=0-1, tens hardening
• Hc>1, tens at residual
value

Part II:
Application:
Concrete Structures

19
 26/6/2018

Application: Concrete
Structures

Indirect Tension in a Notched Beam

Moderately Reinforced Concrete Beam

Notched Beam in Mixed Fracture

Mode

Application: Concrete
Structures
 Modified Input Parameters to remove any time dependency
No. Modification
1 E28 = E
2 fc,28 = fc
3 ft,28 = ft
4 E1/E28 = 1
5 fc,1/fc,28 = 1
6 εpcp,1h = εpcp,8h = εpcp,24h = εpcp
7 Gc,28 = Gt,28 = Gc
8 εshr∞ = 0
9 a = 18
10 φmax = 37o

20
 26/6/2018

Application: Concrete
Structures
Indirect Tension in a Notched Beam

Experimental Data (Rots, 1988) Load-deflection curve

Application: Concrete Structures

Indirect Tension in a Notched Beam
Ht>1.0 Tension
Residual failure
tension Plastic Points

Plastic Points and Hardening Parameter Ht

Deformed Mesh

Tension cracks progress

from notch upwards

Contour Plot of Normalized Tension Softening Parameters

21
 26/6/2018

Application: Concrete
Structures
ft.,28 (MPa) Gt (N/m)
 Modifications: Arrea and Ingraffea (1981) - -
Xie and Gerstle (1995) 4.0 150
 Modified key input Saleh and Aliabadi (1995) 2.8 100
parameters Thesis 4.5 150

 Steel plate applied to

prevent local failure
Steel
Plate

Application: Concrete
Structures
Notched Beam in Mixed Fracture Mode

Load-deflection Curve
Experimental Data (Arrea & Ingraffea, 1981)

22
 26/6/2018

Application: Concrete
Structures
Notched Beam in Mixed Fracture Mode

Crack pattern

Contour Plot of Normalized Tension Softening Parameters, Ht

Deformed Mesh

Application: Concrete
Structures
Moderately Reinforced Concrete Beam

Experimental Data (Kwak & Filippou, 1996) Load-deflection Curve

23
 26/6/2018

Application: Concrete
Structures
Moderately Reinforced Concrete Beam

Crack pattern

Contour Plot of Deviatoric Strain

Deformed Mesh

Part III:
Field Case Study:
Ex.1: Lateral Load
Test of Soil Cement
Column

24
 26/6/2018

Lateral Load Test: Field

Conditions

(a) Soil profile; (b) schematic of test setup (After Namikawa et al.,
2008)

Lateral Load Test: Test Results

Field measurement data. Cored samples test result for cemented column.
(a) Load-displacement at applied point (After Namikawa et al., 2008); Left: UCT test results; Right: split tensile strength results
(b) Post-test fracture pattern in columns (after Babasaki et al., 1997) (After Namikawa et al., 2008)

25
 26/6/2018

Lateral Load Test: Model Set-

up

Finite Element Models for Lateral Load Test of Cement Treated Columns. Left: 2-D model; Right: 3-D model

Lateral Load Test: Model Set-

up

FE Model with Boundary Conditions

26
 26/6/2018

Lateral Load Test: Parameters

Calibration
 Assumptions:
 Concrete and steel behave much stronger than cement treated soil columns
 Embedded untreated soil has an insignificant effect on the damage.

Material Model Type

Concrete Shotcrete Model
Untreated Soil Mohr-Coulomb Model
Steel Linear Elastic Model
(a) Shotcrete Model
Cement Treated Soil
(b) Tresca Model

Lateral Load Test: Parameters

Calibration
 Strength: uniaxial compression test (UCT) and split tension test (STT)

STT Results (After Namikawa et al., 2008)

Case qu st
1 2.8 MPa
a) 0.20qu
2 3.1 MPa
b) 0.15qu
3 4.4 MPa
c) 0.10qu
4 4.9 MPa
UCT Results (After Namikawa et al., 2008) Summary of case analyses based on the strength of the cement treated columns
(after Saw, 2014)

27
 26/6/2018

Lateral Load Test: Parameters

Calibration
 Fracture energy
 in tension: Three-point bending notched beam test Gf0 = 9N/m when σt0 = 380kPa
 In compression: G , =3 𝑓, (Tariq and Maki, 2014)

Tension Softening Relation of Cemented Toyoura Sand (after Namikawa, 2006).

Left: BNT Setup; Right: Tensile Stress-opening Crack Displacement Relation.

Lateral Load Test: Parameters

Calibration
 Normalized compression strength parameters : UCT

Effect of Cement Content on Stress-strain Behaviour of Treated

Normalized Stress-strain Curve in Compression
Clay by Unconfined Compression Test (after Kamruzzaman, 2002)

28
 26/6/2018

Lateral Load Test: Parameters

Calibration
 Normalized tension strength parameters : direct tension test

Stress-strain Curves of Direct Tension Test on Light Cemented Sand (Das and Dass, 1995)

Experimental Results for the Direct Tensile Test (Cornlissen et al., 1986; Hordijk et al., Normalized Stress-strain Curve in Tension
1987)

Lateral Load Test: Parameters

Calibration
 Linear elastic parameters (Namikawa et al., 2008):
 γ = 1700kg/m3,
 E = 2000qu
 υ = 0.167

Time-dependent parameters:
 E1/E28 = 1
 fc,1/fc,28 = 1

Creep and shrinkage parameters: recommended values

29
 26/6/2018

Lateral Load Test: Parameters

Calibration
 Tresca Model
 Su = 0.5 qu (Saw, 2014)

No. Parameter Description Input Value

1 Material Type - Mohr-Coulomb
2 Drainage Type Undrained (B)
3 E (kN/m2) Young’s modulus 6.6 x 106
4 ν Poisson's ratio 0.167
5 Su (kN/m2) Undrained shear strength 1550

