Você está na página 1de 24

PLAXIS

PLAXIS

PLAXIS

N 12 - JUNE 2002

Editorial
Some time has passed since the appearance

in order to be able to proceed with a

of our last bulletin no 11, but the PLAXIS

geotechnical design. In this issue Prof. Vermeer

team did not sit still. Not only was a new

discusses Oedometer stiffness of Soft Soils.

director appointed for PLAXIS B.V. which


will be introduced further on, also a

In addition to the aforementioned, Prof.

number of other new team-members have

Schweiger who also is a regular contributor to

come to work for PLAXIS. The Plaxis-team

our bulletin discusses the relation between

has extended with four new people in

Skemptons pore pressure parameters A and B

order to improve the capability to

and the performance of the Hardening Soil

accommodate for the demand on new

model.

plaxis developments. The Plaxis-team


consist of 14 people. In the next bulletin,

Furthermore we are fortunate to have new

we will briefly introduce them to you.

contributions with respect to Benchmarking;


two contributions on benchmarking are

Bulletin of the
PLAXIS
Users Association (NL)

New Developments which will be discussed in

presented here, one on Shield tunnelling and

the contribution by Dr Brinkgreve, the head of

another on excavations.

our development team. He will discuss further

Plaxis bulletin
Plaxis B.V.
P.O. Box 572
2600 AN Delft
The Netherlands
E-mail:
bulletin@plaxis.nl

IN THIS ISSUE:

developments such as for the release of Plaxis

Again we are glad to have a number of practical

Version 8, the progress on the PLAX-flow

applications; Among which are a contribution

program and the other 3D developments. With

by Dr. Gysi, on a multi-anchored retaining wall,

respect to PLAXIS 2D, Version 8 is due to be

and another one by Mr. Cheang from

expected after the summer holidays, as Beta

Singapore on a complicated retaining wall with

testing of this new program is underway, and

Jack-In Anchors.

the users in our regular PLAXIS course in

Editorial

Noordwijkerhout in January and also the

Finally in the Users Forum it is shown how a

Column Vermeer

attendants of the advanced course have had

more complicated 3D situation of a Retaining

New developments

some opportunity to experience this new

wall with anchors is practically modelled with

program.

PLAXIS 2D.

Note on pore pressure 6


Benchmarking I

In his regular column Prof. Vermeer will discuss

Editorial Staff:

Benchmarking II

12

the use of soil parameters and especially

Martin de Kant, Plaxis Users Association (NL)

Recent Activities

13

parameter estimation. Not always is it possible

Marco Hutteman, Plaxis Users Association (NL)

Plaxis practice I

14

to do a direct test for a parameter. Or sometimes

Peter Brand, Plaxis B.V.

in a pre-design stage there is only limited


Plaxis practice II

17

information of the soil stratification. In that case

Scientific Committee:

Users forum

22

it is often very convenient to have some

Prof. Pieter Vermeer, Stuttgart University

Some Geometries

22

correlations between different soil-parameters

Dr. Ronald Brinkgreve, Plaxis bv

Agenda

24

PLAXIS
PLAXIS

Column Vermeer

One

of

the

best-known

geotechnical

correlations reads Cc 0.9 (wL - 0.1), where wL


ON THE OEDOMETER STIFFNESS

is the liquid limit. For details, the reader is

OF SOFT SOILS

referred to the book by Terzaghi and Peck


(1967). Wroth and Wood (1978) proposed the

For normally consolidated fine-grained

seemingly different correlation Cc 1.35IP,

soils, we have the logarithmic compression

where IP is the plasticity index. In reality the

law, e = Cc log, where De is the change

two correlations are virtually identical, as the

of the void ratio, Cc the compression index

plasticity index can usually be approximated as

and  the vertical effectivestress in one-

IP  0.73 (wL - 0.1). Indeed, with the exception

dimensional compression. The compression

of sandy silts, data for IP and wL tend to be on

index Cc is measured in oedometer tests,

a straight line that is parallel to the so-called

together with other stiffness related

A-line in Casagrandes plasticity chart (see

parameters such as the swelling index and

Fig. 1). On using the Ip-wL correlation, the

the preconsolidation stress. In this column

Terzaghi-Peck correlation reads Cc  1.23IP,

which is very close to the finding of Cc  1.35IP

will

discuss

correlations

for

the

by Wroth and Wood. Considering the large

compression index Cc.

amount of evidence on the correlations,


It should be realized that Terzaghi and other

Cc  1.35IP and IP  0.73 (wL - 0.1), I conclude

founding fathers of Soil Mechanics lived in the

that we may use both

10-log-paper period and their findings have to


be reformulated for use in computer codes.

Cc  1.35IP

Cc  wL - 0.1

and

(1)

Hence, we have to change from a 10-log to a


natural logarithm in order to obtain the

The latter one is only slightly different from

reformulated law,

the earlier one by Terzaghi and Peck and to my


judgement also slightly better. Let us now

Fig. 1:
Atterberg limits of 21
different soils that were
tested by Engel

e = -  ln, where = Cc ln10. On top of

address the modified compression index * as

this it is convenient to use strain instead of

used in all advanced Plaxis models. The

void ratio, which leads to the compression law,

relationship

where  = * ln, * = (1+e) and  is a

compression index Cc and the modified one

finite strain increment. I will address Cc, as well

* is expressed by the equation

as the modified compression index * and in


addition the oedometer modulus Eoed.

*=

between

Cc
(1+e) In10

the

traditional

Cc
4.6

(2)

The approximation follows for e=1. In general


it is crude to assume e1, but it works within
the context of the correlations for soft soils.
In combination with the correlations for Cc it
leads to:

*  0.3lp

and

*  0.2(wL- 0.1)

(3)

For a direct assessment of these correlations,


we will consider data by Engel (2001). This
database contains modified compression
indices for 21 different clays and silts, with a
liquid limit ranging from 0.2 up to 1.1 and a
plasticity index between 0.03 and 0.7, as can

PLAXIS
PLAXIS

be seen in Fig. 1. Engels data for * leads to

Let us now consider the oedometer stiffness.

Figures 2 and 3. From Fig. 2 it can be

To this end the logarithmic compression law


 = * . ln can be written in the differential

concluded that the correlation

form d/dln

= * and one obtains

d/ d = / The tangent stiffness in


oedometer-compression, also refered to as
the constrained modulus, is thus proportional
to stress. Hence, Eoed ='/*, where Eoed is also
denoted as M or Es, depending on conventions
in different countries. This linear stress
dependency of soil stiffness is nice for finegrained NC-soils, but not for coarse-grained
ones. Therefore Ohde (1939) and Janbu (1963)
proposed a generalisation of the form:
ref

Eoed = Eoed ('/Pref)m with Pref = 100kPa (4)


where m is an empirical exponent. This
equation reduces to the linear stress
Fig. 2:
Compression indices as
measured by Engel as a
function of Ip

Fig. 3:
Compression indices
correlate nicely with the
liquid limit

*  0.3lp has some shortcomings. A close

dependency of soil stiffness for m=1.

inspection shows that it is nice for clays with

In the special case of m=1, one thus obtains

plasticity

in

the logarithmic compression law for fine-

Casagrandes plasticity chart, but not for silts

grained NC-soils. For coarse grained soils, much

indices

above

the

A-line

with Ip below the A-line. To include such silts

lower exponents of about m=0.5 are reported

one could better use the correlation,

by Janbu (1963), Von Soos (2001) and other

*  0.2(wL- 0.1) as demonstrated in Fig. 3. On


plotting * as a function of the liquid limit, as

researchers.

done in Fig. 3, it is immediately clear that there

The above power law of Ohde, Janbu and Von

is an extremely nice correlation.

