Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Venue DepartmentofCivilEngineering
IITDelhi,NewDelhi,India
Date 2931October2014
Lecturers
ProfessorAntonioGens TechnicalUniv.ofCatalonia
ProfessorKRajagopal IITMadras
ProfessorHelmutSchweiger GrazUniv.ofTechnology
Prof.G.V.Ramana IITNewDelhi
DrWilliamCheang PlaxisAsiaPac,Singapore
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 1/448
CONTENTS
ADVANCEDCOMPUTATIONGEOTECHNICS,NEWDELHI2014 PAGE
Session1:GeotechnicalFiniteElementAnalysis&SoilBehaviour1
CG1 GeotechnicalFiniteElementAnalysis 4
CG2 ElastoplasticityandMohrCoulomb 22
CG3 Exercise1:FoundationonElastoplasticSoils 44
Session2:SoilBehaviour2
CG4 CriticalStateSoilMechanicsandSoftSoilModel 69
CG5 HardeningSoilandHSsmallModels 88
CG6 Exercise2:Triaxial&OedometerSimulation 119
Session3:ModellingofDeepExcavations
CG7 ModellingofDeepExcavations 143
CG8 StructuralElementsinPLAXIS 169
CG9 Exercise3:ModellingofanAnchoredRetainingWallin2D 194
Session4:ModellingofGroundwater,UndrainedConditions&Consolidation
CG10 ModellingofGroundwaterinPLAXIS 216
CG11 DrainedandUndrainedAnalysis 251
CG12 ConsolidationAnalysis 272
CG13 Exercise4:ModellingofanStruttedandEmbeddedExcavationin3D 289
Session5:InitialStresses,SlopeStability&UnsaturatedSoils
CG14 UnsaturatedSoilsandBarcelonaBasicModel 306
CG15 InitialStressesandSlopeStabilityAnalysis 337
CG16 Exercise5:SlopeStabilityAnalysis 375
Session6:ModellingofTunnelsinRock
CG17 HoekBrownandRockJointedModels 392
CG18 ModellingofTunnelsin2D 416
CG19 Exercise6:TunnellinginRock 437
PLAXISADVANCEDCOURSE
Time Wednesday29October2014
Session1:GeotechnicalFiniteElementAnalysis&SoilBehaviour1
9:00 10:00 CG1 GeotechnicalFiniteElementAnalysis Gens
10:00 11:00 CG2 ElastoPlasticityandMohrCoulomb Rajagopal
11:00 11:15 Break
11:15 1:00 CG3 Exercise1:FoundationonElastoPlasticSoils Cheang
1:00 2:00 Lunch
Session2:SoilBehaviour2
2:00 3:00 CG4 CriticalStateSoilMechanicsandSoftSoilModel Schweiger
3:00 4:00 CG5 HardeningSoilandHSsmallModel Schweiger
4:00 4:15 Break
4:15 5:30 CG6 Exercise2:TriaxialandOedometer Cheang
Time Thursday30October2014
Session3:ModellingofDeepExcavations
9:00 9:45 CG7 ModellingofDeepExcavations Gens
9:45 10:30 CG8 StructuralElementsinPlaxis Rajagopal
10:30 10:45 Break
10:45 12:00 CG9 Exercise3:SimulationofanAnchoredRetainingWall Cheang
12:00 1:00 Lunch
Session4:ModellingofGroundwater,UndrainedConditionsandConsolidation
1:00 1:45 CG10 ModellingofGroundwaterinPlaxis Cheang
1:45 2:30 CG11 DrainedandUndrainedAnalysis Gens
2:30 3:15 Break
3:15 3:30 CG12 ConsolidationAnalysis Gens
3:30 5:00 CG13 Exercise4:DewateringinExcavation Siva
Time Friday31October2014
Session5:InitialStresses,SlopeStabilityandUnsaturatedSoils
9:00 10:30 CG14 UnsaturatedSoilsandBarcelonaBasicModel Gens
10:30 11:30 CG15 InitialStressesandSlopeStabilityAnalysis Schweiger
11:30 11:45 Break
11:45 1:30 CG16 Exercise5:SlopeStabilisedbySoilNails Siva
1:30 2:30 Lunch
Session6:ModellingofTunnelsinRock
2:30 3:30 CG17 HoekBrownandRockJointedModels Schweiger
3:30 4:00 CG18 ModellingofTunnelsin2D Schweiger
4:00 4:15 Break
4:15 5:30 CG19 Exercise6:TunnellinginRock Cheang
2931October2014,NewDelhi,India.
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 3/448
New Delhi Advanced 2014
Computation Geotechnics 1
Geotechnical Finite Element Analysis
Professor Antonio Gens
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 4/448
CG1: GEOTECHNICAL FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
Antonio Gens
Outline
Introduction
Design requirements in geotechnical engineering
Geotechnical methods of analysis
Geotechnical finite element analysis: some remarks
Final remarks
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 5/448
design requirements in geotechnical engineering
Flow problems
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 6/448
geotechnical analysis: basic solution requirements
Equilibrium (3 equations)
Unknowns: 15
Compatibility (6 equations)
(6 stresses, 6 strains, 3 displacements)
Constitutive equation (6 equations)
While the FEM has been used in many fields of engineering practice for
over 40 years, it is only recently that it has begun to be widely used for
analyzing geotechnical problems. This is probably because there are many
complex issues which are specific to geotechnical engineering and which
have been resolved relatively recently.
when properly used, this method can produce realistic results which are
of value to practical soil engineering problems
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 8/448
geotechnical finite element analysis
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 9/448
The Finite Element Method: introduction and overview
Boundary conditions
Formulate boundary conditions and modify global equations. Loads
affect P, while displacements affect U
Solve the global equations
to obtain the displacements at the nodes
Compute additional (secondary) variables
From nodal displacements secondary quantities (stresses, strain) are
evaluated
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 11/448
The Finite Element Method: introduction and overview
Domain discretization
elements.
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 12/448
Domain discretization
examples: embankment
Domain discretization
displacement interpolation
Element formulation
Displacement interpolation
primary unknowns: values of the nodal displacements
displacement within the element: expressed in terms of the nodal values
using polynomial interpolation
n
u( ) Ni ( ) ui , N i shapefunction of node i
i 1
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 14/448
Element formulation
Element formulation
3 y quadratic interpolation
6
v
5
x u( x, y ) a0 a1 x a2 y a3 x 2 a4 xy a5 y 2
u v( x, y ) b0 b1 x b2 y b3 x 2 b4 xy b5 y 2
1 2
4
u NU e
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 15/448
Element formulation
u
xx a1 2a3 x a4 y
x
Lu
v
yy b2 b4 x 2b5 y
y
u v
xy (b1 a2 ) (a4 2b3 ) x (2a5 b4 ) y
y x
Lu LNU e BU e BU e
Constitutive law
in this case the coefficients of the matrix are constants, which means
that (for linear kinematics) the resulting F.E. equations are linear
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 16/448
Constitutive law
4
K e T
B DBdv P1y
P6 x
P
6y
D material stiffness matrix
recall
B matrix relating nodal displacements to strains
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 17/448
The Finite Element Method: introduction and overview
Gauss points
Ke
B T DBdv
To evaluate Ke, integration must be performed for each element
A numerical integration scheme must be employed (Gaussian integration)
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 18/448
Global equations: assembly and solution
The assembled stiffness matrix and force vector are related by:
KU P
where vector U contains the displacements at all the nodes in the mesh
assembly
schemes for storage
solution
KU P
These have to be solved to give values for the nodal displacements
BU e
= D
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 20/448
Final remarks
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 21/448
New Delhi Advanced 2014
Computation Geotechnics 2
Elasto-plasticity and Mohr-Coulomb
Professor K.Rajagopal
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 22/448
CG2: ELASTO-PLASTICTY AND MOHR COULOMB
Professor K Rajagopal
IIT Madras
Contents
Elasticity
Linear-elastic Non-linear elastic
= D
Hookes law
C
xx 1 0 0 0 xx
1 0 0 0
yy yy
zz 1 1 0 0 0 zz
E 0 0 0 2 2 0 0
xy xy
yz 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 yz
zx 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 zx
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 24/448
Model parameters in Hookes law:
d1
Two parameters:
- d1
- Youngs modulus E
- Poissons ratio
d3
- 1
Bulk modulus: dp
dp E
K dv
d v 31 2
9KG 3 K 2G
E v
G 3K 6 K 2G
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 25/448
Hookes law
= D
Inverse:
xx 1 0 0 0
xx
1 0 0
0
yy yy
zz E 1 0 0
0 zz
(1 )(1 2 ) 0
0 0 1 0 0
xy 2 xy
yz 0 0 0 0 1
2
0 yz
1
zx 0 0 0 0 0 2 zx
4G 2G 2G
K K K 0 0 0
xx 3 3 3 xx
K 2G 4G 2G
yy K K 0 0 0 yy
3 3 3
zz zz
K 2G 2G 4G
K K 0 0 0
xy 3 3 3 xy
yz 0 0 0 G 0 0 yz
zx 0 0 0 0 G 0 zx
0 0 0 0 0 G
Hookes law
Plane strain = D
4G 2G
K K 0
1 0 3 3
2G 4G
0 K 0
E
D 1 K
(1 )(1 2 ) 3 3
1 2
0 0 0 0 G
2
Axisymmetry
4G 2G 2G
K K K 0
1 0 3 3 3
1 0 2G 4G 2G
E K K K 0
D 1 0 3 3 3
(1 )(1 2 )
0 1 2 K 2 G K
2G
K
4G
0
0 0 3 3 3
2
October
0 2014) 0 026/448 G
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31
Elasticity vs. Plasticity (1)
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 27/448
Plasticity: some definitions (1)
e p
General three-dimensional stress state e p
Y0 = yield stress
YF = failure stress
e p
e p
(29-31
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India
General three-dimensional stress state 2014)
October 28/448
Plasticity: some definitions (3)
One-dimensional
Y0 = yield stress
YF = failure stress
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 29/448
yield function (2)
f f 1 , 2 , 3
Basically:
changes of stress which remain inside the yield surface are
associated with stiff response and recoverable deformations,
whereas on the yield surface a less stiff response is obtained and
irrecoverable deformations are developed
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 30/448
Mohr-Coulomb Model, yield function
frictional
resistance
independent of
normal stress
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 31/448
The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
t* = (3 - 1)
s* = (3+1)
1
2 '3 '1 c' cos ' 12 '3 '1 sin '
f 1
2
'1 '3 12 '1 '3 sin ' c ' cos '
-1
f < 0 Elasticity
-3
-2
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 32/448
plastic potential (1)
Summing up:
flow rule
Recall: plastic deformations depend
on the stress state at which yielding
is occurring, rather than on the route
by which that stress is reached
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 33/448
associated and non associated flow rules
it would be clearly a great advantage if, for a given material, yield locus
and plastic potential could be assumed to be the same
f = g only 1 function has to be generated to describe plastic response
also advantageous for FE computations:
the solution of the equations that emerge in the analyses is faster
the validity of the numerical predictions can be more easily guaranteed
is f = g a reasonable assumption?
dilatancy angle
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 34/448
plastic dilatancy
= + i
the apparent externally mobilized angle of friction on horizontal planes () is
larger than the angle of friction resisting sliding on the inclined planes (i)
consistency condition
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 35/448
Parameters of MC model
yy
tan
xy
max
sin cos
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 36/448
n
1 sin sin
MC model for element tests
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 37/448
limitations of MC model (1)
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 38/448
warning for dense sands
Tension cut-off
Tension Compression
zone zone
Tension cut-off
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 39/448
Simple Shear Test
Boundary conditions: yy 0, xx 0
45
2
Implicit stress increment : '3
'1
'new 'old
At failure for
D ep simple shear test
Dilatancy
Plastic volumetric
xx yy
p p p
strain v
sin
Pla stic shear distortion
p xx
p
yy p 2
xy
p 2
yy
yy
p
and xx 0
e
sin
yy xx 0
p 2 2 p
p p
yy xy
yy
p
xy p tan
xy
p
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 40/448
Results of undrained simple shear test
Non-associated plasticity, f g
Parameter Value
Bulk unit weight of soil, 0 kN/m3
Effective angle of internal friction, 43o
Effective cohesion, c 0 kPa
Poissons ratio, 0.20
Youngs modulus, E 45000 kN/m2
Angle of dilation , -3 o ,0o ,15 o
Bulkmodulusofsoil,Ke =Kw/n 1.86*106 kN/m2
Bulk unit weight of gravity elements, 20 kN/m3
Normal stress in y-direction, yy 100kN/m2
Shear strain, xy 0.025
Ko 0.25
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 41/448
Influence of dilation angle on behaviour of circular footing
Pressure (kPa)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
settlement (m)
-0.2
psi =0
psi=3
-0.25 psi=6
psi=10
-0.3
-0.35
-0.4
E = 35000 kPa
= 0.3
-0.45
c = 1 kPa
=35
Diameter=4m
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 43/448
New Delhi Advanced 2014
Computation Geotechnics 3
Exercise 1: Shallow Foundation on Elasto-plastic Soil
Dr William Cheang
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 44/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
ELASTOPLASTIC ANALYSIS OF A
FOOTING
Computational Geotechnics 1
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 45/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
INTRODUCTION
One of the simplest forms of a foundation is the shallow foundation. In this exercise we will
model such a shallow foundation with a width of 2 meters and a length that is sufficiently long
in order to assume the model to be a plane strain model. The foundation is put on top of a 4m
thick clay layer. The clay layer has a saturated weight of 18 kN/m3 and an angle of internal
friction of 200 .
The foundation carries a small building that is being modelled with a vertical point force.
Additionally a horizontal point force is introduced in order to simulate any horizontal loads
acting on the building, for instance wind loads. Taking into account that in future additional
floors may be added to the building the maximum vertical load (failure load) is assessed. For
the determination of the failure load of a strip footing analytical solutions are available from for
instance Vesic, Brinch Hansen and Meyerhof:
Qf
B
= c Nc + 12 0 B N
0
Nq = e tan tan2 (45 + 12 0 )
0
q 1) cot
Nc = (N
0
2(Nq + 1) tan
(V esic)
N = 1.5(Nq 1) tan 0 (Brinch Hansen)
(Nq 1) tan(1.4 0 ) (M eyerhof )
This leads to a failure load of 117 kN/ m2 (Vesic), 98 kN/m2 (Brinch Hansen) or 97 kN/m2
(Meyerhof) respectively.
2 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 46/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
SCHEME OF OPERATIONS
This exercise illustrates the basic idea of a finite element deformation analysis. In order to
keep the problem as simple as possible, only elastic perfectly-plastic behaviour is considered.
Besides the procedure to generate the finite element mesh, attention is paid to the input of
boundary conditions, material properties, the actual calculation and inspection of some output
results.
Aims
Input
* Create footing
* Create load
Mesh mode
* Generate mesh
Staged construction mode
Inspect deformations
Inspect failure mechanism
Inspect load-displacement curve
Computational Geotechnics 3
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 47/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
INPUT
Introduction
Start PLAXIS 2D by double-clicking the icon of the PLAXIS 2D Input program. The Quick
select dialog box will appear in which you can select to start an new project or open an
existing one. Choose Start a new project (see Figure 2). Now the Project properties window
appears, consisting of the two tabsheets Project and Model (see Figure 3 and Figure 4).
Project properties
The first step in every analysis is to set the basic parameters of the finite element model.
This is done in the Project properties window. These settings include the description of the
problem, the type of analysis, the basic type of elements, the basic units and the size of the
drawing area.
Project tabsheet
In the Project tabsheet, enter Exercise 1 in the Title box and type Elasto-plastic analysis of
a drained footing or any other text in the Comments box.
Model tabsheet
In the Type box the type of the analysis (Model) and the basic element type (Elements)
are specified. As this exercise concerns a strip footing, choose Plane strain from the
Model combo box. Select 15-node from the Elements combo box.
4 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 48/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
The Units box defines the units for length, force and time that have to be used in this
project. There is a choice for several units, both metric and emperial.
For this project use the default units (Length = m; Force = kN; Time = day).
In the Contour box the size of the considered geometry must be entered. The values
entered here determine the size of subsoil input window. PLAXIS will automatically add
a small margin so that the geometry will fit well within the draw area. Enter xmin =0.00,
xmax =14.00, ymin =0.00 and ymax =4.25, see figure 4
Click on the OK button below the tabsheets to close the Project properties window.
Hint: In the case of a mistake or for any other reason that the project properties
should be changed, you can access the Project properties window by
selecting the Project properties option from the File menu.
Computational Geotechnics 5
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 49/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
Soil Mode
The program is now in Soil mode in which the subsoil should be created. As shown in figure
1 the subsoil consist of a single 4m thick clay layer and creating this layer is done in 2 steps:
first the soil layer is defined through the definition of a borehole, after which the material set
representing the clay is defined and assigned to the appropriate layer.
Now click the Add button in order to add a layer to the borehole.
On the Soil layers tabsheet the different soil layers present in the borehole must be
defined. In this exercise there is only 1 soil layer with the Top at 4.0m and the Bottom at
0.0m, see figure 6.
On the left side of the Modify soil layers window there is a graphical representation of
the borehole. Note that the soil layer does not have a soil material assigned yet.
Above the borehole the Head option specifies the position of the global water level in
this borehole. In this exercise it is assumed that the phreatic level is at groundlevel, so
the Head must be set equal to 4.0 to indicate that the phreatic level is at ground level.
Now press the <OK> button to close the Modify soil layers window. The drawing area
now shows a grey rectangular subsoil.
6 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 50/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
Figure 6: The Modify soil layers window with 1 borehole containing 1 soil layer
Select the Materials button ( ) - the Material sets window will open. The list of
material sets available for this project is still empty.
Click on the New button at the lower side of the Material Sets window. A new dialog box
will appear with five tabsheets: General, Parameters, Flow parameters, Interfaces and
Initial (see figure 7).
In the Material Set box of the General tabsheet, write Clay in the Identification box.
Select Mohr-Coulomb from the Material model combo box and Drained from the Material
type combo box.
Enter the proper values for the weights in the General properties box according to the
material properties listed in table 1
Click on either the Next button or click on the Parameters tabsheet to proceed with
the input of model parameters. The parameters appearing on the Parameters tabsheet
depend on the selected material model (in this case the Mohr-Coulomb model).
Enter the model parameters of table 1 in the corresponding edit boxes of the Parameters
tabsheet. The parameters in the Alternatives and Velocities group are automatically
calculated from the parameters entered earlier.
See also figure 8. In this figure the Advanced parameters part has been collapsed.
Computational Geotechnics 7
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 51/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
Figure 7: General tabsheet of the soil and interface data set window for Clay
Since the geometry model does not include groundwater flow or interfaces, the third and
fourth tabsheet can be skipped. Click on the OK button to confirm the input of the current
material data set.
Now the created data set will appear in the tree view of the Material Sets window.
Table 1: Material properties of the clay layer and the concrete footing.
Parameter Symbol Clay Concrete Unit
Material model Model Mohr-Coulomb Linear elastic
Type of behaviour Type Drained Non-porous
Weight above phreatic level unsat 16.0 24.0 kN/m3
Weight below phreatic level sat 18.0 kN/m3
Youngs modulus E0 5.0103 2.0107 kN/m2
Poissons ratio 0 0.35 0.15
0
Cohesion cref 5.0 kN/m2
Friction angle 0 20
Dilatancy angle 0
For the concrete of the footing repeat the procedure, but choose a Linear Elastic material
behaviour and enter the properties for concrete as shown in table 1 (see also figures 9 and
10).
8 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 52/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
Figure 8: Parameters tabsheet of the soil and interface data set window for Clay
Figure 9: General tabsheet of the soil and interface data set window for Concrete
Computational Geotechnics 9
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 53/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
Figure 10: Parameters tabsheet of the soil and interface data set window for Concrete
Now from the Material sets window drag the Clay material set with the mouse over the
grey subsoil and drop it. The subsoil should now get the colour of the material set, see
figure 11.
Figure 11: Subsoil before (left) and after (right) assigning the Clay material set
This ends the creation of the subsoil in Soil mode. By clicking on the Structures tabsheet now
move to Structures mode.
10 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 54/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
Structures mode
Introduction
In Structures mode the footing as well as the point load acting on the footing will be created.
However, first an adjustment to the snapping interval must be made in order to be able to draw
the 0.25m thick footing. By default, the snapping interval is set to 1m.
From the vertical toolbar select the Snapping options button ( ). The Snapping window
now opens.
Make sure the options Enable snapping and Show grid are selected
Set the Number of snap intervals to 4. This means that every spacing of 1 meter is
divided in 4, hence the snapping distance will be 0.25m.
Click the <OK> button to confirm the new settings and close the window.
Create footing
1. Select the Create soil button ( ) and from the drop-down list that opens now select
the Create soil rectangle button ( ).
2. Move the mouse cursor to the coordinates (x y) = (6 4) and single-click the left mouse
button
3. Now move the mouse cursor to the coordinates (x y) = (8 4.25) and single-click the left
mouse button again. We have now created the footing.
4. Select the Show materials button ( ), the Material sets window will open.
Create load
1. Select the Create load button ( ) and from the drop-down list that opens select the
Create point load option ( ).
