3DF2 5 Validation 3D Plaxis

PLAXIS
3D FOUNDATION
Validation Manual
Version 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction..................................................................................................1-1
2 Soil model problems with known theoretical solutions.............................2-1
2.1 Bi-axial test with linear elastic model .................................................... 2-1
2.2 Bi-axial shearing test with linear elastic model ..................................... 2-3
2.3 Bi-axial test with mohr-coulomb model ................................................ 2-5
2.4 Triaxial test with hardening soil model.................................................. 2-7
2.5 Phi-c reduction and comparison with Bishops method......................... 2-9
3 Elasticity problems with known theoretical solutions ..............................3-1
3.1 Strip footing on elastic Gibson soil........................................................ 3-1
3.2 Flexible tank foundation on elastic saturated soil .................................. 3-4
4 Plasticity problems with theoretical collapse loads...................................4-1
4.1 Bearing capacity of strip footing............................................................ 4-1
4.2 Bearing capacity of a circular footing.................................................... 4-4
5 Consolidation................................................................................................5-1
5.1 One-dimensional consolidation.............................................................. 5-1
6 Structural element problems ......................................................................6-1
6.1 Bending of floor elements...................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Bending of wall elements....................................................................... 6-3
6.3 Bending of shell elements...................................................................... 6-5
6.4 Bearing capacity of ground anchors....................................................... 6-8
6.5 Performance of springs ........................................................................ 6-11
6.6 Performance of interface elements in soil with constant cohesion....... 6-12
6.7 Performance of interface elements in soil with varying cohesion........ 6-15
7 Single pile and pile group in overconsolidated clay ..................................7-1
7.1 Introduction............................................................................................ 7-1
7.2 Numerical simulation of the single pile behaviour (pile load test) ........ 7-1
7.2.1 Geometry of the model ..............................................................7-3
7.2.2 Material properties .....................................................................7-5
7.2.3 Modelling the single pile............................................................7-6
7.3 Numerical simulation of the pile group action....................................... 7-8
7.3.1 Effect of initial stresses............................................................7-13
7.4 Conclusions.......................................................................................... 7-14
8 Validation of embedded piles the Alzey bridge pile load test................8-1
8.1 General................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 Finite element model.............................................................................. 8-2
8.3 Material properties................................................................................. 8-3
VALIDATION MANUAL
ii PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION
8.4 Results ................................................................................................... 8-5
8.5 Discussion and conclusions ................................................................... 8-7
9 Piled raft foundation in Frankfurter clay.................................................. 9-1
9.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 9-1
9.2 Frankfurt subground and methodology to develop the piled raft........... 9-1
9.3 Example of a high-rise building on Frankfurt subsoil ........................... 9-2
9.4 Geometry ............................................................................................... 9-2
9.5 Loads ..................................................................................................... 9-3
9.6 Numerical model ................................................................................... 9-5
9.6.1 Soil Parameters .......................................................................... 9-5
9.6.2 3D Finite element model............................................................ 9-6
9.6.3 Calculations ............................................................................... 9-7
9.7 Inspect output ........................................................................................ 9-8
9.8 Conclusion and Outlook ...................................................................... 9-10
10 Application of the ground anchor facility................................................ 10-1
10.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 10-1
10.2 Deep excavation with prestressed ground anchors .............................. 10-3
10.3 Results ................................................................................................. 10-5
10.4 Comparison of 3D results with 2D reference solution......................... 10-7
10.5 Conclusions ......................................................................................... 10-9
11 References .................................................................................................. 11-1

INTRODUCTION
1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
The performance and accuracy of PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION has been carefully tested by
carrying out analyses of problems with known theoretical solutions. A selection of these
benchmark analyses is described in Chapters 2 to 6. PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION has also
been used to carry out predictions and back-analysis calculations of the performance of
full-scale structures as additional checks on performance and accuracy.
Soil model problems: A selection of soil model problems with known theoretical
solutions is presented in Chapter 2.
Elastic benchmark problems: A large number of elasticity problems with known exact
solutions is available for use as benchmark problems. A selection of elastic calculations
is described in Chapter 3; these particular analyses have been selected because they
resemble the calculations that PLAXIS might be used for in practice.
Plastic benchmark problems: A series of benchmark calculations involving plastic
material behaviour is described in Chapter 4. This series includes the calculation of
collapse loads for two different footings. As for the elastic benchmarks, only problems
with known exact solutions are considered.
Consolidation: The performance of consolidation has been verified with the classical
one-dimensional problem in Chapter 5.
Structural element problems: In Chapter 6 the performance of structural elements has
been verified with known theoretical solutions.
Case studies: PLAXIS has been used extensively for the prediction and back-analysis of
full-scale projects. This type of calculations may be used as a further check on the
performance of PLAXIS provided that good quality soil data and measurements of
structural performance are available. Some such projects are published in the PLAXIS
Bulletin, on the internet site: http://www.plaxis.nl and are available at PLAXIS. Four
validation examples can be found in the last chapters in this manual.

VALIDATION MANUAL
1-2 PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION

SOIL MODEL PROBLEMS WITH KNOWN THEORETICAL SOLUTIONS
2-1
2 SOIL MODEL PROBLEMS WITH KNOWN THEORETICAL SOLUTIONS
A series of calculations is described in this chapter. In each case the analytical solutions
may be found in many of the various textbooks on elasticity solutions, for example
Giroud (1972) and Poulos & Davis (1974).
2.1 BI-AXIAL TEST WITH LINEAR ELASTIC MODEL
Input: A bi-axial test is conducted on a volume of 1x1x1 m as shown in Figure 2.1. The
bottom-left is fixed in all direction and the front, left and rear planes are fixed
horizontally.
2

Figure 2.1 Bi-axial test geometry
The lateral pressure
2
is represented by a distributed load on the right plane. The axial
load
1
is represented by a distributed load on the top and bottom plane. The density is
set to zero, the remaining properties of the soil are:
E = 1000 kN/m
2
= 0.25
The sample is subjected to the following loading tests: lateral loading of
2
= -1 kN/m
2
,
axial loading of
1
= -1 kN/m
2
and bi-axial loading of
1
=
2
= -1 kN/m
2
.
VALIDATION MANUAL
Output: The displacement of the upper right corner for the three loading tests is:
Phase 1: u
x
= 0.9375 mm, u
y
= -0.3125 mm, u
z
= 0 mm
Phase 2: u
x
= 0.3125 mm, u
y
= -0.9375 mm, u
z
= 0 mm
Phase 3: u
x
= u
y
= -0.625 mm, u
z
= 0 mm
Since a block of unit length is considered, the values of these displacement components
are equal to the strains in corresponding directions.
Verification: The theoretical solution of the amount of strain is:
( ) ( )
E
zz yy xx
xx

+
=
( ) ( )
E
zz xx yy
yy

+
=
( ) ( )
( )
yy xx zz
yy xx zz
zz
E

+ = =
+
= 0
The theoretical strain is the following in each phase:
Test 1:

xx
= -1 kN/m
2

yy
= 0 kN/m
2

zz
= -0.25 kN/m
2

xx
= -0.937510
-3

yy
= 0.312510
-3

zz
= 0
Test 2:

xx
= 0 kN/m
2

yy
= -1 kN/m
2

zz
= -0.25 kN/m
2

xx
= 0.312510
-3

yy
= -0.937510
-3

zz
= 0
Test 3:

xx
= -1 kN/m
2

yy
= -1 kN/m
2

zz
= -0.5 kN/m
2

xx
= -0.62510
-3

yy
= -0.62510
-3

zz
= 0
Theoretical and calculated values are in agreement with each other.
2-3
2.2 BI-AXIAL SHEARING TEST WITH LINEAR ELASTIC MODEL
Input: A bi-axial shearing test is conducted on a volume with the same properties as
given in Section 2.1. The sample is subjected to a shear loading of 1 kN/m
2
as shown in
Figure 2.2. Additionally, the line (1, 0) (1, 1) in the y = -1 m plane is fixed in y- and z-
directions.

Figure 2.2 Bi-axial shearing test initial geometry (top) and result (bottom)
Output: The resulting deformations are shown in Figure 2.2, the shear strain is 2.510
-3
.
VALIDATION MANUAL
Verification: The shear modulus is equal to:
( )
2
kN/m 400
5 . 2
1000
1 2
= =
+
=
E
G
and the shear strain is:
3
1
2.5 10
400
xy
xy
G

= = =
The computational results are in agreement with the theoretical solution.
2-5
2.3 BI-AXIAL TEST WITH MOHR-COULOMB MODEL
Input: A bi-axial test is conducted on a volume identical to the one presented in section
2.1. The material behaviour is now modelled by means of the Mohr-Coulomb model.
The confining pressure
2
is represented by vertical distributed load on the right side
plane. The axial load
1
is represented by distributed loads on top and bottom planes.
The density is set to zero, the remaining model parameters are:
E = 1000 kN/m
2
= 0.25
c = 1 kN/m
2
= 30
The sample is subjected to the following loading scheme: bi-axial loading of
1
=

2
= -1
kPa, axial loading of
1
= -2 kPa and further axial loading to
1
= -10 kPa. A tolerated
error of 0.001 is used.
Output: The soil fails at an axial stress
1
= -6.48 kN/m
2
as shown in Figure 2.3.

2 4 6 8
O
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
eps-y []
sig'-y [kN/m2]

Figure 2.3 Results of the bi-axial loading test with the Mohr-Coulomb model, axial
stress versus axial strain
VALIDATION MANUAL
Verification: The theoretical solution to the failure of the sample is given by the Mohr
Coulomb criterion:
0 cos sin
2 2
2 1
2 1
=
+
+
=

c f
Failure occurs in compression at:
46 . 6
sin 1
cos
2
sin 1
sin 1
2 1
=
+
=
c kN/m
2

The error in the numerical solution is therefore 0.3 %.
2-7
2.4 TRIAXIAL TEST WITH HARDENING SOIL MODEL
Input: A triaxial test is conducted on a volume of 1x1x1 m as shown in Figure 2.4. The
soil behaviour is modelled by means of the Hardening Soil model. The bottom-left is
fixed in all directions and the left and rear planes are fixed horizontally. The pressure
2

is represented by a distributed load on the right plane and
3
is represented by a
distributed load on the front plane. The axial load
1
is represented by a distributed load
on the top and bottom planes. The density and are set to zero, the remaining model
parameters are:
4
50
10 0 . 2 =
ref
E kN/m
2 4
10 0 . 2 =
oed
E kN/m
2

4
10 0 . 6 =
ref
ur
E kN/m
2
1 ' =
ref
c kN/m
2
= 35 ' = 5 '
2
3

Figure 2.4 Triaxial test geometry
The sample is subjected to the following loading: isotropic loading to -100 kN/m
2
, (after
which displacements are reset to zero), axial compression until failure and axial
extension until failure.
Output: The triaxial sample fails at
1
= -373.3 kN/m
2
in compression and at
1
= -26.4
kN/m
2
in extension as can be seen in Figure 2.5.
VALIDATION MANUAL