Soos has been incorporated into the Hardening

It should also be recalled that the correlation

Soil Model of the Plaxis code. Here it should be

*  0.2(wL- 0.1) is not only supported by


Engels database, but that it is also fully in line

noted that the above authors define


ref
= v . P , where v is a so-called modulus
E

with the work of Wroth & Wood as well as

number. Instead of the dimensionless modulus

Terzaghi & Peck on correlations for Cc.

number, the Hardening Soil Model involves

oed

ref

ref

Eoed as an input parameter, i.e. the constrained


modulus

at

reference

stress

of

= pref = 100kPa. For the coming Version 8 of


the Plaxis code, we have also considered the
use of alternative input parameters. Instead of
ref

Eoed , we have discussed the modulus number


1/* as well as the modified compression index
itself, as it yields
ref
* Pref / Eoed

(5)

In fact, this simple relationship between the


oedometer stiffness and the modified
compression index triggered our thinking on
alternative input parameters. Finally we decided

PLAXIS
PLAXIS

to go one step further and use the traditional


compression index Cc by implementing the
equations:
ref

Eoed =

Pref

*

(1+e) ln10

. P
ref

Cc

(6)

New Developments
In a few months, Plaxis version 8 will be
released. This new 2D program is one of the

Within the new Version 8, users will have the

results of a recently finished two-years

choice between the input of Eoed and the

project on Plaxis developments. Another

alternative of Cc. Similarly, the so-called swelling

results of this project is the 3D Tunnel

index Cs will be used as an alternative input

program, which was released last year. In

parameter for the unloading-reloading stiffness

this bulletin some new features of Plaxis

Eur. On inputting Cc one also has to prescribe

version 8 will be mentioned. The new

a value for the void ratio.

features are divided into three groups:

Here, a default value of e=1 will be introduced.

Modeling features, calculation options and

This will make the Hardening Soil Model easier

user friendliness.

to use in the field of soft soil engineering.


P.A. Vermeer, Stuttgart University
REFERENCES:
Engel, J., Procedures for the Selection of
Soil Parameters (in German), Habilitation study,
Department of Civil Engineering, Technical
University of Dresden, 2001, 188 p.
Janbu, N., "Soil Compressibility as Determined
by Oedometer and Triaxial Tests", Proceedings
3rd European Conference on Soil Mechanics
and

Foundation

Engineering,

Vol.

1,

MODELING FEATURES
Plaxis (2D) version 8 has several new features

Wiesbaden, 1963, pp. 19-25.

for the modeling of tunnels and underground


Ohde, J. , "On the Stress Distribution in the

structures. Some of these features were

Ground" (in German), Bauingenieur, Vol. 20, No.

already implemented in the 3D tunnel

33/34, 1939, pp. 451-459.

program, such as:

Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B., "Soil Mechanics in

Extended tunnel designer, including thick

Engineering Practice", 2nd Ed, John Wiley and

tunnel linings and tunnel shapes composed

Sons, New York, 1967, 729 p.

of arcs, lines and corners.


-

Application of user-defined (pore) pressure

Soos von, P., "Properties of Soil and Rock" (in

distribution in soil clusters to simulate grout

German), Grundbautaschenbuch, Vol. 1, 6th

injection.

Ed., Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 2001, pp. 117-201

Application of volume strain in soil clusters


to

Wroth, C. P. and Wood, D. M. , "The Correlation


of

Index

Properties

with

Some

Basic

simulate

soil

volume

loss

or

compensation grouting.
-

Jointed Rock model

Engineering Properties of Soils", Canadian

Other new modeling features are aimed at

Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1987, pp.

the modeling of soil, structures and soil

137-145.

structure interaction:

PLAXIS
PLAXIS

Input of Skempton's B-factor for partially

from the past. Examples of these features are:

undrained soil behavior.

Hinges and rotation springs to model beam


connections that are not fully rigid.

Separate

maximum

distinction

between

anchor

Report generation, for a complete


documentation of a project (including input

and

compression).
-

in the output program.

forces

extension

Reflection of input data and applied loads

data and applied loads).


-

Complete output of stresses (effective, total,

De-activation of interface elements to

water), presented both as principal stresses,

temporarily avoid soil-structure interaction

cartesian stresses;

or impermeability.

also available in cross sections and in the

Special option to create drains and wells for

Curves program.

a groundwater flow calculation.

Equivalent force in cross-section plots of


normal stresses.

CALCULATION OPTIONS
Regarding the new calculation options, most

values of structural forces over all

new features are in fact improvements of


'inconsistencies' from previous versions.

proceeding calculation phases.


-

Examples of such improvements are:


-

Force envelopes, showing the maximum

Scale bar of plotted quantities in the output


program.

Staged Construction can be used as loading

Color plots plotted as bitmaps rather than

input in a Consolidation analysis.

meta-files. This avoids the loss of colors

A Consolidation analysis can be executed as

when importing these plots in other

an Updated Mesh calculation.

software.

In an Updated Mesh calculation, the update

Parameters in material data sets can be

of water pressures with respect to the

viewed

deformed position of elements and stress

Construction.

points can be included. In this way, the

(not

modified)

in

Staged

User-defined material data set colors.

settlement of soil under a continuous


-

phreatic level can be simulated accurately.

A special feature that is available in Version 8 is

Loads

Staged

the user-defined soil models option. This

Construction, which enables a combination

feature enables users to include self-

of construction and loading in the same

programmed soil models in the calculations.

calculation phase. The need to use

Although this option is most interesting for

multipliers to apply loading has decreased.

researchers and scientists at universities and

This makes the definition of calculation

research institutes, it may also be interesting

phases more logical and it enhances the

for practical engineers to benefit from this

flexibility to use different load combinations.

work. In the future, validated and well-

Preview (picture) of defined calculation

documented user-defined soil models may

phase in a separate calculations tab sheet.

become available via the Internet. More

Improved robustness of steady-state

information on this feature will be placed on

groundwater flow calculations. Simplified

our web site www.plaxis.nl.

can

be

applied

in

input of groundwater head boundary


conditions based on general phreatic level.

Registered Plaxis users will be informed when

In addition, a separate program for transient

the new version 8 is available; they can benefit

groundwater flow is planned to be released

from the reduced upgrade prices. Meanwhile,

at the end of 2002.

new developments continue. More and more


developments are devoted to 3D modeling. We
will keep you informed in future bulletins.

USER FRIENDLINESS
Many new features in the framework of 'user
friendliness' are based on users' suggestions

Ronald Brinkgreve, PLAXIS BV

PLAXIS
PLAXIS

NOTE ON PORE
PRESSURE

Soil Parameters
The following parameter sets have been used

SOME REMARKS ON PORE PRESSURE

and the model number given below is referred

PARAMETERS A AND B IN UNDRAINED

to in the respective diagrams. A consolidation

ANALYSES WITH THE HARDENING SOIL

pressure of 100 kN/m2 has been applied to all

MODEL

test simulations followed by undrained


shearing of the sample.

