Seminar-Advanced Geotechnical Finite Element Modeling in Analysis Using PLAXIS PDF

PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Plaxis Seminar, Binus University, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2012

Advanced Geotechnical Finite Element Modeling using
PLAXIS
Dr William WL Cheang
Principal Geotechnical Consultant
Plaxis AsiaPac
Lecture notes are contributed by:
Dr Lee Siew Wei
Prof. Harry Tan
A.Prof. Ronald Brinkgreve
Dr Shen Rui Fu
Ir Dennis Waterman
CONTENTS
A. Section1:GeotechnicalAnalysisusingPLAXISPrograms
B. Section2:ModellingofDeepExcavations
C. Section3:ModellingofPiledFoundations
D. Section4:ModellingofTunnelSoilStructureInteractionProblems
E. Conclusions
F. References
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012
1
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
GEOTECHNICALANALYSISUSINGPLAXISFINITEELEMENTCODES
SECTION1.0
SECTION1
A. Versions
1. Pre2010(Version7.x,8.xand9.x)
2. Post2010(Version2010,2011,2012)
B. NewDevelopments(20112012)
1. Ongoingsoftwaredevelopments
2. Researchprojects
3. Conclusions
2
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Plaxis2D:Features
ThePLAXIS2D(Currentlyatv2010movingtov2011)
ProgramincludingthePLAXISDynamicsandPLAXISPlaxFlowmodules
Afiniteelementpackageintendedforthetwodimensionalanalysisofdeformation
andstabilityingeotechnicalengineering
ThePLAXISDynamicsModule
AnextensiontoPLAXIS2D
TheDynamicsmodule offersthetoolstoanalysethepropagationofwavesthroughthesoilandtheirinfluence
onstructures.
Thisallowsfortheanalysisofseismicloadingaswellasvibrationsduetoconstructionactivities.
PLAXISDynamicsoffersthepossibilitytoperformdynamiccalculationsinindividualcalculationphases.
PlaxFlow
AnaddonmoduletothePLAXIS2Dprogram.
Simulationofthenonlinear,timedependentandanisotropicbehaviourofsoils
and/orrockinsaturatedandpartiallysaturatedsituations.
PlaxisVIPThesespecialextensionsare:
CADInterfaces
NewMaterialModels
UserDefinedSoilModels
MultiphaseCalculations
SensitivityAnalysis
Plaxis2Dv2011
Plaxis2DWorkflowcanbefoundat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMy895GCsBQ&list=PLF7F3CDD69090AF3A&index=1&feature=plpp_video
3
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Plaxis3D,3DF&3DT
1. PLAXIS3Disafiniteelementpackageintendedfor three
dimensionalanalysisofdeformationandstabilityingeotechnical
engineering.Itisequippedwithfeaturestodealwithvarious
aspectsofcomplexgeotechnicalstructuresandconstruction
processes
1. 3DFoundationisafiniteelementpackageintendedforthethree
dimensionaldeformationanalysisoffoundationstructures
2. 3DTunnel isageotechnicalfiniteelementpackagewhichis
specificallyintendedforthethreedimensionalanalysisof
deformationandstabilityintunnelprojects.
Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012
Plaxis3Dv2011
4
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
PLAXIS3DINPUT
Generaltoolbar
Modeswitches
Selectionexplorer
Drawingarea
Modelexplorer
Modetoolbar
Commandline
Plaxis3DInput:Modes
Definitionofsoilstratigraphy Definitionofstructuralelements,
loads
andboundaryconditions
SOIL STRUCTURES
CreationoftheFEmesh Definitionofpressure Definitionofconstructionstages

distribution
MESH WATERLEVELS STAGEDCONSTRUCTION
Letmedemonstrate!
5
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
SECTION1.1:FEMMODELS
TunnelPileSoilInteraction1
Bldg. load
Plate modelling
Building superstructure EI & EA
40m
Fill
1m 48 Franki piles
CDG (Embedded Piles)
Tunnel
Tunnel 120m advance
140m
6m tunnel
Analysis by Plaxis 3D ( 70,000 Tets)
6
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
TunnelPileSoilInteraction1
Iso-surface of soil total displacements Pile group deformations
Isometric view Front view
Tunnel Tunnel
advance advance
Animation
PiledFoundations1
7
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
PiledFoundations2
PiledFoundations2
Piled Raft Foundation for a storage platform and Stacker Reclaimer Runways
8
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
PiledFoundations3
DeepExcavation
Video
9
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Dam:CFRD Malaysia
10
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Model:CFRWCH3002D(SouthSumatra20070912)
11
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Model:DomainMesh
StabilityAnalysis:MUDMAT
12
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
FillingofSpudcanFootprints:
13
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
SECTION1.2:NEWDEVELOPMENTS
LATEST PRODUCT RELEASES

PLAXIS2D2011(December2011)
1. Designapproaches
2. Anisotropicplatesandgeogrids
3. Directinputofbendingmoments
4. SekiguchiOhtamodel
14
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Design Approach Facility

1. Possibility to enter a coherent set of partial factors in one location
(according Eurocode 7, LRFD, etc.)
2. More structured and efficient way of modeling
3. Easy exchange of Design Approaches between different projects
4. Partial factors definition remain the entire responsibility of the user (no
default values for different building codes)
Orthotropic Plates and Geogrids
Independent definition of stiffness and strength properties with

respect to element local axis
2
1
15
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
DIRECT INPUT OF BENDING MOMENTS
LATEST PRODUCT RELEASES
PLAXIS3D2011
1. Shapedesigner
2. Steadystategroundwaterflowanalysis
3. Sectioncontraction(tunnelsandshafts)
4. Anisotropicgeotextiles
5. Parallelcomputing
6. Outputvisualizationduringcalculation
16
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Shape Designer
Definitionofpolycurve (seriesofcurvedsections)whichcanthenbe
extruded
Steady State Groundwater Flow

Analysis
Porepressuredistributioninadamduringfullpoolconservation
17
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
SECTION CONTRACTION
Tomodelvolumelossduring
constructionoftunnelsor
shafts
Applicabletoplatesonly
Contractiondefinition:
section section
Ainitial - Afinal Contraction
c[ % ] = section
Ainitial
PARALLEL COMPUTING
Reducecomputationtimeby
usingdomaindecomposition
Twonewsolversavailable
PICOSsolver(multicore
iterative)
PARDISOsolver(multicore
direct)
18
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
PARALLEL COMPUTING EXAMPLE
Multilayerground withtunnel:
100000elements
148000nodes
414000d.o.fs
Tot Dec Back Iter Cores Speedup