-60 -30 0 30 60 90
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
eps-y []
sig'-y [kN/m2]
Extension Compression
-26 kPa
-373 kPa

Figure 2.5 Compression and extension results of triaxial test with the Hardening Soil
model, axial stress versus axial strain
Verification: The theoretical solution to the failure of the sample is given by the Mohr-
Coulomb criterion:
0 cos sin
2 2
3 1
3 1

+
+
=

c f
so that failure occurs in compression at:
9 . 372
sin 1
cos
2
sin 1
sin 1
3 1
=
+
=
c kN/m
2

and failure occurs in extension at:
1 . 26
sin 1
cos
2
sin 1
sin 1
3 1
=
+
+
+
c kN/m
2

The calculated and theoretical values are in good agreement with each other.
2-9
2.5 PHI-C REDUCTION AND COMPARISON WITH BISHOPS METHOD

Figure 2.6 Geometry of the embankment
Input: In this chapter the stability of an embankment is calculated by means of phi-c
reduction. The situation is compared with a 2D calculation and with Bishops slip circle
method (see for example Verruijt, 1983). The embankment has a slope of 1:2, a height
of 4.5 m and a width of 9.0 m. A load is applied to an area of 3.0x1.0 m on top of the
embankment (Figure 2.6). The Mohr-Coulomb model is used and the unit weight is set
to 16 kN/m
3
. The remaining properties of the soil are:
E = 2600 kN/m
2
= 0.3
c = 5 kN/m
2
= 20
The initial stresses are generated using gravity loading. Then the embankment is
subjected to the following analyses:
Phi-c reduction without additional loading
Phi-c reduction after external loading of 30 kPa
Applying an external load of 100 kPa to simulate failure
Output: The initial safety factor without external loading is 1.55, the safety factor with
external loading to 30 kPa is found to be 1.23 (Figure 2.7). The embankment fails at an
external load of 59 kPa.
VALIDATION MANUAL

Figure 2.7 Load-displacement curve
Verification: The results of PLAXIS 2D and 3D calculations are very similar. The safety
factors are compared with Bishops slip circle method (Figure 2.8). From the Bishops
slip circle method a safety factor of 1.56 is obtained for the initial situation. This value
agrees with the PLAXIS calculation.

Smallest Safety Factor
Bishop
F= 1.564

Figure 2.8 Bishops slip circle method result
Input: In addition safety factors are calculated for different situations where the load
is only applied partially in order to see the influence of 3D effects. The following areas
have been subsequently loaded to 30 kPa: 3x3 m, 3x6 m, 3x12 m and 3x18 m (Figure
2.9).
2-11

Figure 2.9 Incremental displacements after Phi-c reduction for the different loading
areas

Figure 2.10 Load-displacement curve
The safety factor decreases with increasing load as expected (see Figure 2.10). The
situation in which an area of 3x18 m is loaded is comparable to the situations as
considered in the first part of this section.

VALIDATION MANUAL

ELASTICITY PROBLEMS WITH KNOWN THEORETICAL SOLUTIONS
3-1
3 ELASTICITY PROBLEMS WITH KNOWN THEORETICAL SOLUTIONS
A series of elastic benchmark calculations is described in this Chapter. In each case the
analytical solutions may be found in many of the various textbooks on elasticity
solutions, for example Giroud (1972) and Poulos & Davis (1974).
3.1 STRIP FOOTING ON ELASTIC GIBSON SOIL
Input: Figure 3.1 shows the 3D mesh and the soil data for a plane strain calculation of
the settlement of a strip load on Gibson soil. (Gibson soil is an elastic layer in which the
shear modulus increases linearly with depth). Using z to denote depth, the shear
modulus, G, used in the calculation is given by: G = 100 z. With a Poissons ratio of
0.495, the Youngs modulus varies by: E = 299 z. In order to prescribe this variation of
Youngs modulus in the material properties window the reference value of Youngs
modulus, E
ref
, is taken very small and the Advanced option is selected from the
Parameters tab sheet. The reference level y
ref
is entered as 0.0 m, being the top of the
geometry.
1.0 m
7.0 m
Gibson soil
= 0.495
G = 100 z kN/m
2

4.0 m
1.0 m 1/2 B
p = 10 kN/m
2

z

Figure 3.1 Problem geometry
Output: An exact solution to this problem is only available for the case of a Poissons
ratio of 0.5; in the PLAXIS calculation a value of 0.495 is used for the Poissons ratio in
order to approximate this incompressibility condition. The numerical results show an
almost uniform settlement of the soil surface underneath the strip load as can be seen
from the displacement shadings plot in Figure 3.2. Figure 3.3 shows the shadings of the
total stresses. The computed settlement is 46.4 mm at the centre of the strip load.
VALIDATION MANUAL

Figure 3.2 Vertical displacement shadings

Figure 3.3 Total stresses in soil
3-3
Verification: The analytic solution is exact only for an infinite half-space, whereas the
PLAXIS solution is obtained for a layer of finite depth. However, the effect of a shear
modulus that increases linearly with depth is to localise the deformations near the
surface; it would therefore be expected that the finite thickness of the layer has only a
small effect on the results. The exact solution for this particular problem, as given by
Gibson (1967), gives a uniform settlement beneath the load of magnitude:
Settlement =
2
p

with = 100 for this case. The exact solution for this case gives a settlement of 50 mm.
The numerical solution is 7% lower than the exact solution, which is partly due to the
finite depth. If, for instance, the thickness of the soil layer is increased to 100 m, the
settlement calculated by PLAXIS becomes 49 mm and the error is only 2%.
VALIDATION MANUAL
3.2 FLEXIBLE TANK FOUNDATION ON ELASTIC SATURATED SOIL
Problem: In this case a flexible tank on elastic saturated soil is tested. The test includes
the verification of the settlement of the centre of the tank for the condition of
homogeneous, isotropic soil of finite depth.
Input: The dimensions of the tank used in the test calculation are shown in Figure 3.4.
The tank is founded on a homogeneous, isotropic soil of infinite depth. The tank will
impose a pressure difference in the soil of q = 263.3 kN/m
2
. The remaining soil
properties are:
E = 95.8 MN/m
2
= 0.499

Figure 3.4 Flexible tank foundation
Output: The vertical settlement of the surface at the centre of the tank, calculated by
PLAXIS, is 73.6 mm. A coarse mesh has been used for this calculation. The vertical
displacements and the deformed mesh are shown in the Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6.
3-5

Figure 3.5 Vertical displacements

Figure 3.6 Deformed mesh
VALIDATION MANUAL
Verification: The settlement at the centre of the tank is given by:
E
qRI
u
p
y

=
Where I
p
is the influence coefficient, which can be determined with Figure 3.7.

Figure 3.7 Influence coefficients for settlement under uniform load over circular area
The settlement at the centre of the tank is therefore:
074 . 0
1000 8 . 95
15 . 1 35 . 23 3 . 263
=

=
y
u m
This is in good correspondence with the numerical value from PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION.

PLASTICITY PROBLEMS WITH THEORETICAL COLLAPSE LOADS
4-1
4 PLASTICITY PROBLEMS WITH THEORETICAL COLLAPSE LOADS
Two footing collapse problems involving plastic material behaviour are described in this
chapter. The first involves a strip footing on a cohesive soil with strength increasing
linearly with depth and the second involves a smooth square footing on a frictional soil.
4.1 BEARING CAPACITY OF STRIP FOOTING
Problem: In practice it is often found that clay type soils have a strength that increases
with depth. This type of strength variation is particularly important for foundations with
large physical dimensions. A series of plastic collapse solutions for rigid plane strain
footings on soil with strength increasing linearly with depth, has been derived by Davis
and Booker (1973). These solutions may be used to verify the performance of PLAXIS
for this class of problems.
Input: The dimensions and material properties used in the test calculation are shown in
Figure 4.1. In fact, only half of the symmetric problem is modelled. The cohesion at the
soil surface, c
ref
, is taken to be 1 kN/m
2
and the value of the cohesion gradient in the
advanced settings, c
increment
, is 2 kN/m
2
/m, using a reference level, y
ref
= 0 m (= top of the
layer). The stiffness at the top is given by E
ref
= 299 kN/m
2
and the increase of stiffness
with the depth is defined by E
increment
= 598 kN/m
2
/m. Calculations are carried out for the
case of a rough (x- and z-direction are fixed) and a smooth footing (x- and z-direction are
free).
1.0 m
4.0 m
No tension cut-off
= 0.495
G = 100 c kN/m
2

2.0 m
1.0 m 1/2 B
p
= 0
c
layer

c 5 kN/m
2

1 kN/m
2

Output: The calculated maximum average vertical stress under the smooth footing is
7.82 kN/m
2
, giving a bearing capacity of 15.6 kN. For the rough footing this is 9.28
kN/m
2
, giving a bearing capacity of 18.6 kN. The computed load-displacement curves
are shown in Figure 4.2. The deformed mesh for the smooth footing is shown in Figure
4.3.
VALIDATION MANUAL

10 20 30 40 50
O
2
4
6
8
10
Uy [mm]
sig'-y [kN/m2]

Figure 4.2 Stress-displacement curves
Verification: The analytical solution derived by Davis & Booker (1973) for the mean
ultimate vertical stress beneath the footing, p
max
, is:
( )

+ + = =
4
2
max
depth
layer
Bc
c
B
F
p
Where B is the footing width and is a factor that depends on the footing roughness and
the rate of increase of clay strength with depth. The appropriate values of in this case
are 1.27 for the smooth footing and 1.48 for the rough footing. The analytical solution
therefore gives average vertical stresses at collapse of 7.8 kN/m
2
for smooth footing and
9.1 kN/m
2
for the rough footing. These results indicate that the errors in the PLAXIS
solution are 0.3% and 2% respectively.
Directional dependence: In addition the infinite long strip is modelled along the x-axis
with the same parameters. The deformed mesh is shown in Figure 4.4. The results are
exactly the same as obtained from the above calculation with the strip modelled along
the z-axis. There is no directional dependency.
4-3

Figure 4.3 Deformed mesh (smooth) when the strip is modelled along the z-axis.