In undrained analyses Skemptons pore

Pore Pressure Parameter B

pressure parameters A and B (Skempton,

In order to check the value of parameter B in

1954) are frequently used to estimate

an undrained PLAXIS analysis a hydrostatic

excess pore pressures. If we consider triaxial

stress

conditions, Skemptons equation reads

consolidation. By doing so, the parameter A

state

has

been

applied

after

does not come into picture and B can be

u = B [ 3 + A ( 1 - 3 ) ]

directly calculated from u and 3, when


using undrained behaviour as material type.

where 1 and 3 are changes in total minor

PLAXIS does not yield exactly 1.0 because a

and major principal stresses respectively. For

slight compressibility of water is allowed for

fully saturated conditions, assuming pore water

numerical reasons and therefore a value of

being incompressible, B is 1.0. Furthermore,

0.987 is obtained for the given parameters for

for elastic behaviour of the soil skeleton, A

the Mohr Coulomb model. For the HS model

turns out to be 1/3.

the value depends slightly on E50 and Eoed, but


also on the power m and changes with loading.

A frequently asked question in PLAXIS courses

The differences however are in the order of

is What pore pressure parameters A and B does

about 3.0 to 5.0 % for the parameter sets

PLAXIS use, if an undrained analysis is

investigated here. So it is correct to say that

performed in terms of effective stresses setting

Skemptons pore pressure parameter B is

the material type to undrained? The answer is

approximately 1.0 in PLAXIS, when using

You dont know, except for the trivial cases

undrained behaviour as material type.

of elastic or elastic-perfectly plastic behaviour.


Pore Pressure Parameter A

Table 1 Parameter
sets for Hardening
Soil model

In order to investigate this in more detail

The value of parameter A is more difficult to

undrained triaxial stress paths are investigated

determine. However one can evaluate A from

with the Mohr Coulomb model with and

the results of the numerical simulations and

without dilatancy, and with the Hardening Soil

this has been done for various parameter

model. In the latter the influence of various

combinations for the Hardening Soil model and

assumptions of E50 and Eoed has been studied.

the Mohr Coulomb model.

Eurref

Eoedref

ur

pref

K0nc

Rf

kN/m2

kN/m2

kN/m2

kN/m2

kN/m2

HS_1

30 000

90 000

30 000

35

0 / 10

0.0

0.2

100

0.75

0.426

0.9

HS_2

50 000

150 000

50 000

35

0.0

0.2

100

0.75

0.426

0.9

HS_3

15 000

45 000

15 000

35

0.0

0.2

100

0.75

0.426

0.9

HS_4

30 000

90 000

40 000

35

0.0

0.2

100

0.75

0.426

0.9

HS_5

30 000

90 000

15 000

35

0.0

0.2

100

0.75

0.426

0.9

HS_6

50 000

150 000

30 000

35

0.0

0.2

100

0.75

0.426

0.9

Model Number E50ref

Parameters for MC Model: E = 30 000 kN/m2;


= 0.2;  = 35; = 0 and 10

PLAXIS
PLAXIS

Comparison Mohr Coulomb

undrained triaxial test is only obtained for the

Hardening Soil

Hardening Soil model because the Mohr

In this comparison we consider the Mohr

Coulomb model remains in the elastic range

Coulomb criterion and the parameter set 1 for

and thus no change in effective mean normal

the Hardening Soil model for dilatant ( = 10)

stress takes place. The well known fact that

and non dilatant ( = 0) behaviour. The p-q-

dilatant behaviour leads to an increase of

diagramm (Fig. 1) firstly shows that the

strength in the undrained case is reproduced

effective stress path observed in a typical

by both models in a similar way. It is important


to point out that although the effective

Fig. 1
Stress path in
p-q-space /
MC HS model

strength parameters are the same for both


models the undrained shear strength is
different due to different effective stress paths
q [kN/m2]

produced by both models, the Hardening Soil


model giving an almost 15% lower value (see
also Fig. 2). The pore pressure vs vertical strain
diagram in Fig. 3 shows the expected increase
of excess pore water pressure followed by a
rapid decrease for the dilatant material
behaviour. It is worth noting that in the case

Fig. 2
q- 1 - diagram /
MC HS model

of the Mohr Coulomb model there is a sharp


transition when the excess pore water pressure
starts to decrease (at the point where the
q [kN/m2]

failure envelope is reached) whereas for the


Hardening Soil model this transition is smooth.
The pore pressure parameter A (Fig. 4) is 1/3
for the non dilatant Mohr Coulomb model (this
is the theoretical value for elastic behaviour)
and is independent of the loading stage and
thus the vertical strain. For the Hardening Soil
model A is not a constant but increases with
deviatoric loading to a final value of approx.

excess pore pressure [kN/m2]

Fig. 3
u- 1 - diagram /
MC HS model

0.44 for this particular parameter set. Of course


the parameter A tends to become negative for
dilatant behaviour.
Hardening Soil Influence of E50ref and
Eoedref
The reference parameter set is HS_1 of Table
1. Based on this, the reference values of E50

Fig. 4
A- 1 - diagram /
MC HS model

and Eoed have been varied (HS_2 to HS_6). Only


non dilatant material behaviour is considered.
Fig. 5 shows effective stress paths in the p-qparameter A

space and it is interesting to see that for E50


= Eoed the stress path is the same for all values
of E50 leading to the same undrained shear
strength although the vertical strain (and thus
the shear strain) at failure is different (Fig. 6).
If E50 is different from Eoed, different stress
paths and hence different undrained shear

PLAXIS
PLAXIS

strengths are predicted. The difference

these parameters in boundary value problems.

between HS_4 and HS_5 is more than 30%

In Fig. 6 deviatoric stress is plotted against

which is entirely related to the difference in

vertical strain and unlike in a drained test

Eoed. This is perhaps not so suprising because

where Eoed has only a minor influence on the

Eoed controls much of the volumetric

q- 1-curve both parameters have a strong

behaviour which in turn is very important for

influence on the results. E50 governs, as

the undrained behaviour. However one has to

expected, the behaviour at lower deviatoric

be aware of the consequences when using

stresses but when failure is approached the


influence of Eoed becomes more pronounced.

Fig. 5
Stress path in
p-q-space /
Hardening Soil

A very similar picture is obtained when excess


pore pressures are plotted against vertical
strain (Fig. 7). In Fig. 8 the pore pressure
q [kN/m2]

parameter A is plotted against vertical strain


and it follows that for Eoed > E50 (parameter
set HS_4) the pore pressure parameter A is
approx. 0.34, i.e. close to the value for elastic
behaviour. If Eoed < E50 (parameter sets HS_5
and HS_6) the parameter A increases rapidly
with loading, finally reaching a value of

Fig. 6
q- 1 - diagram /
Hardening Soil

approximately A = 0.6.
Summary
q [kN/m2]

It has been shown that the pore pressure


parameters A and B obtained with PLAXIS from
undrained analysis of triaxial stress paths using
a Mohr Coulomb failure criterion are very close
to the theoretical values given by Skempton
(1954) for elastic material behaviour, i.e. B is
approx. 1.0 and A is 1/3. For more complex soil
behaviour as introduced by the Hardening Soil
model the parameter A is no longer a constant

excess pore pressure [kN/m2]

Fig. 7
u- 1 - diagram /
Hardening Soil

value but changes with loading and is


dependent in particular on the value of Eoed in
relation to E50. For a given E50 the parameter
A at failure is higher for lower Eoed-values,
which in turn results in lower undrained shear
strength. Eoed < E50 is usually assumed for
normally consolidated clays experiencing high
volumetric strains under compression which

Fig. 8
A- 1 - diagram /
Hardening Soil

corresponds to a higher value for A in the


undrained case. It is therefore justified to say
that PLAXIS predicts the correct trend, care
parameter A

however has to be taken when choosing Eoed,


because the influence of this parameter, which
may be difficult to determine accurately for in
situ conditions, is significant and may have a
strong influence on the results when solving
practical boundary value problems under
undrained conditions.