2. Move the mouse cursor to the coordinates (x y) = (7 4.25) and single-click the left mouse
button to insert the point load.
This concludes the creation of the footing and loads. By clicking on the Mesh tabsheet now
move to Mesh mode.
Computational Geotechnics 11
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 55/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
Mesh mode
In Mesh mode the user can specify necessary mesh refinements and generate the mesh. In
this exercises no additional mesh refinement will be used.
Select the Generate mesh button ( ). The Mesh options window will open.
Leave the Element distribution to Medium and press <OK> to start mesh generation
If mesh generation finished succesfully this will be confirmed in the Command explorer
with the message "Generated XX elements, YY nodes" where XX and YY stand for the
amount of elements and nodes respectively.
Select the View mesh button in order to view the generated mesh, see figure 12.
Close the mesh window by selecting the green <Close> button. This ends the Mesh mode.
As no water levels will be used in this exercise, the Water levels mode can be skipped and we
can move directly to Staged construction mode to define the calculation phases.
Initial phase
The initial phase represents the field conditions that exist at the moment our project starts.
This means that only the subsoil exists in the initial conditions whereas the footing should be
deactivated.
12 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 56/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
Right-click on the footing. The footing will become red (indicating it is selected) and a
drop-down menu appears.
From the drop-down menu select the option Deactivate in order to deactivate the footing.
In the Phase explorer select the Add phase button ( ) so that a new phase will be
added.
Right-click on the footing and from the drop-down menu that appears select the option
Activate to activate the footing, see figure 13.
Figure 13: Geometry configuration for the initial phase (left) and phase 1 (right)
In the Phase explorer select the Add phase button ( ) so that a new phase will be
added.
Click on the point on which the load acts so that it becomes red. On the left side the data
of the load now appears in the Selection explorer.
Activate the point load and set the value of the vertical component, Fy,ref = -50 kN (=
downwards), see figure 14.
Computational Geotechnics 13
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 57/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
Figure 14: Activating and changing the point load through the Selection explorer in phase 2
(left) and phase 3 (right)
In the Phase explorer select phase 2 so that it will show in bold letter type
Now select the Add phase button ( ) so that a new phase will be added that follows on
phase 2 rather than on phase 3.
Click on the point on which the load acts so that it becomes red. On the left side the data
of the load again appears in the Selection explorer.
Set the value of the vertical component of the point load, Fy,ref = -500 kN. Note that
Fx,ref should remain 0 (zero).
This finishes the definition of the calculation phases for this project.
Calculation
Load-displacement curves
As a calculation result we would like to draw a load-settlement curve for the footing. In order
to do so, the user must select one or more points for which Plaxis has to gather data during
the calculation:
Select the Select points for curves button ( ). The output program now opens, showing
the mesh with all nodes.
14 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 58/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
Select the node in the middle underneath the footing, hence at or very close to (x y) = (7
4). The node will appear in the Select points list, see figure 15.
Calculate
Computational Geotechnics 15
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 59/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
RESULTS
Output
After the calculation finishes, click the View calculation results button ( ). Plaxis Output
will open, showing the calculation results of the last calculation phase.
By default Plaxis Output will show the Defomed mesh, see figure 16. If this is not the case the
Deformed mesh can be shown by choosing the menu Deformations Deformed mesh |u|.
Now choose the menu option Deformations Incremental displacements|u|, see figure
17.
The incremental displacements is the change in displacements in the current calculation
step (here that is the last calculation step of the phase 4). Under working conditions the
change of displacement per calculation step is quite small, but in case of failure, the change of
displacements can be large inside the failure zone. Therefore the Incremental displacements
graph can be very suitable for detecting whether failure occurs and what the failure zone may
look like. Figure 17 shows the typical Prandtl-like failure zone.
Figure 17: Incremental displacements for the final calculation step of phase 4
Finally, we will inspect the load-settlement curve and determine the failure load. To do so,
follow these steps:
16 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 60/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
From the button bar select the Curves manager button ( ). The Curves manager will
open.
In the Curves manager select the <New> button in order to generate a new curve. Now
the Curve generation window opens.
In the Curve generation window, select for the x-axis data from point A (instead of Project
data) from the drop down list.
Now in the tree below, select Deformations Total displacements |u|
For the y-axis we will plot a Project value, and that is the Multiplier M stage.
Press <OK>. A curve as can be seen in figure 18 will show.
In a Plaxis calculation any change made in a construction phase leads to a so-called unbalance,
that is a disturbance between the total of the internal stresses and the external load. This
unbalance is gradually solved using the M stage multiplier. The M stage multiplier indicates
how much of the unbalance has been solved, where M stage = 0 indicates that no unbalance
was solved and M stage = 1 that the full unbalance has been solved.
In the curve shown in figure 18 the lines at the left indicate the variation of M stage for the first
3 calculation phases, where as the long curved line shows the variation of M stage during
the final phase.
It shows that at failure occurs when M stage = 0.38, hence 38% of the unbalance was solved.
In this case the unbalance applied was the increase of the vertical load from 50 kN/m to 500
kN/m. Hence, at failure the total load applied is the load at the beginning of the phase (50
kN/m) plus 38% of the change of load that could be applied: Fmax = 50 + 0.38 (500 50) = 221
kPa
The exact value of the M stage multiplier can be inspected by moving the mouse cursor over
the plotted line. A tooltip box will show up with the data of the current location.
Computational Geotechnics 17
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 61/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
Comparison
In addition to the mesh used in this exercise calculations were performed using a very coarse
mesh with a local refinement at the bottom of the footing and a very fine mesh. Fine meshes
will normally give more accurate results than coarse meshes. Instead of refining the whole
mesh, it is generally better to refine the most important parts of the mesh, in order to reduce
computing time. Here we see that the differences are small (when considering 15-noded
elements), which means that we are close to the exact solution. The accuracy of the 15-
noded element is superior to the 6-noded element, especially for the calculation of failure
loads.
Hint: In plane strain calculations, but even more significant in axi-symmetric
calculations, for failure loads, the use of 15-noded elements is recommended.
The 6-noded elements are known to overestimate the failure load, but are ok
for deformations at serviceability states.
Table 2: Results for the maximum load reached on a strip footing on the drained sub-soil for
different 2D meshes
From the above results it is clear that fine FE meshes give more accurate results. On the other
hand the performance of the 15-noded elements is superior over the performance of the lower
order 6-noded elements. Needless to say that computation times are also influenced by the
number and type of elements.
18 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 62/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
ADDITIONAL EXERCISE:
UNDRAINED FOOTING
Computational Geotechnics 19
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 63/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
INTRODUCTION
When saturated soils are loaded rapidly, the soil body will behave in an undrained manner, i.e.
excess pore pressures are being generated. In this exercise the special PLAXIS feature for
the treatment of undrained soils is demonstrated.
SCHEME OF OPERATIONS
In PLAXIS, one generally enters effective soil properties and this is retained in an undrained
analysis. In order to make the behaviour undrained one has to select undrained A as the type
of drainage. Please note that this is a special PLAXIS option as most other FE-codes require
the input of undrained parameters e.g. Eu and u .
Aims
The understanding and application of undrained soil behaviour
Soil mode
Mesh mode
Output
Soil mode
20 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 64/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
INPUT
Use previous input file
If PLAXIS Input is no longer open, start PLAXIS by clicking on the icon of the Input program
and select the existing project file from the last exercise (drained footing). From the File menu
select Save As and save the existing project under a new file name (e.g. exercise 1b).
Change material properties by selecting the Show materials button ( ). Please note
that this button is only available in Soil mode, Structures mode and Staged construction
mode.
From the Material sets window, select the Clay and click on the <Edit> button.
In the Soil window that opened on the first tab sheet (General) change the Drainage
type to "Undrained A" and close the data set.
Mesh generation
The mesh generator in PLAXIS allows for several degrees of refinement. In this example
we will globally refine the mesh, resulting in an increased number of finite elements to be
distributed along the geometry lines:
Select the Generate mesh button ( ) and in the Mesh settings window choose Fine
for the Elements distribution.
Calculation
Go to the Staged construction mode. All phases are indicated by (blue arrows)
After mesh (re)generation, staged construction settings remain and phase information is rewritten
automatically for the newly generated mesh. However, this is not the case for points for load
displacement curves due to the new numbering of the mesh nodes.
Click on the Select points for curves button ( ) in the toolbar. Reselect the node
located in the centre directly underneath the footing
Computational Geotechnics 21
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 65/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
OUTPUT
As mentioned in the introduction of this example, the compressibility of water is taken into
account by assigning undrained behaviour to the clay layer. This normally results, after
loading, in excess pore pressures. The excess pore pressures may be viewed in the output
window by selecting:
Select in the Phases explorer the phase for which you would like to see output results.
Start the output program by clicking the View calculation results button ( ).
In PLAXIS Output, select from the Stresses menu the option Pore pressures and then
pexcess , this results in figure 19.
The excess pore pressures may be viewed as contour lines ( ), shadings ( ), stress
crosses ( ) or as tabulated output ( ). If, in general, stresses are tensile stresses the
principal directions are drawn with arrow points. It can be seen that after phase 3 on the
left side of the footing there are excess pore tensions due to the horizontal movement of the
footing. The total pore pressures are visualised using the option of active pore pressures.
These are the sum of the steady state pore pressures as generated from the phreatic level
and the excess pore pressures as generated from undrained loading.
Figure 19: Excess pore pressures at the end of the 3rd phase
Select from the Stresses menu the option Pore pressures and then pactive . The results
are given in figure .
22 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 66/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
From the load displacement curve it can be seen that the failure load in the last phase is
considerably lower for this undrained case compared to the drained situation, as expected.
For the undrained case the failure load is just under 70 kPa.
Figure 20: Active pore pressures at the end of the 3rd phase
Computational Geotechnics 23
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 67/448
Elastoplastic analysis of a footing
Qf
B
= c Nc + 12 0 B N
0
Nq = e tan tan2 (45 + 12 0 )
0
q 1) cot
Nc = (N
0
2(Nq + 1) tan
(V esic)
N = 1.5(Nq 1) tan 0 (Brinch Hansen)
(Nq 1) tan(1.4 0 ) (M eyerhof )
0 = w 10 kN/m3 = 18 10 = 8 kN/m3
24 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 68/448
New Delhi Advanced 2014
Computation Geotechnics 4
Critical State Soil Mechanics and Soft Soil Model
Professor Helmut Schweiger
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 69/448
S C I E N C E P A S S I O N T E C H N O L O G Y
CG 04
CRITICAL STATE SOIL MECHANICS
SOFT SOIL MODEL
Helmut F. Schweiger
Computational Geotechnics Group
Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Graz University of Technology
CONTENTS
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 70/448
1
Critical State / Plaxis Soft Soil model
3
Direct Shear Test | Triaxial Test | Critical State Line | Modified Cam Clay | Stress Paths | Plaxis Soft Soil | Possible Enhancements
Mayne, 2006
DIRECT
Slow DirectSHEAR
Shear Tests TEST
on Triassic Clay,NC Slow Direct Shear Tests on Triassic Clay, Raleigh, NC
140 140
n ' Strength Parameters:
(kPa)
Shear Stress, (kPa)
120
Peak
(kPa)=
120
c' = 0; ' = 26.1 o
214.5
100 100
80
Shear Stress,
80 Peak
60 135.0 60
0.491 = tan '
40 40
Peak
20 45.1 20
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 50 100 150 200 250
v v
Mayne, 2006
CC
Void Ratio, e
NC NC
CSL CSL
CSSM Premise:
All stress paths fail on the
critical state line (CSL)
c=0
Effective stress v'
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 - 31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 71/448
2
Critical State / Plaxis Soft Soil model
5
Direct Shear Test | Triaxial Test | Critical State Line | Modified Cam Clay | Stress Paths | Plaxis Soft Soil | Possible Enhancements
Mayne, 2006
CC
Void Ratio, e
e0
e NC
NC
ef
CSL CSL
Log v' vo
CSL
STRESS PATH No.1 max = c + tan tan'
Shear stress
NC Drained Soil
Drained Path: u = 0
Volume Change is Contractive:
c=0
vol = e/(1+e0) < 0 Effective stress v' vo
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 - 31 October 2014
Mayne, 2006
CC
Void Ratio, e
e0
NC
NC
CSL
CSL
vf vo Log v' CSL
tan'
STRESS PATH No.2
Shear stress
NC Undrained Soil
max = cu = su u
Given: e0, vo, NC (OCR=1)
Undrained Path: V/V0 = 0
+u = Positive Excess Porewater vf
Pressures vo
Effective stress v'
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 - 31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 72/448
3
Critical State / Plaxis Soft Soil model
7
Direct Shear Test | Triaxial Test | Critical State Line | Modified Cam Clay | Stress Paths | Plaxis Soft Soil | Possible Enhancements
Mayne, 2006
CC
Void Ratio, e
CS OC
NC
NC
CSL
CSL
Log v'
p' CSL
Shear stress
tan'
Overconsolidated States:
e0, vo, and OCR = p/vo
where p = vmax = Pc =
preconsolidation stress;
OCR = overconsolidation ratio
Effective stress v' p'
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 - 31 October 2014
Mayne, 2006
CC
Void Ratio, e
e0
OC
CS NC NC
CSL CSL
tan'
Undrained OC Soil: u
e0, vo, and OCR
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 73/448
4
Critical State / Plaxis Soft Soil model
9
Direct Shear Test | Triaxial Test | Critical State Line | Modified Cam Clay | Stress Paths | Plaxis Soft Soil | Possible Enhancements
Mayne, 2006
CC
Void Ratio, e
e0
OC
CS NC
NC
CSL CSL
vo'
Log v'
CSL
Stress Path No. 4 tan'
Drained OC Soil:
e0, vo, and OCR
Stress Path: u = 0
a) b)
Typical results from drained (a) and undrained (b) triaxial tests on normally consolidated soils
(from Atkinson & Bransby, 1978)
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 - 31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 74/448
5
Critical State / Plaxis Soft Soil model
11
Direct Shear Test | Triaxial Test | Critical State Line | Modified Cam Clay | Stress Paths | Plaxis Soft Soil | Possible Enhancements
a)
b)
Typical results from drained (a) and undrained (b) triaxial tests on overconsolidated soils
(from Atkinson & Bransby, 1978)
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 - 31 October 2014
1+e
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 75/448
6
Critical State / Plaxis Soft Soil model
13
Direct Shear Test | Triaxial Test | Critical State Line | Modified Cam Clay | Stress Paths | Plaxis Soft Soil | Possible Enhancements
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 76/448
7
Critical State / Plaxis Soft Soil model
15
Direct Shear Test | Triaxial Test | Critical State Line | Modified Cam Clay | Stress Paths | Plaxis Soft Soil | Possible Enhancements
UNDRAINED PLANES
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 77/448
8
Critical State / Plaxis Soft Soil model
17
Direct Shear Test | Triaxial Test | Critical State Line | Modified Cam Clay | Stress Paths | Plaxis Soft Soil | Possible Enhancements
DRAINED PLANES
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 78/448
9
Critical State / Plaxis Soft Soil model
19
Direct Shear Test | Triaxial Test | Critical State Line | Modified Cam Clay | Stress Paths | Plaxis Soft Soil | Possible Enhancements
OVERCONSOLIDATION
M
1
CSL f=0
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 79/448
10
Critical State / Plaxis Soft Soil model
21
Direct Shear Test | Triaxial Test | Critical State Line | Modified Cam Clay | Stress Paths | Plaxis Soft Soil | Possible Enhancements
Stiffness:
- unloading / reloading
- primary loading
lightly overconsolidated
drained compression D. Muir Wood, 1990
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 - 31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 80/448
11
Critical State / Plaxis Soft Soil model
23
Direct Shear Test | Triaxial Test | Critical State Line | Modified Cam Clay | Stress Paths | Plaxis Soft Soil | Possible Enhancements
heavily overconsolidated
drained compression
normally consolidated
undrained compression
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 81/448
12
Critical State / Plaxis Soft Soil model
25
Direct Shear Test | Triaxial Test | Critical State Line | Modified Cam Clay | Stress Paths | Plaxis Soft Soil | Possible Enhancements
due
duetotoplastic
plasticsoil
soilbehaviour
behaviour
due
duetotochange
changeofofstress
stress
lightly overconsolidated
undrained compression
heavily overconsolidated
undrained compression
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 82/448
13
Critical State / Plaxis Soft Soil model
27
Direct Shear Test | Triaxial Test | Critical State Line | Modified Cam Clay | Stress Paths | Plaxis Soft Soil | Possible Enhancements
e = void ratio
= swelling index
= compression index
p'
ve ve 0 * ln 0 , *
p 1 e
p'
vp vp 0 ( * * ) ln 0
, *
p 1 e
v = volumetric strain
* = modified swelling index
* = modified compression index
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 83/448
14
Critical State / Plaxis Soft Soil model
29
Direct Shear Test | Triaxial Test | Critical State Line | Modified Cam Clay | Stress Paths | Plaxis Soft Soil | Possible Enhancements
M
q 1 MC-line
K0NC
p
pp
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 84/448
15
Critical State / Plaxis Soft Soil model
31
Direct Shear Test | Triaxial Test | Critical State Line | Modified Cam Clay | Stress Paths | Plaxis Soft Soil | Possible Enhancements
p
Input Parameters:
*
* = / 1+e .. Modified compression index
* = / 1+e .. Modified swelling index *
c Cohesion
Friction angle
Dilatancy angle
ur .. Poisson's ratio for unloading
MC
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0 -100 -200 -300 -400 -500 -600
vertical stress [kN/m2]
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 85/448
16
Critical State / Plaxis Soft Soil model
33
Direct Shear Test | Triaxial Test | Critical State Line | Modified Cam Clay | Stress Paths | Plaxis Soft Soil | Possible Enhancements
MC
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 -300 -350
horizontal stress [kN/m2]
elastic
Stiffness: primary loading
region
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 86/448
17
Critical State / Plaxis Soft Soil model
35
Direct Shear Test | Triaxial Test | Critical State Line | Modified Cam Clay | Stress Paths | Plaxis Soft Soil | Possible Enhancements
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 87/448
18
New Delhi Advanced 2014
Computation Geotechnics 5
Hardening Soil and HS-small Models
Professor Helmut Schweiger
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 88/448
S C I E N C E P A S S I O N T E C H N O L O G Y
CG5
HARDENING SOIL SMALL MODEL
Helmut F. Schweiger
Computational Geotechnics Group
Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Graz University of Technology
CONTENTS
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 89/448
1
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
3
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
oedometer test
1-
HS MC
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 90/448
2
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
5
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
q [kN/m2]
250
HS-Model
150
100
50
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
eps_axial
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
smax
Model
[mm]
LE 33
MC 36
HS 60
distance [m ]
0 3 6 9 12 15
-0,2
0,2
s / smax [-]
0,4
Linear Elastic
0,6
Mohr Coulomb
All models calculate settlements
0,8 Hardening Soil Differences in shape of trough
1 and maximum values
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 91/448
3
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
7
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
Mohr Coulomb
100
vertical displacements [mm]
80
Hard. Soil
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20
-20
-40
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
TRIAXIAL TEST
Applied stress path and results for standard drained triaxial test
1
1
3= constant
3
1
isotropic loading
q 1 3 1
dense soil
3
loose dense
qf qr
1 1
q f = failure value vol loose
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 92/448
4
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
9
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
q 1 3
E50
1
50%
Hyperbola
50%
1
qa q
3 a
m 1
E50 Eref
50
2 E50 qa q
pref a
Eref
50 = reference modulus for primary loading at 50% of strength
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
q 1 3
Asymptote
qf
qa R f 0.9
Hyperbola qf
Rf
2 sin
qf 3 a a c cot MC failure criterion
1 sin
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 93/448
5
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
11
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
q 1 3
Asymptote
qa
Hyperbola
qa q
1
2 E 50 qa q
3 3 qa q
shear strain 1 3 1
2 4 E 50 qa q
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
q q
0.05
0.01
p p
m
3 qa q 3 a 2 sin a
E50 Eref qa (3 a)
50 1 sin a
4E50 q qa pref a
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 94/448
6
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
13
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
Ref. : Ishihara, Tatsuoka and Yasuda (1975). Undrained deformation and liquefaction of sand under
cyclic stresses. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 15, No. 1.
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
m
c ' cos ' '3 sin '
E50 E ref
50 c ' cos ' p ref sin '
m
c ' cos ' '3 sin '
Eur E ref
ur c 'cos ' p ref sin '
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 95/448
7
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
15
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
DEFINITION OF E50
3 600 kPa
1500
300
500
100
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
STIFFNESS IN UNLOADING-RELOADING
Triaxial tests:
Unloading is purely
elastic in HS model
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 96/448
8
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
17
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
Biarez, J. & Hicher, P.-Y. (1994), Elementary Mechanics of Soil Behaviour, Balkema - Publishers.