Figure 4.4 Deformed mesh (smooth) when the strip is modelled along the x-axis.
VALIDATION MANUAL
4.2 BEARING CAPACITY OF A CIRCULAR FOOTING
Input: Figure 4.5 shows the mesh and material data for a smooth rigid circular footing
with a radius of 1 m on a frictional soil. The thickness of the soil layer is taken to be 4
metres and the material behaviour is represented by the elasto-plastic Mohr-Coulomb
model. The footing is represented by a distributed load on a plate with high flexural
rigidity, but low normal stiffness. Around the footing an interface has been modelled,
extending 0.5 metres below the footing. A virtual thickness of 0.3 metres has been
assigned to this interface. During the ultimate level 3D plastic staged construction
calculation the load is increased until failure.
footing

load

1.0 m

4.0 m
E = 2400 kN/m
2
c = 1.6 kN/m
2

= 0.20
= 30
x

y

5.0 m

5.0 m

z

x

z

= 16 kN/m
3

Output: The load-displacement curve for the footing is shown in Figure 4.6. The final
vertical load at failure is 227 kN/m
2
. During the calculation a higher vertical load of 242
kN/m
2
is obtained and the final, lower, collapse load is only obtained if sufficient
additional calculation steps are permitted. For this calculation a total of 1000 calculation
steps have been used. Figure 4.7 shows the absolute displacement shadings at failure.
4-5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
50
100
150
200
250
|U| [m]
Load [kN/m
2
]

Figure 4.6 Load displacement curve

Figure 4.7 Absolute displacement shadings at failure
Verification: The exact solution for this collapse load problem for a circular footing is
derived by Cox (1962). For R/c = 10 and = 30. Cox presents the exact solution:
P
max
= 141 c = 141 1.6 = 225.6 kN/m
2

The relative error of the end result calculated with PLAXIS is less than 1%.
VALIDATION MANUAL

CONSOLIDATION
5-1
5 CONSOLIDATION
In this Chapter, the results of a one-dimensional consolidation analysis in PLAXIS 3D
FOUNDATION are compared to an analytical solution.
5.1 ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
Input: Figure 5.1 shows the finite element mesh for the one-dimensional consolidation
problem. The thickness of the layer is 1.0 m. The layer surface (upper side) is allowed to
drain while the other sides are kept undrained by imposing closed consolidation
boundary conditions. These are the standard boundary conditions in PLAXIS 3D
FOUNDATION. An excess pore pressure, p
0
, is generated by using undrained material
behaviour and applying an external load p
0
in the first (plastic) calculation phase. In
addition, ten consolidation analyses are performed to ultimate times of 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0,
2.0, 5.0, 10, 20, 50 and 100 days respectively.

H
p
0

Figure 5.1 Problem geometry and finite element mesh
Output: Figure 5.2 shows the calculated relative excess pore pressure versus the
relative vertical position as marked. Each of the above consolidation times is plotted.
Figure 5.3 presents the development of the relative excess pore pressure at the (closed)
bottom.
E = 1000 kN/m
2

= 0.0
k = 0.001 m/day
w
= 10 kN/m
3

H = 1.0 m
VALIDATION MANUAL
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
Relative excess pore pressure p / p0
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

y

/

H
0,01
0,02
0,05
0,1
0,2
0,5
1
2
Figure 5.2 Development of excess pore pressure as a function of the sample height

1e-2 0.1 1 10 100
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Time [day]
Relative Excess Pore Pressure p/p
0

Figure 5.3 Development of excess pore pressure at the bottom of the sample as a
function of time
H
t c
T
v
2
=
w
oed
v
kE
c =

( )
( )( ) - +
E -
E
oed
2 1 1
1
=

T=
CONSOLIDATION
5-3
Verification: The problem of one-dimensional consolidation can be described by the
following differential equation for the excess pore pressure p:
2
2
z
p
c
t
p
v

where:
( )
( )( )
y H z
E
E
kE
c
oed
w
oed
v
=
+

= =

2 1 1
1

The analytical solution of this equation, i.e. the relative excess pore pressure, p / p
0
as a
function of time and position is presented by Verruijt (1983):
( )
( )
( ) ( )

H
t c

j-
H
y

j-
j
t z
p
p
v
j
j=
2
2
2
1
1 0
4
1 2 exp
2
1 2 cos
1 2
1 4
,
This solution is presented by the continuous lines in Figure 5.2. It can be seen that the
numerical solution is close to the analytical solution, but has two distinct points of
difference. First, the excess pore pressure initially calculated is 0.98 p
0
, instead of 1.0 p
0
.
This is due to the fact that the pore water in PLAXIS is not completely incompressible.
See Undrained behaviour in Section 3.5 of the Reference Manual for more information.
Secondly, the consolidation rate is slightly lower than the theoretical consolidation rate.
This is caused by the implicit time integration scheme used.
VALIDATION MANUAL

STRUCTURAL ELEMENT PROBLEMS
6-1
6 STRUCTURAL ELEMENT PROBLEMS
A series of structural element/elastic benchmark calculations is described in this chapter.
In each case the analytical solutions may be found in many of the various textbooks on
elasticity solutions, for example Giroud (1972) and Poulos & Davis (1974).
6.1 BENDING OF FLOOR ELEMENTS
Input: For the verification of a floor element two problems are considered. These
problems involve a single line load and a uniformly distributed load on a plate
respectively, as indicated in Figure 6.1. For these problems a plate of 1 m length and 1m
width has been selected. The properties, dimensions and the loads of the plate are:
E = 110
6
kN/m
2
G = 510
5
kN/m
2
= 0.0
d = 0.1 m F = 100 kN/m q = 200 kN/m
2

Plates cannot be used individually. A single cluster may be used to create the geometry.
The two plates are added to the top work plane with a spacing in between. Use line
fixities on the end points of the plate. A coarse mesh is sufficient to model the situation.
In the Initial conditions mode the soil cluster can be deactivated so that only the plates
remain.

Figure 6.1 Loading scheme for testing plates
Output: The results of the two calculations are plotted in Figure 6.2, Figure 6.3 and
Figure 6.4. For the extreme moments and displacements we find:
Line load: M
max
= 25.22 kNm/m u
max
= 25.5 mm
Distributed load: M
max
= 25.58 kNm/m u
max
= 31.8 mm
VALIDATION MANUAL

Figure 6.2 Computed distribution of moments

Figure 6.3 Computed shear forces

Figure 6.4 Computed displacements
Verification: As a first verification, it is observed from Figure 6.2 that PLAXIS yields
the correct distribution of moments. For further verification we consider the well-known
formulas as listed below. These formulas give approximately the values as obtained
from the PLAXIS analysis.
Point load: kNm 25
4
1
max
= = Fl M 25mm
48
1
3
max
= =
EI
Fl
u
Distributed load: kNm 25
8
1
2
max
= = ql M mm 25 . 31
384
5
4
max
= =
EI
l
q
u
The error of the results of PLAXIS is less than 2.5 %.
6-3
6.2 BENDING OF WALL ELEMENTS
Input: For the verification of a wall element the same two problems are considered as
in the last section. These problems involve a single line load and a uniformly distributed
load on a plate respectively, as indicated in Figure 6.5. For these problems a plate of 1 m
length and 1m width has been selected. The properties, dimensions and the loads of the
plate are:
E = 110
6
kN/m
2
G = 510
5
kN/m
2
= 0.0
d = 0.1 m F = 100 kN/m q = 200 kN/m
2

Plates cannot be used individually. A single cluster may be used to create the geometry.
The two plates are added to the geometry, taking care that there is a gap between the
plates and the boundaries of the problem. Use line fixities on the top and bottom sides of
the plates. A coarse mesh is sufficient to model the situation. In the Initial conditions
mode the soil cluster can be deactivated so that only the plates remain.

Figure 6.5 Loading scheme for testing walls
Output: The results of the two calculations are plotted in Figure 6.6, Figure 6.7 and
Figure 6.8. For the extreme moments and displacements we find:
Line load: M
max
= 25.00 kNm/m u
max
= 25.6 mm
Distributed load: M
max
= 25.46 kNm/m u
max
= 31.8 mm
The error of the results of PLAXIS is less than 2.5 %.
VALIDATION MANUAL

Figure 6.6 Computed distribution of moments

Figure 6.7 Computed shear forces

Figure 6.8 Computed displacements
6-5
6.3 BENDING OF SHELL ELEMENTS
The wall of a circular pile can be modelled in PLAXIS using curved shell elements. By
using this element, 3 types of deformations are taken into account: shear deformation,
compression due to normal forces and obviously bending.
Input: A ring with a radius of R = 1 m and a width of 1 m is considered. The Young's
modulus and the Poisson's ratio of the material are taken respectively as E = 110
6

kN/m
2
and = 0. For the thickness of the ring cross section, H, several different values
are taken so that we have rings ranging from very thin to very thick. To model such a
ring one point of the ring is fixed with respect to translation. The other side is allowed to
move freely and a load F = 1.0 kN/m is applied at that side. Geometric non-linearity is
not taken into account.
Output: The calculated vertical deflections at the top point are presented in Figure 6.9.
The deformed shape of the ring is shown in Figure 6.10. The calculated normal force at
the belly of the ring is 0.50 kN for all different values of ring thickness. The calculated
bending moment at the belly is 0.182 kNm for all different values of ring thickness.
Typical graphs of the bending moment and normal force are shown in Figure 6.11.

10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Analytical
PLAXIS
Eu
y
/F
H/R

Figure 6.9 Calculated deflections compared with analytical solutions
VALIDATION MANUAL

Figure 6.10 Deformed and original ring

a Normal forces b Bending moments
Figure 6.11
Verification: The analytical solution for the deflection of the ring is given by Blake
(1959), and the analytical solution for the bending moment and the normal force can be
found from Roark (1965). The vertical displacement at the top of the ring is given by the
following formula:
+
+ =
.
. .
E
F
u
y
2
2
12 1
637 0
091 3 788 1
with =
H
R

< F/2 > < >
0.181 FR
6-7
The solid curve in Figure 6.9 is plotted according to this formula. It can be seen that the
deflections calculated by PLAXIS fit the theoretical solutions very well. Only for a very
thick ring some errors are observed, which is about 4 percent for H/R = 0.5. But for thin
rings the error is nearly zero. The analytical solution for the bending moment and
normal force at the belly is 0.181 kNm and 0.5 kN respectively. Thus even for very thick
rings the error in the bending moment and normal force is almost zero.
VALIDATION MANUAL
6.4 BEARING CAPACITY OF GROUND ANCHORS
To verify the bearing capacity of the grout body of a ground anchor the anchors are pre-
stressed up to pulling out of the grout body. The test is performed with a ground anchor
in loose sand as well as in dense sand. The skin friction along the grout body is
considered to be either constant or linear for both soil material models.
Input: The ground anchor is attached to a concrete block. This block is modelled by a
non-porous linear elastic material model:
= 25 kN/m
3
E = 2.8010
7
kN/m
2
G = 1.21710
7
kN/m
2
= 0.15
The loose sand as well as the dense sand are modelled by a Mohr-Coulomb material
model. The properties of the loose sand are:
unsat
= 17 kN/m
3

sat
= 20 kN/m
3
E = 4.510
4
kN/m
2
= 0.3
c = 1 kN/m
2
= 35 = 5
The properties of the dense sand are:
unsat
= 17 kN/m
3

sat
= 20 kN/m
3
E = 10.510
4
kN/m
2
= 0.3
c = 1 kN/m
2
= 35 = 5

6-9
The grout body of the ground anchor has a length of 4 m. The remaining properties of
the grout body are:
E = 210
7
kN/m
2
Diameter = 0.125 m
The anchor is elastic with a stiffness EA = 4.09510
5
kN.
The pull out force of the ground anchor can be estimated as 200 kN in case of loose sand
and as 752 kN in case of dense sand (after Ostermayer & Barley, 2003). The skin
friction properties of the ground anchor can now be determined as:
Loose sand:
Constant skin friction (CS): T
top,max
= 50 kN/m
2
T
bot,max
= 50 kN/m
2

Linear skin friction (LS): T
top,max
= 100 kN/m
2
T
bot,max
= 0 kN/m
2

Dense sand:
Constant skin friction (CS): T
top,max
= 188 kN/m
2
T
bot,max
= 188 kN/m
2

Linear skin friction (LS): T
top,max
= 376 kN/m
2
T
bot,max
= 0 kN/m
2

The mesh density is considered to be medium. After the initial conditions, only one
phase is added in which the anchor is pre-stressed up to pulling out of the grout body.