PLAXIS
PLAXIS

Reference
Skempton, A.W. (1954). The Pore-Pressure
Coefficients A and B. Geotechnique, 4, 143147.
H.F. Schweiger

vertical displacements [mm]

Fig. 1:
Surface
settlements analysis A

Graz University of Technology

Benchmarking I
PLAXIS BENCHMARK NO.1: SHIELD TUNNEL
1 - RESULTS

horizontal displacements [mm]

Fig. 2:
Horizontal
displacements at
surface -analysis A

Introduction
Unfortunately the response of the PLAXIS
community to the call for solutions for the
first PLAXIS benchmark example was not a
success at all. Probably the example
specified gave the impression of being so
straightforward that everybody would
obtain the same results and thus it would
not be worthwhile to take the time for this
exercise. However, I had distributed the

displacements [mm]

Fig. 3:
Displacements of
slected points analysis A

example on another occasion within a


different group of people dealing with
benchmarking in geotechnics. In the
following I will show the results of this
comparison together with the few PLAXIS
results I have got. As mentioned in the
specification of the problem no names of
authors or programs are given, so I will not

vertical displacements [mm]

Fig. 4:
Surface
settlements analysis B

disclose which of the analyses have been


obtained with PLAXIS.
I hope, that the summary of the first
benchmark example provides sufficient
stimulation for taking part in the second call
for solutions for PLAXIS Benchmark No.2,
published in this bulletin, so that we can go
ahead with this section and as awareness for

horizontal displacements [mm]

Fig. 5:
Horizontal
displacements at
surface -analysis B

necessity of validation procedures grow,


proceed to more complex examples. The
specification of Benchmark No.1 is not repeated
here; please refer to the Bulletin No.11.
Results Analysis A elastic, no lining
Figure 1 shows calculated settlements of the

PLAXIS
PLAXIS

surface and it follows that even in the elastic

Some of the discrepancies are due to different

case some scatter in results is observed.

boundary conditions. ST5, for example,


restrained vertical and horizontal displacements
at the lateral boundary, others introduced an
elastic spring or a stress boundary condition.
The effect of the lateral boundary is not so

displacements [mm]

Fig. 6:
Displacements of
selcted points analysis B

obvious from Figure 1 but becomes more


pronounced when Figure 2, showing the
horizontal displacement at the surface, is
examined. Figure 3 summarizes calculated
values at specific points, namely at the surface,
the crown, the invert and the side wall (for
exact location see specification). A maximum
difference of 10 mm (this is roughly 20%) in
the vertical displacement of point A (at the

vertical displacements [mm]

Fig. 7:
Surface
settlements analysis C

surface) is observed and this is by no means


acceptable for an elastic analysis.
Results Analysis B elastic-perfectly
plastic, no lining
Figures 4 and 5 show settlements and
horizontal displacements at the surface for the
plastic solution with constant undrained shear

horizontal displacements [mm]

Fig. 8:
Horizontal
displacements at
surface analysis C

strength. In Figure 4 a similar scatter as in


Figure 1 is observed with the exception of ST4,
ST9 and ST10 which show an even larger
deviation from the "mean" of all analyses
submitted. Again ST5 restrained vertical
displacements at the lateral boundary and thus
the settlement is zero here. ST9 used a vonMises and not a Tresca failure criterion which
accounts for the difference. The strong
influence of employing a von-Mises criterion

displacements [mm]

Fig. 9:
Displacements of
selcted points analysis C

as follows from Figure 4 has been verified by


separate studies. It is emphasized therefore
that a careful choice of the failure criterion is
essential in a non-linear analysis even for a
simple problem as considered here. The
significant variation in predicted horizontal
displacements, mainly governed by the
placement of the lateral boundary condition,

normal forces [kN]/contact pressure [kPa]

Fig. 10:
Normal forces and
contact pressure analysis C

is evident from Figure 5. Figure 6 compares


values for displacements at given points. Taking
the settlement at the surface above the tunnel
axis (point A) the minimum and maximum
value calculated is 76 mm and 159 mm
respectively. Thus differences are - as expected
- significantly larger than in the elastic case but
again not acceptable.

10

PLAXIS
PLAXIS

Results Analysis C elastic-perfectly

distances from the symmetry axes and that

plastic, lining and volume loss

the specified volume loss is modelled in

Figure 7 plots surface settlements for the

different ways. Figure 8 shows the horizontal

elastic-perfectly plastic analysis with a specified

displacements at the surface and a similar

volume loss of 2% and the wide scatter in

picture as in the previous analyses can be

results is indeed not very encouraging. The

found. Figure 9 depicts displacements at

significant effect of the vertically and

selected points. The range of calculated values

horizontally restrained boundary condition

for the surface settlement above the tunnel

used in ST5 is apparent. However in the other

axis is between 1 and 25 mm and for the

solutions no obvious cause for the differences

crown settlement between 17 and 45 mm

could be found except that the lateral

respectively. The normal forces in the lining

boundary has been placed at different

and the contact pressure between soil and


lining do not differ that much (variation is
within 15 and 20% respectively), with the
exception of ST9 who calculated significantly

vertical displacements [mm]

Fig. 11:
Surface
settlements
analysis A / lateral
boundary at 100 m

lower values (Figure 10).


Results with lateral boundary at distance
of 100 m from tunnel axis
Due to the obvious influence of the lateral
boundary conditions a second round of analysis
has been performed asking all authors to redo
the analysis with a lateral boundary at 100 m

horizontal displacements [mm]

Fig. 12:
Horizontal
displacements at
surface analysis A
/ lateral boundary
at 100 m

distance from the line of symmetry with the


horizontal displacements fixed. As follows from
Figures 11 and 12 which depicts these results
for case A, all results are now within a small
range and thus it has been confirmed that the
discrepancies described from the previous
chapter are entirely caused by the boundary
condition. In addition to finite element results
an analytical solution by Verruijt is included for
comparison. Vertical displacements are in very

vertical displacements [mm]

Fig. 13:
Surface
settlements
analysis A /
undrained drained

good

agreement

and

also

horizontal

displacements are acceptable in the area of


interest (i.e. in the vicinity of the tunnel). For
case B similar results are obtained although
some small differences are still present. For case
C the comparison also matches much better
now but some differences remain here and this
is certainly due to the fact that the programs

horizontal displacements [mm]