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
vol 0.25
vol 0.20
0.14
0.07
p [MN/m]
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 97/448
9
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
19
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
q MC failure line
Cap
pp
pp p
1 m
c ' cot ' p p is determined by K0nc
p
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
DEFINITION OF Eoed
m
c cot 1
Eoed E ref
oed c cot p holds strictly for K0-stress paths only
ref
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 98/448
10
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
21
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
ELASTIC REGION
f < 0 + fc < 0
q
fc
f
1
pc
p
q = 1 - 3
REGION 1
p = (1 + 2 + 3) / 3 no yield surface active > elastic
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
SHEAR HARDENING
f > 0 + fc < 0
q
2
fc
f
pc
p
REGION 2
shear hardening surface active
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 99/448
11
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
23
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
f > 0 + fc > 0
q
3
fc
f
pc
p
REGION 3
shear hardening and volumetric hardening surfaces active
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
VOLUMETRIC HARDENING
f < 0 + fc > 0
q
f 4
pc p
REGION 4
volumetric hardening surface active
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 100/448
12
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
25
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
FLOW RULE
Volumetric behaviour
"stress dilatancy theory" (Rowe, 1962)
dilatancy angle > non-associated flow rule
vp sin m p
sin m sin cv
sin m
1 sin m sin cv
1' 3'
sin m
1' 3' 2c cot
sin sin
sin cv
1 sin sin
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 101/448
13
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
27
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
FLOW RULE
mobilized dilatancy angle for = 35
Note: flow rule in HS-small
35
30 =0
model is slightly different >
25 =5 dilation undrained shear strength
mobilized dilatancy angle []
20 = 20
15 = 35 predicted is different (lower)
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25 contraction
-30 cv cv
-35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
mob
p'
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
FLOW RULE
Volumetric behaviour sin m sin cv
"stress dilatancy theory" (Rowe, 1962) sin m
1 sin m sin cv
plastic potential Q
m > cv = positive > dilation
q
x cv
x m = cv = 0
x
m < cv = negative > contraction
p'
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 102/448
14
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
29
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
-550
-500
-350
-300
-250
Hardening (Soft) Soil model:
Hardening Soil Model ratio 3/1 determined
Soft Soil Model
-200 by K0nc
Mohr Coulomb Model
-150
Unloading: ur
-100
-50
0
0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 -300 -350
horizontal stress [kN/m2]
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
-0.1
vertical strain
-0.2
Hardening Soil Model
Soft Soil Model
Mohr Coulomb Model
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0 -100 -200 -300 -400 -500 -600
vertikal stress [kN/m2]
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 103/448
15
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
31
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
OVERCONSOLIDATION IN HS-MODEL
Initial pre-consolidation pressure Cap position based on
pp0 relates to initial p0 previous stress history
(p*, q*)
q
Calculation of p0 based on:
OCR (Over-Consolidation Ratio)
pp
POP (Pre-Overburden Pressure)
(p*,q*)
pP = Isotropic pre-cons. pressure
p = Vertical pre-cons. pressure
'0yy , p p
OVERCONSOLIDATION
Calculation of p0 based on OCR: Calculation of p0 based on POP:
p0
OCR POP
'yy0
'yy0 p0 'yy0 p0
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 104/448
16
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
33
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
PLASTIC POINTS
-1
Cap point
Mohr-Coulomb point
f<0
Cap & Hardening point
Hardening point
-3
-1
Tension point
-3
Tension cut-off: Principal tensile stress is set to zero
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
PLASTIC POINTS
elastic-plastic
elastic
double hardening
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 105/448
17
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
35
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
PLASTICITY IN HS MODEL
q
1. Elasticity
(unloading reloading)
5 4 2. Plasticity
3
(compression)
3. Plasticity
(shear)
1 1 2
4. Plasticity
1 1
(compression + shear)
5. Plasticity
(failure criterion)
p
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
friction angle
c cohesion
dilatancy angle
ref
E 50 secant modulus from triaxial test (controls deviatoric hardening)
ref
E ur unloading / reloading modulus
ref ref
default: E ur = 3 E 50
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 106/448
18
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
37
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
Rf = qf / qa (default Rf = 0.9)
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
SANDS
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 107/448
19
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
39
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
Stiffness of sand
ref
E50 Eoed
ref How can this be true?
p ref
-1= p ref
-3 = p ref
-3 -1
Note: always plot Eoed, Eur distribution for initial stress state when
using HS-model
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
m for clays:
approx. 0.9 1.0
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 108/448
20
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
41
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
ref
Eoed 12 E50
ref
Order of magnitude (very rough)
50000 kPa
ref
Eoed Correlation with Ip for pref =100 kPa
Ip
500 kPa
ref
Eoed Correlation by Vermeer
wL 0.1
ref
Eoed p ref * Relation with Soft Soil model
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
drained
Ohde / Janbu:
m
1
Eoed E ref
oed ref
p
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 109/448
21
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
43
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
Parameter limitations
E50
pc
Eur Eoed
e.g. E50 / Eoed > 2 difficult to input
p
double hardening
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 110/448
22
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
45
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 111/448
23
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
47
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
-yy [kPa]
400
test data
300
200
100
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
-yy
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
-yy [kPa]
400
200
100
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
-yy
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 112/448
24
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
49
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
Reference values
200
150
Eoed increased
100
50
E50 reduced
0
0 -5.00E-03 -0.010 -0.015 -0.020 -0.025 -0.030
Displacement [m]
axial strain
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
volumetric
Strain strain Triaxial Compression (drained)
0.000
-2.00E-03
-4.00E-03
Eoed increased
-6.00E-03
-8.00E-03
Reference values
-0.010
0 -5.00E-03 -0.010 -0.015 -0.020 -0.025 -0.030 -0.035
axial strain
Strain
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 113/448
25
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
51
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
0.8
In its modified form, the reduction curve is specified
by the two parameters
0.6 G0 (or E0) and 0.7
G/G0[]
0.0
1e3 1e2 1e1 1e0 1e1 1e2 1e3
normalized shear strain / 0.7 [-] /0.7[]
NormalisierteScherdehnung
J.A. Santos, A.G. Correia. Reference threshold shear strain of soils. Its application to obtain a unique strain-dependent
shear modulus curve for soils. Proc. 15th ICSMGE, Istanbul (2001), Vol.1, pp. 267-270.
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 114/448
26
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
53
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
If the small strain stiffness model after Hardin & Drnevich predicts a stiffness lower than
Gurref (Eurref respectively) the model switches to hardening plasticity of the standard
Hardening Soil model.
IMPORTANT NOTE: flow rule for deviatoric yield surface (volumetric behaviour) is
different in HSS model.
additional input parameters for HS-small
G0ref
40000 40000
TangentmodulusG[kN/m]
SecantmodulusG[kN/m]
20000 20000
Gurref
10000 10000
HSSmall
Hardin&Drnevich
0 0
1E5 0.0001 0.001 0.01 1E5 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Shearstrain[] Shearstrain[]
see also:
Thomas Benz, Small-Strain Stiffness of Soils and its Numerical Consequences,
Mitteilung 55 des Instituts fr Geotechnik, Universitt Stuttgart, 2007.
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
160
140
120
HSsmall E0
HS
q [kN/m]
100
80
60
E0ref
40 G0ref
2(1 ur )
20
Et Eur
0
0 -0.002 -0.004 -0.006 -0.008 -0.01 -0.012 -0.014
yy
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 115/448
27
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
55
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
C-C. Hsu, M. Vucetic. Dynamic and cyclic behavior of soils over a wide range of shear strains in
NGI-type simple shear testing device, UCLA Report ENG-02-228, 2002.
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 116/448
28
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
57
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
(2.97 e)2
G0ref 33 [MPa] Hardin & Black (1969)
1 e
G0ref RD 70MPa 60MPa Lengkeek
0.385
0.7 2c(1 cos(2 )) 1(1 K0 )sin(2 ) Benz (2007)
4G0
Order of magnitude:
E urref
0.7 (1 to 2) 104 where Gurref
2(1 ur )
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Region of small
Region of larger
strains: G > Gur
strains: G ~ Gur
0
3.0
20
40
Gm=Gref /Gurref
Gm []
2.0
60
80
1.0
100
20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
see also: Thomas Benz, Small-Strain Stiffness of Soils and its Numerical Consequences,
Mitteilung 55 des Instituts fr Geotechnik, Universitt Stuttgart, 2007.
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 -31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 117/448
29
CG5 - Hardening Soil Small Model
59
Introduction | Description of HS-Model | Parameters | Comparison with Experiments | Influence of Parameters | HS-small | Summary
Failure according to
YES YES YES
Mohr-Coulomb
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 118/448
30
New Delhi Advanced 2014
Computation Geotechnics 6
Exercise 2: Simulation of Triaxial & Oedometer Tests
(Calibration of HS Model)
Dr William Cheang
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 119/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
Computational Geotechnics 1
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 120/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
2 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 121/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
INTRODUCTION
In daily engineering practice soil parameters are obtained from one or more laboratory tests. In order to perform
the best possible Plaxis calculation these soil parameters have to be translated into input parameters for the
constitutive model used, taking into account the possibilities and limitations of the constitutive model. Most
parameters for the constitutive models used in Plaxis can be determined directly from standard laboratory tests
as triaxial tests and oedometer tests. However, due to the complexity of the models it is recommended to
not simply accept the parameters determined from those tests, but to actually model the tests and see if the
parameters found actually give a proper representation of the real laboratory test results within the limits of the
constitutive models. For this purpose the SoilTest module is available in Plaxis with which in a simple manner
laboratory tests can be simulated without the need for making a finite element model.
In this exercise the SoilTest tool will be used for the simulation of both oedometer and triaxial tests on sand and
clay.
CONTENT
Simulation of laboratory tests
2. Perform the laboratory tests using SoilTest with the parameters found
3. Match SoilTest results with the original laboratory results to find the best matching model parameters for
the Hardening Soil model.
Parameter determination
On a sample of dense sand both oedometer tests and triaxial tests have been performed. The results of those
tests are given in the figures below. Use these figures to determine the parameters for the Hardening Soil model
and collect the parameters in Table 1 (see below the figures). Note that it is possible that some parameters
cannot be determined with the given laboratory results, in which case these parameters have to be estimated.
Computational Geotechnics 3
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 122/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
4 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 123/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
Computational Geotechnics 5
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 124/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
6 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 125/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
Figure 6: Undrained triaxial (CU) tests at cell pressures of 100 kPa and 400 kPa
Computational Geotechnics 7
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 126/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
8 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 127/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
For a cell pressure 30 = 100 kPa a maximum value of approximately |10 30 | = 400 kPa is reached at failure.
The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterium is:
1 0
2 |1 30 | + 12 (10 + 30 ) sin c cos = 0
Considering it is sand we assume that the cohesion is zero and so the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterium reduces
to:
|10 30 |
(10 +30 ) = sin
Filling in 30 = 100 kPa and 10 = 500 kPa as obtained from the test we find for the
friction angle0 = 420
The triaxial test stiffness E50 is the secant stiffness over the first 50% of the failure value for | 10 30 |. This is
indicated in red in the triaxial test graph of figure 8.
0 =100 kP a 400
E503 = 0.013 = 30800 kP a
Computational Geotechnics 9
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 128/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
The triaxial test stiffness ,E 50 , is within the Hardening Soil model defined as:
m m
c cos30 sin 30
ref ref
E50 = E50 c cos+pref sin , c = 0 E50 = E50 pref
The reference stress pref is chosen equal to the cell pressure of this triaxial test then
ref 0 =100 kP a
E50 = E503 30000 kPa
Similar to the determination of the reference stiffness for triaxial testing the reference unloading-reloading stiffness
can be determined. In the triaxial test results an unloading-reloading cycle is done for this. The Hardening Soil
model does not have unloading-reloading behaviour with hysteresis but simple non-linear elastic unloading-
reloading behaviour. Therefore a secant value is taken for the unloading-reloading behaviour, as given with the
green line in the triaxial test results.
0 =100 kP a 400
Eur3 = 0.0260.021 = 80000 kPa
Under the same assumptions as for the stiffness in triaxial testing counts:
ref 0 =100 kP a
Eur = Eur3
But this is a bit low value for the unloading reloading stiffness and so
ref
Eur = 90000 kPa
is chosen
Dilatancy angle
From the plot of axial strain versus volume strain the dilatancy angle can be determined according to
v
sin = 21 +v
10 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 129/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
From the oedeometer test results we determine the stiffness Eoed for vertical stresses y0 = 100 kPa en y0 =
200 kPa, see figure 10. Note that Eoed is a tangent stiffness. Make sure to use the primary loading part of the
oedometer test results.
0 =100 kP a
y 3200
Eoed = 1.4%0.33% = 29900 kPa
y0 =200 kP a 4000
Eoed = 1.4%0.47% = 43000 kPa
Within the Hardening Soil model the stress dependent oedometer stiffness is defined as:
m m
c cosy0 sin y0
ref ref
Eoed = Eoed c cos+pref sin , c = 0 Eoed = Eoed pref
ref 0 =100 kP a
Eoed = Eoed
3
30000 kPa
The power m for stress dependent stiffness can now be determined as:
0 =200 kP a m
y
y0
Eoed 43000 200 m
ref
Eoed
= pref 30000 = 100 m = 0.5
Computational Geotechnics 11
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 130/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
The K0 value for normal consolidation (K0N C )can only be obtained if measurements for horizontal stresses have
been performed during the oedometer test. If so, results as given in figure 11 may be obtained. From the primary
loading line can be obtained that
0
x 30 100
K0N C = y0 = 10 = 300 = 0.33
12 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 131/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
If no triaxial test with unloading-reloading is available the unloading-reloading stiffness can also be determined
from an oedometer test with unloading. However, the unloading-reloading stiffness required for the Hardening
Soil model is stress dependent on 3 while the oedometer test results presented in figure 10 give the strain vs
the vertical stress y (= 1 voor oedometer testing).
ref 0 =100 kP a
Eur = Eur3 110000 kPa
ref
This is a bit high and so a value of Eur = 90000 kPa is chosen.
Computational Geotechnics 13
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 132/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
CLAY
We start with the determination of the strength parameters based on the CU triaxial tests.
The black dotted lines is the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterium in the p-q plane. In principal stresses the Mohr-
Coulomb failure criterium is defined as:
|1 3 | 1 +3
2 + 2 sin c cos = 0
With p0 = (10 + 230 )/3 and q = 10 30 under triaxial test conditions this can be rewritten as:
2p0 + 13 q
q 6sin 0 6c cos
2 = 2 sin c cos = 0 q = 3sin p + 3sin
Hence, the slope M of the Mohr-Coulomb line in p-q plane is defined as:
6sin 195
M= 3sin = 200 = 250
From the intersection between Mohr-Coulomb line and the vertical axis where p=0 the cohesion can be determined:
6c0 cos
q= 3sin = 0 c = 0 kPa
14 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 133/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
From the results of the oedometer test the oedometer stiffness as well as the unloading-reloading stiffness can
be determined. As the graph is given on logarithmic scale one cannot simply draw a tangent line as was done
for the oedometer test on sand.
Considering that both primary loading and unloading/reloading paths are straight lines in the log(p)-v graph,
hence they have a relation of the form:
y = v = A log(y0 )
2 1 0.3700.270
A= log(2 )log(1 ) = log(120)log(30) =0.166
In order to determine the stiffness we calculate the derivative of the strain over the stress and change to natural
logarithm:
ln(y0 )
y = v = A ln(10)
dy dy0 ln(10)
dy0 =A 1
ln(10) 1
y0 E= dy = A y0
y0
ln(10)
E = Eoed = A pref pref
In the Hardening Soil model the oedometer stiffness is defined as (assuming c = 0) :
m
y0
ref
Eoed = Eoed pref
Hence:
ref ln(10)
Eoed = A pref and m=1
If we choose pref = 100 kPa and with the previously determined A = 0.166 we get:
Computational Geotechnics 15
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 134/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
y = v = B log(y0 )
2 1 0.4270418
B= log(2 )log(1 ) = log(120)log(30) =0.0149
dy0 ln(10)
Eur = dy = B y0
However, the Eur in the Hardening Soil model is dependent on the smallest principal stress, which is x0 in an
oedeometer test and not y0 .
During the unloading process there is no linear relation between horizontal and vertical stress, as in the beginning
of unloading y0 > x0 where as after much unloading y0 < x0 . Therefore the assumption is made that during
unloading on average x0 = y0 .
0
ln(10) ln(10) ln(10) x
Eur = B y0 = B x0 = B pref pref
0
m
ref x
Eur = Eur pref
ref
Follows, in a similar way as for the Eoed , that
As only undrained triaxial test data is available it is only possible to determine an undrained E50 and not an
effective E50 . Therefore the only solution is to estimate the E50 with several runs of the SoilTest program using
different input values for the reference E50 until the best fit for the undrained triaxial test data is found. Typically
for normally consolidated clays the effective reference E50 is in the range of 2-5 times the effective reference
ref
Eoed , hence this can be used as a start value for the estimation procedure. By doing so a value E50 3.5 MPa
of is found.
The K0-value for normal consolidation can only be obtained if measurements for horizontal stresses have been
performed during the oedometer test. As this is not the case here we can only use the estimation according to
Jakys rule:
Poissons ratio
The Poissons ratio for unloading and reloading is again estimated as ur = 0.2
16 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 135/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
Computational Geotechnics 17
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 136/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
18 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 137/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
In the following paragraphs a step-by-step description is given on how to model both an oedometer test and a
triaxial test with the help of many screen shots of the SoilTest tool. Please note that any parameters given on
those screen shots have no relation with the actual exercise and are solely for illustrating the possibilities of the
SoilTest tool.
Computational Geotechnics 19
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 138/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
In order to model an oedometer test first the material data set has to be created. After doing so, press the
<SoilTest> button to start the SoilTest tool. The window that opens is show in figure .
In the main window select the Oedometer tabsheet and set the parameters as indicated in Figure .
After the the oedometer test has been calculating graphs with results appear at the bottom of the SoilTest window.
The user can double-click these graphs to view them in separate windows. Furthermore, custom charts can be
added, see figure 4.
20 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 139/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
After the triaxial test has been calculated graphs with results appear at the bottom of the SoilTest window. As
described above for the oedometer test, the user can double-click this graphs to view them in separate windows
as well as add custom charts.
Computational Geotechnics 21
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 140/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
The standard functionality in SoilTest for simulation of a triaxial test does not allow for an intermediate unloading-
reloading path. However, the SoilTest functionality contains a General option with which soil test can be defined
in terms of boundary stresses or strains on all sides of a soil test cube. Hereafter it will be shown how this can
be used for the simulation of a triaxial test with unloading/reloading path.
After opening the SoilTest option from the material set definition window the tabsheet General should be chosen.
On this tabsheet a list of calculation phases can be defined where stress or strain increments can be applied.
Initial phase
First of all we have to specify whether stresses or strains will be applied on the boundaries during the test. For
this exercise stresses will be applied. Now the values of the initial stresses on the soil sample have to specified.
For a triaxial test the initial stresses are the cell pressures acting on the soil, hence for xx , yy and zz the cell
pressure has to entered. The cell pressure is a water pressure and so there will be no shear stress acting on the
soil: xy = 0. See figure for details.
Figure 19: General option for simulation of laboratory tests used for triaxial test
Phase 1
Apply a stress increment in vertical direction (yy ) until the stress level where the unloading path should start.
Note that the horizontal stresses (xx and zz ) remain the same as they represent the cell pressure. Hence,
the horizontal stress increments are zero in this phase.
Phase 2
Press the Add button to add another phase to the phase list. This phase represents the unloading phase. See
figure for details.