Figure 6.13 Curve of the axial force in the anchor against the displacements
VALIDATION MANUAL
Output: In Figure 6.13 the axial force in the anchor is plotted against the
displacements. In loose sand, the maximum axial force in the anchor is 202 kN both for
a constant skin friction distribution and a linear skin friction distribution. In dense sand,
the maximum axial force in the anchor is 760 kN for both skin friction distributions.
Verification: The results in loose sand as well as in dense sand indicate an error of
about 1%.
In both soil materials, the ground anchor shows a less stiff behaviour in case of a
trapezoidal skin friction distribution. This is caused by early slip at the bottom of the
grout body, when the prestress is still rather low, resulting in larger displacements. In
case of a constant skin friction distribution, the whole grout body remains elastic, and
thus smaller displacements, until a higher value of the pre-stress force is reached.
6-11
6.5 PERFORMANCE OF SPRINGS
Springs are used to transport forces to the outside world. Springs are fully fixed on one
side and are connected to the geometry on the other side. They only transport forces
parallel to their direction and have no stiffness perpendicular to their direction. In the
following example the performance of springs connected to floors and walls is verified.
Input: Two floors of 2 x 2 m are modelled (Figure 6.14). Each floor is loaded by a
distributed load of 100 kN/m
2
, acting downwards. One floor is directly supported by 4
vertical springs on the corners. The second floor is supported by two walls. The walls in
turn are supported by vertical springs on their lower corner points. For stability two
horizontal springs acting in x-direction are added at the bottom center of the walls, and
two horizontal springs acting in z-direction are added to the floor.
All springs have a spring stiffness EA/L = 10
3
kN/m. All walls and floors have a
Youngs modulus E = 10
8
kN/m
2
, Poisson ratio = 0 and a thickness d = 0.1 m.
Verification: The resulting force in all springs is equal to 100.00 kN. The vertical
displacement of the corners of the floor directly supported by springs is 100.34 mm,
which is a relative error of 0.3 %. For the second case, with the floors supported by
walls, the vertical displacement of the bottom corner points of the walls is equal to
-100.00 mm exactly.

Figure 6.14 Geometry of floors and walls supported by springs
VALIDATION MANUAL
6.6 PERFORMANCE OF INTERFACE ELEMENTS IN SOIL WITH
CONSTANT COHESION
The soil-structure interaction effects can be modelled suitably in PLAXIS 3D
FOUNDATION using interface elements. It enables the user to consider a more flexible
interface between the structure and the soil, thereby capturing properly a realistic
distribution of stresses, strains and deformations in the system. To verify the use of
interface elements in PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION, the problem of a vertically sliding block
in a soil with constant cohesion has been analysed and the failure load has been
obtained. A very good resemblance between the PLAXIS computed result and the
theoretical result has been observed.
Input: The system consists of two blocks with a wall in between (Figure 6.15). The
left block has been kept fixed and the right block was allowed to move freely. A vertical
distributed load of 100 kN/m
2
was applied on the top surface of the right hand block.
The interface property between the wall and the right hand block has been considered by
assigning a certain value to the parameter R
inter
to the right hand block. However, the
value of R
inter
between the wall and the left hand block was fixed at 1.0, thereby forcing
the left block-wall combination to behave rigidly. The properties of the blocks and the
wall are narrated below. The block on the left side has a depth of 5 m (Figure 6.15b)
whereas the block on the right side has a depth of 4 m. The wall has also a height of 5 m.
The left block-wall system is acting rigidly and is fixed. The finite element model of the
system is shown in Figure 6.16.

a. Plan view b. Vertical cross section
Figure 6.15 Block-wall system
The material behaviour of both blocks is represented by the Mohr-Coulomb model. The
unit weight as well as the friction and dilatancy angles are set to zero. The other
undrained properties of the left hand block are as follows:
Left block
- fixed
Right block
sliding
vertically
Wall in between 2
blocks
4 m 4 m
0.1m
4 m
5
m
4 m
4 m
1 m
6-13
6
10 3 = E kN/m
2
, 25 = c kN/m
2
, 3 . 0 = and R
inter
0 . 1 = .
The other undrained properties of the right hand block are as follows:
7
10 3 = E kN/m
2
, 25 = c kN/m
2
, 3 . 0 = and R
inter
2 . 0 = .
The properties of the wall are:
9
10 5 = E kN/m
2
, 0 = kN/m
3
, 15 . 0 = and 1 . 0 = d m.

Figure 6.16 Finite element model of the problem
Output: The numerical analysis has been performed in PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION to
obtain a failure load q
f
of 5 kN/m
2
(Mstage = 0.05), giving an equivalent vertical force
F
f
= 544 = 80 kN. Figure 6.17 demonstrates the load-displacement curve.
VALIDATION MANUAL

Figure 6.17 Load-displacement curve at a point in the right block near the interface
Verification: As the right block is considered weightless and the friction angle is taken
as zero, the ultimate load applied on the block will only depend on the cohesion of the
interface. The uniform vertical load on the top horizontal surface of the right hand block
would intend to move the block and ultimately it would be on the verge of sliding when
the applied external load would be exactly equal to the resisting vertical cohesion along
the right block-wall interface.
Thus, the final force F
f
causing the onset of sliding could be computed as follows:
F
f
= cR
inter
hw = 250.244 = 80 kN
This value coincides exactly with the value of the failure load as obtained by PLAXIS 3D
FOUNDATION.
6-15
6.7 PERFORMANCE OF INTERFACE ELEMENTS IN SOIL WITH
VARYING COHESION
In addition to the previous verification of interface elements, another problem of a
vertically sliding block in a soil with varying cohesion has been analysed and the failure
load has been obtained. A very good resemblance between the PLAXIS computed result
and the theoretical result has been observed.
Input: The model is simular to the previous example. Only, in this case the cohesive
strength in the right block-wall interface is increasing with depth. This variation is
shown in Figure 6.18 where the cohesion at the top of the soil is considered as 20 kN/m
2

and is assumed to vary at a rate of 5 kN/m
2
/m with depth.

Figure 6.18 Variation of cohesion with depth of the soil layer
The remaining properties of both soil blocks and the wall are similar to the previous
verification.
Output: The value of the failure load q
f
at the moment of onset of sliding obtained
from the numerical analysis through PLAXIS 3DF is 6 kN/m
2
(Mstage = 0.06), giving
an equivalent vertical force F
f
= 644 = 96 kN. Figure 6.19 shows the load-displacement
curve.
c = 20 kN/m
2
c = 45 kN/m
2
c = 40 kN/m
2
c
incr
= 5 kN/m
2
/m
1 m
4 m
Top surface
VALIDATION MANUAL

Figure 6.19 Load-displacement curve at a point in the right block near the interface for
varying cohesion
Verification: As the right block is considered weightless and the friction angle is taken
as zero, the ultimate load on the block will only depend on the cohesion of the interface.
The uniform vertical load on the top horizontal surface of the right hand block would
intend to move the block and ultimately it would be on the verge of sliding when the
applied external load would be exactly equal to the resisting vertical cohesion along the
right block-wall interface. In the case of varying cohesion, the value of the failure force
F
f
may be computed as:
( )
96 4 4 2 . 0
2
40 20
=
+
= =
A
inter f
dA cR F kN
where A denotes the surface of the interface. This value coincides exactly with the value
of the failure load as obtained by PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION.

SINGLE PILE AND PILE GROUP IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY
7-1
7 SINGLE PILE AND PILE GROUP IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY
(by Y. El-Mossallamy, Ain Shams University)
In order to validate the program, a pile load test in Germany has been analysed. The load
test investigated both the load-settlement behaviour of a single pile and that of a pile
group. The behaviour of the single pile has been analysed using both PLAXIS 3D
FOUNDATION as well as PLAXIS V8. Subsequently, the behaviour of the pile group has
been analysed using PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION.
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The load settlement behaviour of the piles in a pile group is totally different from the
behaviour of the corresponding single pile. The group action represents the behaviour of
the pile group compared to that of the single pile. Pile group action plays an important
role for the behaviour of piled foundation both under vertical tension and compression
loads and under horizontal loads. The group action of pile groups under vertical
compression loads will be dealt with in this example.
As no possibility exists to take into account -in an adequate manner- the soil disturbance
caused due to pile installation by theoretical means (El-Mossallamy, 1999), pile load
tests on single piles are frequently carried out to determine the load-settlement
behaviour of a single pile. On the other hand it is costly and time consuming to carry out
load tests on pile groups. Therefore, the pile group action is considered either by
adapting simple correlations, or by comparing the pile group to simplified foundation
shapes, or by applying advanced numerical analyses. The application of three
dimensional finite element analyses to determine the pile group action will be
demonstrated in this example.
7.2 NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF THE SINGLE PILE BEHAVIOUR
(PILE LOAD TEST)
An extensive research program related to bored piles in overconsolidated clay was
conducted by Sommer & Hambach (1974) to optimise the foundation design of a
highway bridge in Germany. Load cells were installed at the pile base to measure the
loads carried directly by pile base. Figure 7.1 gives the layout of the pile load test
arrangement. The measured load-settlement curves and the distribution of loads between
base resistance and skin friction are shown in Figure 7.2. The upper 4.5 m subsoil
consist of silt (loam) followed by tertiary sediments down to great depths. These tertiary
sediments are stiff plastic clay similar to the so-cal1ed Frankfurt clay, with a varying
degree of overconsolidation. A pile load test is often used to verify the numerical
modelling of pile behaviour in Frankfurt overconsolidated clay (El-Mossallamy 2004).
The groundwater table is about 3.5 m below the ground surface. The considered pile has
VALIDATION MANUAL
a diameter of 1.3 m and a length of 9.5 m. It is located completely in the
overconsolidated clay. The loading system consists of two hydraulic jacks working
against a reaction beam. This reaction beam is supported by 16 anchors. These anchors
were installed vertically at a depth between 15 and 20 m below the ground surface at a
distance of about 4 m from the tested pile, in order to minimize the effect of the mutual
interaction between the tested pile and the reaction system (Figure 7.1.a). Vertical and
horizontal loading tests were carried out. The loads were applied in increments and
maintained constant until the settlement rate was negligible. Both the applied loads and
the corresponding displacements at the tested pile head were measured. Additionally the
soil displacements near the pile at different depths were measured using deep settlement
points (Figure 7.1b).