Fig. 14:
Horizontal
displacements at
surface analysis A
/ undrained drained

involved handle the specified volume loss in a


different way.
Comparison

undrained

drained

conditions
In order to show that the influence of the
lateral boundary is especially important under
undrained conditions (constant volume) an

11

PLAXIS
PLAXIS

analysis has been performed for case A with

conditions can be much more severe in an

exactly the same parameters except for

undrained analysis than in a drained one and

Poisson's ratio, chosen now to correspond to

whenever possible a careful check should be

a drained situation, i.e. deformation under

made whether or not the placement of the

constant volume is no longer enforced (for

boundary conditions affects the results one is

simplicity the difference of Young's module

interested in. One may argue that this is a trivial

between drained and undrained conditions has

statement, practice however shows that due

been neglected). It follows from Figure 13 that

to time constraints in projects it is not always

for the drained case the surface settlements

feasible to check the influence of all the

are virtually independent of the distance of the

modelling assumptions involved in a numerical

lateral boundary (results for mesh widths of

analysis of a boundary value problem. It is one

50 m and 100 m are shown respectively). The

of the goals of this section to point out

horizontal displacements (Figure 14) show

potential pitfalls in certain types of problems

some differences of course but in the area of

which may not be obvious even to experienced

interest they are negligible in the drained case.

users and to promote the development of


guidelines for the use of numerical modelling
in geotechnical practice.

Summary
The outcome of this benchmark example
clearly emphasizes the necessity of performing

Helmut F. Schweiger, Graz University of

these types of exercises in order to improve

Technology

the validity of numerical models. Given the


discrepancies in results obtained for this very
simple example much more scatter can be
expected for real boundary value problems.

Benchmarking II

One of the lessons learned from this example


is that the influence of the boundary
Fig. 1:
Geometric data
benchmark excavation

PLAXIS BENCHMARK NO. 2: EXCAVATION 1


The second benchmark is an excavation in
front of a sheet pile wall supported by a
strut. Geometry, excavation steps and
location of the water table are given in
Figure 1. Fully drained conditions are
postulated. The soil is assumed to be a
homogeneous layer of medium dense sand
and the parameters for the Hardening Soil
model, the sheet pile wall and the strut are
given in Tables 1 and 2 respectively.

Table 1.
Parameters for
sheet pile wall and strut

The following computational steps have to be

EA

EI

kN/m/m -

performed in a plane strain analysis:

0.655

initial phase (K0 = 0.426)

activation of sheet pile, excavation step 1

kN/m

kN2/m

Sheet pile wall

2.52E6

8064

Strut

1.5E6

0.0

to level 2.0 m

dry

wet

E50ref

Eurref

Eoedref

ur

pref

K0nc

Rf

Rinter

T-Strength

kN/m3

kN/m3

kPa

kPa

kPa

kPa

kPa

kPa

19.0

20.0

45 000

180 000

45 000

35

1.0

0.2

100

0.55

0.426

0.9

0.7

0.0

Table 2. Parameters for HS-model

12

PLAXIS
PLAXIS

activation of strut at level 1.50 m,


excavation step 2 to level 4.0 m,

groundwater lowering inside excavation to

excavation step 3 to level 6.0 m

phi-c-reduction

level 6.0 m

REQUIRED RESULTS
1. bending moments and lateral deflections of
sheet pile wall (including values given in a

temporary occupied the chair on behalf of

table)

MOS Grondmechanica BV.

2. surface settlements behind wall (including


Since the very beginning Dr. Bakker has been

values given in a table)


3. strut force

actively involved in the program(ming) of

4. factor of safety obtained from phi-c-

PLAXIS and is a key figure in the PLAXIS

reduction for the final excavation step

network. In his last position he was Head of


Construction and Development at the Tunnel-

Note: As far as possible results should be

engineering department for the Dutch Ministry

provided not only in print but also on disk

of Public Works. Furthermore he is a lecturer

(preferably EXCEL) or in ASCII-format respectively.

at Delft University of Technology.

Alternatively, the entire PLAXIS-project may be


provided. Results may also be submitted via e-

COURSES

mail to the address given below.


In 2001 over 400 people attended one of
Results should be sent no later than

the 13 Plaxis courses that were held in

August 1st, 2002 to:

several parts of the world. Most of these


courses are held on a regular basis, while

Prof. H.F. Schweiger

others take place on an single basis.

Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation

Regular courses:

Engineering

Traditionally, we start the year with the standard

Computational Geotechnics Group

International

Graz University of Technology

Geotechnics that takes place during the 3rd

Rechbauerstr. 12, A-8010 Graz

week of January in the Netherlands. The

Tel.: +43 (0)316 873-6234

Experienced users course in the Netherlands

Fax: +43 (0)316 873-6232

is traditionally organised during the 4th week

E-mail: schweiger@ibg.tu-graz.ac.at

of March each year. Besides these standard

http://www.tu-graz.ac.at/geotechnical_group/

courses in the Netherlands, some other regular

course

Computational

courses are held in Germany (March), England


(April), France (Autumn), Singapore (Autumn),

Recent Activities

Egypt, and the USA. For the USA the course


schedule is a bit different, as we plan to have
an Experienced users course per two years and
two standard courses in the intermediate

NEW DIRECTOR OF PLAXIS B.V.

periods. In May, 2002, we had the Experienced


We are pleased to introduce the new

users course in Boston, which was organised

director of PLAXIS BV, Dr. Klaas Jan Bakker.

in cooperation with the Massachusetts Institute

Dr. Bakker who started the first of February

of Technology (MIT). For January 2003, a

takes over the chair of Mr. Hutteman, who

standard course is scheduled in Berkeley in

13

PLAXIS
PLAXIS

cooperation with the University of California.

last page of this bulletin, you can see the

For August, 2003, another standard course is

agenda, which lists all scheduled courses and

organised in Boulder in cooperation with the

some other events. Our web-site www.plaxis.nl

University of Colorado. It is our intention to

on the other hand will always give you the

repeat this scheme of courses for the Western

most up-to-date information.

hemisphere. For the Asian region, we have


planned a similar schedule that also includes
an experienced users course once every two

PLAXIS Practice I

years.
1. Introduction
Other courses:
Besides the above regular courses, other

In Wrenlingen (Switzerland), for the

courses are organised in different parts of the

temporary storage of nuclear waste, an

world. In the past year, courses were held in

extension of the existing depository was

Mexico, Vietnam, Turkey, Malaysia, etc. On the

required. To facilitate this, a 7.5 - 9.0 m deep


excavation was necessary. This bordered
immediately

adjacent

pre-existing

structures. Furthermore, along one of its


sides there is a route used for the
transportation of nuclear waste.
2. Project
Photo 1:
Participants in the
Experienced users
course, March 2002, the
Netherlands.

Length of excavation:

98 m

Width of excavation:

33 m

Maximum depth:

9m

Start of works:

Spring 2001

End of construction:

Summer 2001

3. Geotechnical conditions
In the Wrenlingen area, significant deposits
of the Aare River dominate, which comprises
predominantly gravels and sands. The
Photo 2:
Plaxis short course,
October 2001, Mexico

groundwater table lies at a depth of ca. 9.5 m


below the surface prior to excavation. The
gravels and sands are known as good
foundation material, with some low apparent
cohesion,

allowing

for

the

temporary

construction of vertical cuttings of low height.