175 57.5 90.1 62 1 1.000
133 21.5 84.2 74 2 1.396
84 18.5 40.5 39 4 2.501
69 13.7 29.3 45 8 3.432
OUTPUT VISUALIZATION DURING CALCULATION
WillopentheOutputprogram
whenthecalculationisstill
running
19
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
ON-GOING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENTS
NewmodellingworkflowPLAXIS2D
SoilConstitutiveModels
Modelparametersdefinitionfromlaboratorytestresultsbyinverse
analysisinSoilLabtest
Freefieldboundaryelements
ReinforcementelementforpilemodellinginPLAXIS2D
StructuralforcesinsolidelementinPLAXIS2D
Thermohydromechanicalcoupling
NewPLAXIS3Daddonmodules:DynamicsandTransientGWF
NEW MODELLING WORKFLOW PLAXIS 2D
20
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
SOIL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
Userdefinedsoilmodels: 15
10
5
1. AnisotropicSClay1(S)model
xy[kPa]
0
0 50 100 150 200
-5
2. AnisotropicCreepModel -10
-15
p'[kPa]
3. BarcelonaBasicmodel(unsaturatedsoil)
4. Hypoplasticmodelwithintergranularstrain
5. UBCSANDmodel(liquefaction)
PARAMETER OPTIMIZATION BY INVERSE ANALYSIS
1. BasedonSoilTestfacility
2. Importofreallabtestdata(triaxial,oedometer)
3. Optimisationofselectedmodelparametersbasedonparticleswarm
algorithm
4. Differentcurvescanbeconsideredsimultaneously
Bestmatchbetweencurvesfromrealtestsandmodelsimulation
21
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
PARAMETER OPTIMIZATION BY INVERSE

ANALYSIS - EXAMPLE
Experimentalparameters: Hardening Soil model fit
=24 180
c=5.5kN/m2 160
Eoed=9700kN/m2 140
E50 =9700kN/m2
|Sigma1 - Sigma 3|
120
100
80
CalculatedHSparameters:
60
=24.30 40
c=4.68kN/m2 20
Experimental
Eoed=9627kN/m2 0
Calculated
E50 =9509kN/m2 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

Strain 1
FREE FIELD BOUNDARY ELEMENTS
Freefieldconditiondefinition
1Dsoilcolumn
Tiedhorizontaldisplacementonleftand
rightboundaries(Ux2=Ux1)
22
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
FREE FIELD BOUNDARY ELEMENTS
PracticalapplicationoffreefieldelementsinPLAXIS
Structure Structure
Freefieldcondition
Freefieldcondition
Viscousboundary
Viscousboundary
Viscousboundary
Viscousboundary
Soil Soil
Dynamicinput(accorvel) Dynamicinput(accorvel)
FreeField
elements
REINFORCEMENT ELEMENT IN PLAXIS 2D
Offerpilemodellingcapabilitiesin2D
Developmentoflineinterfaceelementsinsertedbetweensoilandthe
pile(Samemodellingstrategyas3Dembeddedpile)
Thebeamrepresentingthepileslidesoverthe2Dgeometryandnot
throughthe2Dgeometry
2Dmodel 3DEquivalentrepresentation
23
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
REINFORCEMENT ELEMENT IN PLAXIS 2D
Differentthancombiningplatewithsurroundinginterfaces
Soilcannotflowfreely(asitshouldinbetweenthepiles)
Interfacesintroduceunrealisticfailuresurfaces
2Dmodel
3DEquivalentrepresentation
Structural Forces in Solid Element

in 2D
Beammodelledassolidelementsunderpureflexion
Viewofintegratedstressesalongdrawnneutralaxis
24
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
THERMAL FLOW, THERMAL EXPANSION, THM COUPLING

1. Takingtemperatureeffectsintoaccount:
A. Expansion
B. Soilfreezing
C. Phasetransition(ice,water,vapour)
D. Changeofproperties
2. Geoenergyapplications
A. Heat/coldstorage
B. Geothermalenergy
Research Projects
ParticipationinResearchprojects:
Piles(inst.effects,embeddedpiles) i.c.w.TUD,TUGraz
Liquefactionofunderwaterslopes i.c.w.TUD
GeoInstall(soilmodelling,MPM) EUproject(#partners)
Notes(dynamics) EUprojecti.c.w.TCD
Cyclicliquefaction,geotech EQ.eng. i.c.w.UCBerkeley,UIUC
StochasticFEA i.c.w.TUD
25
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
MODELLINGOFDEEPEXCAVATIONS
SECTION2.0
GEOMETRY MODELDISCRETIZATION
3-D MODEL
2-D Plane Strain
26
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
GEOMETRY MODELDISCRETIZATION
Axi-symmentry
27
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
3DMODELS
Piled building
Tower crane
Strut layout
Piled building
28
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
3DMODELOFANEXCAVATION
Top of PW (70/90)
N
Top of Grade III or Better
Complex Soil-Structure Interaction

Plaxis Seminar,Problem
Jakarta 2012
CONSTITUTIVEMODELS
1. Linear elastic, perfectly plastic

2. Hyperbolic stress-strain curve
(stiffness degradation for > 1E-4)
3. Non-linear stiffness from very small
strains (1E-6)
1: Mohr Coulomb
1e-6 1e-5 1e-4 1e-3 1e-2 1e-1
2: Hardening Soil
3:Hardening Soil + Small Strain Overlay
29
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
SURFACEHEAVEININITIALEXC./CANTILEVERWALL
3 m deep excavation with cantilever wall
20kPa
5m
3m
7m
Dry sandy material

FSP III sheetpile
3 analyses with Mohr Coulomb, Hardening Soil & Hardening Soil-Small models
using equivalent soil input parameters
Compare ground movements, wall displacements & wall stability
SOILINPUTPARAMETERSFOR3ANALYSES
Parameters for soil strength & initial stress state
Analyses Material c' ' Rinter
Model (or ur)
3
(kN/m ) (kPa) (Deg) [-] [-]
1 MC 20 5 35 0.3 0.426 0.67
2 HS 20 5 35 0.2 0.426 0.67
3 HSsmall 20 5 35 0.2 0.426 0.67
Parameters for soil stiffness prior to failure

Analyses Material Eref Eurref pref m G0 0.7
Model (or E50ref or Eoedref)
(MPa) (MPa) (kPa) [-] (MPa) [-]
1 MC 30 - - - - -
2 HS 30 90 100 0.5 - -
3 HSsmall 30 90 100 0.5 150 210-5
For derivation of soil stiffness parameters,

a. HS model from standard drained triaxial compression tests
b. HSsmall model from small-strain triaxial tests or field tests (e.g.
downhole / crosshole seismic survey)
30
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
PREDICTEDSURFACESETTLEMENTBEHINDWALL
Distance behind wall (m)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.006
0.004 Heave
0.002
Settlement (m)
0.000
-0.002
-0.004
-0.006 Settlement
MC
-0.008 HS
HSsmall
-0.010
MC predicts unrealistic surface heave 4 mm

HS & HSsmall predict max. surface settlement 9 mm
PREDICTEDHEAVEATEXC. LEVEL INCOFFERDAM

Distance in front of wall (m)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
0.025
MC
HS
0.020
Wall HSsmall
0.015
Heave (m)
0.010
0.005
0.000
-0.005
MC predicts 20 mm heave at cofferdam centreline