Phase 3
Press the Add button once more in order to add the 3rd phase. This phase represents the reloading of the soil
as well as the continuation of primary loading until either failure or a higher stress level from where for instance
22 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 141/448
Simulation of laboratory tests
Figure 20: Unloading/reloading cycle in a triaxial test using the General option
Computational Geotechnics 23
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 142/448
New Delhi Advanced 2014
Computation Geotechnics 7
Modelling of Deep Excavations
Professor Antonio Gens
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 143/448
CG7: MODELLING OF DEEP EXCAVATIONS
Antonio Gens
Outline
Introduction
Fundamentals of excavation modelling
Excavation
Hydraulic conditions
Thin wall vs. thick wall
Wall support
Interfaces
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 144/448
Introduction
Analysis of a deep excavation involves modelling of
stress paths in soil are not monotonic (significant change in stress path
direction)
primary loading and unloading / reloading occurs in different parts of the domain
analysed
some areas will experience large strains with significant plastic deformations,
others will be in the very small strain range
> simple elastic - perfectly plastic models not suffcient
Introduction
2D model
sufficient
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 145/448
Introduction
3D model required
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 146/448
Fundamentals of excavation modelling
I 1st excavation
Hydraulic conditions
Wet excavation
Simply click on the cluster or clusters to be excavated
The water remains in the excavated domain, water pressures automatically
appear
Hydraulic conditions do not change
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 148/448
Hydraulic conditions
Dry excavation
Click on the cluster or clusters to be excavated
Use cluster dry option or cluster phreatic line
Set new hydraulic conditions
Hydraulic conditions
Setting of new hydraulic conditions
Consider each individual case carefully
Select the relevant situation: undrained, drained or consolidation
it may be different for different materials
Hydraulic conditions
Dewatering
Z-shape phreatic level gives wrong results:
1 2 3
General
General
6
General
7
No equilibrium in horizontal water pressures:
Local peak stresses
5
Local peak strains
Non-physical horizontal displacements
8
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 150/448
Thin wall vs. thick wall
Thin wall
Wall thickness << wall length
Shearing not important
No end-bearing, only friction
Plate element suffices
Thick wall
Wall thickness significant
Shearing important
End-bearing capacity needed
Use soil elements with material set representing wall material
In order to obtain structural forces a plate may be inserted
Lagging
Use short additional section of plate
perpendicular to the wall
Create short section with increased
stiffness using multiple chains
Struts
Full excavation: node-to-node anchor
Half (symmetric) excavation: fixed-end
anchor
Anchors
Grout anchor: node-to-node anchor +
geotextile for grout body
Ground anchor: node-to-node anchor +
perpendicular plate element
Wall support
Ground anchors
Axial forces in ground anchors:
Input geometry
Nrod <> Ngrout due to shared node between anchor, geotextile and soil
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 152/448
Interfaces
Soil-structure interaction
Wall friction
Slip and gapping between soil and structure
Interface material properties
Taken from soil using reduction factor Rinter
Cinter = Rinter * Csoil
tan(inter) = Rinter * tan(soil)
inter = 0 for Rinter < 1, else inter = soil
Ginter = (Rinter)2 * Gsoil
Some building codes prescribe soil-wall friction angle :
Rinter = tan()/ tan(soil)
Individual material set for interface
Interfaces
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 153/448
Simplified example: effect of constitutive model
Goal of study
assess influence of relative stiffness between wall and soil on results
assess influence of wall length
show influence of constitutive model
> show trends and qualitative behaviour rather than
quantitative comparison
Constitutive models
Mohr-Coulomb
Hardening Soil
HS_small
Soft Soil (excavation in clay only)
Modified Cam Clay (excavation in clay only)
Results
wall deflection
bending moments / strut forces
earth pressure distribution (active - passive)
vertical displacements behind wall
q 1 3
perfectly plastic
elastic
q
plastic
elastic
20000 20000
Gurref
10000 10000
HSSmall
Hardin&Drnevich
0 0
1E5 0.0001 0.001 0.01 1E5 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Shearstrain[] Shearstrain[]
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 155/448
Simplified example: effect of constitutive model
MODELS COMPARED
Soft Soil Model
Wall length:
Dense sand and marl: 9 m
Medium dense sand: 10 m
Clay: 11 m
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 156/448
Simplified example: effect of constitutive model
DENSE SAND
Parameters for Hardening Soil model (HS)
Parameter Meaning Value
[kN/m] Unit weight (unsaturated) 18
sat [kN/m] Unit weight (saturated) 20
[] Friction angle (Mohr-Coulomb) 41
c [kPa] Cohesion (Mohr-Coulomb) 0
[] Angle of dilatancy 15
ur [-] Poissons ratio unloading-reloading 0.20
E50ref [kPa] Secant modulus for primary triaxial loading 30 000
Eoed ref
[kPa] Tangent modulus for oedometric loading 30 000
Eurref [kPa] Secant modulus for un- and reloading 90 000
m [-] Exponent of the Ohde/Janbu law 0.55
pref [kPa] Reference stress for the stiffness parameters 100
K0nc [-] Coefficient of earth pressure at rest (NC) 1-sin()
Tension [kPa] Tensile strength 0
2 2
depth below surface [m]
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 157/448
Simplified example: effect of constitutive model
DENSE SAND 2
earth pressure [kN/m ]
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40
0
HS
HSS
MC_a 1
distance from wall [m]
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
14
surface displacement [mm]
2
12
10 HS
HSS
8
Strut forces: 7
HS: -102 kN/m
HSS: -107 kN/m 8
MC_a: -78 kN/m
MC_b: -83 kN/m
9
MC_c: -72 kN/m
3 3
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
20
15
10
5
0
-5
HS
-10 HSS
-15 MC_a
-20 MC_b
-25 MC_c
-30
Strut forces:
HS: -151 kN/m
HSS: -154 kN/m
MC_a: -119 kN/m
MC_b: -127 kN/m
MC_c: -105 kN/m
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 159/448
Simplified example: effect of constitutive model
LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE SAND
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 160/448
Simplified example: effect of constitutive model
CLAY
Parameters for Soft Soil model (SS)
Parameter Meaning Value
[kN/m] Unit weight (unsaturated) 15
r [kN/m] Unit weight (saturated) 16
[] Friction angle (Mohr-Coulomb) 27
c [kPa] Cohesion (Mohr-Coulomb) 15
[] Angle of dilatancy 0
ur [-] Poissons ratio 0.20
* [-] Modified swelling index 0.0125
* [-] Modified compression index 0.0556
K0nc [-] Coefficient of earth pressure at rest (NC) 1-sin()
Tension [kPa] Tensile strength 0
3 3
depth below surface [m]
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 161/448
Simplified example: effect of constitutive model
CLAY
100 HS
80 HSS
MC_a
60 MC_b
40 MC_c
SS
20
0
-20
-40
-60
Strut forces:
HS: -115 kN/m
HSS: -120 kN/m
MC_a: -96 kN/m
MC_b: -93 kN/m
MC_c: -103 kN/m
SS -75 kN/m
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 162/448
Simplified example: effect of constitutive model
MARL
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 163/448
Simplified example: effect of constitutive model
MARL
10 HS
HSS
8 MC_a
MC_b
6
MC_c
4 SS
-2
-4
Strut forces:
HS: -254 kN/m
HSS: -208 kN/m
MC_a: -212 kN/m
MC_b: -192 kN/m
MC_c: -239 kN/m
SS -195 kN/m
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 164/448
Simplified example: effect of constitutive model
Material behaviour
4.0 m
Mpl = 505 kNm/m
Properties strut:
2
E = 3.0E7 kN/m
A = 0.24 m2
Horizontal strut distance: 1 m
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 165/448
A note on factors of safety
NOTE ON / c - REDUCTION
wall elastic
Msf = 1.95
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 166/448
A note on factors of safety
INFLUENCE OF DISCRETISATION
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 167/448
Final remarks
Influence of constitutive model on results of numerical
analysis of deep excavations has been addressed
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 168/448
New Delhi Advanced 2014
Computation Geotechnics 8
Structural Elements in PLAXIS
Professor K.Rajagopal
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 169/448
Structural Elements in PLAXIS 2D
Dr William Cheang Plaxis AsiaPac, Plaxis Academy
Contribution:
Dr William Cheang
Ir Dennis Waterman
Prof. K Rajagopal
Dr Ronald Brinkgreve
Contents
1. StructuralelementsavailableinPlaxis
2. UsageofstructuralelementsinFEmodelling
3. Plate elements(BeamandShellelement)
4. Anchor elements(Springelement)
5. Geotextile elements(Membraneelement)
6. Interface elements(Zerothicknesselement)
7. EmbeddedPileRowelements
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 170/448
1.Structural elements in Plaxis
5. Embeddedpilerowelement
Plates elasticparameters
h3 b
EI E (b = 1 m)
12
EA E h b (b = 1 m)
EI (Equivalent rectangular
d h 12
EA plate thickness)
h h
b
b = 1 m in plane strain
b = 1 meter in axisymmetry
b
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 172/448 6
PLATES:elastoplasticbehaviour
Np
M
Mp
800
600
N
400
200
0
200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
M
10090 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
Elastoplastic plate
10 Elasticplate
N
15
20
25
M
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 173/448 8
Effect on Global FOS by c/phi Reduction
1. Elastic wall excludes possibility of wall plastic hinge; and over-estimate FOS=1.75
2. Allowing for wall plastic hinge (Elasto-plastic wall) gave lower FOS=1.40 and smaller soil yielded
zone behind the wall
9
Rotation
spring
5 7
Hinged connection
Rigid connection
(default)
Illustration: Connection.P2D
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 174/448 10
Walls thinwallvs.thickwall
A. Thinwall
1. Wallthickness<<walllength
2. Nomuchendbearing,onlyfriction
Plateelementsuffices
A. Thickwall
1. Wallthicknesssignificant
2. Endbearingcapacityneeded
Usesoilelementswithmaterialsetrepresen ngwallmaterial
Inordertoobtainstructuralforcesaplatewithfictitiousproperties
maybeinserted
1. Soilelementswithmaterialsetrepresentingwallmaterial
2. Difficulttoobtainstructuralforcesfromsoilelements,
thereforeintroduceveryflexibleplatewithinthesolidwall
elements:
Noinfluenceondeformation:lowstiffness,noweight
Locatedinontheneutralline(usuallythemiddle)
Tightbondingtotheconcreteelements:nointerfaces
(Illustration: Beam.P2D): d
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 175/448 12
Placing a Hinge for free rotation of plates
Can be placed at joint between plate elements allows for free rotation 13
Full-height panel support to reinforced soil walls rigid Incremental panel support to reinforced soil walls
body rotation of facing bulging type deformation at front end
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 176/448 14
2. Anchor Element
Anchors:Nodetofixed
Tomodelsupports,anchorsandstruts
a) Elastoplasticspringelement
b) Oneendfixedtopointinthegeometry,otherendisfullyfixedfor
displacement
c) Positioningatanyangle
d) Prestressingoption
Anchors nodetonode
Tomodelanchors,columns,strutsandrods
a) Elastoplasticspringelement
b) Connectstwogeometrypointsinthegeometry
c) Nointeractionwiththemeshalongtheanchor
rod
d) Prestressingoption
15
Anchors materialproperties
Axialstiffness,EA (foroneanchor) [kN]
Spacing,Ls (outofplanedistancebetweenanchors) [m]
Maximumanchorforceforcompressionandtension,|Fmax,comp|and|Fmax,tens|[kN]
Ls
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 177/448 16
Anchors prestressing
A. DefinedinStagedconstructionphase
B. Bothtension(groutanchor)orcompression(strut)
possible
Tension = positive
17
Geogrids
1. 3or5nodedlineelement
2. Elasticorelastoplasticbehaviour
3. Noflexuralrigidity(EI),onlyaxialstiffness(EA)
4. Onlyallowsfortension,notforcompression
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 178/448 18
+ Geogrid Element
Groundanchors
1. Combinationofnodetonodeanchorandgeogrid
2. Nodetonodeanchorrepresentsanchorrod(freelength)
(nointeractionwithsurroundingsoil)
3. Geogridrepresentsgroutedpart(fullinteractionwithsurroundingsoil)
4. Nointerfacearoundgroutedpart;interfacewouldcreateunrealisticfailuresurface
5. Workingloadconditionsonly nopullout
6. Ifpulloutforceisknownthiscanbeusedbylimitinganchorrodforce
19
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 179/448 20
Axial force distribution along fixed length (modelled using geogrid)
Probableactualdistributionofaxial
forcesingroundanchor
axialforcesingeotextileelement
GroundAnchors:Influenceofnodenumbersalong
structuralelements
22
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 180/448
InterfaceElement
1. Soilstructureinteraction
1. Wallfriction
2. Slipandgappingbetweensoilandstructure
2. Soilmaterialproperties
A. TakenfromsoilusingreductionfactorRinter
3. Individualmaterialsetforinterfacepossible
23
Output:
Normal stresses
Shear stresses
Displacements
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 181/448
Interfaces material properties
Soilmaterialproperties
TakenfromsoilusingreductionfactorRinter
Cinter =Rinter *Csoil
tan(inter) =Rinter *tan(soil)
inter =0forRinter <1
=soil Rinter =1
t,inter =Rinter *t,soil
Ginter 2
= (Rinter) *Gsoil
1. ResidualreductionfactorRinter,res onlyaffectsstrength,
notstiffness
2. Individualmaterialsetforinterfacepossible
27
Interfaces
Trytoomitstressoscillationsatcornersofstiffstructures
Inflexible
corner points,
may cause bad
stress results
Flexible corner
points with
improved stress
results
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 183/448
Embedded pile row
A. 3or5nodedlineelement
B. Interactionwithsoilthroughaninterfaceallowingforskinfriction
(linearskinresistancedistribution)
C. Endbearingcapacitythroughspringconnection
D. Soilcanflowinbetweenpiles
E. AvailablefromPlaxis2D2012
Embeddedpilerow parameters
Material data
Pile shape
Rayleigh damping (dynamics)
Skin resistance
Base resistance
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 184/448
Embedded pile row parameters
1. Materialdata(stiffnessE andmaterialweight)
2. Pileshape(circularorsquare,hollowormassive,userdefined)
3. Crosssectionaldata(areaA,momentofinertiaI)
4. Outofplanespacing
5. Skinresistanceattopandbottomofthepilerow(Ttop,max andTbottom,max)
6. Baseresistance(Fmax)
7. Interfacestiffnessfactors
Determinedbycurvefittingonpredefinedloaddisplacementcurves
DefaultvaluesobtainedfromtheloaddisplacementcurveforapileinDutch
soilconditions(boredpileinsand,submerged)accordingtothenational
annexofEurocode7.
32 Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) Embedded 185/448
pile row
Modelling pile rows in 2D
Current options: plates and n2n anchors
Limitations:
Plates+interfaces:
discontinuous mesh,
possibly unrealistic shear
planes
N2n anchor: no soil-
structure interaction, no
bending stiffness
34 Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) Embedded 186/448
pile row
Principle of embedded pile row
Note that in essence we
have two coupled springs
(soil and interface)!
36 Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) Embedded 187/448
pile row
Fitting axial stiffness
Fit with load-displacement curves of Bored piles from Dutch annex
of EUROCODE (NEN6743-1)
(Sluis, 2012)
37 Embedded pile row
-4
-5
However using the same formula -6
for axial shaft gives reasonable fit -7
-8
for Ls/Deq 2-8 -9
-10
2D (ISF_RN = 0.5) 2D (ISF_RN = 1)
2D (ISF_RN = 10) 3D
38 Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) Embedded 188/448
pile row
Input
Stiffness
Weight
Select pile type (A, I)
Lspacing
Ttop / Tbottom
Fmax, base
ISF values
Stiffness of
spring =
ISF * Gsoil /
Lspacing
Input
Select Top point (= top or
bottom geometry point)
Indicate connection (Rigid,
hinged or free) for Top
point
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 189/448
Possibilities
Foundation piles
Anchors
Soil nails
??
A A A A A
1 4 18 20 24 25 19 2
6
46 43 44
48 50
16 47 38 45
49 51
32 39 36
8 7
12 14 17 23 28 31 41 37 13
40 34
9 11 22 27 30 42 35 10
5
15 33
y 21 26 29
0 x 3
Case description
Bridgedeck Piledabutment
Existingroad/railway Embankment
Soilstructure
interaction?
Softlayers(peat/clay)
Deepsand(foundationlayer)
42 Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) Embedded 190/448
pile row
3D model with emb. pile Pilerow:massivecircular
pilesD=0.54m
c.t.c.2.4m
6.5m Ls/Deq=4.4
44 Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) Embedded 191/448
pile row
Main results 1st pile row
Q2dplate[kN]
10 10
M2dplate[kNm]
Q2demb[kN]
N2dplate[kN]
M2demb[kNm]
N3D[kN] 5 N2demb[kN] 5
M_23D[kNm] N3D[kN]
Q_133D[kN] M_23D[kNm]
0 0
verticalheight[m]
Q_133D[kN]
verticalheight[m]
600 400 200 0 200 400 600 400 200 0 200 400
5 5
10 10
15 15
20 20
M/Q/N M/Q/N
Conclusions
Embedded pile row gives improved modelling possibilities
for piles in 2D;
Default setting for ISF in Plaxis based on (Sluis, 2012),
derived for a limited number of cases => validate if
default settings are applicable for your situation!
46 Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) Embedded 192/448
pile row
THANK YOU
Presentation by:
1. Dr William Cheang
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 193/448
New Delhi Advanced 2014
Computation Geotechnics 9
Exercise 3: Simulation of an Ground Anchored Embedded
Retaining Wall
Dr William Cheang
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 194/448
Tied-back excavation using HSsmall
TIED-BACK EXCAVATION
Using the HSsmall model
Computational Geotechnics 1
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 195/448
Tied-back excavation using HSsmall
2 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 196/448
Tied-back excavation using HSsmall
INTRODUCTION
A building pit was constructed in the south of the Netherlands. The pit is 15 m deep and 30 m
wide. A diaphragm wall is constructed using 100 cm diameter bored piles; the wall is anchored
by two rows of pre-stressed ground anchors. In this exercise the construction of this building
pit is simulated and the deformation and bending moments of the wall are evaluated.
The upper 40 m of the subsoil consists of a more or less homogeneous layer of medium dense
fine sand with a unit weight of 18 kN/m3 . Triaxial test data of a representative soil sample is
given in figure 2. Underneath this layer there is very stiff layer of gravel, which is not to be
included in the model. The groundwater table is very deep and does not play a role in this
analysis.
Computational Geotechnics 3
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 197/448
Tied-back excavation using HSsmall
Material parameters
In this exercise the HSsmall model is used and the model parameters for the sand layer have
been extracted from the triaxial test data (see figure 2). The HSsmall model takes into account
the stress-dependency of soil stiffness, elasto-plastic behaviour under both compression loading
and shear loading and increased stiffness in areas with very low strain levels. The soil
parameters can be found in table 1, while the determination of the soil parameters can be
found in appendix A.
Secant wall
The secant wall consists of 100cm diameter bored piles with an intermediate distance of 80cm,
hence there is a 20cm overlap of the piles. This configuration is taken this into account for the
determination of the cross sectional area (A) and moment of inertia (I) per meter out-of-plane
(see Appendix B). The concrete stiffness is Ec =2.7107 kN/m2 with a specific weight =16
kN/m3, which leads to the material parameters as given in Table 2. The determination of the
stiffness parameters can be found in Appendix A.
4 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 198/448
Tied-back excavation using HSsmall
Ground anchors
The anchors are made of 32mm diameter steel bars at an intermediate distance of 1m. The
steel bars have a stiffness of Es =210106 kN/m2 . The anchors have an representative capacity
of 605 kN per anchor. In combination with a secant wall the anchors may be prestressed to
a maximum level of 80% of the design capacity, which is the representative capacity divided
by a partial safety factor that has been determined at 1.5 This leads to a maximuim prestress
force of 322 kN per anchor. The maximum compression force of the anchor is not important
as the anchors will not be loaded under compression. The grout body that forms the bonded
length of the anchor behaves relatively weak under tension compared to the steel bar inside.
Therefore it is assumed that both stiffness and strength of the bonded part of the anchor are
fully determined by the steel bar. This leads to the material properties for both the anchor rod
(free length) and grout body (bonded length) as given in tables 3 and 4. Note that it is chosen
to use the representative capacity of the anchors as maximum anchor force.
It is assumed that the anchor rod is present inside the full length of the grout body, hence the
properties of the embedded pile row are based on the composite properties of anchor rod and
grout, which are considered to be mainly determine the stiffness and strength properties of
the anchor rod.
Computational Geotechnics 5
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 199/448
Tied-back excavation using HSsmall
Furthermore, it is assumed that the shear resistance between grout body and soil is sufficient
and so the skin resistance of the grout body is set to a very high value.
6 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 200/448
Tied-back excavation using HSsmall
INPUT
Project properties
For the dimensions of the project, enter xmin = 0, xmax = 100, ymin = 60 and y max = 0
in the Model tabsheet of the Project properties window, see figure 3.
Accept all other settings as their defaults and press the <OK> button.
Soil mode
Select the Create borehole button ( ) and insert a borehole at (x y) = (0 0)
In the Modifiy soil layers window define a single layer in the borehole with Top = 0m and
Bottom = -60m.
The phreatic level in the project area is very deep and so the excavation is done completely
above the phreatic line. Set the Head of the borehole to -60m to indicate that the phreatic
level is at the far bottom of the borehole.
Close the Modify soil layers window.
The drawing area now shows the subsoil of 100m wide and 60m deep in grey colour.
Select the Show materials button ( ) so that the Materials window opens.
Create a soil material sets according to the parameters given in table 1. Any parameter
not specified in this table should be left at its default value.
Assign the material set to the single soil layer.
This will lead to the subsoil as given in figure 4.
Computational Geotechnics 7
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 201/448
Tied-back excavation using HSsmall
Structures mode
In Structures mode we will now define the structural elements such as the wall and the anchors
as well as the levels of excavation.
First we will draw the wall:
Select the Create line button ( ) and from the menu that opens select the Create plate
button ( ).
Soil-structure interaction is modelled with an interface element. Since there will be interaction
between soil and wall on both sides of the wall, an interface is required on both sides of the
wall:
From the Create line button menu now select the Create interface button ( ).
Draw the interface for soil-structure interaction from (x y) = (15 0) to (15 -25) and back to
(15 0) in order to get soil-structure interaction on both sides of the wall.
Now the anchors are added. The anchors are made out of two parts: a free length formed by
just the anchor rod and modelled with a node-to-node anchor, and a bonded length which is
the grout body with the anchor rod inside, modelled by an embedded pile row element:
8 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 202/448
Tied-back excavation using HSsmall
To draw the anchor rods of the grout anchors (hence, the free length sections) select
again the Create line button, now followed by the Create node-to-node anchor button
( ).
Draw the upper anchor from (x y) = (15 -5) to (30 - 15) and right-click to end the drawing.