Figure 7.1 Layout of the pile load test and the measurement points

Figure 7.2 Measured load-settlement curves and distribution of loads between base
resistance and skin friction
7-3
7.2.1 GEOMETRY OF THE MODEL
In order to analyse the behaviour of the single pile, at first a model has been made in
PLAXIS V8 using an axisymmetric model for a completely homogeneous soil. A mesh of
15 m width and 16 m depth has been used. At the axis of symmetry the pile has been
modelled with a length of 9.5 m and a diameter of 1.3 m. The soil is modelled as a
single layer of overconsolidated stiff plastic clay, with properties as given in Table 7.1.
The groundwater table is located at 3.5 m below the soil surface. Along the length of the
pile an interface has been modelled. This interface extends to 0.5 m below the pile, in
order to allow for sufficient flexibility around the pile tip. The resulting mesh composed
of high order 15 node elements is shown in Figure 7.3.

Figure 7.3 The resulting 2D axisymmetric mesh

Figure 7.4 The dimensions of the 3D Foundation model
VALIDATION MANUAL
Secondly, a model has been made using PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION. A working area 50 m
x 50 m has been used. The pile is modelled as a solid pile using volume elements in the
centre of the mesh. Interfaces are modelled along the pile. The soil consists of a single
layer of overconsolidated stiff plastic clay, with properties as given in Table 7.1. The
load is modelled as a distributed load at the pile top. 6 different meshes with different
levels of refinement were applied to check the sensitivity of the mesh refinement on the
results. Table 7.2 summarizes the main properties of the 6 tested meshes. This table also
lists the number of elements used to model the pile in vertical direction. Figure 7.5
shows the different finite element meshes composed of 15 node volume elements.

Figure 7.5 The finite element meshes used for the 3D analyses.
7-5
7.2.2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES
The required soil parameters were determined based on the conducted laboratory and in-
situ tests as well as on experience gained in similar soil conditions, see Table 7.1. The
concrete pile is modelled as a non-porous linear elastic material with Youngs modulus
E = 310
7
kN/m
2
, Poisson ratio = 0.2 and unit weight = 24 kN/m
3
. For the
overconsolidated clay layer, two different material models have been considered.
Table 7.1 Model parameters for different soil data sets
Parameter Name Overcons.
Clay 1
Overcons.
Clay 2
Silt
(Loam)
Unit
Material model Model Mohr-
Coulomb
Hardening
Soil
Mohr-
Coulomb
-
Type of material behaviour Type Drained Drained Drained -
Unsaturated soil weigth
unsat
20 20 19 kN/m
3

Saturated soil weigth
sat
20 20 19 kN/m
3

Youngs modulus E 610
4
- 110
4
kN/m
2

Poisson ratio

0.3 - 0.3 -
Secant stiffness
ref
E
50

- 4.510
4
- kN/m
2

Oedometer stiffness
ref
oed
E
- 4.510
4
- kN/m
2

Unloading-reloading stiffness
ref
ur
E
- 910
4
- kN/m
2

Power
m
- 0.5 - -
Unloading-reloading Poisson
ratio
ur

- 0.2 - -
Cohesion c 20 20 5 kN/m
2

Friction angle

22.5 22.5 27.5
Dilatancy angle

0 0 0
Lateral earth pressure coeft. K
0
0.8 0.8 0.5 -

Table 7.2 Applied meshes for the three dimensional analyses (15 node wedge elements)
Model name No. of elements / nodes
in top work plane
Total no. of elements / nodes
for the whole 3D mesh
No. of layers
in pile
Variety - 01 106 / 237 742 / 2238 4
Variety - 02 292 / 609 2044 / 5865 4
Variety - 03 350 / 741 2450 / 7060 4
Variety - 04 350 / 741 3150 / 8862 5
Variety - 05 350 / 741 3850 / 10664 7
Variety - 06 350 / 741 5250 / 14268 10
VALIDATION MANUAL
7.2.3 MODELLING THE SINGLE PILE
Initial stresses were generated using the K0-procedure in the 2D axisymmetric case and
using gravity loading in the 3D analyses. In both cases the initial K
0
value in the
overconsolidated clay was taken 0.8. Pore pressures were generated based on a phreatic
level. The actual load test was simulated by applying a distributed load at the top of the
pile.
Figure 7.6 shows the load-settlement curves for the different 3D analyses. The vertical
displacement of the top of the pile has been plotted. The results are similar up to 2000
kN, almost equal to the working load. At higher load levels, the results of meshes 3, 4, 5
and 6 show little differences. These results demonstrate the stability of the program.
Nevertheless, it is recommended to check the sensitivity of the mesh refinement on the
results for each individual case.

Figure 7.6 Results of different finite element meshes.
Figure 7.7 shows a comparison between the different numerical models. There is a good
agreement between the results of different numerical models and those of the pile load
test up to a working load of about 2000 kN. Nevertheless, the three dimensional analysis
shows a relatively stiff behaviour at higher load level in comparison with the
axisymmetric results for the same initial conditions. The effect of the initial stresses on
the load settlement behaviour of a single pile as well as on a pile group will be discussed
in more details in Section 7.3.1.
7-7

Figure 7.7 Comparison between the results of different numerical models and
measured results.

Figure 7.8 Deformation results using PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION.
VALIDATION MANUAL
Figure 7.8 demonstrates some deformation results of PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION for
Variety 6 (see Table 7.2). At higher load levels, plastic deformation of the soil controls
the settlement behaviour of the pile. These plastic deformations are concentrated in a
narrow zone around the pile shaft. Outside this plastic narrow zone the soil behaviour
remains mainly elastic. Therefore, the settlement trough under working loads (of
1500 kN (Figure 7.8a)) is wider than that under loads near the ultimate load level (of
4000 kN (Figure 7.8b)).
7.3 NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF THE PILE GROUP ACTION
From the pile load test of the single pile, it was determined that the ultimate skin friction
was about 60 kN/m
2
. Subsequently, an allowable skin friction of 30 kN/m
2
was selected
for the foundation design, as at the corresponding load level, the settlement of the tested
pile was measured to be in the order of 3 mm. A settlement of 3 mm was deemed to be
acceptable for the bridge design. The bridge piers consists of 2 pillars, each founded on
a separate pile group. The foundation piles have a diameter of 1.5 m and a length of 24.5
m with 6 piles under each pillar. The pile arrangement is shown in Figure 7.9a. The
settlement of the entire foundation should be about 3 mm if there were no group action.
The load-settlement behaviour of the whole foundation was monitored during and after
the construction to obtain information on the group action. The load settlement
relationship of one of the monitored pillars (Sommer/Hambach, 1974) is shown in
Figure 7.9b.

Figure 7.9 Foundation layout and load settlement behaviour
7-9
The average measured settlement of the pillar was about 9.0 mm. The difference
between the expected settlement and the measured value demonstrates the importance of
considering the pile group action to predict a reliable settlement of the whole
foundation. A three dimensional finite element analysis is applied to investigate its
reliability determining the pile group action. The results of the boundary element
method (El-Mossallamy, 1999) will be used to compare with the results of the 3D finite
element analyses.
The load settlement behaviour of a single foundation pile (pile length 24.5 m and pile
diameter 1.5 m) was calculated using both the 3D-FEM as well as the BEM (El-
Mossallamy, 1999). In both cases the same soil parameters were used for the clay layers
as in the verification analysis of the single pile in homogeneous soil conditions, see
Table 7.1. In this analysis the top layer of silt is also taken into account. Figure 7.10
shows the 3D finite element mesh used to simulate the behaviour of a single foundation
pile.

Figure 7.10 3D finite element mesh to simulate the behaviour of a single foundation
pile.
Figure 7.11 shows a comparison between the different conducted analyses. The load
settlement relationship up to a working load of about 3 MN is mainly linear.
Furthermore, the different models behave very similar up to a load of about 7 MN
(about twice the working load).
For the analysis of the pile group, three different mesh refinements were used, see
Figure 7.12. Table 7.3 summarizes the main properties of the 3 different meshes.
VALIDATION MANUAL

Figure 7.11 Load settlement behaviour of a single foundation pile.

Figure 7.12 3D finite element meshes to simulate the foundation behaviour.
7-11
Table 7.3 Main properties of the 3 meshes used for the analysis of the pile group.
Variety No. of elements / nodes
in top work plane
Total no. of elements / nodes
for the whole 3D mesh
No. of pile
subdivisions
Variety - 01 164 / 417 1804 / 5249 7
Variety - 02 161 / 412 2093 / 6038 8
Variety - 03 429 / 956 8151 / 22120 14

The calculated results of the load settlement behaviour of the whole pile group are
shown in Figure 7.13. The different meshes give almost the same result up to 32 MN
(twice the working load). Mesh variations 2 and 3 yield a good agreement at higher
loads. The calculated settlement at the working load of 16 MN is about 10 mm and
agrees well with the measurements.

Figure 7.13 Load-settlement behaviour of the whole foundation
Shadings of equal settlement at the ground surface are shown in Figure 7.14a to
demonstrate the 3D results. The settlement of the foundation alone is shown in Figure
7.14b. It can be recognized that the mutual interaction between the two pillars leads to
some tilting of both pillars. The calculated tilting reaches about 1:3500. These results
show the ability of PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION to predict the load settlement behaviour of
pile groups under working conditions in order to check the serviceability requirements.
VALIDATION MANUAL
Figure 7.15 compares the behaviour of the single pile with the average behaviour of the
pile group under the same average load. The calculated pile group action, resulting from
the 3D finite element analyses as well as from the boundary element analyses (El-
Mossallamy, 1999) can be determined to be in the order of 3.0. This value agrees well
with the results of the conducted measurements. These results demonstrate the ability of
PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION to predict the pile group action.

a) b)
Figure 7.14 Deformation results of the bridge pillar using PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION.
a) Settlement at the ground surface. b) Settlement of the foundation plate

Figure 7.15 Pile group action
7-13
7.3.1 EFFECT OF INITIAL STRESSES
The previous analyses show that the load-settlement behaviour of a foundation pile can
be accurately modelled under working load conditions. For instance Figure 7.13 shows
that the correct settlement under working load conditions can be predicted for a pile
group, and that this predicted settlement is not strongly influenced by the mesh
refinements. On the other hand, the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile is strongly
influenced by several factors, amongst which mesh refinements and the initial stress
state. Figure 7.7, Figure 7.11 and Figure 7.15 show a comparison between results with
different initial stresses. From each of these figures it can be seen that an accurate
prediction of the settlement under working loads can be obtained. However, the ultimate
bearing capacities obtained from these analyses depend strongly on the modelling
scheme followed. Figure 7.15, for example, shows that the difference in ultimate bearing
capacity of a single pile obtained using the boundary element method (El-Mossallamy,
1999) and PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION amounts to approximately 3 MPa.