HS & HSsmall predict 11 mm & 8 mm respectively
31
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
PREDICTEDWALLRESULTANTDISPLACEMENT
MC
Ux=6mm HS HSsmall
Ux=11mm Ux=10mm Ux: wall horizontal
displacement
PREDICTEDSTABILITYOFWALL
3 Sum-Msf = FOS FOS=2.8
2.5
MC Rotation mechanism
2 with FOS 2.8
1.5
Sum-Msf = FOS
3 FOS=2.8
2.5
2
HS
1.5
Phi-c' reduction for predicting FOS
FSP III sheetpile properties:
3 Sum-Msf = FOS FOS=2.8 EI=34440 kNm2/m; EA=3.92106kN/m
2.5 Mp=369 kNm/m; Np=3575 kN/m
2 HSsmall
1.5
32
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
SUMMARYOFPREDICTIONS
Analyses Surface settlement Heave at Wall horizontal FOS for wall
behind wall excavation level displacement stability
MC Heave 4 mm Heave 20 mm 6 mm 2.8
(not OK)
HS Settle 9 mm Heave 11 mm 11 mm 2.8
HSsmall Settle 9 mm Heave 8 mm 10 mm 2.8
1. MC predicts incorrect surface heave behind wall

a. related to soil stiffness (E) prior to failure
b. different ways of modelling E in 3 constitutive models
2. Stability of wall has FOS = 2.8 for 3 analyses
a. related to soil shear strength
b. all 3 constitutive models use Mohr Coulomb failure criterion with c'=5
kPa & '=35
VARIATIONOFSOILSTIFFNESSINEXCAVATION
1. Soil stiffness is not constant and varies with
a. stress-level. Higher stress, higher stiffness
b. strain-level. Higher strain (or displacement), lower stiffness
c. stress-path (recent soil stress history).
d. Rotation of stress path, higher soil stiffness
2. During excavation, soil elements at different locations experience
different changes in stress, strain & stress-path direction
33
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
SOILSTRESSPATHSNEAREXCAVATION
GCO No.1/90
A: unloading compression; B: unloading extension

Rotation of stress paths at A & B
SOILSTRESSPATHSNEAREXCAVATION
20kPa 25 20kPa
Failure line
20
3m A K0
15 A
Exc. A
B 10
B
Exc.
t (kPa)
K0 20kPa
7m 5
B
5m
-5
-10
Failure line
A: unloading compression
B: unloading extension -15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
s' (kPa)
Rotation of stress path at A, A 90 w.r.t. K0 direction

Rotation of stress path at B, B 160 w.r.t. K0 direction
34
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
STRESSPATHDEPENDENTSOILSTIFFNESS
Stress path rotation,
Shear modulus, 3G (MPa)
t

=0
=180
K0
=90
s'
Atkinson et al. (1990)

Triaxial tests on
London Clay
Shear strain (%)
-1 -0.1 -0.01 0.01 0.1 1
=0, no change in stress path direction
=180, full reversal of stress path direction
STRESSPATHDEPENDENTCDG STIFFNESS
Stress-level Test series
Extension
Compress
Compression
Extension
=90
Wang & Ng (2005)

At s 0.01%, shear stiffness in extension 60% higher than in compression
35
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
WHYMCPREDICTSINCORRECTSURFACEHEAVE?
1. MC models a constant soil stiffness prior to failure not realistic
2. In reality, stiffness of soil elements near excavation varies according to
a. stress-level
b. strain-level
c. direction of stress-path
3. Realistic prediction of wall deflections & ground settlements in all excavation
stages requires a constitutive model that considers above factors, e.g. HS &
HSsmall models
4. HS & HSsmall consider factors (1), (2) & (3) in determining the operational
soil stiffness (E), i.e. E is changing during excavation
INFLUENCEOFSMALLSTRAINSATFARFIELDAREAS
36
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
SECTION2.1:EXAMPLES
37
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
38
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
39
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
40
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
41
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
SECTION2.2:VALIDATIONS
42
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Plaxisvs.SAP2000
Model a non-symmetrical deep exc.

DWall, 6 strut layers, 24m deep exc.
Compare structural behaviour - DWall
20m deflections/bending moments/shear
forces, strut forces
Recommendation on design of
reinforcement based on 3D results
Plaxis 3D Foundation V2.2 - analyses
28m by GCG (Asia)
SAP2000 V12.0.2 (BD No. S0749) -
analyses by AECOM
25m
85
Plaxis 3D Foundation SAP2000
Element size ~1m

Element size ~1.3m
43
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Plaxis 3D Foundation
SAP2000
87
Validation3 DeformedMesh
Plaxis 3D Foundation SAP2000
44
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Validation3 DWallDeflection
Validation3 StrutAxialForce
90
45
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Validation3 DWallBendingMoment
91
MODELLINGOFPILEDFOUNDATIONS
SECTION3
46
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
OUTLINE
A. Volume piles
B. Embedded piles
1. Concept
2. Model
3. Properties
4. Deformation behaviour
5. Elastic region
6. Output
C. Verification & validation
1. Axial loading, pile groups, lateral loading
D. Further research
Volumepiles
Volume piles:
Piles composed of volume elements or wall elements with pile properties

Use Cylinder command to create pile geometry
Cylinder 0.6 20 24
(creates a cylinder with 0.6m radius, 20m length and 24 sections)
Alternative: Import cylinder
Pile can be inclined in PLAXIS 3D! (not in 3D Foundation)
47
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Volumepiles
Volume piles:
Import
cylinder
Volumepiles
Volume piles:
After creating pile geometry:

Create soil material set with concrete properties for pile
Tubes: Apply plate around pile volume; create plate material set
Apply interface around pile geometry
To activate pile in calculation phase:
- Assign pile properties
- Tubes: activate plate
- Activate interface
48
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Volumepiles
Volume piles:
Limitations of volume piles:

Takes many elements
Limited number of piles feasible
Installation effects not considered
Possibly bad element shapes
(check mesh quality)
Embeddedpiles Concept
Sadek & Shahrour (2004):
A three dimensional embedded beam element for reinforced geomaterials
Beam arbitrarily through volume elements
Shear interaction between beam element and surrounding soil.
Septanika (2005)
A finite element description of embedded pile model
Shaft interaction similar to Sadek & Shahrour (2004)
NEW: - Tip interface
- Shaft interface
49
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Embeddedpiles kt
Model t
kn Skinstiffness:
ks tmax
ks:axialstiffness
pile
kt Kn ,kt :lateralstiffness k
1
kn Skintractions: urel
ks
ts =qs/length = ks (uspileussoil)tmax
t skin kt tn =qn/length =kn (unpileunsoil)
tt =qt/length =kt (utpileutsoil)
Ffoot
kn
soil ks
Basestiffness:
s kb:base/footstiffness
t Base/Footforce:
Fb = kb (ubpile ubsoil)Fmax
kb
n
Embeddedpiles Model
Embedded piles:
Beam nodes: Real nodes; 6 d.o.f.s per node (ux uy uz rx ry rz)

Interface nodes: Virtual nodes, 3 d.o.f.s per node (ux uy uz),
expressed in volume element shape functions
50
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Embeddedpiles Properties
Properties (in explorer):
Connection:
Rigid
(only at beams / plates)
Hinged
Free
51
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Embeddedpiles Properties
Material set with embedded pile properties:
Pile type and material

- Type: Massive circular pile, Circular tube, Massive square pile
Interaction properties (defines pile bearing capacity)
Embeddedpiles
BearingCapacity=
(Ttop+Tbot)Lpile +Fmax
Ttop
Lpile
Tbot
Fmax
52
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Embeddedpiles Deformation
behaviour
Pile bearing capacity is input and not result of FEM calculation