Now draw the lower anchors from (x y) = (15 -10) to (30 -20) and again right-click to end
the drawing.
Finally, insert the grout bodies (hence, the bonded length sections) using embedded pile
rows. To do so, select the Create embedded pile row button from the Create line button
menu.
Draw the upper grout body from (x y) = (30 -15) to (37.5 -20) and right-click to end
drawing.
Draw the lower grout body from (x y) = (30 -20) to (37.5 -25) and again right-click to end
drawing.
Embedded pile rows typically have a free moving foot and a head for which the connection
to adjacent plate elements can be specified. This connection can either be Free, Hinged or
Rigid. In order to avoid that the head of the embedded pile row is connected to the underlying
soil and thus preventing the head of the grout body to move relative to the soil, the connection
type must be set to Free:
With the <Ctrl> key pressed on the keyboard, select both embedded pile rows in the
drawing area.
In the Selection explorer change the Connection for both embedded pile rows from Rigid
to Free, see figure 5.
Computational Geotechnics 9
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 203/448
Tied-back excavation using HSsmall
From the Create lines menu select the Create line option
Draw a line from (x y) = (0 -5) to (15 -5) to define the first level of excavation and right-click
to stop drawing.
Now draw the second level of excavation from (x y) = (0 -10) to (15 -10).
Finally, draw the third level of excavation from (x y) = (0 -15) to (15 -15).
Material sets
Open the Material sets window by selecting the Show materials button ( ).
In the Material sets window change the Set type to Plates and create a new plate
material set according to the parameters given in table 2.
Assign the material set to the wall. This can be done either by dragging the material set
over the different parts of the wall, or by selecting the parts of the wall wall and change
the material set in the Selection explorer.
In a similar way, create material sets for the anchors and embedded pile rows according
to the parameters given in tables 3 and 4 and assign them.
10 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 204/448
Tied-back excavation using HSsmall
Hint: Please note that the interface doesnt extended for a short distance
underneath the beam anymore. In 2D one had to extend the interface
manually. In 2DX it will be extended automatically at the mesh definition to
overcome a singular point at the bottom of the wall.
Computational Geotechnics 11
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 205/448
Tied-back excavation using HSsmall
Mesh mode
Press the Generate Mesh button ( ). In the Mesh options window that appears set
the Element distribution to Medium and press the OK button.
The mesh is automatically refined around the wall and anchors and needs no further refinement.
12 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 206/448
Tied-back excavation using HSsmall
Initial phase
For the initial phase make sure that:
Click on the Add phase button ( ) in the Phases explorer to add the first calculation
phase.
Select the Activate button ( ) and click on the 4 parts of the wall to activate the complete
wall. Note that this will automatically also activate the interfaces on both sides of the wall.
Also click on the soil representing the first excavation to deactivate the soil.
(a) Phase 1: Wall installation and first excavation (b) Phase 2: Installation of the top anchor
Computational Geotechnics 13
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 207/448
Tied-back excavation using HSsmall
Select the Activate button ( ) and click on the grout body (the embedded pile row) of
the upper anchor to activate it.
Then click on the anchor rod (node-to-node anchor) to also activate the anchor rod.
Now that the grout anchor is active, it needs to be prestressed:
Select the Select button ( ) and select the anchor rod of the upper anchor, hence the
node-to-node anchor.
In the Selection explorer click on the option Adjust prestress that can be found as part
of the node-to-node anchor. A checkbox now appears.
Select the checkbox (so that its checked). An extra input field Fprestress now appears. Fill
in a presstress of 300 kN, see figure9.
In the geometry a black node-to-node anchor indicates that the anchor is activated. The letter
"p" indicates that a prestress force will be active in the anchor.
Phase 3, 4 and 5
Now define the remaining phases according to figures 10a, 10b and 10c.
In phase 3 excavate the second part of the excavation
In phase 4 activate the lower anchor and prestress it to 300 kN
In phase 5 excavate the remaining 3rd part.
Hint: When processing an anchor in a certain calculation phase the anchor
force will exactly match the prestress force at the end of that phase. In
following calculation phases without prestressing, the anchor force will be
influenced by the excavation process
14 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 208/448
Tied-back excavation using HSsmall
(a) Phase 3: Second excavation stage (b) Phase 4: Installation of the lower anchor
Calculate
When all phases are defined, press the Calculate ( ) button. Ignore the warning to select
nodes for curves.
Computational Geotechnics 15
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 209/448
Tied-back excavation using HSsmall
OUTPUT
After calculation, press the View calculation results button ( ) to inspect the results.
The results of phase 5 are presented in figure 11. After this final stage the calculated excavation
bottom heave is about 5 cm.
Select the button Select structures ( ) and double click on a node-to-node anchors.
Plaxis will present a table in which the stress in all anchors may be inspected. Anchor
forces are approximately 340 kN where the lower anchor has a slightly higher anchor
force than the upper anchor.
When double-clicking on one of the embedded pile rows the change of axial forces within
the grout body can be investigated. For both grout bodies the axial forces equals the
anchor force where its connected to the node-to-node anchors. The axial decreases
almost linearly over the length of the grout body.
By double-clicking on the wall the structural forces in the wall can be inspected. The
maximum bending moment should be in the order of 480 kNm/m (figure 12)
When double-clicking on an interface only the results of part of the interface can be
seen. In order to see the results for the whole interface chain, keep <Shift> pressed
on the keyboard while double-clicking on the interface. In figure 13 the left side are the
passive earth pressures and the right side are the active earth pressures. It can be seen
that only a small part of the maximum passive earth pressures has been mobilized at
this stage.
16 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 210/448
Tied-back excavation using HSsmall
Figure 12: Bending moments in the Figure 13: Effective normal stresses in the
secant wall interface
Geometry size
For any project the geometry has to be made sufficiently large so that the boudary conditions
have no influence on the calculation results. This means in practice that close to the boundaries
(with exception of a axis of symmetry) displacements should be small and stresses should be
undisturbed. When using the HSsmall model there is an interesting plot that can be used to
check this.
From the Stresses menu choose the option State parameters and then G/Gur .
This plot shows the actual shear stiffness divided by the unloading/reloading shear stiffnes
at engineering strain level. For areas with very small deformations the stiffness will be high
(small strain stiffness) and so the value of G/Gur > 1. Hence, the geometry is sufficiently large
if next to the boundaries, with exception of the axis of symmetry, G/Gur > 1, which indeed is
the case.
Hint: State parameters are additional quantities that relate to the state of the
material in the current calculation step, taking into account the stress
history. Examples of state parameters are the isotropic overconsolidation
pressure (pp ) and the hardening parameter p that specifies the maximum
shear strain level reach in the stress history.
Surface settlements
In Plaxis Output it is possible to see calculation results in a user-defined cross section. This
feature will be used to check the surface settlements behind the secant wall.
Computational Geotechnics 17
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 211/448
Tied-back excavation using HSsmall
Click the Cross section button . The Cross section points window appears, see figure
14.
It is possible to draw a cross section by hand and check in the Cross section points window
what the coordinates are of the start and end point of the cross section. However, it is also
possible to position the cross section at a specific location by defining the coordinates of the
start and end point manually.
Move the mouse to the Cross section points window and fill in the coordinates (15, -0.1)
for the first point and (100, -0.1) for the second point and press OK. This will create a
cross section from the right boundary of the model until the secant wall just below the
soil surface. The cross section will open in a new window.
From the Deformations menu select Total displacements and then u y to see the vertical
displacements of the soil surface. The maximum settlement is about 12 mm, see figure 15.
18 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 212/448
Tied-back excavation using HSsmall
Strength parameters
1 3 = (1 + 3 ) sin + 2c cos
1 3
1 +3
= sin
370100
370+100
= sin
= 35o
= 30 = 5o
Computational Geotechnics 19
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 213/448
Tied-back excavation using HSsmall
Stiffness parameters
The triaxial test has a cell pressure 3 = 100 kPa. This corresponds with reference pressure,
so E50 = Eref
50 .
ref v 135
E50 = v
= 0.675%
= 2.0 104 kP a
20 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 214/448
Tied-back excavation using HSsmall
Compared to the original bored piles the repetitive sections have a reduced cross sectional
area. Though it can be analytically derived how much the reduction is, the fastest way to
determine this is to draw the repetitive section on paper with a fine grid based on the original
bored piles with a diameter of 1000mm and an overlap of 200mm and count squares. Using
this method the cross sectional area of the repetitive section is determined as As = 0.74 m2 .
Since the sections are at a distance D apart where D is given as 800mm, the cross sectional
area of the wall per meter is given as:
Awall = ADs = 0.74
0.8
= 0.93 m2 /m
For the moment of inertia is assumed that the influence of the reduced cross sectional area
is negligble as the reduction is close to the axis of bending and symmetric. Therefore the
moment of inertia per meter wall is determined as:
Ipile 4 (0.5)4
Iwall = D
= r
4D
= 40.8
= 61.3 103 m4 /m
w = A = 16 0.93 = 15 kN/m/m
Computational Geotechnics 21
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 215/448
New Delhi Advanced 2014
Computation Geotechnics 10
Modelling of Groundwater in PLAXIS
Dr William Cheang
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 216/448
Modelling of Groundwater in PLAXIS AE
CONTENTS
A. Introduction
1. Groundwater in Geotechnical Engineering
2. Plaxis
B. Definitions Pore Pressures in Plaxis
1. Active
2. Water
3. Steady-state
4. Excess
C. Generation of Porewater Pressures in Plaxis
1. Porewater Pressure due to Hydrostatic Condition (Phreactic Control)
2. Pore Pressures due to Groundwater Flow (Steady or Transient States)
3. Pore Pressures due to Consolidation (Steady State Only plus Excess PWP)
4. Pore Pressures due to Fully Coupled Consolidation (Transient Only)
D. Hydraulic models
1. Fully Saturated Soils
2. Partially Saturated Soils
E. Case Histories
1. Excavations
F. References
22/10/2014 2
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 217/448
Modelling of Groundwater in Plaxis
A. INTRODUCTION
22/10/2014 3
Groundwater Analysis
A. Geotechnical problems are related to groundwater
B. Two extreme conditions of porewater response are normally considered,
they are:
1. Drained
2. Undrained (Method A, B & C)
C. Real soil behaviour is related to time , i.e. transient, with the porewater
pressure being dependent on imposed:
1. Permeability
2. Rate of loading
3. Hydraulic (Flow) boundary conditions
D. The interstitial voids of the soil skeleton can be fully or partially filled with
pore fluid and therefore effective stresses are influenced by this action
E. This lecture will look into the following issues:
1. The setup of pore pressures in Plaxis
2. Input parameters
3. Some examples of groundwater regimes
22/10/2014 4
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 218/448
Modelling of Groundwater in Plaxis
B. DEFINITIONS OF PORE PRESSURES IN
PLAXIS AE
22/10/2014 5
1. Pactive - Active State Pore Pressures (idea of Total Pore Water Pressure)
22/10/2014 6
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 219/448
A1.ACTIVE PORE PRESSURE Pactive
22/10/2014 7
22/10/2014 8
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 220/448
A3.STEADY-STATE AND EXCESS PORE PRESSURE
22/10/2014 9
22/10/2014 10
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 221/448
A5. TERZAGHI OR BISHOP EFFECTIVE STRESS
Terzaghi Effective Stress (only for Saturated Soil with pressure or suction)
Bishop Effective Stress (only for Saturated/Unsaturated Soil with pressure or suction)
22/10/2014 11
22/10/2014 12
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 222/448
B. CALCULATION MODES
22/10/2014 13
22/10/2014 14
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 223/448
B2. PLASTIC OR CONSOLIDATION (OLD CLASSICAL)
A. Steady-state pore pressures
1. Phreatic lines
2. Steady-state groundwater flow
analysis
KERNEL
22/10/2014 16
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 224/448
Modelling of Groundwater in Plaxis
B. GENERATION OF POREWATER
PRESSURES
22/10/2014 17
22/10/2014 18
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 225/448
PHREATIC AND CLUSTER APPROACH
A. Phreatic Level
1. General Phreatic Level
2. Cluster Dry
22/10/2014 19
22/10/2014 21
22/10/2014 22
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 227/448
Cluster: Dry
22/10/2014 23
22/10/2014 24
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 228/448
Combination: Phreatic and Cluster Options
22/10/2014 25
22/10/2014 26
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 229/448
CLUSTER DRY + INTERPOLATION COMBO
Cluster Dry
Interpolated
Case Histories
22/10/2014 27
22/10/2014 28
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 230/448
GROUNDWATER FLOW: STEADY STATE
1. Boundary conditions:
2. Soil permeabilities
22/10/2014 29
22/10/2014 30
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 231/448
Pore pressures steady-state
Steady-state flow:
Water conditions
settings
Closed Flow
22/10/2014 31
WATER CONDITIONS
SETTINGS: Set Cluster Water Level
SAND
SAND
Set Cluster Water Level
22/10/2014 32
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 232/448
SOME POINTS: FINITE ELEMENT MODELING
22/10/2014 33
1. Qualitative evaluation:
Flow field
Location of phreatic line
2. Quantitative evaluation:
Heads, pore pressures compared to hydrostatic,
Compare with measurements or field experience
22/10/2014 34
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 233/448
Modelling of Groundwater in Plaxis
D. HYDRAULIC MODELS IN PLAXIS
22/10/2014 35
22/10/2014 36
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 234/448
Groundwater flow flow in unsaturated soil
A. Linear Model
krel
1
hp = -
hp = 0
m
0 hp
22/10/2014 37
22/10/2014 38
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 235/448
Groundwater flow flow in unsaturated soil
1 g n
2
g n 1
g n g n
gl
krel S Se 1 1 Se g n 1
with S Sres
Se
Ssat Sres
1 if hp 0
Linear in Saturation
hp
S hp 1 if h ps h p 0
hps
0 if h p h ps
1 if hp 0
4h p Log-linear in Permeability
h
krel h p 10 pk if h pk h p 0
4
10 if h p h pk
22/10/2014 41
Upper soils:
< 1m below soil surface
Lower soils:
all deeper soils
22/10/2014 42
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 237/448
Groundwater flow - material data sets
Hydraulic Properties of
European Soils
Particle distribution:
< 2m
2m - 50m
50m 2mm
22/10/2014 43
Particle distribution:
< 2m
2m - 50m
50m 2mm
12 soils data sets
No difference between
upper and lower soils
22/10/2014 44
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 238/448
Groundwater flow - material data sets
Relative permeability
Degree of saturation
22/10/2014 45
22/10/2014 46
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 239/448
Modeling of
Ground Water in Excavation Analysis
22/10/2014 47
22/10/2014 48
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 240/448
Possible GWT
Conditions in
Excavations
2ba
uC w
2b a
(2b c)a
uG w
2b c a
49
h=Ha (const)
h=Hb(const)
Ha
Hb
22/10/2014 50
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 241/448
PLAXIS Model of GWT Drawdown
Phreatic surface, PP=0
GWT drawdown
h=Ha(const)
h=Hb(const)
Ha
Hb
22/10/2014 51
h=Ha(const)
Ha
h=Hb(const)
Hb
22/10/2014 53
Lower 1.3m
Lower 3.0m
22/10/2014 54
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 243/448
GWT lowering SS Seepage
Lower 5.6m
Lower 5.6m
22/10/2014 55
Lower 1.3m
Lower 0.8m
Excavate 5m in 30 days.
Excavate 5m, k=1e-9 m/s
Sands, k=1e-5 m/s is like SS
Lower 0.3m case
Clays, k=1e-9 m/s very little
GWT lowered
22/10/2014 56
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 244/448
GWT and Transient Seepage
Lower 3.0m
Lower 1.8m
22/10/2014 57
Lower 5.6m
Lower 3.6m
22/10/2014 58
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 245/448
Modeling of
Water drawdown in Dam Analysis
22/10/2014 59
A
C
B FILL CORE
SUBSOIL
10/22/2014 60
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 246/448
Rapid Drawdown Example
Time Dependent Boundary Conditions
H=25m
H=5m
10/22/2014 61
H=25m
H=5m
10/22/2014 62
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 247/448
Rapid Drawdown Example
Time Dependent Boundary Conditions
10/22/2014 63
WL at 25m FOS=1.752
10/22/2014 64
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 248/448
Pore Water Pressure and Saturation
10/22/2014 65
10/22/2014 66
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 249/448
END
22/10/2014 67
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 250/448
New Delhi Advanced 2014
Computation Geotechnics 11
Drained and Undrained Analysis
Professor Antonio Gens
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 251/448
CG11: DRAINED AND UNDRAINED ANALYSIS
Antonio Gens
outline
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 252/448
drained / undrained (conditions and analysis)
drained undrained
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 253/448
triaxial test (OC soils) drained / undrained soil behaviour
drained undrained
1 3
t
2
3
s' 1
2
3
s 1
2
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 254/448
Undrained soil behaviour
Strength parameters
Mohr-Coulomb parameters in terms of effective stress
c tan
1 3 3 c c
1 sin ; t s sin
2 2 tan tan
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 255/448
Strength parameters
Mohr-Coulomb parameters in terms of principal effective stress
tan = sin
t
1 3
2 a = ccos
s'
'1 '3 , s 1 3
2 2
1 3 3 c c
2
1
2
tan sin ; t s
tan sin ; t s sin c cos
Strength parameters
Mohr-Coulomb parameters in terms of total stresses
Only undrained conditions!
Cu
1 3 1 3
2
F
2
F cu ,
-Cu
Effective stresses
OC
OC
NC
NC
Loading
Unloading
s, s
OC
OC
NC
NC
Loading
Unloading
s, s
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 257/448
FE modeling of undrained behavior
undrained analysis in terms of effective stress (Plaxis 2010)
type of material behaviour: undrained (Plaxis < 2010)
the issue:
constitutive equations are formulated in terms of
' D'
we need to compute D
D
We need D D
' f D D ' D f ( D ' D f )
D D' D f
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 258/448
FE modeling of undrained behavior
Example: linear elastic model + plane strain
D D' D f K
E
G
E
3(1 2 ) 2(1 )
4 2 2 G G'
K ' 3 G K ' G
3
K ' G 0
3
&xx &xx
e
& K ' 2 G 4 2
K ' G K ' G 0 &eyy
yy 3 3 3 D
&zz &zz
e
K ' 2 G 2
K ' G
4
K ' G 0 &e
&xy 3 3 3 xy
0 0 0 G
4 2 2
K 3 G K G
3
K G 0
3
&xx &xx
e
& K 2 G 4 2
yy K G K G 0 &eyy
&zz
3 3 3
&zz
e D
K 2 G 2
K G
4
K G 0 &e
&xy 3 3 3 xy
0 0 0 G
D D' D f
4 2 2
K ' 3 G K ' G
3
K ' G 0
3
Ke Ke Ke 0
K ' 2 G K ' G
4 2
K ' G 0
K Ke Ke 0
D 3 3 3 e
Ke Ke Ke 0
K ' 2 G 2
K ' G
4
K ' G 0
3 3 3 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 G
4 2 2
K ' 3 G K e K ' G K e
3
K ' G K e
3
0
K ' 2 G K 4
K ' G K e
2
K ' G K e 0
D 3
e
3 3
K ' 2 G K e 2
K ' G K e
4
K ' G K e 0
3 3 3
0 0 0 G
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 259/448
FE modeling of undrained behavior
Example: linear elastic model + plane strain
D D' D f
4 2 2
K ' 3 G K e K ' G K e
3
K ' G K e
3
0
K ' 2 G K 4
K ' G K e
2
K ' G K e 0
D D ' De 3
e
3 3
K ' 2 G K e 2
K ' G K e
4
K ' G K e 0
3 3 3
0 0 0 G
4 2 2
K 3 G K G K G 0
3 3
4 4
K 2 G 4
K G
2
K G 0
K ' G K e K G
D 3 3 3 3 3
K 2 G 2
K G
4
K G 0
3 3 3
0
0 0 G
K K ' K e
all the above (which is valid for any soil (or model) for which the
principle of effective stress applies) can be easily combined
with the FEM
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 260/448
FE modeling of undrained behavior
E' 1 u
K total assuming u = 0.495
31 2 u 1 '
Note: this procedure gives reasonable results only for ' < 0.35 !
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 261/448
FE modeling of undrained behavior (method A)
analysis in terms of effective stress
type of material behaviour: undrained method A (version 2010)
undrained (version < 2010)
u changes (excess pore water pressures generated)
constitutive equations are formulated in terms of
' D '
In the case of Mohr Coulomb model:
effective strength parameters c, ,
effective stiffness parameters E50', '
uf
u
TSP
ESP
cu
s, s
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 263/448
FE modeling of undrained behavior (method C)
t
TSP=ESP
cu
s, s
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 264/448
FE modeling of undrained behavior (method B)
analysis in terms of effective stress
type of material behaviour: undrained method B (version 2010)
undrained (version < 2010)
u changes
constitutive equations are formulated in terms of (but strength
in total stresses!)
total strength parameters c = cu, = 0, = 0
effective stiffness parameters E50', '
' D '
D
D D' D f
3 E
Resulting undrained stiffness parameters Eu ; u 0.495
2 1
available for Mohr Coulomb, HSM, HSSM, NGI-ADP models
ESP TSP
cu
s, s
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 265/448
Undrained shear strength (for Method A)
In method A, Cu is a consequence of the model, not an input parameter!!