4. Construction procedure
Due to space restrictions, a sloped earthworks

Photo 3:
Plaxis short course,
November 2001,
Vietnam.
Model

Behavior

HS

Drained

profile is not possible. Therefore, it was


concluded to undertake the excavation using

unsat

sat

E50ref

Eoedref

Eurref

ur

Rinter

kN/m3

kN/m3

kPa

kPa

KPa

kPa

22.0

22.0

33 000

37 500

0.5

99 000

0.25

1.0

32

1.0

Table 1. Soil parameters

14

PLAXIS
PLAXIS

a soil nailing option. Correspondingly, the

The calculations were performed with the

excavation had to proceed in benched stages.

following parameters:

Each bench had a height of 1.30 m and a width

Hardening soil model

of 4.5 to 6.0 m. The free face was immediately

Plane strain with 6 node elements

covered with an 18 cm thick layer of shotcrete

649 elements

and tied back with untensioned soil nails.

Due to the simple geology, only one soil layer


was used (see table 1)

The bond strength of the soil nails was


established by pullout tests. Usually the soil

friction was made.

the pullout tests, however, the bond length


was reduced to between 3.0 and 4.0 m with a

The calculations were performed without


groundwater.

total length of 7.0 m. The individual nails have


a cross-sectional area of 25 mm and yield

Due to good bonding between soil and


shotcrete wall no reduction in interface

nails are cemented along their full length. For

Shotcrete wall of 18 cm thickness with

it was possible to tension the nails to yield point

reinforced wire mesh, modeled as beam


elements. EA = 5.4 x 106 kN/m, EI =

without any indication of creep or failure.

1.458 x 104 kNm2/m and


= 0.2

strength of 246 kN. During the pullout tests,

Soil nails are modeled as geotextile elements.


EA = 6.87 x 104 kN/m and
= 0.

nail spacing of 1.5 m and 1.3 m, horizontal and

Results

vertical respectively. The nails were tightened

Final excavation stage

In total five benches were necessary to reach


excavation depth. The wall itself is vertical, with

three days after installation with a torque key,

Maximum deformation of shotcrete wall;

to secure a fast seat to the shotcrete. A pre-

17 mm (see fig. 2a and fig. 3).

tensioning with fully cemented nails is not

Maximum horizontal deformation of

sensible (see fig. 1).

shotcrete wall; 14 mm (see fig. 2d).


Maximum force in geotextile element; 49

Fig. 1:
Typical section
with horizontal
displacements

kN/m, or 73.5 kN per nail (see fig. 4).


Maximum bending moment in shotcrete
wall; 11.5 kNm/m (see fig. 2b).
Maximum axial force in shotcrete wall; -67
kN/m (see fig. 2c).
It must be noted, that the tensile forces in the
geotextile elements at the final excavation
stage did not calculate to zero at the toe of
the nail, as should be in reality. This could be
due to a too wide FE-net around the geotextile
elements, additionally due to the use of only
5. Calculations

6-nodes instead of the more precise 15-node

The initial calculations were performed with

element.

the usual statical programs based on beam


theory and limiting equilibrium loading. Due

6. Measurement on site

to the particular safety requirements in

In total, deformation of the excavation was

connection with nuclear transport additional

taken at five stations. Prior to excavation

deformation predictions were made. These

clinometers were placed ca. 1.0 m behind the

calculations were carried out with Plaxis version

proposed shotcrete wall, with a depth of 7 m

7. Geotextile elements were used to model the

below excavation level. Figure 7 shows the

nails. Due to the good bonding of the soil nails

measured horizontal deformations of two

proven by the pullout attempts, no reduction

cross-sections with equal depths (7.2 and 9.0

was made for loading transfer along the

mm). Figure 6 contains the calculated

geotextile elements.

horizontal deformations along a vertical line

15

PLAXIS
PLAXIS

1m behind the shotcrete wall (14.9 mm). A

Conspicuous is, that below the excavation base

comparison shows that the calculated

there is practically no movement measurable.

deformations are greater than the measured.

Plaxis, however, has predicted some 4 mm


deformation. This may be due to an initial

Fig. 2:
Output in
shotcrete wall

offset or due to stiffer behavior at the bottom


of the excavation.
The

maximum

measured

horizontal

deformation was between 7.2 and 9.0 mm at


the wall head. Plaxis calculated 14.9 mm
horizontal deformation at this point.
If only relative measurements are considered,
assuming that no movement takes place at the
wall toe, then the prediction from Plaxis lays
Fig. 3:
Deformation of
geotextile

very close to the actual maximum measured.


The forms of the measured and calculated
deformation curves correspondwell well with
each other.
7. Conclusions
The calculated deformation of the nailed wall
corresponds well with the measured values,
especially if the predicted deformations of

Fig. 4:
Axial Forces in
geotextile

Plaxis below excavation level are not


considered.
The soil parameters used correspond to
conservative average values, evaluated from a
large number of previous sites under similar
conditions. It is plausible that the deformation
parameters are underestimated.
The

Fig. 5:
Measured
displacements

Plaxis

calculation

illustrates

comprehensively, that the soil nailing system


(soil-nail-wall) works as an interactive system. It
shows further, that the maximum nail force
does not necessarily act at the nail head, but
according to the distribution of soil movements
may also lie far behind the head of the nail. This
means that displacements are necessarily taking
place before the nail force is activated.
On the one hand, it shows that the shotcrete
wall in vertical alignment is stressed by bending

Fig. 6:
Calculated
displacement

and compression, and that the walls foot


transmits compressive stresses to the soil. On
the other hand, the shotcrete wall in horizontal
alignment is only loaded by bending, whereby
in the absence of lateral restrictions of
deformation there could also be tension. Finally
it is clear to see, that nail head support and
pullout failure should be considered (see fig. 4).

16

PLAXIS
PLAXIS

Thanks to prior deformation calculation with

filled layer of very loose silty sand and very soft

Plaxis and measurement control by clinometer

peaty clay varies from 11m to 13m. Due to the

installation during the construction stage, the

presence of very soft soil condition and the

safety of the works in relation to nuclear

fast track requirement of the project,

transportation could be assessed at all times.

Contiguous Bored Pile (CBP) walls supported


by soil nails were used to support the

H.J. Gysi, G.Morri, Gysi Leoni Mader AG,

excavation process. This hybrid technique was

Zrich - Switzerland

envisaged and implemented due to its speed


in construction and the ability of the Jack-in

Anchors1) in supporting excavations in

Calculation procedure

Phase 1: Initial stresses, using Mweight = 1.


Phase 2: Live load (5

kN/m2

and 10

kN/m2)

Phase 3: Excavation to top level of

collapsible soils, high water table and in soft


soils conditions (Cheang et al., 1999 & 2000,
Liew et al, 2000). The use of soil nailing in

wall (-0.80 m).

excavations and slope stabilisation has gained

Phase 4: First excavation stage,

wide acceptance in Southeast Asia, specifically

including shotcrete of wall

in Malaysia and Singapore due to its

and installation of first row

effectiveness and huge economic savings.

of soil nails (-2.10 m).