F t
tmax
Specifiedbearingcapacity k
1
urel
Globalpileresponse F
fromsoilmodelling
andpilesoilinteraction Fmax
k
1
u urel
Embeddedpiles Withoutelastic
region
.
Load-Displacement Curves - Vertical Pile

EB+CS
1250
Defined Capacity Reached Defined

Pile 1193.2 kN
Capacity
(Premature Failure) Capacity
1000
750
Load (kN)
500
VERY FINE MESH
FINE MESH
MEDIUM MESH
250
COARSE MESH
VERY COARSE MESH
Pile Capacity Defined
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Displacement (mm)
Without elastic region: Early (soil) failure for fine meshes

53
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Embeddedpiles
ElasticRegion
.
Around shaft
Around foot
Soil stress points inside elastic region are forced to remain elastic
Embeddedpiles Output
Displacements, bending moments, axial forces, shaft friction, foot force
u N Ts
C B
A
54
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Verification&validation
Verification & validation by Plaxis, METU, TUGraz, TUDelft *
- Shaft friction, end bearing, total capacity

- Axial loading (compression, extension)
- Lateral loading (external loading, soil movement)
* Related reports and publications:

1. Engin H.K. (2006). Validation of embedded piles, Plaxis Internal Report.
2. Engin H.K., Septanika E.G. and Brinkgreve R.B.J. (2007). Improved embedded beam elements for the modelling of piles. In: G.N. Pande & S.
Pietruszczak (eds.), Int. Symp. on Numerical Models in Geomechanics NUMOG X, 475-480. London: Taylor & Francis group.
3. Engin H.K. (2007). A Report on tension piles testing using embedded piles, Plaxis Internal Report.
4. Engin H.K., Septanika E.G., Brinkgreve R.B.J., Bonnier P.G. (2008). Modeling piled foundation by means of embedded piles. 2nd International
Workshop on Geotechnics of Soft Soils - Focus on Ground Improvement. 3-5 September 2008, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland.
(Accepted for publication)
5. Septanika E.G., Brinkgreve R.B.J., Engin H.K. (2008). Estimation of pile group behavior using embedded piles, the 12th International
Conference of International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG), 1-6 October, 2008, Goa, India.
6. Tschuchnigg F. (2009). Embedded piles 1. Report. CGG_IR021_2009. Technische Universitt Graz.
7. Tschuchnigg F. (2009). Embedded piles 2. Report. Improvements. Technische Universitt Graz.
8. Dao T.P.T. (2011). Validation of PLAXIS embedded piles for lateral loading. MSc thesis Geo-engineering. Delft University of Technology.
Verification&validation Axial
loading(Plaxis)
Single Layer : = 0 , Cohesive Soil (Case 1): c = 50 kPa = 0
55
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Verification&validation Axial
loading(Plaxis)
Single Layer : = 0 , Cohesive Soil (Case 1): c = 50 kPa = 0
Verification&validation Axialloading
(METU)
Pile load test Alzey Bridge near Frankfurt (Bored Pile)
Hardening Soil model El-Mossallamy, Y (1999)

Pre Overburden Pressure = 50 kPa
56
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
(METU)
Alzey Brigde Single Pile Load Test
3500
PILE CAPACITY
3000
2500
2000
Load (kN)
1500 Total Load
Skin Friction
1000 Base Resistance
PILE CAPACITY
HS-CS
500
HS-CS-Base Res.
HS-CS-Ave. Skin Friction

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Settlement (mm)
Verification&validation Pilegroups
(TUDelft)
Pile group example by Poulos:
57
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
(TUDelft)
(a) Poulos & Davis (1980)

(b) Randolph (1994)
(c) Strip on springs analysis, using the program GASP (Poulos,1991)
(d) Plate on springs approach, using the program GARP(Poulos, 1994a)
(e) Finite element and boundary element method of Ta & Small(1996)
(f) Finite element and boundary elementPlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012
method of Sinha(1996).
(TUDelft)
AverageSettlement(mm) Moment(MNm/m)
50,0 1,2
45,0
1,0
40,0
35,0 0,8
30,0
25,0 0,6
FETa&Small
FETa&Small
Poulos &Davis
20,0
FE+BESinha
FE+BESinha
Plate(GASP)
Plate(GASP)
Plaxis3DFnd
Plaxis3DFnd
Strip(GASP)
Strip(GASP)
0,4
15,0
Randolph
10,0 0,2
5,0
0,0 0,0
DifferentialSettlement(mm) %LoadonPiles
10,0
100,0
9,0
90,0
8,0
80,0
7,0 70,0
6,0 60,0
FE+BESinha
Plate(GASP)
FETa&Small
Plaxis3DFnd
Randolph
Strip(GASP)
5,0 50,0
FETa&Small
4,0 40,0
FE+BESinha
Plate(GASP)
Plaxis3DFnd
Strip(GASP)
3,0 30,0
2,0 20,0
10,0
1,0
0,0
0,0
58
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
(TUGraz)
Verification&validation
3D model - volume piles: 70 mm
2D model: 72 mm 3D model - embedded piles: 74 mm
59
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
(TUGraz)
Conclusions from research at TUGraz (based on 3D Foundation):

Embedded pile gives good results in serviceability states
Layer-dependent option preferred to obtain realistic shaft friction
Increased interface stiffness needed at pile tip *
Pile should end at corner node *
* Implemented in PLAXIS 3D
Verification&validation Lateralloading
(TUDelft)
Validation for lateral loading:
Comparison with volume pile
Lateral movement of pile in horizontal soil slice
Lateral loading of pile top
Lateral loading by soil movement (embankment construction)
Comparison with measurements from centrifuge test
Lateral loading by soil movement (embankment construction)
60
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
(TUDelft)
Lateral movement of pile in horizontal soil slice:
> Embedded pile almost behaves as volume pile due to elastic region
(TUDelft)
Lateral loading by soil movement due to embankment construction
> Bending moments in reasonable agreement with measurements
61
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
(TUDelft)
1. Conclusions from research at TUDelft:
2. Embedded piles have capabilities for lateral loading behaviour in case

of rough pile-soil contact (full bonding) and small soil displacements
3. When using standard mesh around embedded piles (no local

refinement), stiffness and lateral capacity are over-estimated (~30%)
Furtherresearch
1. Research at TUDelft on pile installation effects:
2. Press-replace technique to simulate pile installation with the purpose
to generate data for different situations
3. Results are used in generalized model, where (embedded) piles are
wished-in-place and installation effects are superimposed
62
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
CONCLUSIONS
A. Volume pile
1. Pile composed of volume elements or wall elements with pile props
2. Massive piles or tubes (wall elements)
3. Not feasible for many piles
B. Embedded piles
1. Efficient way to model different types of piles
2. Validated for axial loading, pile groups and lateral loading
C. Limitations of embedded piles:
1. Primarily for bored piles (no installation effects)
2. Primarily for serviceability states
3. Mesh-dependency of results
4. Full bonding considered in lateral movement
TUNNELSANDTUNNELLING
SECTION4.0
63
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
CONTENTS
A. 4.1 Introduction to Plaxis Approach
a. Input and construction of FE model
b. Conclusions
B. 4.2 Some Validations
C. 4.3 Case Histories
ModellingofTunnellinginPlaxis3D
To be able to:
Model tunnel geometries in different ways
Model construction stages for tunnels
Model volume loss due to tunnel construction
Analyse deformations, stability, lining forces
64
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Geometricmodellingissues
Circular tunnel shapes (TBM tunnels)
Create cylinder using Cylinder command or using Import facility

cylinder 4 100 48
Decompose cylinder volume into surfaces

Apply plate and negative interface features to cylinder contour
Circular tunnel shapes (TBM tunnels) Example
65
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Cross passages and entrance shafts Example
Hint: Draw cross section surface and use Extrude command to create shafts
PLAXIS 3D will automatically create intersections
Non-circular tunnel shapes
Using shape designer* to create tunnel contour