2
3

Figure 7.16 Effect of initial stresses on the calculation results.
VALIDATION MANUAL
Figure 7.16 summarizes the results of the comparison for the behaviour of the pile load
test, the single foundation pile and the whole pillar foundation, in order to demonstrate
the effect of the initial stresses in more detail. Once again, this figure shows significant
differences in predicted ultimate bearing capacity for different models, but also for
different initial stress conditions. For example for the single pile, the deformation under
working load conditions is hardly influenced by the initial value of K
0
, but the ultimate
bearing capacity may change as much as 3 MPa. The same trend is seen for the pile
group.
7.4 CONCLUSIONS
The load settlement behaviour of the piles in overconsolidated clay is almost linear up to
the working load. Therefore, the initial stresses have almost no effect on the results up to
the working loads. On the other hand, the initial stresses have a dominant effect on the
pile behaviour under higher load levels. The calculated ultimate bearing capacity
depends strongly on the initial stresses. The results of Figure 7.16 show that the PLAXIS
3D FOUNDATION analyses have a good agreement with the results of the PLAXIS V8
(axisymmetric modelling with 15-node elements) under the working load. At higher
load level, the PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION analyses show stiffer behaviour than the
axisymmetric analyses and predict a higher ultimate bearing capacity. Therefore, the
ultimate bearing capacity should be checked using independent conventional methods.
Nevertheless, it can be concluded that the calculated deformation under working
conditions (serviceability limit analyses) can be adequately determined using PLAXIS 3D
FOUNDATION.

VALIDATION OF EMBEDDED PILES THE ALZEY BRIDGE PILE LOAD TEST
8-1
8 VALIDATION OF EMBEDDED PILES
THE ALZEY BRIDGE PILE LOAD TEST
(by H. K. Engin, Middle East Technical University)
In order to validate the embedded piles option, the Alzey Bridge pile load test of a single
pile has been analysed (Engin, 2007). This load test has already been used to validate the
behaviour of a volume pile in Chapter 7. Constant as well as trapezoidal skin friction
distribution of the embedded pile is considered. A comparison between the results of
both embedded piles and the volume pile will be made.
8.1 GENERAL
An extensive research program related to bored piles in overconsolidated clay was
conducted by Sommer & Hambach (1974) to optimise the foundation design of a
highway bridge in Germany.
Load cells were installed at the pile base to measure the loads carried directly by pile
base. Figure 8.1a and Figure 8.1b give the layout of the pile load test arrangement. The
measured load-settlement curves and the distribution of loads between base resistance
and skin friction are shown in Figure 8.1c.
The total pile capacity is about 3230 kN. The upper 4.5 m subsoil consist of silt (loam)
followed by tertiary sediments down to great depths. These tertiary sediments are stiff
plastic clay similar to the so-cal1ed Frankfurt clay, with a varying degree of
overconsolidation. A pile load test is often used to verify the numerical modelling of pile
behaviour in Frankfurt overconsolidated clay (El-Mossallamy, 2004). The groundwater
table is about 3.5 m below the ground surface.
The considered pile has a diameter of 1.3 m and a length of 9.5 m. The test pile is a
bored pile; hence the soil disturbance around the pile is expected to be very low. It is
located completely in the overconsolidated clay.
The loads were applied in increments and maintained constant until the settlement rate
was negligible. Both the applied loads and the corresponding displacements at the tested
pile head were measured. These test results are compared with the results obtained with
embedded piles using PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION.
VALIDATION MANUAL

Figure 8.1 Layout of the pile load test and the measured points (After El-Mossallamy,
1999)
8.2 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
The pile load test is modelled by PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION. A working area of 20 m x 20
m has been used. The pile is modelled by an embedded pile element in the centre of the
mesh. The load is modelled by a point load on top of the embedded pile. In case of a
volume pile, the load is modelled by a distributed load on top of the volume pile. The
soil is modelled by a single layer overconsolidated stiff plastic clay. The mesh size can
be said to be medium to fine for both embedded piles as well as the volume pile. The
mesh of the model is given in Figure 8.2.

a. 2D mesh b. 3D mesh
Figure 8.2 Finite Element Model
8-3
8.3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES
The soil consists of a single layer of overconsolidated stiff plastic clay modelled by the
Hardening Soil material model, with properties as given in Table 8.1. The pre-
consolidation stress is defined by means of a POP of 50 kN/m
2
.
Table 8.1 Summary of soil parameters used in analysis

The material properties of the embedded pile are defined in Table 8.2. A distinction has
been made between an embedded pile with a constant skin friction (CS) and an
embedded pile with a trapezoidal skin friction (TS) (Figure 8.3). The strength of the
embedded pile is defined according to the field test results that give the total and base
resistances mobilized.
The volume pile is defined by a linear elastic non-porous material model with the same
properties as given in Table 8.2.
Parameter Name OC Clay Unit
Material model Model HS -
Type of material behaviour Drained Drained -
Unsaturated soil weight
unsat
20 kN/m
3

Saturated soil weight
sat
20 kN/m
3

Secant stiffness
ref
E
50
4.510
4
kN/m
2

Oedometer stiffness
ref
oed
E 2.71510
4
kN/m
2

Unloading-reloading stiffness
ref
ur
E 910
4
kN/m
2

Power m 1.0 -
Unloading-reloading Poisson ratio
ur
0.2 -
Cohesion c 20 kN/m
2

Friction angle 20
o
Dilatancy angle 0
o

Lateral earth pressure coefficient for normal
consolidation
K
nc
0
0.658 -
Lateral earth pressure coefficient
K0
0.8 -
Over-consolidation ratio OCR 1 -
Pre-overburden pressure POP 50 kN/m
2
Interface reduction factor R
inter
1.0 -

VALIDATION MANUAL
Table 8.2 Material properties of the embedded pile

a. Constant skin friction b. Trapezoidal skin friction
Figure 8.3 Pile capacity models defined for Alzey Brigde test pile
Parameter Name Constant skin
friction
Trapezoidal skin
friction
Unit
Youngs modulus E 310
7
310
7
kN/m
2

Weight 5 5 kN/m
3

Properties type Type
Massive
circular pile
Massive circular
pile
-
Diameter 1.3 1.3 m
Cross section area 1.327 1.327 m
2

Moment of inertia against
bending around the third axis
I
3
0.140 0.140 m
4

bending around the third axis
I
2
0.140 0.140 m
4

oblique bending
I
23
0 0 m
4

Skin friction distribution Type Linear Linear -
Maximum traction allowed at the
top of the embedded pile
T
top,max
201.368 19.18 kN/m
Maximum traction allowed at the
bottom of the embedded pile
T
bot,max
201.368 383.560 kN/m
Base resistance F
max
1320 1320 kN
10000 kN
1320 kN
383.56 kN/ m
19.18 kN/ m
10000 kN
1320 kN
201.368 kN/m
201.368 kN/m
8-5
8.4 RESULTS
The capacity of the embedded pile is defined by constant as well as trapezoidal skin
friction distribution. Intermediate steps are also checked in order to obtain the base
resistance curves. Skin friction curves are obtained by subtracting the base resistance
from the total load displacement curve. In Figure 8.4 it can be seen that the embedded
pile model by a constant friction distribution is quite in agreement with the pile load test
results. Mobilization of skin friction and base resistance could almost catch the real
behaviour.
Alzey Brigde Single Pile Load Test
PILE CAPACITY
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Settlement (mm)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Total Load
Skin Friction
Base Resistance
PILE CAPACITY
HS-CS
HS-CS-Base Res.
HS-CS-Ave. Skin Friction

Figure 8.4 Pile test curves and Plaxis 3D Foundation embedded pile results in case of a
constant skin friction.
The results of the embedded pile model with a trapezoidal skin friction distribution are
given in Figure 8.5. It can be seen that the results of the embedded pile model with a
trapezoidal friction distribution is also in agreement with the pile load test results.
The total load displacement curve as well as the skin friction and base resistance curves
of the volume pile are plotted with the pile load test and embedded pile model test
curves (Figure 8.6). It can be seen that the volume pile gives an overestimated behaviour
due to an overestimated behaviour of the base resistance. However, the skin friction
curve is in good agreement with the real behaviour.
VALIDATION MANUAL
PILE CAPACITY
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Settlement (mm)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Total Load
Skin Friction
Base Resistance
PILE CAPACITY
HS-TS
HS-CS
HS-TS-Base Res.
HS-TS-Ave. Skin
Friction

Figure 8.5 Pile test curves and Plaxis 3D Foundation embedded pile results in case of a
trapezoidal skin friction.
PILE CAPACITY
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Settlement (mm)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Total Load
Skin Friction
Base Resistance
PILE CAPACITY
HS-CS
Volpile-Base Res.
VolPile-Ave. Skin Friction
VolPile

Figure 8.6 Pile Test, Plaxis 3D Foundation embedded pile with a constant skin friction
and volume pile results
8-7
8.5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Modelling of piles is a difficult job since there are many parameters affecting the pile
behaviour. Even if the soil is perfectly modelled, deviations from actual behaviour occur
due to pile installation. Also the coarseness of the mesh influences to some extend the
load displacement behaviour.
In this pile load test the installation effect is negligible. Therefore, it is a good starting
point to validate the embedded pile. The pile test is modelled by an embedded pile with
a constant or trapezoidal skin friction distribution as well as by means of a volume pile.
The results show that it is convenient to use embedded piles to model piles, especially
bored piles. It should be noted that pile load test data should be available in order to
define the embedded pile capacity properly. The volume pile seems to overestimate the
pile bearing capacity. However, when decreasing the strength of the soil below the
volume pile, a better approximation can be found.
It is clearly observed in this study that use of embedded piles has a great potential in
modelling pile foundations easily and effectively, since the major criteria is the
satisfaction of ultimate load capacity. Although this study had shown the efficiency of
embedded piles, the adequateness in pile groups can be a question, since the group effect
as well as installation effect are not considered.
VALIDATION MANUAL

PILED RAFT FOUNDATION IN FRANKFURTER CLAY
9-1
9 PILED RAFT FOUNDATION IN FRANKFURTER CLAY
(by Y. El-Mossallamy, Ain Shams University)
9.1 INTRODUCTION
The piled raft foundation has shown its validity in the last two decades as a very
economic geotechnical foundation type, where the structural loads are carried partly by
the piles and partly by the raft contact stresses. The structural serviceability
requirements regarding the settlements and tilting of buildings can be fulfilled with
relatively fewer piles in comparison with a pure piled foundation. This foundation
system was successfully applied in stiff as well as soft subsoil. An innovative
application of the piled raft is its special adjustment to cases of foundations with large
load eccentricities or very different loaded parts of buildings to avoid the need of
complex settlement joints especially below ground water table. Extensive measurements
of the load transfer mechanism of piled raft foundations during and after the
construction were performed to verify the design concept and to prove the serviceability
requirements.
Calculation procedures to model the behavior of such complex three-dimensional
problems have been developed since the 1970s (e.g. Butterfield and Banerjee, 1971;
Poulos and Davis, 1980; Randolph, 1983). But some important requirements concerning
the raft stiffness, the nonlinear behavior of the pile support and the slip developing along
the pile shafts even under working loads were not sufficiently considered in these
analyses. For these reasons improved numerical models based on three dimensional
finite element method are applied taking into account all above mentioned effects. A
traditional 3D finite element technique with the appropriate soil constitutive laws
presents a powerful tool to model this complex soil-structure interaction problem.
Nevertheless, the main disadvantage applying the 3D FE analyses is the need of a huge
number of volume elements which can exceed the available computer capacities. To
cover this problem, a new technique combined the so called embedded pile model with
the 3D finite element model was developed by PLAXIS B.V. under the name PLAXIS 3D
FOUNDATION Version 2. The following chapters present an example demonstrating the
ability of this program to deal with a complex piled raft. A case history in Frankfurt will
be resolved applying this program.
9.2 FRANKFURT SUBGROUND AND METHODOLOGY TO DEVELOP
THE PILED RAFT
Most of the high-rise buildings in Frankfurt are founded on the so-called Frankfurter
clay, which developed 2 to 10 million years ago as a result of the sedimentation in the
Tertiary sea in the Mainz basin. In the town center, the clay layer measures up to 100
meters and includes limestone banks, lignite coal lenses and layers of calcareous sand.
The groundwater level is mostly just above the clay surface and circulates in the fissured
VALIDATION MANUAL
limestone banks and sand lenses resulting in different confined aquifer pressures. The
clay is geologically overconsolidated through older, already eroded sediments and
volcanic rock.
9.3 EXAMPLE OF A HIGH-RISE BUILDING ON FRANKFURT SUBSOIL
The 120 m building with a 4-storey underground basement has an L shape (Figure 9.1)
with a load eccentricity of about 7.0 m. By applying the concept of piled raft foundation
it was possible to construct the foundation without settlement joints between the tower
and the adjacent 4-storey underground garage. The piles were placed eccentrically
below the tower to balance the load eccentricity.