Adopting the observational method, numerical

Phase 5: Second excavation stage with

analyses using PLAXIS version 7.11 a finite

shotcrete wall (-3.40 m).

element code were conducted to study the

Phase 6: Installation of second row

soil-structure interaction of this relatively new

of soil nails.

retaining system. Numerical predictions were

Phase 7: Third excavation stage

compared with instrumented field readings and

with shotcrete wall (-4.70 m).

deformation parameters were back analysed

Phase 8: Installation of third row of soil nails.

and were used in subsequent prediction of wall

Phase 9: Fourth excavation stage

movements in the following excavation stages.

with shotcrete wall (-6.00 m).


Phase 10: Installation of fourth row

2. SUBSURFACE GEOLOGY

of soil nails.

The general subsurface soil profile of the site,

Phase 11: Fifth excavation stage

shown in Table 1 consists in the order of


succession of loose clayey SILT, loose to

with shotcrete wall (-7.30 m).


Phase 12: Installation of fifth row of soil nails.

medium dense Sand followed by firm to hard


clayey SILT. The residual soils (Figure 1) are interlayered by 9m thick soft dark peaty CLAY. For

PLAXIS

Practice

II

FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING OF A DEEP

analysis purposes the layers were simplified


1) Jack-in Anchor Technique is a patented
product by Specialist Grouting Engineers
Sdn. Bhd. Malaysia

EXCAVATION SUPPORTED BY JACK-IN


ANCHORS
1. INTRODUCTION
A mixed development project that is located
at UEP Subang Jaya, Malaysia consists of three
condominium towers of 33 storeys and a single
20-storey office tower. Due to the huge
demand for parking space, an approximately
three storey deep vehicular parking basement
was required. The deep excavation, through a

17

Photo 1: Jack-in Anchor Technique

PLAXIS
PLAXIS

into representative granular non-cohesive and


cohesive material, such as:

Photo 2:
The Retaining System:
Contiguous Bored Pile
Wall Supported by Jackin Anchors that function
as Soil Nails

DEPTH (m)

DESCRIPTION

SPT N VALUE

LAYER 1

0 to 9

Clayey SILT

<12

LAYER 2

9 to 18

Soft Dark Silty CLAY

LAYER 3

18 to 27

Medium Dense SAND

>18

LAYER 4

27 to 35

Dense SILT

>50

Fig. 1:
Typical Subsurface Profile

Table 1. Soil Layers

3. THE RETAINING SYSTEM


In view of the close proximity of commercial
buildings to the deep excavation, a very stiff
retaining system is required to ensure minimal
ground movements the retained side of the
excavation. Contiguous Bored Pile that acts as
an earth retaining wall during the excavation
works were installed along the perimeter of
the excavation and supported by jack-in
anchors. The retaining wall system consist of

Fig. 2a:
The Retaining System

closely spaced 1000mm diameter contiguous


bored piles supported by hollow pipes which
functions as soil nails are installed by hydraulic
jacking using the Jacked-in Soil Anchor
Technology as shown in photo 3. Figure 2
illustrates the soil nail supported bored pile wall
system.

Photo 3:
Hydraulic Jacking

Fig. 2b:
The Retaining System

18

PLAXIS
PLAXIS

This method has proven to be an efficient and

conditions and the close proximity of the

effective technique for excavation support,

commercial buildings to the deep excavation,

where conventional soil nails and ground

a performance monitoring program was

anchors have little success in such difficult soft

provided. Firstly, as a safety control. Second,

soil conditions. Such conditions are sandy

to refine the numerical analysis using field

collapsible soil, high water table and in very

measurements obtained at the early stages of

soft clayey soils where there is a lack of short-

construction and third, to provide an insight

term pullout resistance.

into the possible working mechanisms of the


system.

Fig. 4:
Geotechnical
Instruments

Relatively, larger movements are required to

The geotechnical instrumentation program

mobilise the tensile and passive resistance of

consists of 18 vertical inclinometer tubes

the jacked-in pipes when compared to ground

located strategically along the perimeter

anchors. However it was anticipated that the

within the Contiguous Bored Pile wall and 30

ground settlement at the retained side and

optical survey makers (surface settlement

maximum lateral displacement of the wall

points) near the vicinity of the commercial

using this system would still be within the

buildings. The locations of these instruments


are detailed in Fig. 4 for the inclinometers.
Fig. 5 illustrates the restrained trend of
horizontal displacement of the wall as
measured through inclinometers installed at
the site
5. FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING
EQUIVALENT PLATE MODEL
Equivalence relationships have to be developed
between the 3D structure and 2D numerical

required

tolerance

after

engineering

model. Non 2-D member such as soil nails must


be represented with equivalent properties that

assessment.

reflect the spacing between such elements.


Fig. 5:
Measures deflection
profile

4. GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION

Donovan et al. (1984) suggested that properties

In view of this relatively new excavation

of the discrete elements could be distributed

support technique used for in-situ soft soil

over the distance between the elements in a

19

PLAXIS
PLAXIS

uniformly spaced pattern by linear scaling.


Unterreiner et al. (1997) adopted an approach
similar to Al-Hussaini and Johnson (1978) where
an equivalent plate model replaces the discrete
soil-nail elements by a plate extended to full
width and breadth of the retaining wall. Nagao
and Kitamura (1988) converted the properties
of the 3-D discrete elements into an equivalent
composite plate model by taking into account
the properties of the adjacent soil. The two-

Fig 6:
2-Dimensional finite element mode

dimensional finite element analysis performed


hereafter uses the composite plate model
approach.
Finite Element Analysis
The finite element analyses were performed
using PLAXIS (Brinkgreve and Vermeer, 1998).
The Contiguous Bored Pile wall and steel tubes
were modelled using a linear-elastic Mindlin
plate model (Figure 6). The nails were pinned
to the CBP wall. The soil-nail soil interface was
modelled using the elastic-perfectly-plastic
model

where

the

Coulomb

criterion

distinguishes between the small displacement


elastic behaviour and slipping plastic behaviour.
The surrounding soils were modelled using the
Mohr-Coulomb soil model. Table 2 and 3 shows

Figure 7:
Lateral Deflection of Soil Nailed
Contiguous Bored Pile Wall

the properties used for the analyses.


6. COMPARISON OF FIELD INSTRUMENTED
AND PREDICTED DISPLACEMENT READINGS
Measured And Predicted Lateral Deflection
Figure 7 compares the in-situ, predicted and
back analysed lateral deflection of the soil nail
supported wall. The measured lateral deflection
Table 2: Soil Properties
Layer 1

Layer 2

Layer 3

Layer 4

34000

9000

30000

200000

19

20

20

19

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

25

35

30

12

(kN/m2)

soil

(kN/m3)

Figure 8:
Lateral Deflection of Stiff and Flexible
Soil Nail System
is showing a trend of restrained cantilever and

Table 3: Nail and Contiguous Bored Pile Wall Properties

the jack-in anchors are restraining the

2.90E+06

kN/m2

horizontal displacement of the wall. Initial finite

2.00E+07

kN/m2

element prediction (Prediction No.1) based on

ENAIL
ECONC.

soil strengths correlated from laboratory

20

PLAXIS
PLAXIS
Figure 9: Influence of
Nail Stiffness

results. Excavation involves mainly the

system. Soil-nail lateral resistance is dependent

unloading of adjacent soil, the ground stiffness

not only on the relative stiffness and yield

is dependent on stress level and wall

strengths of the soil and nail, but also on the

movements. These aspects were taken into

local lateral displacement across the shear zone.

account in prediction no.2, the trend is similar

Due to the hybrid nature of this system, the

and a better prediction was obtained.

results indicated that the relative stiffness of

Subsequent finite element runs were made

the nail and wall too governs the development

base on the improved parameters.

of bending i.e., lateral resistance of the soil nail.