Create surface from tunnel contour using right-hand mouse button
Extrude surface
Decompose tunnel volume into surfaces
Assign Plate and Negative interface features to tunnel surface
* new in 3D 2011
66
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Non-circular tunnel shapes Example
67
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Importing tunnel geometry using CAD model
DXF triangulated surface model

- Model should be cleaned before importing in PLAXIS 3D
3DS model
Use Import command or corresponding tool in Structures mode
Constructionstages
Creating geometry for construction stages
Divide tunnel in excavation sections (top heading, bench, invert)

Divide tunnel in longitudinal steps by defining cross section planes
Intersect tunnel with excavation sections and cross section planes
Remove unnecessary sub-surfaces around tunnel
68
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Constructionstages
Creating geometry for construction stages Example (exploded view)
Modellingvolumeloss
Volume loss can be modelled by:
Defining Contraction* (TBM tunnels) in Structures mode, e.g:

Contraction Fase_Volume_1_1
or use contraction tool or right-hand mouse menu
Activate contraction in Staged construction mode
* New in 3D 2011
69
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Contraction
Modellingvolumeloss
Alternatively, volume loss can be modelled by:
Applying Volumetric strain to volume (Staged construction mode)

- Distinction can be made between xx, yy, zz
70
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
SECTION4.1:VALIDATIONS
Validation1 Plaxis3DTunnelvs.Plaxis2D
Plaxis 2D Model a plane strain tunnelling
Layered ground Fill, Alluvium, CDG
GWL 2 mbgl
6m dia. tunnel, tunnel axis 23 mbgl
Stress relief by 30% due to tunnel exc.
Linings take 70% initial soil stress
Plaxis 2D V8.2 (BD No. G0133) - 456
nos 6-noded triangular elements
Plaxis 3D Tunnel
Plaxis 3D Tunnel V2.4 - 4,560 nos 15-
noded wedge elements
Fineness of 2D & 3D meshes identical
in-plane
71
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Validation1 InputParameters
Validation1 GroundSurfaceSettlement
72
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Validation1 LiningHoopForce&BendingMoment
Plaxis 2D Plaxis 3D Tunnel
Hoop force
Bending moment
145
Validation2 Plaxis3DTunnelvs.CentrifugeTestinSand
Centrifuge model
Stability of shallow tunnel in sand
Minimum tunnel support pressure (T)
before tunnel collapse
Centrifuge tests by Atkinson & Potts
(1977) in Leighton Buzzard Sand
Acceleration 75g, 60mm dia. model
tunnel is 4.5m dia. prototype tunnel
Centrifuge tests at C/2R ratios of
0.34, 0.63, 1.0, 1.37 & 2.0
Plaxis 3D Tunnel replicates centrifuge
tests in prototype scale
Predicted T compared to measured
T
Atkinson, J. H. & Potts, D. M. (1977). Stability of a shallow circular

tunnel in cohesionless soil. Geotechnique, 27(2), 203-215.
146
73
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
quoted by Atkinson & Potts (1977)
147
Validation2 CollapseMechanism
148
74
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Validation2 Comparison
Atkinson & Potts (1977)
Validation3 Plaxis3DTunnelvs.CentrifugeTestinClay
Stability of tunnel heading in clay
Minimum tunnel support pressure (T)
in unlined section P before collapse
Centrifuge tests by Kimura & Mair
(1981) in soft kaolin clay
Acceleration 125g, 60mm dia. model
tunnel is 7.5m dia. prototype tunnel
Centrifuge model
Centrifuge tests at C/D of 1.5 to 3.0,
P/D of 0 to 3
Plaxis 3D Tunnel replicates centrifuge
tests in prototype scale with C/D = 3,
P/D = 0, 0.5, 1, 2 & 3
Predicted T compared to measured
T
Kimura, T. & Mair, R. J. (1981). Centrifugal testing of model

tunnels in soft clay. Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. & Found.
Eng., Stockholm, Vol. 1, 319-322.
75
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Validation3 Plaxis3DTunnelModel&StabilityRatioN
Stability Ratio, N
Prototype scale
151
152
76
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Validation3 CollapseMechanism
P/D=0
P/D=2
154
77
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Validation4 Plaxis3DTunnelvs.SAP2000
Model 6m dia. circular lining subjected to
Plaxis 3D Tunnel 100 kPa external radial pressure
Lining 0.25 m thick, E=20 GPa, =0.2
Compare lining radial displacement, hoop
force, axial force & bending moment
Plaxis 3D Tunnel V2.4 uses Plate element
SAP2000 Nonlinear V7.40 (BD No. S0476)
uses Shell element
Both predictions compare to known
theoretical solutions
SAP2000
155
Validation4 TheoreticalSolutionCylinderUnderExternalRadialPressure
Watkins, R. K. & Anderson, L. R. (2000). Structural mechanics of buried pipes.

CRC Press.
Young, W. C. & Budynas, R. G. (2002). Roarks formulas for stress and strain.
156
McGraw-Hill, 7th edition. PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012
78
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
157
Validation5 Plaxis3DTunnelvs.ClosedFormSolution+BoundaryElementMethod
Model a 2x2 pile group near a 6m tunnel in

clay
5.7m
Hypothetical example by Loganathan et al.
(2001) analysed using closed form solution
+ boundary element method GEPAN
Not an exact solution, not measurement
Volume loss ratio modelled 1%
20m
Plaxis 3D Tunnel analysed the example
1.1m
25m Compare pile settlement, horizontal
displacement, axial force, bending moment
6m dia.
Front pile Rear pile
0.8m
Loganathan, N., Poulos, H. G. & Xu, K. J. (2001). Ground and pile-group responses
due to tunnelling. Soils and Foundations, JGS, 41(1), 57-67.
158
79
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Validation5 Plaxis3DTunnelModel
Deformed mesh
Exaggeration scale 150
159
Pile Settlement Horizontal disp. Axial force Bending moment
160
80
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Validation6 TunnellingbelowHuaTaiBuilding,SheungWan
Sheung Wan
Crossover Box
30-32 New Market Street
Hua Tai Bldg. built in 1964, 10-storey R.C. frame structure, founded on 73 nos.
of 0.457m dia. Franki piles
5.8m dia. overrun tunnel built in 1980s, trimmed 17 nos pile toes, Fill grouted,
increase size of central raft PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012 161
TunnellingBeneath/NearBuildingPiles
Advantage of 3D over 2D analysis
Proposed U/T tunnel 1. progressive advance of tunnel face
2. assess stability of tunnel
face/heading
Existing overrun tunnel
3. model individual piles
(Proposed D/T tunnel)
4. model plan area of buildings
5. model varying support pressure on
tunnel face & along/around TBM
6. soils vary in tunnel axis direction
-10
-20
-30
-40
162
81
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
RemovalofExistingTunnelLinings
3D analysis required because