Therefore, it is necessary to know what value of Cu we are actually using
In the case of the Mohr-Coulomb model (in plane strain), it is easy to compute
Cu analytically
For plane strain: the undrained effective stress path rises vertically
1
2 0 '2 ' ( '1 '3 ) ; '2 ' ('1 '3 )
E
Linear Elasticity
p ' 1 1
v 0 p ' 0 p ' '1 '2 '3 '1 '3 (1 ' ) 0
K' 3 3
1
'1 '3 s' 0 tan = sin
2
t
1 3
2
Effective Stress
a = ccos
Path, ESP
A to , so s'
'1 '3 , s 1 3
2 2
tan = sin
t
1 3 Effective Stress
2
Path, ESP B
a = ccos
cu
A
to , so
s'
'1 '3 , s 1 3
2 2
1
cu c 'cos ' so 'sin ' c 'cos ' vo ho sin '
2
cu c 'cos ' 1
1 K 0 sin ' , K 0 ho
'v 0 'v 0 2 vo
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 266/448
Undrained shear strength from the Mohr Coulomb model
cuMC
cu real
s, s
q
ine
el
advanced i lur
f a
models
advanced
models
elastic-perfectly
cu,3
2c u,3 plastic models
cu,2
c2cu,1u,1 2c u,2
pc p
Results from undrained triaxial tests using simple and advanced constitutive models
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 267/448
Undrained shear strength from advanced models
Parameters
c ' 0.1 kPa ' 23 K 0NC 1 sin ' 0.609 ur 0.15 * 0.11 * 0.0275
140.00
140.00
120.00
120.00
100.00 100.00
1-3 (kPa)
80.00 80.00
1-3 (kPa)
60.00 60.00
40.00
40.00
20.00
20.00
0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0.00
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00
p' (kPa)
p' (kPa)
cu/v=0.279 cu/v=0.214
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 268/448
Soft soil model
Parameters
c ' 0.1 kPa ' 23 K 0NC 1 sin ' 0.609 ur 0.15 * 0.11 * 0.0275
140.00
120.00
100.00
80.00
1-3 (kPa)
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
p' (kPa)
cu/v=0.279 cu/v=0.277
v ve vp (elastic-plastic behavior)
v 0 (undrained conditions)
vp 0 ve 0 p ' K ' ve 0
At failure: q M p ' q 0
t s sin t 0
300
275
250
225
200
175
q [kN/m ]
2
150
125
100
75
MC non dil
50 MC dil
HS_1 non dil
25 HS_1 dil
0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
1 [%]
300
175
q [kN/m ]
2
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 125.00 150.00 175.00 200.00 225.00 250.00
2
p' [kN/m ]
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 270/448
summary
FEM analysis of undrained conditions can be performed in effective
stresses and with effective stiffness and strength parameters
(Method A)
Method A must be used:
if consolidation/long term analysis are required
advanced soil models are adopted
undrained shear strength is a result of the constitutive model
care must be taken with the choice of the value for dilatancy angle
Methods B and C provide alternative ways to analyze undrained
problems but:
the constituive model dos not generally represent the true soil
behaviour (before failure)
potentially useful for stability problems in undrained conditions
(specification of undrained shear strength is straightforward)
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 271/448
New Delhi Advanced 2014
Computation Geotechnics 12
Consolidation Analysis
Professor Antonio Gens
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 272/448
CG12: CONSOLIDATION ANALYSIS
Antonio Gens
CONSOLIDATION: OUTLINE
Introduction
Theory of consolidation
Permeability
FEM for consolidation analysis
Calculation modes
Final remarks
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 273/448
TYPES OF ANALYSIS
Drained
Loading/Construction/ excavation: very slow (in relation to the
soil permeability)
Undrained
Loading/Construction/ excavation: very fast (in relation to the
soil permeability)
EXAMPLE
Excess pore
water pressure
Consolidation
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 274/448
OTHER EXAMPLES
1973 1984
Ekofisk tank
OTHER EXAMPLES
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 275/448
Theory of consolidation
qx q y
div q q
x y
qx q y qz
In three dimensions: div q q
x y z
Theory of consolidation
Considering:
fully saturated soil, incompressible particles
n n n n
i.e. qt pw ; qt pw
t K w t Kw
n n
v qt pw
t Kw
Theory of consolidation
n n k n
v qt pw pw t pw
t Kw w K w
v k n pw
2 pw
t w K w t
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 277/448
Theory of consolidation
v n pw k 2
pw
t K w t w
General 3D case:
' v '
D mT D mT 1,1,1, 0, 0, 0
t t t t
Assuming isotropic elasticity!:
v 1 p ' 1 ( p pw ) 1 p 1 pw
t K ' t K ' t K ' t K ' t
p = mean total stress
1 p 1 n pw k p = effective mean stress
2 pw
K ' t K ' K w t w
E'
where K' = bulk stiffness of soil skeleton
3 1 2 '
kK' pw p
Considering incompressible water: 2 pw
w t t
Theory of consolidation
1D consolidation:
v 1 ' 1 ( pw )
2H
t Eoed t Eoed t
1 1 n pw k 2
pw
Eoed t Eoed K w t w
(1 ') E '
where Eoed (1 ')(1 2 ') = constrained modulus of soil skeleton
k Eoed pw
Considering incompressible water: 2 pw
w t t
Coefficient of consolidation:
k Eoed L F L3 L2
Cv units: (m2 / s)
w 2
T L F T
Note: Cv is mainly controlled by permeability and is less variable with respect to
stress level than individual components (they vary in opposite directions)
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 278/448
Theory of consolidation
1D consolidation, considering a constant total stress : 0
t
pw k Eoed
cv 2 pw where cv = consolidation coefficient =
w
t
cv t
T
H2
Theory of consolidation
1D consolidation, considering a constant total stress : 0
t
pw k Eoed
cv 2 pw where cv = consolidation coefficient =
w
t
cv t
T
H2
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 279/448
PERMEABILITY
Dependence on grain (pore) size
Soil k (cm/s)
Clean gravel >1
Clean sand 1 - 10-2
(coarse)
Sand mixture 10-2 - 5x10-3
Fine sand 5x10-2 -10-3
Silty sand 2x10-3 -10-4
Silt 5x10-3 -10-5
Clay 10-6 and less
Harr (1962)
PERMEABILITY
Dependence on void ratio
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 280/448
PERMEABILITY
k e
log
k0 ck
Default value for ck is 1015
Use realistic ck only with advanced models
Classical formulation
Consolidation analysis based on excess pore pressure (EPP):
pactive psteady pexcess
Assumptions:
Steady state pore pressure is constant in time (horizontal phreatic level or
steady state pore pressure from groundwater flow calculation)
Excess pore pressure can change in time
Fully saturated soil (above and below phreatic level)
Limitation:
Time dependent hydraulic boundary is not possible (variable phreatic level)
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 281/448
FEM for consolidation analysis
Node
Element
Stress
point
Mesh:
Elements: Interpolation of primary variables
Nodes: Primary variables (displacements, pore pressures)
Stress points: Derived variables (strains, stresses, Darcy velocities)
19
Calculations:
Stiffness matrix
Coupling matrix
K v L p f Forces Equilibrium
Pore pressures
Displacements
Flow matrix
Displacements
dv dp
H pL S q
T
Net flow
dt dt Continuity
Compressibility of water
Transposed coupling matrix
K L v 0 0 v0 f
LT S p 0 t H p 0 t q System of equations
* *
S t H S q q0 q
* *
K v L p f Equilibrium
dv dp
H pL S q
T
Continuity
dt dt
K L v 0 0 v0 f
S p 0 t H p 0 t q
LT *
*
System of equations
S t H S q q0 q
* *
H: permeability matrix H ( N )T k ( N ) dV
V
T
S: compressibility matrix S
n
Kw
N N dV
V
K: stiffness matrix T
K B D B dV
V
L: coupling matrix T
L B m N dV
V
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 283/448
FEM for consolidation analysis
Sand
Clay pw
Sand pw0
l2
tcritical
Cv
l = element length
= 80 for 15-node triangles
= 40 for 6-node triangles
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 284/448
FEM for consolidation analysis
Calculations:
Consolidation Staged construction > Time interval t
Consolidation Minimum pore pressure > |p-stop|
Consolidation Incremental multipliers > Time increment
Output:
Deformations
Stresses
Excess pore pressure
History curves
(e.g. pore pressure as function of time)
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 285/448
FEM for consolidation analysis
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 286/448
Calculation models
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 287/448
Final remarks
Conclusions
FEM is quite suitable for 2D and 3D consolidation analysis
2D or 3D coupled consolidation is different from 1D or uncoupled consolidation
PLAXIS has several options for consolidation based on excess or total pore
pressure
Future perspectives
The classical and advanced calculation modes will be replaced (in version
2013?) by two options: ignore suction or allow suction
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 288/448
New Delhi Advanced 2014
Computation Geotechnics 13
Exercise 4: De-watering in Excavation
Mr Siva Subramanian & Dr William Cheang
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 289/448
Excavation and dewatering
Computational Geotechnics 1
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 290/448
Excavation and dewatering
2 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 291/448
Excavation and dewatering
INTRODUCTION
This example involves the dry construction of an excavation. The excavation is supported
by concrete diaphragm walls. The walls are tied back by pre-stressed grout anchors. The
HSsmall model is used to model the soil behaviour. Special attention is focused on the output,
which provides us insight in the soil behaviour and its interaction with structural elements. It
is noted that the dry excavation involves a groundwater flow calculation to generate the water
pressure distribution.
The excavation is 20 m wide and 10 m deep. 15 m long concrete diaphragm walls of 0.35
m thickness are used to retain the surrounding soil. Two rows of ground anchors are used
at each wall to support the walls. The upper anchor has a total length of 14.5 m and an
inclination of 33.7o (2:3). The lower anchor is 10 m long and is installed at an angle of 45o .
The excavation is symmetric so only one half of the problem needs to be modelled.
The relevant part of the soil consists of three distinct layers. From the ground surface to a
depth of 3 m there is a fill of relatively loose fine sandy soil. Underneath the fill, down to a
minimum depth of 15 m, there is a more or less homogeneous layer consisting of dense well
graded sand. This layer is particular suitable for the installation of the ground anchors. In the
initial situation there is a horizontal phreatic level at 3 m below the ground surface, (i.e. at the
base of the fill layer) Below the sand layer there is a loam layer which extends to large depth.
INPUT
Project properties
Start a new project in Plaxis. The symmetric problem can be modelled with a geometry model
of 60 m width and 40 m depth. Hence, set the model Contour to xmin = 0m, xmax = 60m,
y min = 40m and y max = 0m. Keep all other settings to their defaults.
Computational Geotechnics 3
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 292/448
Excavation and dewatering
Soil mode
Define a single borehole taking into account the following soil layers:
4 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 293/448
Excavation and dewatering
Structures mode
The proposed geometry model is given in figure 2, all sizes and coordinates are given in
meters.
A ground anchor can be modelled by a combination of a node-to-node anchor and a embedded
pile row (purple line). The embedded pile row simulates the grout body (bonded length)
whereas the node-to-node anchor simulates the anchor rod (free length). The diaphragm
wall is modelled as a plate. The interfaces around the plate are used to model soil-structure
interaction effects.
The properties of the concrete diaphragm wall are entered in a material set of the plate type.
The concrete has a Youngs modulus of 35 GPa and the wall is 0.35 m thick. The properties
are listed in table 2.
For the properties of the ground anchors, two material data sets are needed: One of the
anchor type (anchor rod) and one of the embedded pile row (grout body). The anchor data
Computational Geotechnics 5
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 294/448
Excavation and dewatering
set contains the properties of the anchor rod and the embedded pile row data set contains the
properties of the grout body. The data are listed in tables 3 and 4.
Mesh mode
Click the Mesh generation button and in the Mesh option window that appears, set the Element
distriibution to Fine. This should give a mesh as shown in figure 3.
6 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 295/448
Excavation and dewatering
In the second phase the first 3 m of the excavation are constructed without connection
of anchors to the wall. At this depth the excavation remains dry.
The fourth phase involves further excavation to a depth of 7 m, including the de-watering
of the excavation. This involves a groundwater flow analysis to calculate the new pore
water pressure distribution, which is a part of the definition of the third calculation phase.
The sixth phase is a further excavation (and de-watering) to the final depth of 10 m.
The calculation is done using a so-called semi-coupled analysis. This means that the groundwater
flow field is generated first and used as input to the deformation analysis. In other words, the
groundwater flow will have an effect on the deformations in the soil, but the deformations
in the soil will not change the flow field. This assumption is reasonable if the flow field
will not be disturbed by excess pore pressures resulting from undrained behaviour or by
significant changes in permeability due to large deformations. In this excavation problem
indeed permeabilities are high and undrained behaviour should be of little or no importance.
All calculation phases are defined as Plastic calculations of the Staged construction type
and standard settings for all other parameters. The instructions given below are limited to a
description of how the phases are defined within the Staged construction mode.
Initial phase
In Staged construction mode make sure that all soil is activated and all structural elements
are deactivated.
The initial phreatic line follows from the Head information specified in the borehole, and
should be located at y = -3m. That is, on the separation of the fill and sand layer.
In Staged construction mode activate the wall as well as the interfaces along the wall.
Computational Geotechnics 7
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 296/448
Excavation and dewatering
activate the upper embedded pile row representing the grout body of the first anchor.
select the upper node-to-node anchor so that it appears in the Selection explorer.
In the Selection explorer now activate the anchor and also select the option Adjust
prestress. Set a prestress force of 300 kN.
No water flow can occur through a axis of symmetry. Therefore the axis of symmetry
must be a closed flow boundary. To do so, do for all lines on the left boundary and
for the bottom boundary:
8 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 297/448
Excavation and dewatering
Computational Geotechnics 9
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 298/448
Excavation and dewatering
In the section Numerical control parameters deactivate the option Use default iter parameters
and set Max steps to 200.
10 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 299/448
Excavation and dewatering
ALTERNATIVE: TRANSIENT
GROUNDWATER FLOW
As an alternative calculation a fully coupled analysis will be performed. This analysis couples
transient groundwater flow, consolidation and deformations implying that the groundwater flow
field, the development and dissipation of pore pressures and the deformation are all calculated
simultaneously and all influence each other. This type of analysis should be performed if the
flow field is expected to be varying in time (transient flow) or when significant changes in
permeability due to large deformations are likely to occur. In this excavation problem the main
reason to use this analysis is to take into account that the flow field will not reach a steady-
state during excavations and so a transient flow analysis is required. The addidional effects
of coupling the flow field with undrained behaviour will probably be small as this project deals
with high permeabilities. Note that a fully coupled analysis requires that the calculation type is
Fully coupled flow-deformation.
It is possible to re-use the project made for the calculation using the method of steady-state
analysis:
Initial phase
No changes have to be made
Computational Geotechnics 11
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 300/448
Excavation and dewatering
12 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 301/448
Excavation and dewatering
OUTPUT
Figure 4 gives the total displacements for the final phase for both the calculation with steady-
state groundwater flow and the transient groundwater flow.
The excavation using steady-state flow gives a maximum displacements of about 20 mm while
excavation using transient flow gives a maximum displacement of about 18 mm. Note that the
colours of the graphs are both scaled of 0 to 22 mm in 11 intervals.
Figure 4: Total displacements for the semi coupled analysis (left) and the fully coupled analyis
(right)
Figure 5 shows the vertical displacements for the final phase for both calculations. For the
displacements behind the wall the excavation using steady-state analysis clearly gives more
vertical displacements over a slightly larger distance from the excavation than the excavation
with transient flow.
Figure 5: Vertical displacements for the semi coupled analysis (left) and the fully coupled
analyis (right)
The extreme bending moments are about -155 kNm/m and 75 kNm/m for the excavation using
semi-coupled analysis while the extremen bending moments for the excavation using fully
coupled analysisare about -145 kNm/m and 95 kNm/m. Hence, the transient flow calculation
leads to a slightly smaller field bending moment, but a slightly higher foot bending moment
than the steady-state flow.
Computational Geotechnics 13
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 302/448
Excavation and dewatering
Figure 6: Bending moments in the wall for the semi coupled analysis (left) and the fully coupeld
analyis (right)
Figure 7 shows the horizontal displacements of the top of the wall as a function of
construction time for both the excavation using semi-coupled and fully-coupled analysis.
14 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 303/448
Excavation and dewatering
Finally, looking at the factor of safety for the final situation (see figure 8) it can be seen that the
fully coupled analysis gives a marginally larger factor of safety than the semi coupled analysis.
Figure 8: Strength reduction curve for the determination of the factor of safety
Computational Geotechnics 15
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 304/448
Excavation and dewatering
16 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 305/448
New Delhi Advanced 2014
Computation Geotechnics 14
Unsaturated Soils & Barcelona Basic Model
Professor Antonio Gens
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 306/448
CG14: UNSATURATED SOILS AND BARCELONA
BASIC MODEL
Antonio Gens
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 307/448
Unsaturated soils
Solid
Liquid Gas
Fig. 4
Collapse in Via Luigi Settembrini, Naples (15-09-2001)
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 309/448
Unsaturated soils: outline
c o g z
Matric Osmotic Gas Gravitational
Gravitational
potential
Gas pressure
potential
Matric potential
SEMIPERMEABLE
MEMBRANE
ns
os RT
V
SOLUTE
PURE
WATER
Osmotic potential
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 311/448
Suction in unsaturated soils
New additional variable: suction
Water potential, : work required to transport a unit mass from a
reference pool of pure water to the soil water under consideration
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 312/448
Unsaturated soils: flow and consolidation
Saturated soils: equation of continuity (with soil deformation)
n q x q y n
0
t x y t
(n S r ) q x q y
0
t x y (n S r )
t
n (, s ) S r (, s ) q x q y
Sr n 0
t t x y
(n S r ) q x q y (n S r )
0
t x y t
n (, s ) S (, s ) q q y
Sr r n x 0
t t x y
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 313/448
Unsaturated soils: flow and consolidation
Unsaturated soils: retention curve
(also called soil water characteristic curve, SWCC)
Sr f pa pw = f s
UNSATURATED
SATURATED
SATURATED
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 314/448
Unsaturated soils: flow and consolidation
Unsaturated soils: retention curve
UNIFORM
1 g n
gn
gn
S ( p ) S residu ( S sat S residu ) 1 g a p
p s ( pa pw ) in m
h pw
q k k h y
dy dy w
Relative permeability
k k rel ( S r ) k sat
Fredlund &
Rahardjo (1993)
k rel k rel
H ( N )T G p ( N )T k w g ( N ) dV
sat sat
k ( N ) dV
H: permeability matrix V
w V
w
T nS dS
S: compressibility matrix S N
K
n
dp
N dV
V w w
K: stiffness matrix T
K B M B dV
V
Q: coupling matrix Q S B m N dV
T
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 317/448
Unsaturated soils: flow and consolidation
Calculation procedure
The presented system is highly non-linear. The non-linearity occurs
because of suction dependent degree of saturation (Q and S) and the
suction dependent permeability (H).
A fully implicit scheme of integration is used to solve the fully coupled
flow-deformation analysis.
k rel
H ( N )T
sat
H: permeability matrix k ( N ) dV
V
w
T nS dS
S: compressibility matrix S N n N dV
V K w dp w
T
Q: coupling matrix Q S B m N dV
V
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 318/448
A fundamental variable for unsaturated soils: (matric) suction
Matric suction is often associated with capillary phenomena
s ua u w
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 319/448
Stress variables for unsaturated soils
Class I
Includes net stress and suction (BBM): ua , s
Easy representation of conventional stress paths (including laboratory test
paths)
Difficulties in the transition saturated-unsaturated
Hysteresis and hydraulic effects difficult to incorporate
Independent function required to model the increase of strength with suction
Class III
Includes Bishops stress and suction (Plaxis BBM): ua S r s , s
Representation of conventional stress paths not straightforward, sometimes
impossible
No difficulties in the transition saturated-unsaturated (it recovers Terzaghis
effective stress on reaching Sr=1)
Hysteresis and hydraulic effects can be naturally incorporated
The increase of strength with suction results from stress variable definition
Stress variables
Isotropic plane using net stress and suction
Moderate suctions
Variation of
apparent cohesion
and friction with
suction
Fredlund & Rahardjo (1985)
s
s Large suctions
s
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 323/448
Behaviour of unsaturated soils: shear strength
Bishop (1959) proposal for effective stress: ' ua (ua uw ) ; ( Sr )
Sr
' ( S r u w )
f c' n tan ' c' ( n S r uw ) tan ' c' n tan ' S r uw tan '
The variation of shear strength with suction depends on the variation of Sr with
suction
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 324/448
Behaviour of unsaturated soils: shear strength
S r pw
S e pw
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 325/448
Unsaturated soils: outline
(Oedometer
tests on a
Brazilian
residual soil;
Fig. 5 Lemos, 1998)
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 327/448
Behaviour of unsaturated soils: volume change
Volume change behaviour on saturation depends on applied stress level
swelling collapse
Sample A
Sample B
During collapse, volume strain may change sign (it can only be observed in
suction controlled tests)
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 329/448
Elasto plastic model for unsaturated soils
The Barcelona Basic Model
(BBM)
Alonso, E.E., Gens, A. & Josa, A. (1990). A constitutive model for partially saturated soil,
Gotechnique, 40, No3, 405-430.
domain
SUCTION, s
S3
S3
S2 S2
S1
S1
S=0
MEAN NET STRESS, p MEAN NET STRESS, p
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 330/448
Elasto plastic model for unsaturated soils
The Barcelona Basic Model (BBM)
p o 1
L
S1
C
Collapse
p p
*
o 1
*
o 2 MEAN NET STRESS, p
Isotropic plane
A B C
SUCTION, s
SUCTION, s
plastic
compression
elastic
swelling
C B A vol
p p p
*
o
*
o B
*
o C compression swelling
sSUCTION,
q
LC
s CSL (s)
Three-dimensional view
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 332/448
Unsaturated soils
FEATURES OF BEHAVIOUR
Suction increases the apparent preconsolidation pressure (yield
stress) and (often) soil stiffness
Volume change behaviour depends on stress level. Swelling or
compression (collapse) may occur depending on applied load
Collapse behaviour
After collapse soil lies on saturated consolidation line
Volume change reversal may occur during collapse
Volume change behaviour is path independent only for a certain
class of stress paths
Shear strength increases with suction
Yield surface
2
g
f 3 J 2 p ps P0 p
2
g 30
Cam-clay ellipse (other choices are possible!)
g is function of lode angle () and J is the second deviatoric stress tensor.