In soft soils, numerical results indicated greater
bending moments in the nails due to larger wall
deflection. The implication of this study is
additional analysis of different working
mechanisms in various soil types should be
envisaged.
9. REFERENCE
1. Al-Hussaini, M.M., Johnson, L., (1978),
Numerical Analysis of Reinforced Earth Wall,
Proc. Symp. On Earth Reinforcement ASCE
Annual Convention, p.p. 98-126.
2. Brinkgreve, R.B.J., Vermeer, P.A., (1998),

7. SOIL-NAIL-SOIL-STRUCTURE

Plaxis- Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock

INTERACTION

Analyses- Version 7.11,A.A.Balkema.

Lateral Bending Stiffness of Soil Nails

3. Cheang, W.L., Tan, S.A., Yong, K.Y., Gue, S.S,,

A flexible nail system with a bending stiffness

Aw, H.C., Yu, H.T., Liew, Y.L., (1999), Soil Nailing

of 1/220 of the stiff nail system was numerically

of a Deep Excavation in Soft Soil,

simulated. It was hypothesised that if bending

Proceedings of the 5Th International

stiffness of the inclusions were insignificant in

Symposium on Field Measurement in

the performance of the nail system, there

Geomechanics, Singapore, Balkema.

would be no difference in the lateral

4. Cheang, W.L., Luo, S.Q., Tan, S.A., Yong, Y.K.,

displacement of the wall. However figure 8

(2000), Lateral Bending of Soil Nails in an

shows that bending stiffness is significant, at

Excavation, International Conference on

least in a soil nail supported embedded wall.

Geotechnical & Geological Engineering,

With a stiff nail system, the lateral displacement

Australia. ( To be Published)

was significantly reduced. Figure 9 illustrates

5. Donovan, K., Pariseau, W.G., and Cepak,

that the influence increases as excavation

M.,(1984), Finite Element Approach to Cable

proceeds further, this is due to the fact that

Bolting in Steeply Dipping VCR Slopes,

larger movements are required to mobilised

Geomechanics Application in Underground

lateral bending resistance of the nails.

Hardrock Mining, pp.65-90.New York: Society


of Mining Engineers.
6. Liew, S.S., Tan, Y.C., Chen, C.S., (2000), Design,

8. CONCLUSION
The soil-nail-soil-structure interaction of a nailed

Installation and Performance of Jack-In-Pipe

wall is complex in nature. Soil nails are subjected

Anchorage System For Temporary Retaining

to tension, shear forces and bending moments.

Structures, International Conference on

The outcome of this numerical investigation of

Geotechnical & Geological Engineering,

a real soil-nailed supported Contiguous Bored

Austraila. ( To be Published)

Pile wall in soft residual soils is that nail bending

7. Nagao, A., Kitamura, T., (1988), Filed

stiffness has a significant effect as deformation

Experiment on Reinforced Earth and its

progresses, at least in this hybrid support

Evaluation Using FEM Analysis, International

21

PLAXIS
PLAXIS

Symposium on Theory and Practice of Earth

Modelling a row of piles or a row of grout

Reinforcement, Japan, pp.329-334.

bodies in the z-direction can be done by

8. Unterreiner, P., Benhamida, B., Schlosser, F.,


(1997), Finite Element Modelling Of The

dividing the EAreal and ELreal by


the centre-to-centre distance Ls.

Construction Of A Full-Scale Experimental SoilNailed Wall. French National Research Project

For a beam:

CLOUTERRE, Ground Improvement, p.p. 1-8.

EAreal=Ereal*dreal*breal [kN]
EAplaxis= EAreal/Ls [kN/m]

W.L.Cheang, Research Scholar,


E-mail: engp9168@nus.edu.sg,

For a grout body:


EAreal=Ereal*dreal*breal [kN]
EAplaxis= EAreal/Ls [kN/m]

S.A.Tan, Associate Professor,


E-mail: cvetansa@nus.edu.sg,
K.Y.Yong, Professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, National University of
Singapore

Users Forum
BEAM TO PILE PROPERTIES
IN PLAXIS
Properties for anchors are entered per anchor
so : EA = [kN] per anchor
Ls = [m] is spacing centre to centre
Beams and geotextiles are continuous in the
z-direction (perpendicular to the screen).
Therefore, a beam /geotextile will be a
Fig 1.
Partial geometry
for shieldtunnel
project

continuous plate/textile in the z-direction. The


properties are entered per meter
in the z-direction EA = [kN/m], EL = [kN/m2/m]

Some geometries
In the past bulletins, a few articles were related
to experience with the 3D Tunnel program.
Since its release last year, the 3D Tunnel
program has been used in practice for some
interesting projects. In the below graphs,
without further explanation you will find a brief
overview of possible projects and geometries.
The printed figures also indicate that the 3D
Tunnel program can deal with projects beyond
tunneling.

22

PLAXIS
PLAXIS
Fig 2. Partial
geometry for pileraft foundation

Fig 3.
Displacement
contours for shield
tunnel project

Fig 4.
Partial geometry for anchored retaining wall.

23

Fig 5.
Deformed mesh for interacting tunnels.

PLAXIS
PLAXIS

ACTIVITIES
8-10 MAY, 2002

19-22 JANUARY, 2003

International course for experienced Plaxis users

Short course on Computational Geotechnics

(English)

(English)

Boston, USA

Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands


16 MAY, 2002

10-12 MARCH, 2003

2nd French Plaxis Users meeting (French)

Short course on Computational Geotechnics

Paris, France

(German)
Stuttgart, Germany

14-18 OCTOBER, 2002


Short course on Computational Geotechnics

23-26 MARCH, 2003

(Arabic, English)

International course for experienced Plaxis users

Cairo, Egypt

(English)
Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands

25-26 OCTOBER, 2002


Short course on Computational Geotechnics

8-10 APRIL, 2003

(Portuguese, English)

Short course on Computational Geotechnics

Sao Paulo, Brazil

(English)
Manchester, England

7-8 NOVEMBER, 2002


11th European Plaxis Users meeting (English)

28-30 APRIL, 2003


Short course on Computational Geotechnics

Karlsruhe, Germany

(Italian)
18-20 NOVEMBER, 2002

Napoli, Italy

Short course on Computational Geotechnics


(English)

31 JULY2 AUGUST, 2003


Experienced Plaxis users course (English)

Trondheim, Norway

Singapore
27-29 NOVEMBER, 2002
Short course on Computational Geotechnics
(French)
Pratique des lments finis en Gotechnique
Paris, France
For more information on these activities
6-9 JANUARY, 2003

please contact:

Short course on Computational Geotechnics &


dynamics (English)

PLAXIS bv

Berkeley, USA

P.O. Box 572


2600 AN DELFT
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 15 26 00 450
Fax: +31 15 26 00 451
E-mail: info@plaxis.nl

24

Você também pode gostar