Lateral Load Test: Results and

Discussion
Concrete damage plasticity (CDP) model 2-D shotcrete model 3-D shotcrete model

Comparison of Lateral Load-displacement Relations for Field Test Analysis Comparison of Lateral Load-displacement Relations for Field Test and Analysis Results obtained from
and Results obtained from CDP Model in 3-D Abaqus (Saw, 2014) Shotcrete Model. Right: in 2-D Plaxis; Left: 3-D Plaxis

30
 26/6/2018

Lateral Load Test: Results and

Discussion
2-D shotcrete model 3-D shotcrete model

Comparison of Lateral Load-displacement Relations for Field Test and Comparison of Lateral Load-displacement Relations for Field Test and
Analysis Results obtained from Shotcrete Model in 2-D Plaxis Analysis Results obtained from Shotcrete Model in 3-D Plaxis

Lateral Load Test: Results and

Discussion
CDP 2-D shotcrete model 3-D shotcrete model
model

Comparison of Lateral Load-displacement Relations for Field Test Comparison of Lateral Load-displacement Relations for Field Test and Analysis Results obtained from
Analysis and Results obtained from CDP Model in 3-D Abaqus (Saw, Shotcrete Model. Right: in 2-D Plaxis; Left: 3-D Plaxis
2014)

31
 26/6/2018

Lateral Load Test: Results and

Discussion
2-D shotcrete model 3-D shotcrete model

Comparison of Lateral Load-displacement Relations for Field Test and Comparison of Lateral Load-displacement Relations for Field Test and
Analysis Results obtained from Shotcrete Model in 2-D Plaxis Analysis Results obtained from Shotcrete Model in 3-D Plaxis

Lateral Load Test: Results and

Discussion

Case Base Case E (MPa) Gt0 (N/m)

A 1750qu 9
2-D Plaxis B Case 3b 1500qu 9
C 1750qu 12
3-D Plaxis D Case 3a 1750qu 9

Lateral Load-displacement Relations for Modified Cases

obtained from Shotcrete Model in 2-D Plaxis and 3-D Plaxis

32
 26/6/2018

Lateral Load Test: Results and

Analysis

Crack
pattern

Damage at Cement Treated Columns observed in Case 3b:
Left: Compressive Damage; Right: Tensile Damage (Saw,
2014)
H H
Contour PlotsC for Case B at Displacement of -2.26 mm in 2-D Plaxis. Right:
t Normalized
Compression Hardening Parameter; Left: Normalized Tension Softening Parameter

Lateral Load Test: Results and

Discussion

Crack
pattern

Damage at Cement Treated Columns observed in Case 3b:
Left: Compressive Damage; Right: Tensile Damage (Saw,
2014)
H H
Contour plots for Case D at Displacement of -2.1 mm in 3-D Plaxis. Right:
C
Normalized Compression Hardening parameter;t Left: Normalized Tension Softening
parameter

33
 26/6/2018

Lateral Load Test: Results and

Discussion
2-D model 3-D model

Lateral load-displacement Relations Modelled by Classic Tresca and Shotcrete Models. Left: 2-D Plaxis; Right: 3D Plaxis

Lateral Load Test: Results and

Discussion

Yielding Zone at Cement Treated

Columns in Classical Tresca Model (Saw, Compressive Stress Distribution for Tresca
2014) Model

34
 26/6/2018

Lateral Load Test: Critical

Issues
Sensitivity Study on Mesh coarseness

Sensitivity study on mesh coarseness. Left: Case B in 2-D Plaxis; Right: Case D in 3-D Plaxis

Lateral Load Test: Critical

Issues
Snap Back Problem

Structural response of tension bar depending on its length (Karihalloo, 2003)

Lateral load-displacement relation for Case 2c

and Case 3c with snap back problem in 3-D
Plaxis

35
 26/6/2018

Lateral Load Test: Critical

Issues
Snap Back Problem

 Allowing for more iterations before

reducing step size.
 Using a constant step size.
 Inserting nil steps.
 Adding viscous damping.
 Performing dynamic calculations.
 Using a tangent stiffness matrix.
Lateral load-displacement relation for Case 2c and Case 3c after
solving snap back problem in 3-D Plaxis

Lateral Load Test: Summary

 Tensile damage is the failure mechanism of the cement treated soil columns used
as retaining structure in open excavation while the compression strength is not fully
mobilized yet.
 Both 2-D and 3-D Plaxis models provide fair prediction of lateral load-displacement
relation as well as the crack pattern through the comparison with field observation.
 Shotcrete model is much superior to Tresca model in simulating cement treated soil
behaviour, especially in brittle tension softening mode.
 A sensitivity study on mesh coarseness is necessary if 3-D Plaxis is employed.
 There is a potential snap back problem in the case of low fracture energy, but it can
be solved by some recommended methods.

36
 26/6/2018

Ex.2 Shotcrete Lining of NIVY

Tunnel

Impact of SCM on Tunnel Lining Design

SCM cf Simplified E model:

Small effects on tunnel lining
deformation overall
• SCM gave realistic tunnel lining tension • SCM gave lower BM and Axial
stresses during tunnel excavations forces in tunnel lining design

37
 26/6/2018

Conclusion

Conclusion
 Model features have been successfully verified.
 Potential to simulate non-linear material behavior.
 Both 2-D and 3-D shotcrete models can fairly predict lateral load-displacement
relation and crack pattern while Tresca model overestimates load and gives
incorrect failure mechanism.
 Appropriate model to simulate cement treated soil behavior in a realistic
manner as it can account for tension softening effect.
 All input parameters can be obtained from 1D UCT, direct/indirect tension test,
and three-point bending notched beam test, if available.

38