1. soil arching in x, y, z (tunnel axis)
directions
2. stability of localised unlined
section
3. unlined & lined sections exist
4. shotcrete properties change with
time in z direction
5. soils vary in z direction
Validation6 TunnellingbelowHuaTaiBuilding,SheungWan
WIL Overrun
Open-face shield tunnel 2.6 bar air pressure
Overrun WIL
Bldg settled 6-9 mm, ground settled 4-6 mm
GCO (1985). Technical Note TN 4/85 MTR Island Line: Effects of

Valuable case history for benchmarking
Construction on Adjacent Property. GEO, Eng. Development Dept., HK.
164
82
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Validation6 Plaxis3DTunnelModel
40,388 15-noded wedge elements
165
Validation6 ModellingofTunnelling
Progressive advance of tunnel face

Varying support pressure on tunnel face &
along/around shield (average ~2.6 bar)
Building load, piles & cap modelled
Bldg. stiffness considered Parallel Axis
Theorem or sum of EI for individual storeys
Circular piles idealised as square piles
166
83
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
SGI
167
Validation6 Ground&PileDisplacement
Front Rear
168
84
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Validation6 ComparisonofSettlement
Building Ground surface
169
Validation7 InterfaceBehaviour
100kN
170
85
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Validation7 InterfaceBehaviour
100kPa
171
Validation7 StraightInterfaceInputShearStrength
172
86
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Validation7 CurvedInterfaceInputShearStrength
173
Straight interface
50kPa x 1m2 = 50 kN
Input shear strength 50 kN
Curved interface
160kPa x 2.9688m2 = 475 kN Input shear strength 474 kN
174
87
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
SECTION4.2:APPLICATION1
Scenario1:
Impactoftunnelling
onexistingpiles
88
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Scenario2:
Impactofpiling
loadingonexisting
tunnels
(1)Aproposeddevelopmentwaslocatedadjacenttothefuture
developmentMRTtwintunnels;
(2)ThepilingsystemwithinMRTProtectionZoneadoptsboredpiles
soastominimizethedynamicimpactduringconstruction.
RCpilesoutsideMRT
ProtectionZone
Boredpiles
withinMRT
ProtectionZone
MRTProtection
Zone
Future MRTtwin
tunnels
89
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
HOWtosimulatetheproblemusingPlaxis3D?
Mostcritical
sectionadoptedfor
thepresent3DFEM
analysis
Typicalcrosssection
Roadsurface
Boredpiledia.
1000mmwith40m
lengthwith28minto
underlyingOAsoils
90
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Boreholesatthislocalareaareadoptedfortheinterpretation
ofsubsurfacesoilprofile
GIBR soilparametersareadoptedfortheanalysis.Effectivedrained
parametersareadoptedduetothelongtermnatureoftheproject
Boredpiledia.
1000mmwith40m
lengthtorestonthe
underlyinghardOA
withSPT N>100
91
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
IllustrationofeffectivedrainedsoilparametersfollowingGIBR
adoptedin3DFEManalysis
IllustrationofeffectivedrainedsoilparametersfollowingGIBR
adoptedin3DFEManalysis
92
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Constructingthe3DFEMmesh
3DFEMmeshwithsubsurfacesoilprofiles,pilegroups,tunnels
Pilegroups
25kPasurcharge
Workingload
Topfill
onpilecap
OA(E) F1
OA(D) F2 Upperand
closertunnel
OA(C)
OA(B) Lowerand
farthertunnel
Underlyinghard
OA(N>100)
93
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Hidingofsomesoilelementstorevealthetunnelsandpiles
Pilegroups
25kPasurcharge
Workingload
onpilecap
Boredpiles
dia.1mwith
40mlength
tunnels
Scenario1:
Pilegroupsassumedtobeconstructedfirst;
Effectof2tunnelling(with2%volumelosseach)
ontheadjacentpilegroups
94
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Simulationsequence:
25kPasurcharge Pilegroupswith
loadingsappliedfirst
TunnelsNOT
constructedyet
Lowertunnelactivatedwith2%volumeloss
Lowertunnel
activatedwith
2%volumeloss
95
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Theinvertofthetunnelwasrestrainedfromheavingup,soas
toinducemaximumtunnelshrinkinginwardwithmaximum
impacttosurroundingground
Crosssectionofmodeltunnel 3Dview
Asurprise:tunnelhasanoverallshrinkingin,therestraintat
theinverthasNOTeffect
96
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Asurprise:tunnelhasanoverallshrinkingin,therestraintat
theinverthasNOTeffect
hexagon
hexagon
tunnel
tunnel
composedof30
composedof24
sides,each12
sides,each15
Arelieftoremovetheunpleasantsurprise
Correctrestraintof
invertoftunnel
97
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Followedbytheuppertunnelactivatedwith2%volumeloss
Followedbythe
uppertunnel
activatedwith
2%volumeloss
Finaltunnelvolumelossshapes(scaledupby25times)
98
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Finalgroundmovementcontourplot
Maxgroundmovementaroundtunnelcrown,anddissipatesawayfromthetunnels
Immediatelyabovethetunnel,theinducedgroundsurfacesettlementisabout25mm;
whilethegroundmovementattheadjacentsiteisabout10mm
10mm
25mm
Theinducedmaxpiledeflectionisonlyabout6mmduetothe
2tunnelling with2%volumelosseach
99
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Theinducedmaxpilesettlementislessthan5mm
Maxpileaxialforceof5386kNbeforetunnelling;and5766kNafter2
tunnelling,anincrementof380kN,orabout7%incrementonly.
AxialforceBEFORE2tunnelling
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012 AxialforceAFTER2tunnelling
100
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
MaxpileBMtowardstunnels(M22)of90kNmbeforetunnelling;and104kNmafter2
tunnelling,anincrementof14kNmwhichisnegligibleforaboredpileof1mdiameter.
Bendingmomenttowardstunnels Bendingmomenttowardstunnels
M22BEFOREtwotunnelling
PlaxisSeminar,Jakarta2012 M22AFTERtwotunnelling
MaxpileBMparalleltotunnels(M33)of60kNmbeforetunnelling;and63kNmafter2
tunnelling,indicatingnegligibleincrementofBMparalleltothetwotunnelling.
Bendingmomenttowardstunnels Bendingmomenttowardstunnels
M33BEFOREtwotunnelling M33AFTERtwotunnelling
101
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
Finalpilemaxloading
condition:
FinalMaxworkingaxialforce=
5766kN;
FOS=1.4;
Factoredaxialforce=5766*1.4=
8072kN
MaxworkingBM:
M22=104kNm;M33=63kNm;
SoCompositeBM=122kNm;
FOS=1.4;
FactoredBM=170*1.4=170kNm
Thefinalloadingstateislocated
wellwithintheMNplot
envelope
SECTION4.2:APPLICATION2 Stop
102
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
ZonesofInfluence
Zone C Zone B Zone A Zone B Zone C
Pile settlement
C B A
Depth
Selementas et al. (2005)
45 45
For pile toe located in
Zone A: pile head settlement > soil surface settlement; decrease in pile
axial force
Zone B: pile head settlement soil surface settlement
Zone C: pile head settlement < soil surface settlement; increase in pile
axial force
ANALYSISOFTUNNELPILEINTERACTION
A. Typicallyusethecombinationof
1.empiricalrelationships/closedformsolutionstoestimate greenfield
groundmovements;and
2.boundaryelementmethodstocomputepiledeformations andstresses
A. Suitableforpreliminaryassessment,withsomelimitations
B. Alternatively,use3Dnumericalanalysis
Pros:modeltunnelling,tunnelpilebuildinginteraction& geotechnical
entitiesinonesingleanalysis
Cons:complicated,relativelylonganalysistime&require advanced
constitutivemodelforsoilnonlinearbehaviour
103
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
EXAMPLEOFTUNNELLINGBELOWPILEDBUILDING
25m
25m
0 mbgl P4 P5 Rear P6
2m Pile cap
5 mbgl Fill 9m 10m
1m
4m
MD
10 mbgl P1 P2 Front P3
CDG 10m 6m tunnel
1m
4m
20 mbgl Tunnel advance direction
Tunnel 2m pile
6m Pile design load 15MN (~5MPa)
30 mbgl
31.5 mbgl Rock 3m bell-out
P1/P4 P2/P5 P3/P6
INFORMATIONFORTUNNEL,PILES&GROUND
A. 6mdiametertunnelexcavatedbyTBM,tunnelaxisdepthat20mbglin
CompletelyDecomposedGranite
B. 15storeybuildingsupportedby6nosof2mdiameterboredpileswith3m
diameterbelloutsinrockat32mbgl
C. Eachpiletakes15MNdesignload(~5MPa).
D. Buildingplansizeis25mby9m,pilecap2mthick
E. Stratigraphyis5mFill,5mMarineDeposits,20mCDGandrock.
Groundwatertableat2mbgl
F. Tunnelconstructedinbetweenpiles,tunneledgetopileedgedistancesare
1m,4mand10m
104
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
SOILSMALLSTRAINNONLINEARSTIFFNESS
0.01% 0.1% 1%
Atkinson & Sallfors (1991)
CDGSmallStrainNonlinearStiffness
Laboratory small strain stiffness
results for CDG samples Hardening Soil + Small
Strain Overlay (HSsmall)
Ng et al. (1998) constitutive model to consider
CDG small strain non-linear
stiffness
1600
1400 Triaxial_Upper
Adopted line Triaxial_Low er
1200
HSsmall_Upper
1000
HSsmall_Low er
Gsec /p'
800 HSsmall_Baseline
600
400
200
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain (%)
105
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
3DFiniteElementModel(PlaxisGiD)
Rear Load 15 MN
Building Plate
40m Pile cap
Bored pile
Front
Fill Tunnel face
Tunnel MD 149m
CDG
120m Rock TBM
length
Bell-out
43,000 elements Linings
Refined mesh around