Foundation and subsoil conditions
General information
Height (m) 114
Foundation area (m) 1930
Raft thickness (m) 3.5 - 1.0
Foundation depth (m) -15.75
Groundwater - 6.0
Slenderness ratio 3.5
No of piles 25
Pile length (m) 22
Pile diameter (m) 1.3
Figure 9.1 General layout
9.4 GEOMETRY
The foundation of the building has a total area of about 1930 m. Only 25 large diameter
bored piles were constructed beneath the raft as a piled raft foundation. The pile
arrangements are shown in Figure 9.2. The rafts are 3.5 meters thick in the middle and
1.0 m at the edges. The raft base lies at a depth of 15.75 meters below the soil surface.
The piles where designed with a diameter of 1.3 m and a length of 22 m. The total
working loads reach about 900 MN.
9-3

Figure 9.2. Foundation dimensions and pile arrangement
9.5 LOADS
The applied loads are given in Figure 9.3, Figure 9.4 and Figure 9.5.

Figure 9.3 Point loads in MN
VALIDATION MANUAL

Figure 9.4 Line loads in kN/m

Figure 9.5 Distributed loads in kN/m
9-5
9.6 NUMERICAL MODEL
9.6.1 SOIL PARAMETERS
The soil stress-strain relationship was modeled by means of the Hardening Soil model.
The main advantage of this constitutive law is its ability to consider the stress path and
its effect on the soil stiffness and its behavior. The parameters of this model are
summarized in Table 9.1.
Table 9.1 Model parameters of the different soil layers
Parameter Name Filling Quaternary
Sand/Gravel
Overconsolidated
Clay
Unit
Material model Model Hardening
Soil
Hardening
Soil
Hardening Soil -
Unsaturated soil
weigth
unsat
8 11 10 kN/m
3

Saturated soil
weigth
sat
18 19 20 kN/m
3

Permeability
coefficient in
horizontal direction
k
x
, k
z
10
-3
10
-3
2.510
-5
m/sec
Permeability
coefficient in
vertical direction
k
y
10
-3
10
-3
0.01 k
x
m/sec
Secant stiffness
ref
E
50

20 30 35 MN/m
2

Unloading-
reloading stiffness
ref
ur
E
50 75 105 MN/m
2

Power
m
0.5 0.5 1.0 -
Cohesion c - - 20 kN/m
2

Friction angle

30 35 20
Unloading-
reloading Poisson
ratio
ur

0.2 0.2 0.2 -
Failure ratio
R
f
0.9 0.9 0.9 -
Lateral earth
pressure coeft.
K
0
0.5 0.43 0.8 -

For the concrete piles and raft, a linear elastic material set was applied using the
concrete weight and its stiffness. The elastic modulus of the concrete was chosen equal
to 30000 MPa with a Poissons ratio of 0.2. The skin friction of the pile is assumed to
VALIDATION MANUAL
start with 60 kPa at the pile head and increased with depth to reach 120 kPa at the pile
tip. The pile base resistance was taken equal to 2.5 Mpa.
9.6.2 3D FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
Work planes are defined at each level where a discontinuity in the geometry or the
loading occurs in the initial situation or in the construction process. Figure 9.6 shows the
applied three dimensional finite element mesh. The main model geometries are given in
Figure 9.7 and Figure 9.8.

Figure 9.6 3D FE-Model

Figure 9.7 Applied loads
9-7

Figure 9.8 Modeling the raft and the embedded piles
9.6.3 CALCULATIONS
The initial conditions should be generated using the K0-procedure. A value of K0 = 0.8
is applied to consider the effect of overconsolidation.
The aim of the calculation is to determine the average settlement of the rafts under
working load (serviceability limit state).
It is for the user to determine the necessary calculation phases, but effects that may be
taken into account are:
Installation of shoring system.
Modelling the excavation phases
Installation of the piles and foundation.
Application of the load from the superstructure (working loads)
VALIDATION MANUAL
9.7 INSPECT OUTPUT
Figure 9.9 demonstrates the raft settlements under working loads. Figure 9.10, Figure
9.11, Figure 9.12 and Figure 9.13 show the load distribution among the individual piles
within the pile group.

Figure 9.9 Foundation settlement under working loads

Figure 9.10 Results of normal force distribution along all piles - Outer piles
9-9

Figure 9.11 Results of normal force distribution along all piles - Middle piles

Figure 9.12 Results of normal force and skin friction distribution along an edge pile
VALIDATION MANUAL

Figure 9.13 Results of normal force and skin friction distribution along a middle pile
It can be recognized that the contribution of the edge piles by carrying the loads is very
small. This is due to the presence of the outer wall that works also as shoring system,
which is modeled as fully connected with the foundation raft. The effect of the outer
walls can be investigated applying a new model in which the outer walls are not
modeled.
9.8 CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK
The piled raft foundation can be modeled using the embedded piles. The maximum
measured settlement is about 6 cm, which shows a good agreement with the calculated
values. The calculated values are smaller than the measured value due to the modelling
of the shoring system completely fixed with the raft. The results should be further
compared with cases where the piles are modeled using volume elements. There is still
need of a horizontal interface element to investigate the raft contact stresses under the
floor in a direct manner. The embedded piles help to reduce the required number of
elements needed to model the complex three dimensional feature of piled rafts. The
experience with this model type should be gathered with time and shared among the
PLAXIS users. The effect of the shoring system on the behavior of piled raft needs further
investigation.

APPLICATION OF THE GROUND ANCHOR FACILITY
10-1
10 APPLICATION OF THE GROUND ANCHOR FACILITY
(by F. Tschuchnigg and H. Schweiger, Graz University of Technology)
10.1 INTRODUCTION
The ground anchor in PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION consists of two different parts. The first
part represents the free anchor length and the second part the grout body. The free length
is modelled as a node-to-node anchor, which represents the connection between the
grout body and e.g. a diaphragm wall, and the grout body consists of embedded beam
elements, which are line elements with a special interface to model the grout-soil
interaction. For the definition of the ground anchor eight input values are required
(Figure 10.1 and Table 10.1).

Figure 10.1 System layout
Table 10.1 Input values for a ground anchor
GEOMETRY INPUT GROUT BODY PROPERTIES
A starting point of the ground anchor E stiffness of the grout body
[kN/m
2
]
B ending point of the ground anchor
diameter of the grout body [m]
L
total
total anchor length
L
grout
grout body length
inclination angle []
Anchor properties Skin resistance
EA axial stiffness of the anchor rod
[kN]
T
top,max
maximum skin traction at the top
of the ground anchor [kN/m]
F
max
maximum force of the anchor rod
(for elastoplastic behaviour) [kN]
T
bot,max
maximum skin traction at the
bottom of the ground anchor
[kN/m]
VALIDATION MANUAL
The soil-interaction is defined with the two separate values for skin resistance along the
grout body. Thus it is possible to define a constant, linear or trapezoidal distribution of
skin resistance. The maximum interaction force between the soil and the grout body is
directly applied in the interface of the embedded beam.
It is pointed out that this represents the skin resistance at failure (i.e. when the pull out
force is reached) and that the skin traction distribution below full mobilisation is
influenced by the specified limiting distribution. In reality mobilisation will start at the
top of the grout body and only close to the pull out force (failure) the skin traction at the
bottom should be mobilised. In the embedded pile the mobilisation follows the
predefined shape from the beginning (also at the bottom). However, tests have shown
that this does not have a noticeable influence on the global behaviour of an anchored
structure under working load conditions.
Another important point is, that for forces close to the theoretical pull out force
numerical failure may occur due to plasticity in the soil adjacent to the grout body.
Although this is of course possible in reality, in the model it may be artificial and caused
by the fact that the grout body is a line element. To overcome this problem in ultimate
limit state conditions it is necessary to work with an enlarged diameter of the grout
body. This virtual diameter of the grout body is defined as follows:
D
virtual
=f D
real
In this equation f is the factor for the enlargement, and a value of f in the range of 2 4
is suggested. This does not affect the pull out force (this is an input due the input of the
limiting skin resistance and the length of the grout body) and has minor effect on the
behaviour under working load conditions.
It follows, and the user must be aware of this, that when using this option in PLAXIS 3D
FOUNDATION the maximum pull out force is an INPUT and cannot be OBTAINED from
the analysis.
10-3
10.2 DEEP EXCAVATION WITH PRESTRESSED GROUND ANCHORS
In order to demonstrate the application of the ground anchors in PLAXIS 3D
FOUNDATION, some results from a practical example, namely a deep excavation in
Berlin sand, are presented. This example was chosen for testing the ground anchor
facility under working load conditions because a 2D reference solution was available.
The model dimensions and material sets for the soil layers have been taken from the 2D
reference solution (Figure 10.2).