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 333/448 54
Elasto plastic model for unsaturated soils: BBM
Pr
Pr : a reference mean stress (fitting LC curve).
0* : modified compression index of saturated soil.
* : modified swelling index of (un)saturated soil.
*s *0 1 r e S r
55
Plastic potential
g 2
2
g 3J
2
p ps P0 p
g 30
is used to obtain K0 path for normally consolidated soils.
1
M M 9 M 3 *
1 *
96 M 0
Hardening law:
P0
dP0 d vp
0
* *
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 334/448 56
Elasto plastic model for unsaturated soils: BBM
Elastic behaviour:
The elastic behaviour of the model is the same as Modified Cam-Clay
model:
d ve , p dp ; G
p
: elastic stiffness due to mean stress (input parameter) .
In addition to that, change in suction may produce volumetric elastic
strain according to (not really required in Plaxis implementation!):
s
d ve , s dS
3 s patm
57
70 60
C3
s=0 kPa s=100 kPa s=200 kPa s=0 kPa s=100 kPa s=200 kPa
60 50
C2
50
40
CSL
q (kPa)
40
q (kPa)
30
30
C1
20
20
10
10
A B2 B3
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 20 40 60 80
Axial strain p' (kPa)
250 2.3
s=0 kPa s=100 kPa s=200 kPa
B3 C3 2.25
200
A
2.2
150 s=0 kPa s=100 kPa s=200 kPa
B2
s (kPa)
=1+e
B3
2.15
B2
100 C2
2.1
50 C3
2.05 C2
C1
A C1
0 2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
q (kPa) p' (kPa)
Gonzalez (2008)
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 335/448 58
Elasto plastic model for unsaturated soils
125 2.3
YLD A
YLD C 2.2
C NCL 0
100 B
2.1 NCL 1
A
75 2.0 B
s (kPa)
v=1+e
1.9 C
50 1.8
1.7
25
1.6 D
A D 1.5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
p' (kPa)
p' (kPa)
Gonzalez (2008)
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 336/448
New Delhi Advanced 2014
Computation Geotechnics 15
Initial Stresses and Slope Stability Analysis
Professor Helmut Schweiger
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 337/448
S C I E N C E P A S S I O N T E C H N O L O G Y
CG15
INITIAL STRESSES
PHI-C-REDUCTION
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Helmut F. Schweiger
Computational Geotechnics Group
Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Graz University of Technology
CONTENT
Initial stresses
general
K0-procedure
gravity loading
special cases
Phi-c-reduction
safety factor
safety factor analysis
examples
final advice
Comparison Phi-c-reduction Limit analysis Limit equilibrium analysis
Analysis of a failure
Slope stability analysis considering rainfall infiltration
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 338/448
1
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
3
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
Needed:
coefficient for lateral earth pressure K0
Disadvantage:
No equilibrium for inclined surface (a nil-step can be used)
Advantage:
No displacements are generated, only stresses, can take
into account initial OCR or POP
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 339/448
2
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
5
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
For 1D compression: 'h 'v so K0
1 1
Note: holds for elasticity and Mohr-Coulomb,
otherwise K0nc
Advantage
Equilibrium satisfied in all case
Attention: ignore undrained
> dont produce excess pore water pressures
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 - 31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 340/448
3
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
7
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
SPECIAL CASES
SPECIAL CASES
For complex initial situations like inner city building projects it may be needed to
use several calculation phases to model the current situation before starting the
calculation for the actual project.
existing buildings
our
project
our project
reset displacements to 0
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 341/448
4
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
9
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 342/448
5
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
11
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
tan
c tan tanreduced
Lowered incrementally
Msf
creduced tanreduced
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 343/448
6
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
13
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
Calculation procedure:
Create a Safety Phase
Accept the default increment for Msf = 0.1 from the multiplier tab-sheet
Calculate
Carefully examine Msf vs. displacement curve in Plaxis Curves to assure
that failure is indeed reached
If so, the value of Msf is assumed to be the factor of safety on soil resistance
Notes:
In order to check failure, select a control point within the (expected) failing
body
Use sufficient number of load steps
Choose elasto-plastic behaviour for wall, anchors and geotextiles with realistic
full plastic values in order to prevent excessively high structural forces
Displacements etc. AFTER safety analysis are meaningless
wall elastic
Msf = 1.95
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 344/448
7
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
15
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 345/448
8
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
17
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
2
1
15,00
5,00
60,00
Parameters:
' = 20 [] , c = 10 [kN/m]
E = 105 [kN/m] , = 0.3 [-] , = 20.0 [kN/m]
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 346/448
9
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
19
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
Note: for high friction angles (> 35 to 40) differences between LEM
and FEM may become larger and flow rule has more influence
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 347/448
10
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
21
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
5 1.90
11 1.62
(very coarse) 38 1.52
(coarse) 82 1.51
(medium) 170 1.50
(fine) 414 1.45
(very fine) 871 1.43
3733 1.43
15749 1.43
1.12 1.12
Sum-Msf
Sum-Msf
1.08 1.08
1.04 1.04
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
displacement displacement
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 348/448
11
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
23
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
H = 12m 2
D cu = 50 kPa
1
Plaxis:
F = 1,35
cu = 100 kPa
cu 50 D
Stability charts: F N0 6.6 1.38 , N0 f ( , ) (Taylor,1948)
Pd 12 20 H
Plaxis:
F = 1.34
cu = 50 kPa
cu = 60 kPa
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 349/448
12
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
25
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
Plaxis:
F = 1.19
cu = 50 kPa
cu = 50 kPa
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 350/448
13
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
27
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 351/448
14
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
29
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
Hs = 10m
Ds = 1 and 5
s = 15, 30, 45 and 60
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 352/448
15
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
31
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
Material set 2, Ds = 5
3.5
DisplacementFEAassociatedflowrule
FactorofsafetyFoS[]
3.0 FELimitanalysisassociatedflowrule
2.5
Cohesive-frictional material
2.0
1.5
Purely frictional
material
1.0
10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
SlopeinclinationangleS []
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 353/448
16
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
33
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
3.5 DisplacementFEAassociatedflowrule
FELimitanalysisassociatedflowrule
FactorofsafetyFoS[]
3.0 DisplacementFEAnonassociatedflowrule
FELimitanalysisDAVISapproach
2.5
Cohesive-frictional material
2.0
1.5
Purely frictional
material
1.0
10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
SlopeinclinationangleS []
With non-associated flow rule in the displacement based FEA FoS reduces slightly,
but calculations may show numerical instabilities!
Flow rule has a minor influence in the considered example.
Davis approach yields lower FoS values for both numerical methods (conservative).
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 354/448
17
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
35
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
= = 45
= 15
= 0
associated, = 45
non associated, = 0
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 355/448
18
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
37
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 356/448
19
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
39
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
RESULTS
high cohesion
Plaxis2Dvs Slide6.0
Slide6.0 FoS Plaxis2D
frictionangle cohesionc MorgensternPrice FoS for= FoS for=0
[] [kPa] [] [] []
29.0 1.194 1.035 1.013
15
33.0
21.5
1.300
1.097
1.131
1.018
1.112
KOLLAPS
22,5
28.0 1.321 1.187 1.134
17.0 1.097 1.056 KOLLAPS
30
23.0 1.308 1.230 1.139
14.0 1.103 1.074 KOLLAPS
35
19.5 1.299 1.247 .,126
11.0 1.105 1.082 KOLLAPS
40
16.0 1.294 1.260 1.108
8.0 1.098 1.080 KOLLAPS
45
12.5 1.292 1.266 1.083
5.5 1.104 1.085 KOLLAPS
high friction
50
9.5 1.305 1.286 1.060
Slide - no tension
crack: FoS = 1.259
Plaxis:
FoS = 1.092
Slide - with tension
tco = 0 kPa
crack: FoS = 1.094
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 357/448
20
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
41
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
FOS = 1.08
FOS = 1.08
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 358/448
21
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
43
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
CROSS SECTION
PLAN VIEW
Cross section
investigated
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 359/448
22
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
45
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 360/448
23
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
47
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
SLOPE AT FAILURE
= 40, c = 11 kPa
~0.98
Note: Limit equilibrium analysis (method of slices) did not predict failure
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 - 31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 361/448
24
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
49
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
= 40, c = 11 kPa
~1.11
Assuming reduced
strength:
= 35, c = 2 kPa
> failure, i.e. not
realistic
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 362/448
25
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
51
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
DESIGN OF RECONSTRUCTION
= 40, c = 11 kPa
~1.31
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 363/448
26
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
53
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
= 40, c = 11 kPa
3 x 720 kN (a = 4 m)
~1.38
= 40, c = 11 kPa
3 x 720 kN (a = 4 m)
2 x 720 kN (a = 4 m)
~1.53
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 364/448
27
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
55
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
= 40, c = 11 kPa
3 x 720 kN (a = 4 m)
2 x 720 kN (a = 4 m)
~1.46
Assuming reduced
strength:
= 35, c = 2 kPa
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 365/448
28
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
57
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
Assuming reduced
strength:
= 35, c = 2 kPa
> ~1.06
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 366/448
29
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
59
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
gc
S
Sr
Sr
1
ga
gn
p
e
s
i
d
u
s
a
t
e
s
i
d
u
p
u
w
g
w
Sresidu: residual degree of saturation of the soil that describes the part of water that remains
in the soil even at high suction heads.
Ssat: degree of saturation of the soil when the pores are filled with water.
e
s
i
d
u
a t
r
e
s
i
d
u
gngne
kr
S
1
1
S
n
gl
e
l
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 367/448
30
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
61
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
= ( - S uw)
10m
15m
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 368/448
31
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
63
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 369/448
32
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
65
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
0 kN/m2 -10.00
Rainfall 10 mm/hour
General
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 370/448
33
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
67
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
85.43% 60.73%
100.00% 100.00%
(%)
(a) Clay (b) Sandy Clay 100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
40.39% 14.08%
80.00
75,00
70.00
65,00
60.00
saturation
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
75,00
70.00
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 371/448
34
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
69
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
75,00
70.00
After 72 hours rain infiltration: 65,00
60.00
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
75,00
70.00
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 372/448
35
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
71
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
75,00
70.00
After 72 hours rain infiltration: 65,00
60.00
Clay
Sandy
Clay
Silt
Loamy
Sand
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 373/448
36
Initial Stresses / Phi-c Reduction / Slope Stability Analysis
73
Initial Stresses | Phi-c-Reduction | Comparison with Limit Analysis / Limit Equilibrium Analysis | Example of Failure | Unsaturated Slope
FOS
1.5
12 1.704 1.673 1.634 1.586
18 1.702 1.667 1.617 1.582 1.4
24 1.699 1.662 1.602 1.577 Clay
Sandy Clay
36 1.699 1.653 1.573 1.550 1.3 Silt
Loamy Sand
48 1.694 1.644 1.536 1.502
1.2
60 1.692 1.634 1.492 1.344 0 20 40 60 80
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 374/448
37
New Delhi Advanced 2014
Computation Geotechnics 16
Exercise 5: Slope Stabilised by Soil Nails
Mr Siva Subramanian & Dr William Cheang
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 375/448
Slope stability for a road construction project
Computational Geotechnics 1
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 376/448
Slope stability for a road construction project
2 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 377/448
Slope stability for a road construction project
INTRODUCTION
On the North Island of New Zealand a new road section has to be constructed along the shore
line of a tidal bay, see figure 1.
Though the easiest solution would have been to construct the road at a larger distance from
the bay as the slope gradients are easier there, this is not possible as the upper land is
privately owned which for historic reasons cannot be changed. The new road therefore had to
be constructed along the steeper gradient just next to the shore line of the tidal bay.
The hillside is mainly siltstone, weathered at the surface but intact at certain depth. Construction
will take place in summer when the ground water level is low. However, in winter the hillside
side almost fully saturates due to heavy rainfall, which has a significant influence on the
stability. For the construction of the new road part of the slope was excavated. The excavated
material is crushed and mixed with sand and gravel to make fill material to support the road.
During the first winter after the road construction the road started to tilt towards the tidal bay
and after assessing the winter situation the factor of safety was considered too low. The
decision was taken to stabilize the fill and hillside below the road using so-called launched soil
nails: long steel reinforcement bars that are shot with high speed into the ground.
Construct the new road under dry (summer) conditions and calculate its factor of safety
Apply stabilising soil nails and calculate the factor of safety in wet conditions
Computational Geotechnics 3
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 378/448
Slope stability for a road construction project
INPUT
Project properties
Start a new project and select appropriate Dimensions according to the size of the geometry
(see figure 2). After closing the Project properties window, open the Snapping options and
make sure to use a snap distance of 0.25m.
(a)
(b)
Figure 2: Soil model (a) and position of the road surface, construction details and soil nails (b)
Soil mode
Due to the complexity of the model the geometry will not be defined using boreholes, but
through soil polygons in Structures mode. Therefore, move directly to Structures mode.
Structures mode
First the intact siltstone is modelled.
4 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 379/448
Slope stability for a road construction project
Select the Create soil polygon button ( ) and from the submenu that opens,
select the Create soil polygon option.
Now draw a soil polygon starting from (x y) = (0 0) and then to (0 22), (30 16), (37
11), (46.5 7.25), (58 6), (65 6) and finally to (65 0).
Secondly, the weathered siltstone layer will be added. As the bottom of weathered
siltstone layer coincides with the top of the intact siltstone layer its not needed to draw
the complete soil polygon.
From the Create soil polygon submenu now select the option Follow contour.
Click at (x y) = (0 22) and draw a line to (0 25), (25 20), (31 19.25), (35 16), (37.5
14), (43 11), (46 10.25), (58 8.25), (65 8) and finally to (65 6).
Now right click to end the drawing. A soil polygon will be created from the line that
was just drawn and the upper contour of the intact siltstone layer below.
The last part of soil missing is the new fill that will be constructed for the road.
Select again the Create soil polygon option and draw a soil polygon from (x y) = (35
16) to (38 16), (43 11) and (37.5 14)
Now some additional lines must be specified in order to model the construction sequence.
From the Create line menu choose the option Create line.
Draw a line from (x y) = (25 20) to (30 16)
Draw a line from (x y) = (35 16) to (37 11) and finally to (43 11)
From the Create line button choose the option Create plate.
Draw a plate from (x y) = (30 16) to (38 16).
From the Create line button menu choose the option Create embedded pile row.
Insert 3 embedded pile rows according to the coordinates given in figure 2.
Computational Geotechnics 5
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 380/448
Slope stability for a road construction project
Material properties
Soil
Enter the material properties for the three soil data sets specified in table 1.
After entering all properties for the three soil types, drag and drop the properties to the
appropriate clusters, as indicated in figure 2.
Road surface
The road surface is modelled with a plate element. Therefore, create a new plate material set
using the parameters as specified in table 2 and assign it to the plate representing the road
surface.
6 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 381/448
Slope stability for a road construction project
Soil nails
The 3 soil nails are modelled using embedded pile row elements. Hence, create a new
embedded pile row material set with parameters as specified in table 3 and assign the material
to all 3 soil nails.
Mesh mode
The road surface and the soil nails are automatically refined. However, as possible failure
would be expected in the weathered siltstone layer, this layer has to be refined as well.
The Coarseness factors as specified in figure 3 should be applied to the indicated areas. This
can be done in 2 ways:
1. From the vertical toolbar select the Refine mesh button ( ) and click on the areas to
be refined. For every click on an area or object its coarseness factor will become 70% of
its current value. Hence, to reach a coarseness factor of 0.5 its necessary to click twice
on the area, for a coarseness factor of 0.35 one has to click 3 times on the same area.
2. Select the areas and in the Selection explorer directly enter the appropriate coarseness
factors.
Now select the Generate mesh button ( ) and make sure the Element distribution is set to
Medium. After mesh generation, view the mesh (see figure 4)
Computational Geotechnics 7
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 382/448
Slope stability for a road construction project
Initial phase
The initial situation consists of the intact hill side and a phreatic level representing typical
summer conditions as construction starts in summer. In order to define the initial situation,
follow these steps:
From the vertical toolbar select the Create water level button ( ) and then the
option Create water level.
8 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 383/448
Slope stability for a road construction project
Draw a water level from (x y) = (-1 10) to (66 10). This water level will automatically
become the global water level.
The geometry has a non-horizontal soil layering, hence the K0 -procedure cannot
be used.
Open the Phases window and for the initial phase set the Calculation type to Gravity
loading.
Make sure only the clusters representing the original hillside are activated. Hence,
switch off the parts of reinforced soil.
Before the construction is started the factor of safety is determined of the initial situation
Open the Phases window and change the Calculation type of this phase to Safety.
The road excavation should continue from the initial situation and not from the results of the
safety factor determination. To do so:
Select the Add phase button ( ). A new phase (phase 2) will now be created that starts
from the initial phase.
In the Phases window, set the Calculation type to Plastic of loading type Staged
construction.
In order to discard the displacements during gravity loading make sure the option
Reset displacements to zero is selected under the Deformation control parameters.
Switch off the upper part of the road excavations, see figure 5.
Computational Geotechnics 9
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 384/448
Slope stability for a road construction project
Switch on the plate representing the road. Make sure the distributed load representing
the traffic load remains switched off.
10 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 385/448
Slope stability for a road construction project
Switch on both parts (left nd right) of the distributed load representing the traffic
load. The plate representing the road surface remains switched on.
Select Phase 5 and press the Add phase button ( ). Now Phase 7 will be created,
starting from Phase 5.
Select the Create water level button and draw a new water level from (x y) = (-1,20)
to (5,20) and further to (20,10) and (66,10).
Open the Phases window and in the General section set the Pore pressure calculation
type to Steady-state groundwater flow.
Computational Geotechnics 11
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 386/448
Slope stability for a road construction project
The application of the first level of soil nails should occur after calculating winter conditions
and not after determination of the factor of safety of this situation : select phase 7 and
create a new phase
Figure 7: Phase 9, Road construction with traffic load and topmost level of soil nails
Phase 10 - Factor of safety in winter conditions with top level soil nails
In order to determine the factor of safety directly in winter conditions with the topmost
level of soil nails installed create a Safety phase. Keep all default settings
12 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 387/448
Slope stability for a road construction project
Phase 12 - Factor of safety in winter conditions with all soil nails installed
In order to determine the factor of safety directly in winter conditions with the all soil nails
installed create a final Safety phase.
For this Safety phase, set in the Phases window the amount of calculation steps (Max
steps) to 200 in the Numerical control parameters section.
Load-displacement curves
Before starting the calculation choose some points for node-displacement curves. In order
to check failure for the phi/c reduction phases the chosen points should be in the expected
failure zone. As there are several possible slope instabilities, chose at least points at (25,20),
(35,16), (38,16) and (43,11).
Now save the project and start the calculation by pressing the Calculate button.
SUCTION
Beforehand, it was estimated that the factor of safety of the slope before construction should
be in the order of 1.5 as there is no history of significant deformation for either low water table
(summer) and high water table (winter).
However, after the calculation it appears that the factor of safety before construction in summer
conditions is just over 1.2 and it is doubted that the factor of safety in reality is indeed that low.
Therefore the possibility of present suction is taken into account, as suction generally leads to
an increased factor of safety.
Open the Phases window and for all phases uncheck the option Ignore suction in the
Deformation control parameters. Hence, we will allow for suction in all phases,
Computational Geotechnics 13
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 388/448
Slope stability for a road construction project
OUTPUT
Failure mechanisms
Figure 8 shows the failure mechanisms for all 5 conditions. Note that only for the winter
condition with all soil nails installed, the failure mechanism is different depending on whether
suction was taken into account. For all other conditions the failure mechanism is the same
with or without suction, though the actual factor of safety is different.