tunnel & building piles
TUNNELCONFINEMENT(FACESUPPORT)PRESSURE
A
PIV PIII Confinement (face support)
Rear
PI
Front pressure (PI to PII) = hydrostatic
pore pressure + overpressure
6m TBM shield 9m
Higher confinement pressure,
PII lower ground loss
PVI Along TBM shield, tunnel support
PV pressures vary to consider
A 1. conical shape of TBM shield /
PIII over-cutting
2. ground loss into tail void in rear
Any combination of support
pressure profiles can be modelled
Pressure
PV increases
Section A-A with depth
106
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
MODELLINGOFTUNNELFACEADVANCE
Soil elements inside TBM

Lining
Lining
TBM shield
(elements nulled) shield are deactivated
Apply tunnel support pressure
1.5 1.5m
profiles
Shield is not modelled
For each face advance, shift
Lining
Lining
TBM shield
(elements nulled) tunnel support pressures
forward & correspondingly erect
new lining behind TBM
1.5 1.5m
The process is repeated as
tunnelling progresses
Lining
Lining
TBM shield
(elements nulled)
1.5 1.5m
MODELLINGOFSTRUCTURES
Piles & pile cap modelled by solid elements

Interface elements along pile shafts & on pile cap
vertical faces
Consider flexural stiffness (EI) & axial stiffness (EA)
of superstructure by incorporating a Plate structural
elements on top of pile cap
Superstructure EI estimated by (Potts & Addenbrooke, 1997)
1. Parallel Axis Theorem (bending about building neutral
axis); or
2. Summation of EI for individual building storeys
Tunnel linings modelled by Plate elements
107
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
PREDICTIONONGROUNDSURFACESETTLEMENT
Overpressure 20 kPa, G/F VL 1.6% Overpressure 20 kPa

Distance from tunnel centreline (m)
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Fill VL 0.31%
0
MD -4
Settlement (mm)
-8 VL 1.61%
-12
Mid-building
CDG
-16
Greenfield
Tunnel -20
Gaussian
-24
Lateral spreading of Gaussian curve with K = 0.45

displacements in MD layer Close to K 0.5 from HK
Settlement trough becomes tunnelling experience
wider
PredictiononPileTransverse
Displacement
Overpressure 20 kPa
Transverse horizontal disp. (mm) +10D
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
0
-2D
Front 5
Rear +2D
10
+2D
Depth (mbgl)
+10D 15
Rear
20 1m P2
Front
25
30 -2D
35
Tunnel advance
108
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
PredictiononPileLongitudinal
Displacement
Overpressure 20 kPa
Longitudinal horizontal disp. (mm) +10D
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2
0
10 +2D
Depth (mbgl)
15 Rear
-2D 20 1m P2
Tunnel advance
Front Front
25
Rear
30 -2D
+2D
+10D 35
Tunnel advance
PredictiononPileSettlement&Axial
Force
Overpressure 20 kPa
Settlement (mm) Increase in axial force (MN)
0 -1 -2 0 1 2 3 4
0 0
P2 -2D P2 -2D
5 Front 5 Front
Rear Rear
10 +2D 10 +2D
+10D
Depth (mbgl)
Depth (mbgl)
+10D
15 7
15
20 20
25 25
A B
30 30
C
35 35
Pile toe
109
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
PredictiononPileBendingMoment
Overpressure 20 kPa
Transverse moment (kNm) Longitudinal moment (kNm)
1500 500 -500 -1500 1500 500 -500 -1500
0 0
P2 P2
5 5
10 -2D 10 -2D
Depth (mbgl)
Depth (mbgl)
Front Front
15 15
Rear Rear
+2D +2D
20 20
+10D Tunnel advance
+10D
25 25
30 30
35 35
CheckonPotentialStructureDamage
45 OP 10kPa Distance from tunnel centre (m) OP 10kPa