Figure 10.2: Geometry and subsoil conditions
The diaphragm wall has been modelled as a continuum element (Figure 10.3), with
linear elastic material behaviour and a stiffness E
ref
=3.0E7 kN/m
2
. The hydraulic cut off
does not act as a structural element, the properties are the same as for the soil (sand 20
40m).
VALIDATION MANUAL

Figure 10.3 3D view of the model (20944 elements)
To obtain the current porewater distribution inside the excavation the porewater pressure
was defined after each groundwater lowering (with user defined pore pressure
distribution).
The ground anchors have different spacing and prestress forces in the different layers
and therefore the anchor rods have different properties. The properties of the grout body
are the same in all rows (Table 10.2).
Table 10.2 Ground anchor properties
Properties of the node-to-node anchor
material type EA prestress force spacing
anchor row1 elastic 2.87E5 kN 768 kN 2.30m
anchor row2 elastic 3.20E5 kN 945 kN 1.35m
anchor row3 Elastic 3.20 E5 kN 980 kN 1.35m
Properties of the grout body
grout body 2E7 kN/m
2

diameter 0.125m

Aim of the test was to see if the embedded pile model (employed for the grout body)
works well in working load conditions and therefore the skin resistance in the grout
body has been defined about two times the expected axial load in the node-to-node
anchor. In the different calculations the material model, the shape of the limiting skin
10-5
resistance and the enlargement of the grout body have been varied (Table 10.5). In the
following tables the soil properties for the MC and the HS-Model are summarized.
Table 10.3: Soil parameters for the HS-model

unsat

sat
k E
50,ref
E
oed,ref
E
ur,ref
m
soil layer [kN/m
3
] [kN/m
3
] [m/day] [kN/m
2
] [kN/m
2
] [kN/m
2
] [-]
sand 0-20m 17.0 20.0 - 45000 45000 180000 0.55
sand 20-40m 17.0 20.0 - 75000 750000 300000 0.55
sand >40m 17.0 20.0 - 105000 105000 315000 0.55
v
ur
p
ref
K
0 nc
c
ref
R
inter

soil layer [-] [kN/m
2
] [-] [kN/m
2
] [] [] [-]
sand 0-20m 0.2 100 0.426 1.0 35.0 5.0 0.8
sand 20-40m 0.2 100 0.384 1.0 38.0 6.0 0.8
sand >40m 0.2 100 0.384 1.0 38.0 6.0 -
Table 10.4: Soil parameters for the MC-model

unsat

sat
E
ref
v c
ref

soil layer [kN/m
3
] [kN/m
3
] [kN/m
2
] [-] [kN/m
2
] [] []
sand 0-20m 17.0 20.0 47000 0.3 1.0 35.0 5.0
sand 20-40m 17.0 20.0 244000 0.3 1.0 38.0 6.0
sand >40m 17.0 20.0 373000 0.3 1.0 38.0 6.0
Table 10.5 Variations in the different calculations
material model shape of the skin friction distribution f-factor
calculation 1 HS constant 1
calculation 2 HS linear 1
calculation 6 MC linear 1

In calculation 5 the stiffness of the grout body has been changed according to the ratio
of the real diameter (0.125m) to the fictitious enlarged diameter (0.125f=0.5m).
10.3 RESULTS
It follows from Figure 10.4 that neither the variation of the predefined limiting skin
resistance of the grout body nor the f-factor for the enlargement of the grout diameter
have a significant influence on the axial forces predicted under working load conditions.
However the distribution of the mobilised skin traction along the grout body is not what
one would expect in reality (Figure 10.5). If the Mohr Coulomb model is employed the
results are slightly different (Figure 10.6).
VALIDATION MANUAL
700,00
720,00
740,00
760,00
780,00
800,00
820,00
840,00
anchor row 1 GW -9,3m excavation 2 anchor row 2 GW -14,35m excavation 3 anchor row 3 GW -17,90m excavation 4
calculation phase
a
x
i
a
l

f
o
r
c
e
[
k
N
]calculation 1
calculation 2
calculation 3
calculation 4
calculation 5

Figure 10.4 Axial forces in the first anchor row (calculation 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Figure 10.5 Mobilised skin friction and axial force first anchor row
(after excavation 4, calculation 1)
With respect to the horizontal displacements there is a trend that wall deflection with a
linear predefined shape of the skin friction is slightly higher than the one with constant
skin traction distribution. It is also notable that by increasing the f-factors for the virtual
grout body diameter displacements in horizontal direction become smaller. The
differences are in the order of 10%. With the MC-Model the highest deformations in
horizontal direction are located around the grout body (Figure 10.7), whereas with the
HS-Model this is not the case. This effect also occurs with the assignment of a high f-
factor.
10-7
The settlements behind the diaphragm wall are in the range of 11mm (almost the same
for the different variations) with the HS model, but with the MC model there is a heave
of more than 14mm, an effect which is well known.
660,00
680,00
700,00
720,00
740,00
760,00
780,00
800,00
820,00
840,00
860,00
anchor row 1 GW -9,3m excavation 2 anchor row 2 GW -14,35m excavation 3 anchor row 3 GW -17,90m excavation 4
calculation phase
a
x
i
a
l

f
o
r
c
e

[
k
N
]
calculation 2
calculation 6

Figure 10.6 Axial forces in the first anchor row calculation 2 vs calculation 6

calculation 2 (HS-model) calculation 6 ( MC-model)
Figure 10.7 Horizontal displacements
10.4 COMPARISON OF 3D RESULTS WITH 2D REFERENCE SOLUTION
In Figure 10.8 axial forces in the first anchor row from calculation 2 (HS-model and f-
factor=1) are compared with the axial forces from the 2D reference solution. In PLAXIS
V8 the grout body of a ground anchor is modelled with geogrid elements. These
elements have an axial stiffness but no bending stiffness. The axial forces from PLAXIS
V8 are in the dimension [kN/m] and to compare these results with the 3D analysis it is
necessary to divide the axial forces from PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION by the anchor spacing
of the different rows. One can see that the axial forces from the 3D calculations are in a
VALIDATION MANUAL
very good agreement to the reference solution. The deviation of the forces in the node-
to-node anchor between both calculations is less than 4%. Also the vertical
displacements behind the diaphragm wall from the 3D calculation (Figure 10.9) are very
similar to the ones obtained from the 2D solution (both maximum value and
distribution).
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
anchor 1 GW -9,3m excavation 2 anchor 2 GW -14,35m excavation 3 anchor 3 GW -17,90m excavation 4
calculation phase
a
x
i
a
l

f
o
r
c
e

[
k
N
/
m
]
first anchor row/calculation 2
first anchor row/2D reference solution

Figure 10.8 Axial forces calculation 2 vs. 2D reference solution

Figure 10.9: Vertical displacements behind the diaphragm wall comparison reference
solution with calculation 2
10-9
10.5 CONCLUSIONS
A deep excavation supported by a diaphragm wall and three rows of anchors has been
analysed utilizing PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION with the ground anchor option.
The results from the 3D calculation with the HS-Model compare well to the 2D
reference solution (both with respect to anchor forces and displacements) and as a
consequence from the parametric study it can be concluded that it is not necessary to
artificially increase the diameter of the grout body for working load conditions.
Concerning the distribution of the skin friction along the grout body, it is obvious that
the mobilisation is not realistic. The reason is, that also at working load conditions the
distribution of the skin friction is strongly influenced by the distribution in the failure
state, which is an input. Due to the fact that the limiting skin friction is an input the
grout body length has no or minor influence on the result and therefore the length cannot
be determined from the analysis.
Compared to the HS-Model the MC-Model predicts significantly larger deformations
around the grout body. The virtual enlargement of the grout body diameter (f-factor)
does not change the results significantly for working load conditions.
However for ultimate limit state calculations the f-factor becomes important, because in
these calculations a premature failure (i.e. a failure below the theoretical pull out force)
may occur when f=1.0. To overcome this problem it is essential to work with a virtual
grout body enlargement.
It follows from this study that the ground anchor concept in PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION is
efficient for working load conditions, but for ultimate limit state analysis assumptions
such as the f-factor, mesh coarseness and stiffness parameters of the soil (adjacent to the
grout body) may have a significant influence on the result. It is emphasized again the
maximum pull out force is an INPUT to the analysis and not a RESULT.

VALIDATION MANUAL

REFERENCES
11-1
11 REFERENCES
[1] Bakker K.J., (2000), Soil Retaining Structures; development of models for
structural analysis. Dissertation (Delft University of Technology). Balkema,
Rotterdam.
[2] Blake, A., (1959), Deflection of a Thick Ring in Diametral Compression, Am. Soc.
Mech. Eng., J. Appl. Mech., Vol. 26, No. 2.
[3] Butterfield, R., and Banerjee, P.K., (1971). The elastic analysis of compressible
piles and pile groups. Gotechnique, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 43-60.
[4] Butterfield, R., and Banerjee, P.K., (1971). The problem of pile group-pile cap
interaction. Gotechnique, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 135-142.
[5] Cox, A.D., (1962), Axially-symmetric plastic deformations - Indentation of
ponderable soils. Int. Journal Mech. Science, Vol. 4, 341-380.
[6] Davis, E.H. and Booker J.R., (1973), The effect of increasing strength with depth
on the bearing capacity of clays. Geotechnique, Vol. 23, No. 4, 551-563.
[7] Engin, H.K., Septanika, E.G., and Brinkgreve, R.B.J., (2007). Improved Embedded
Beam Elements for the Modelling of Piles. Numog X.
[8] Gibson, R.E., (1967), Some results concerning displacements and stresses in a non-
homogeneous elastic half-space, Geotechnique, Vol. 17, 58-64.
[9] Giroud, J.P., (1972), Tables pour le calcul des foundations. Vol.1, Dunod, Paris.
[10] Van Langen, H., (1991). Numerical Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction. PhD
thesis Delft University of Technology. PLAXIS users can request copies.
[11] Mattiasson, K., (1981), Numerical results from large deflection beam and frame
problems analyzed by means of elliptic integrals. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 17,
145-153.
[12] McMeeking, R.M., and Rice, J.R., (1975). Finite-element formulations for
problems of large elastic-plastic deformation. Int. J. Solids Struct., 11, pp. 606-616.
[13] El-Mossallamy, Y., (1999). Load-settlement behaviour of large diameter bored
piles in over-consolidated clay. Proceeding of the 7th. International Symposium on
Numerical Models in Geotechnical Engineering, Graz, Austria, September 1999,
pp. 443-450.
[14] El-Mossallamy, Y., (2004). The Interactive Process between Field Monitoring and
Numerical Analyses by the Development of Piled Raft Foundation. Geotechnical
innovation, International symposium, University of Stuttgart, Germany, 25 June
2004, pp. 455-474.
[15] El-Mossallamy, Y., Lutz, B., and Richter, Th., (2006). Innovative application and
design of piled raft foundation. 10th International Conference on Piling and Deep
Foundations, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
[16] Ostermayer, H. and Barley, T., (2003). Ground Anchors. Geotechnical Engineering
Handbook, Vol. 2, pp. 169-219.
[17] Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H., (1974), Elastic solutions for soil and rock mechanics.
John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
[18] Randolph, M.F. and Wroth, C.P., (1978). Analysis of deformation of vertically
loaded piles. ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT12, pp. 1485-1488.
[19] Roark, R. J., (1965), Formulas for Stress and Strain, McGraw-Hill Book Company.
VALIDATION MANUAL
[20] Sagaseta, C., (1984), Personal communication.
[21] Sommer, H. and Hambach, P., (1974). Gropfahlversuche im Ton fr die
Grndung der Talbrcke Alzey. Der Bauingenieur, Vol. 49, pp. 310-317
[22] Verruijt, A., (1983), Grondmechanica (Geomechanics syllabus). Delft University of
Technology.

3DF2 5 Validation 3D Plaxis

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

3DF2 5 Validation 3D Plaxis

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

PLAXIS

Você também pode gostar