(c) Winter conditions (no nails) (d) Winter conditions (top nails)
(e) Winter conditions (all nails, no suction) (f) Winter conditions (all nails, with suction)
Factors of safety
In order to check the factors of safety, strength reduction curves (M sf vs. displacement of
a control point) must be made in the Curves module. As can be seen from figure 8 it is not
possible to use the same control point for all 6 factors of safety in case we ignore suction, as
the failure mechanisms are in different locations for different situations. Therefore we choose
the control points as:
(x y) = (25 20) for the winter conditions with all nails installed
14 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 389/448
Slope stability for a road construction project
Set the x-axis values to the total displacement of point (x y) = (35 16) and the y-axis
values to the Project multiplier M sf .
In the Settings window, on the tabsheet representing the curve, click the Phases... button
and in the Select phases window that opens, deselect phase 12 (factor of safety of the
winter conditions with all nails installed) so that it will not appear in the graph. To clean up
the graph a bit more, one can decided to deselect all phases that are not Safety phases
as well.
Close the Select phases window but do not close the Settings window.
In the Settings window now select the Add curve button and then from the popup menu
select From current project.
Add a new curve, but now with the total displacements of point (x y) = (25 20) on the
x-axis. The y-axis values remain the Project multiplier M sf .
Back in the Settings window, on the tabsheet representing the newly added curve, click
again the Phases... button. Now deselect all phases but keep phase 12 selected.
Addittionally, on the Chart tabsheet of the Settings window one can set the scaling of
the axes. For instance the x-axis from 0 to 2 m. Press the Apply button to confirm this.
We now have a graph with the strength reduction curves for point (x y) = (25 20) for the final
phases and for point (x y) = (35 16) for all other calculation phases.
Please note that in case we do calculate with suction, all graphs can be created from point
(x y) = (35 16) as this point is in the failure zone for all situations (see figure 10).
Computational Geotechnics 15
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 390/448
Slope stability for a road construction project
Figure 9: Factors of safety for key moments in the project without taking into account suction.
Figure 10: Factors of safety for key moments in the project taking into account suction.
From figures 9 and 10 the effect of installing the nails on the factor of safety can be seen. It
can also be seen that taking into account suction gives a factor of safety prior to construction
that is more in accordance of the expected value, while suction only has a minor influence on
the factor of safety in winter conditions as in winter conditions most of the soil is fully saturated.
16 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 391/448
New Delhi Advanced 2014
Computation Geotechnics 17
Hoek-Brown and Rock Jointed Models
Professor Helmut Schweiger
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 392/448
S C I E N C E P A S S I O N T E C H N O L O G Y
CG17
HOEK-BROWN
JOINTED ROCK MODEL
Helmut F. Schweiger
Computational Geotechnics Group
Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Graz University of Technology
CONTENTS
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 393/448
1
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
3
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
for n
n tan (T i)
for n
n tan G c G
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 394/448
2
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
5
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
JCS
n tan JRC log10 r
n
JOINTED ROCK
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 395/448
3
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
7
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
JOINTED ROCK
Assumption:
approximately parallel, continuous, unfilled joint sets
m
d rock d int act rock d joj int set
j 1
F j , n 0
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 396/448
4
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
9
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
Validity of model
- intact rock
- parallel joint sets
- distance between individual
joints small compared to typical
dimension of structure
- no fault gouge in joints
Parameters required
Anisotropic elastic parameters
E1 Young's modulus
1 Poisson's ratio
E2 Young's modulus in Plane 1 direction
G2 Shear modulus in Plane 1 direction
2 Poisson's ratio in Plane 1 direction
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 397/448
5
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
11
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
(2=90)
1 x
Dip angle 1
Dip direction 2
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 398/448
6
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
13
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
8000
7000
6000
1-3 5000
2
[KN/m ]
4000
3000
45+(/2)
2000
1000
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
orientation
Winkel of joint 1
der Trennflchen
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 399/448
7
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
15
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
full excavation
MStage (until failure)
unsupported
overburden: 60 m
width of tunnel: approx. 14 m
height of tunnel: approx. 12 m
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 400/448
8
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
17
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 401/448
9
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
19
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
INFLUENCE OF K0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
MStage
0.5
0.4
0.3 Ko = 0,3
0.2 Ko = 0,7
0.1
Ko = 1,0
0.0
0 22.5 45 67.5 90
orientation of joint ( 1)
INFLUENCE OF DILATANCY
joints 1 = 45; = 0
MStage = 0.13
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 402/448
10
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
21
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
INFLUENCE OF DILATANCY
joints 1 = 45; = 5
MStage = 0.18
INFLUENCE OF DILATANCY
joints 1 = 45; = 10
MStage = 0.23
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 403/448
11
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
23
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
INFLUENCE OF DILATANCY
0,5
0,4
0,3 Dilat. = 0
0,2 Dilat. = 5
0,1 Dilat. = 10
0,0
0 22,5 45 67,5 90
orientation of joints
1, 3 .. principal stresses
c .. uniaxial compressive strength
m, s . material parameters
s =1 > intact rock, s = 0 > heavily jointed
m > .. brittle behaviour, m < .. ductile behaviour
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 404/448
12
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
25
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
1, d 1
p
HB failure line
{dp}
gf
=0
{d }
p
=+60
{d }
p
max=+90 3, d 3
p
t +90 0
Hoek-Brown criterion: flow rule
1, d 1
p
MC failure line
{d }
p
=0
gf
{dp}
gt = ft
=90
3, d 3
p
a e GSI / 15 e 20 / 3
1 1
2 6
GSI geological strength index
mi depends on type of rock
D disturbance factor
(due to blasting and/or stress relaxation)
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 405/448
13
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
27
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
Source: RocLab
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 406/448
14
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
29
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
DISTURBANCE FACTOR D
Source: RocLab
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 407/448
15
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
31
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
25.0
15.0
Stress [MPa]
10.0
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 408/448
16
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
33
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
30.0
20.0
Stress [MPa]
15.0
10.0
Radial Stress (Exact)
Tangential Stress (Exact)
5.0
Plaxis HB-Model Radial Stress
Plaxis HB-Model Tangential Stress
0.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Distance from Tunnel Center [m]
Longitudinal section
1. Project description
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 409/448
17
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
35
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
PLAXIS MODEL
132m
120m
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 - 31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 410/448
18
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
37
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
activated pore
tunnel interior
pressure
Queenston
Q10
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 411/448
19
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
39
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
Calculation phases:
RESULTS
Analytical PLAXIS
Solution
Normal force 10334 kN/m 10220 kN/m 1%
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 412/448
20
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
41
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
2 1
1
4
3
D =
6
5
8
8 7
Unsymmetric pressure
application in Plaxis
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 413/448
21
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
43
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
RESULTS
D [mm] D D
1-8 3-6 4-5 2-7 [mm] [-]
D [mm] D D
1-8 3-6 4-5 2-7 [mm] [-]
Advantages
Modelling of blocky structures (discontinua)
For explicit solution algorithms no equation system required
Suitable also for studying micromechanical behaviour of granular materials
Disadvantages
In 3D long calculation times
For static problems artificial damping required
Influence of various input parameters difficult to judge, i.e. joint stiffnesses
(> may cause numerical problems, lot of experience required)
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 414/448
22
Hoek-Brown / Jointed Rock model
45
Continuum Model for Rock | Plaxis Jointed Rock Model | Examples | Hoek-Brown Model | Example Pressure Tunnel | Concluding Remarks
WHICH MODEL
Selection often done according to availability / familiarity rather than problem oriented
With simplification relevant mechanisms often lost, and thus neglected in the support
design
Acknowledgement: W. Schubert
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 415/448
23
New Delhi Advanced 2014
Computation Geotechnics 18
Modelling of Tunnels in 2D
Professor Helmut Schweiger
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 416/448
S C I E N C E P A S S I O N T E C H N O L O G Y
CG18
MODELLING OF TUNNELS IN 2D
Helmut F. Schweiger
Computational Geotechnics Group
Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Graz University of Technology
2D Modelling of Tunnels
2
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
CONTENTS
Introduction
Typical excavation sequence for NATM-tunnels
Modelling 3D-effects in plane strain analysis
Calibration of pre-relaxation factors
Modelling support measures
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 417/448
1
2D Modelling of Tunnels
3
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
INTRODUCTION
3-D Models
Plane Strain
2D Modelling of Tunnels
4
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
0 2 4 6
1 3 5 7
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 418/448
2
2D Modelling of Tunnels
5
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
Chainage
settlements ahead
of tunnel face
settlements of
Settlements
unsupported zone
settlements after
installation of
monitoring
section
2D Modelling of Tunnels
6
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
E0 0( )
approximate values for :
= 0.2 0.5
for top heading
excavation
s = . 0 = 0.4 0.8
for side drift
excavation
(Laabmayr & Swoboda 1986)
tunnel lining
PLAXIS: Mstage 1-
PRE-RELAXATION
EXCAVATION
Note: Mstage definition changed
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 - 31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 419/448
3
2D Modelling of Tunnels
7
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
E0
= 0.3 0.5
tunnel lining
PRE-RELAXATION
EXCAVATION
2D Modelling of Tunnels
8
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
PRE-RELAXATION
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 420/448
4
2D Modelling of Tunnels
9
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
2D Modelling of Tunnels
10
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 421/448
5
2D Modelling of Tunnels
11
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
CHOICE OF AND
values depend on:
ground conditions
length of unsupported section
advance rate
time of construction of invert
experience of personnell (workmanship)
...........
2D Modelling of Tunnels
12
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
WHICH METHOD?
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 422/448
6
2D Modelling of Tunnels
13
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
y = 60 m
Z = 60 m
y = 142 m
2D Modelling of Tunnels
14
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 423/448
7
2D Modelling of Tunnels
15
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
3D STAGED CONSTRUCTION
2D Modelling of Tunnels
16
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
2D STAGED CONSTRUCTION
MStage<1.0 MStage<1.0
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 424/448
8
2D Modelling of Tunnels
17
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
-5
Crown settlements [mm]
-15
Good agreement between 2D
and 3D for final settlement
-25
Significant differences in
relaxation factor depending
-35 on constitutive model applied
-45
-55
3D 1) MC drained 2D 1) MC drained
3D 7) HSS E45 (POP500, K0=0.7) drained 2D 7) HSS E45 (POP500, K0=0.7) drained
3D 9) HSS E20 (POP500, K0=0.7) drained 2D 9) HSS E20 (POP500, K0=0.7) drained
Zelger 2012
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 - 31 October 2014 17
2D Modelling of Tunnels
18
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
-4
-6 Poor agreement between 2D
-8 and 3D for final settlement
-10
-12 Significant differences in
-14 relaxation factor depending
-16 on constitutive model applied
-18
-20
-22
-24
3D 1) MC drained
2D 1) MC drained
3D 2) HS E45 (POP500,K0=0.7) drained
2D 2) HS E45 (POP500, K0=0.7) drained
3D 3) HS20 (POP500,K0=0.7) drained
2D 3) HS E20 (POP500,K0=0.7) drained
3D 7) HSS E45 (POP500, K0=0.7) drained
2D 7) HSS E45 (POP500, K0=0.7) drained
3D 9) HSS E20 (POP500, K0=0.7) drained
2D 9) HSS E20 (POP500, K0=0.7) drained Zelger 2012
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 - 31 October 2014 18
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 425/448
9
2D Modelling of Tunnels
19
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
factors, such as
reference displacement
constitutive model
drained/undrained conditions
Zelger 2012
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 - 31 October 2014 19
2D Modelling of Tunnels
20
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures|
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 426/448
10
2D Modelling of Tunnels
21
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
2D Modelling of Tunnels
22
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
Calculation phases
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 427/448
11
2D Modelling of Tunnels
23
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
2D Modelling of Tunnels
24
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
berwimmer 2011
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 - 31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 428/448
12
2D Modelling of Tunnels
25
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-5.0
-10.0
continuum element
uy [cm]
cross section 12
uy [10 *m]
plate inner
cross boundary
section 13
-15.0
plate centre
cross section 14
plate outer
cross boundary
section 15
-20.0
-25.0
-30.0
phase [-]
berwimmer 2011
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 - 31 October 2014
2D Modelling of Tunnels
26
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
Phase 3 Phase 7
continuum element
plate inner boundary
plate centre
plate outer boundary
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 429/448
13
2D Modelling of Tunnels
27
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
2D Modelling of Tunnels
28
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 430/448
14
2D Modelling of Tunnels
29
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
Phase No.
continuum element
horizontal beam
cluster at base
plate only
berwimmer 2011
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 - 31 October 2014
2D Modelling of Tunnels
30
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
Phase & uy
Phase No.
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-5.0
0.6 mdreieckklein
wide
y [cm]
*m]
-10.0
0.4 m0.2wide
m
-2
0.2 m0.4wide
m
uy [10
-15.0 0.6 m
d of lining
u
cross section 13
plate only
-20.0
-25.0
phase [-]
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 431/448
15
2D Modelling of Tunnels
31
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
INFLUENCE OF MICROPILES
Phase & uy
Phase No.
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-2.00
-4.00 ohne
u [cm]
27
-6.00
uy [10y-2 *m]
35
-8.00 43
51
-10.00
27+35
-12.00 alle
-14.00
-16.00
phase [-]
2D Modelling of Tunnels
32
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 432/448
16
2D Modelling of Tunnels
33
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
identical
2D Modelling of Tunnels
34
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 433/448
17
2D Modelling of Tunnels
35
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
2D Modelling of Tunnels
36
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
Leq 2
Ael ftp28
nint 3
Leq = 1m
Gt28
tension
ftu28
ftp ftu
Advanced Course on Computational Geotechnics, New Delhi, India, 29 - 31 October 2014
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 434/448
18
2D Modelling of Tunnels
37
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
Q5
N1
N5
N1
N5
2D Modelling of Tunnels
38
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
th centre
th left 5 th right
3 1
bench bench
left bench right
centre
4 2
6
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 435/448
19
2D Modelling of Tunnels
39
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
+3.5 MPa
+15 MPa
Tensile Stresses
2D Modelling of Tunnels
40
Introduction | NATM Excavation Sequence | 3D Effects in 2D | Calibration of pre-relaxation | Modelling Support Measures
Tensile Stresses
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 436/448
20
New Delhi Advanced 2014
Computation Geotechnics 19
Exercise 6: Tunnelling in Rock
Dr William Cheang
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 437/448
Excavation of a tunnel in rock
Computational Geotechnics 1
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 438/448
Excavation of a tunnel in rock
2 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 439/448
Excavation of a tunnel in rock
INTRODUCTION
In this example, a circular deep tunnel within a 1-layer homogeneous rock mass under a
hydrostatic pressure is modelled. As the hydrostatic pressure is the equivalent of 1500m
water it is not so practical to model this with the use of a phreatic level. In order to take into
account the hydrostatic pressure there are two possible method:
Method 1) works fine if the hydrostatic pressures is applied during the calculation. However,
in our case the pressure is there from the initial situation. As distributed loads are not taken
into account during the K0 -procedure using a distributed load would require gravity loading for
applying the distributed load. This would cause additional problems to solve as gravity loading
may give plasticity in the rock joints that should not occur.
Method 2) therefore is applied in this exercise. It is chosen to use a thin layer with the same
properties as the rock (that is, a Jointed Rock material set) but with high weight. Alternatively
one can use a Linear Elastic material set with high weight, but in this case its necessary that
the Linear Elastic material has low stiffness so that it cannot prevent sliding along the joints to
reach the soil surface.
INPUT
The geometry and mesh of the model are illustrated in figure 1.
The refinement area around the tunnel can be modelled by inserting an additional circular
tunnel without lining or interface at the same location as the tunnel.
Note: Though the geometry is symmetric it is not possible to only model half the
geometry. The rock itself has an inclined stratification under an angle of
450 , what makes the model asymmetric!
Material properties
The material data sets of the rock and the thin heavy layer representing the hydrostatic
pressure (referred to as Equivalent pressure) are shown in table 1.
After excavation of the tunnel it is finished by applying a 0.2m thick concrete lining with a uni-
axial cylindrical compression strength of 55 N/mm2 and 3% reinforcement with FeB500 steel
bars (yield stress 435 N/mm2). Table 2 shows the material properties for the tunnel lining.
Mesh generation
For the generation of the mesh set the Global coarseness parameter to Medium. In addition,
select the 3 clusters that form the area around and in the tunnel, and perform a cluster
Computational Geotechnics 3
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 440/448
Excavation of a tunnel in rock
refinement by choosing the menu option Mesh -> Refine cluster. After the mesh has been
generated, repeat the cluster refinement for just the inner two (circular) areas.
CALCULATION
The tunnels is excavated and at a certain distance behind the tunnel face the lining is applied.
The tunnel is supposed to be self supporting and so the main purpose of the lining is to protect
the tunnel from rock fall. However, it has to be taken into account that the lining will deliver
limited support for the tunnel due to continuous stress redistribution and deformations after the
tunnel lining is installed. This is done by calculating 80% of the effect of the excavation with
an unsupported tunnel and 20% of the effect of the excavation with lining installed. Hence, the
-method is used with = 0.2.
In PLAXIS, at the beginning of the staged construction calculation phase, the changes made
cause a certain unbalance between the externally applied forces on the mesh and the internal
stresses in both soil and structural elements. This unbalance physically cannot exists and has
to be solved in the calculation phase. This is done with the use of a multiplier, -Mstage, that
indicates the amount of the unbalance that has already been solved. This means that at the
beginning of the calculation phase -Mstage=0 as all unbalance still has to be solved and at
the end of a succesfully calculated phase -Mstage=1 indicating the full unbalance could be
solved. However, in our case we only want to solve 80% of the unbalance with an unsupported
excavation before applying the tunnel lining which implies that we have to tell the calculation
kernel that not the full unbalance should be solved but that the calculation must stop when
-Mstage=0.8 is reached.
4 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 441/448
Excavation of a tunnel in rock
Note: The results of a calculation phase with -Mstage < 1 have no physical
meaning as there is no equilibrium in external forces and internal stresses.
The calculation consists of the initial phase and 2 additional calculation phases
Initial phase
It is assumed there are no pore pressures in the rock, therefore the phreatic level can remain
below the geometry and no pore pressures have to be generated.
Initial stresses are generated using the K0 procedure. Make sure the thin layer representing
the top load is switched on.
Phase 1
In this stage construction phase the tunnel is being excavated while the tunnel lining remains
switched off.
Computational Geotechnics 5
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 442/448
Excavation of a tunnel in rock
In the Loading Input box make sure the type of loading input is Staged construction and
then press the button Advanced. A new window will appear.
In this window one can specify that the end value for the -Mstage multiplier as described
above. Fill in a value of 0.8 and press OK to close the window again
Now press the Define button in order to define the staged construction changes, i.e. the
excavation of the tunnel by switching off the cluster representing the tunnel.
Phase 2
In this phase the tunnel lining is applied. Define the staged construction phase and switch
on the lining. No other changes have to be made in this phase. PLAXIS will apply the full
unbalance that exists at the beginning of this phase, which is the remaining 20% unbalance
from excavating the tunnel and the full additional unbalance caused by switching on the tunnel
lining.
Note: The Jointed Rock model is a rather sensitive model for both mesh
refinement and local failure. With this model it may occur more often than
for the other standard consitutive models in Plaxis that the calculation
stops reporting failure, while in fact the failure is only very local and not
important from engineering point of view. In some cases this situation can
be overcome by swichting off the Arc-length control in the Manual settings
of the Iterative procedure.
Arc-length control is a method to obtain reliable load values in case of
failure, but may also lead to detection of local failure mechanisms hat are
tof little interest as stated. As long as a calculation phase ends succesfully
(that is, it was possible to apply all changes requested by the user) the
answers should be the same wether arc-length control is switched on or
not. Only when failure is reached and arc-length control is switched off,
the user will be confronted with the fact that no automatic failure detection
will be done by PLAXIS (hence the user has to decide on whether he
considers the situation failure or not) and the failure load reached is not as
accurate.
In this exercise it may be necessary to switch of arc-length control in the
first calculation phase. However, the user is encouraged to always first try
with arc-length control switched on.
One can select some points for curves, for instance at the crown and the side of the tunnel
and somewhere halfway those two points.
Press the Calculate button to start the calculation.
6 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 443/448
Excavation of a tunnel in rock
OUTPUT
Check the influence of the stratification on the stresses and deformations of the rock around
the tunnel. Also, check the bending moments of the tunnel lining:
Computational Geotechnics 7
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 444/448
Excavation of a tunnel in rock
8 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 445/448
Excavation of a tunnel in rock
Computational Geotechnics 9
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 446/448
Excavation of a tunnel in rock
FURTHER EXERCISE
Repeat the calculation for dip angles 1 = 0 o and 1 = 90 o and compare results
10 Computational Geotechnics
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 447/448
Excavation of a tunnel in rock
Figure 9: Bending moments in the lining for 1 = 0o (left) and 1 = 90o (right)
Computational Geotechnics 11
Plaxis Advanced Course, New Delhi, India (29-31 October 2014) 448/448