P2 OP 20kPa -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Cat. 4 & 5 OP 20kPa
35 0.0 0.3
OP 30kPa
OP 30kPa
Axial Force, N (MN)_
OP 40kPa
25 OP 40kPa
_
Bldg. settlement (mm)
-0.4 0.2
/L (%)
15
5 -0.8 Cat. 3
0.1
-5 =0.14 mm 2
-1.2 1
-15
0
0.0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Moment, M (MNm) -1.6 h (%)
Pile N-M Interaction Diagram Building deflection Burlands chart
110
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
ComparisonwithClosedFormSolution
Greenfield subsurface settle. (mm) Greenfield subsurface horiz. disp. (mm)
-35 -25 -15 -5 5 15 -15 -10 -5 0
0
0 0
Fill Fill
5 5
MD MD
10 10
Depth (mbgl)
Depth (mbgl)
15 CDG 15
CDG
20 20
25 25
Loganathan Loganathan
et al. (2001) 30 et al. (2001) 30
Rock
3D analysis Rock 3D analysis
35 35
Greenfield subsurface section corresponds to P2 location

3D analysis: Overpressure 20 kPa, G/F VL 1.61%
3DFEAvs.AnalyticalSolution
Issues 3D FEA Analytical Solution
Ease of use Complicated Relatively easy

Long analysis time Less analysis time
Ground Layered soil Homogeneous soil
conditions Need realistic Estimated greenfield
constitutive model deformation less good
for layered soil
Tunnelling Model face advance Only pile response in
progress Pile response in transverse direction
transverse &
longitudinal directions
111
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
3DFEAvs.AnalyticalSolution
Issues 3D FEA Analytical Solution
Ground loss, Model confinement Assume a certain VL

VL pressure & predict VL
Effect on Model tunnel, piles, Different boundary
piles/building building & their element programs for
interaction in one pile axial and lateral
single analysis responses
Results from piles & Specific analysis for
building used directly pile group effect
in structural check Dedicated modification
factors account for
building rigidity
REFERENCES(1)
1. Atkinson, J. H. & Sallfors G. (1991). Experimental determination of soil properties. Proc. 10th
ECSMFE, Florence, Vol.3, 915-956
2. Burland, J. B. (1995). Assessment of risk of damage to buildings due to tunnelling and excavation. 1st
Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotech. Engrg., IS Tokyo.
3. Geotechnical Control Office (GCO) (1985). Technical Note T4/85 - MTR Island Line: Effects of
Construction on Adjacent Property. Civil Engrg. Services Dept., Hong Kong.
4. Hake, D. R. & Chau, I. P. W. (2008). Twin stacked tunnels - KDB200, Kowloon Southern Link, Hong
Kong. Proc. 13rd Australian Tunnelling Conference, 445-452.
5. Loganathan, N., Poulos, H. G. & Xu, K. J. (2001). Ground and pile-group responses due to tunnelling.
Soils and Foundations, 41(1), 57-67.
6. Moller, S. (2006). Tunnel induced settlements and structural forces in linings. PhD thesis, University
of Stuttgart.
7. Moller, S. & Vermeer, P. A. (2008). On numerical simulation of tunnel installation. Tunnelling &
Underground Space Technology, 23, 461-475.
8. Ng, C. W. W., Sun, Y. F. & Lee, K. M. (1998). Laboratory measurements of small strain stiffness of
granitic saprolites. Geotechnical Engineering, SEAGS, 29(2), 233-248.
112
PLAXISJAKARTA2012
REFERENCES(2)
1. Pang, C. H. (2006). The effects of tunnel construction on nearby pile foundation. PhD thesis,
National University of Singapore.
2. Potts, D. M. & Addenbrooke, T. I. (1997). A structures influence on tunnelling-induced ground
movements. Geotechnical Engineering, Proc. ICE, 125, 109-125.
3. Schnaid, F., Ortigao, J. A. R., Mantaras, F. M., Cunha, R. P. & MacGregor, I. (2000). Analysis of self-
boring pressuremeter (SBPM) and Marchetti dilatometer (DMT) in granite saprolites. Canadian
Geotechnical J., 37, 796-810.
4. Selementas, D. (2005). The response of full-scale piles and piled structures to tunnelling. PhD thesis,
University of Cambridge.
5. Storry, R. B. & Stenning, A. S. (2001). Geotechnical design & contraction aspects of the Tsing Tsuen
Tunnels KCRC West Rail Phase; Contract DB320. Proc. 14th SEAGC, Hong Kong, 443-448.
6. Storry, R. B., Stenning, A. S. & MacDonald, A. N. (2003). Geotechnical design and construction
aspects of the Tsing Tsuen Tunnels contract DB320 KCRC West Rail Project. Proc. ITA World
Tunnelling Congress, (Re)claiming the Underground Space, Saveur (ed.), 621-626.
7. Vermeer, P. A. & Brinkgreve, R. (1993). Plaxis Version 5 Manual. Rotterdam, a.a. Balkema edition.
113

Seminar-Advanced Geotechnical Finite Element Modeling in Analysis Using PLAXIS PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seminar-Advanced Geotechnical Finite Element Modeling in Analysis Using PLAXIS PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLAXISJAKARTA2012

Plaxis Seminar, Binus University, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

CreationoftheFEmesh Definitionofpressure Definitionofconstructionstages

MESH WATERLEVELS STAGEDCONSTRUCTION

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Iso-surface of soil total displacements Pile group deformations

Isometric view Front view

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

LATEST PRODUCT RELEASES

Design Approach Facility

(according Eurocode 7, LRFD, etc.)

2. More structured and efficient way of modeling

3. Easy exchange of Design Approaches between different projects

default values for different building codes)

Orthotropic Plates and Geogrids

Independent definition of stiffness and strength properties with

DIRECT INPUT OF BENDING MOMENTS

LATEST PRODUCT RELEASES

Steady State Groundwater Flow

PARALLEL COMPUTING EXAMPLE

Tot Dec Back Iter Cores Speedup

OUTPUT VISUALIZATION DURING CALCULATION

ON-GOING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENTS

NEW MODELLING WORKFLOW PLAXIS 2D

SOIL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS

PARAMETER OPTIMIZATION BY INVERSE ANALYSIS

PARAMETER OPTIMIZATION BY INVERSE

Experimentalparameters: Hardening Soil model fit

E50 =9509kN/m2 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

FREE FIELD BOUNDARY ELEMENTS

FREE FIELD BOUNDARY ELEMENTS

REINFORCEMENT ELEMENT IN PLAXIS 2D

REINFORCEMENT ELEMENT IN PLAXIS 2D

Structural Forces in Solid Element

THERMAL FLOW, THERMAL EXPANSION, THM COUPLING

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Complex Soil-Structure Interaction

1. Linear elastic, perfectly plastic

1e-6 1e-5 1e-4 1e-3 1e-2 1e-1

Dry sandy material

Parameters for soil stiffness prior to failure

For derivation of soil stiffness parameters,

MC predicts unrealistic surface heave 4 mm

PREDICTEDHEAVEATEXC. LEVEL INCOFFERDAM

MC predicts 20 mm heave at cofferdam centreline

1. MC predicts incorrect surface heave behind wall

A: unloading compression; B: unloading extension

Rotation of stress path at A, A 90 w.r.t. K0 direction

Atkinson et al. (1990)

Wang & Ng (2005)

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012

Plaxis Seminar, Jakarta 2012