RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING OF CUT AND COVER STRUCTURES

Tony Suckling, Arup Geotechnics, Solihull, West Midlands, United Kingdom Sachin Kumar, Arup Geotechnics, Solihull, West Midlands, United Kingdom

The commercially available finite element program Plaxis has a key benefit over other finite element analysis programs in that it has a relatively simple user interface to input and output data. This benefit though is also its weakness in that anyone, regardless of their grounding in geotechnical engineering, can use the program and produce results for design. This paper describes the two key recurring problems found by the authors when checking Plaxis models; the generation of the initial in-situ ground stresses and the modelling of groundwater. The geotechnical industry is in a situation at the moment where senior managers who are not trained in finite element modelling are relying on less experienced staff who have had some training in modelling, either at university or post graduation. The quality of this training is highly variable and all organisations running easy to use programs like Plaxis need to be aware of the potential risks and dangers. Management procedures and engineering checks that are essential to validate the results of these models are described, assuming that those in charge are not experienced modellers themselves. The model checking process is absolutely essential and it is hoped that this paper will form the basis for new management procedures for those organisations that do not have these already as part of a Quality Assurance system. INTRODUCTION The commercially available finite element program Plaxis, which was originally developed at the Technical University of Delft in the Netherlands, has the key benefit over most if not all other finite element analysis programs that it has a relatively simple user interface to input and output data. This benefit though is also its weakness in that anyone, regardless of their grounding in geotechnical engineering, can use the program and produce results for design. The authors spent over a year managing a team of fifteen or so finite element modellers working on a single construction project, in conjunction with another team of about twenty finite element modellers working in another country. All of the modellers have a reasonable background in geotechnical engineering principles and all had prior experience of using finite element software, although only some had used the Plaxis program before this particular project. Concurrent with this project the authors also worked on other projects where modellers in other organisations were using Plaxis as the design tool. This paper will describe in general terms the two key recurring problems found by the authors when checking Plaxis models, such as the generation of the initial in-situ ground stresses and the modelling of groundwater. Examples will be used showing how incorrect modelling produced significantly underestimated forces that would probably have led to catastrophe if not identified during the model checking process. Senior managers were probably educated over fifteen years ago and so were unlikely to have been trained in finite element modelling. The geotechnical industry is in a situation at the moment where these senior managers are currently relying on less experienced staff who have had some training in modelling, either at university or post graduation. The quality of this training has been found by the authors to be highly variable and all organisations using programs like Plaxis need to be aware of the potential risks and dangers. The paper will then describe the management procedures and engineering checks that are essential to validate the results of these models, assuming that those in charge are not experienced modellers themselves. The model checking process is absolutely essential and it is hoped that this paper will form the basis for new management procedures for those organisations that do not have relevant ones already as part of a Quality Assurance system.

The collapse of a cut and cover structure at Nicoll Highway in Singapore in 2004 was partly associated with modellers using the Plaxis program and not fully understanding the limitations of the soil models being used. The authors are enthusiastic about the Plaxis program but are concerned at an apparent lack of control over its use in some parts of the geotechnical industry worldwide. RECURRING MODELLING PROBLEMS Initial in-situ ground stresses The experience of the authors is that modellers simply do not closely follow the requirements in the Plaxis user manual to specify a set of stresses representing the equilibrium state of the undisturbed ground. The manual states that there are two possible methods for generating the initial in-situ ground stresses; Ko procedure Gravity loading. The Ko procedure is only to be used in cases where there is a horizontal ground surface and that all soil layers and groundwater tables are parallel to the ground surface. This method allows the user to input directly the required initial design value for the coefficient of lateral earth pressure, Ko, for each soil layer and this is straightforward for the modeller to input and for the checker to review. Care needs to be taken not to specify too low or too high a value for Ko which might calculate stresses that violate the Ka<Ko<Kp criterion. The gravity loading method starts with the initial ground stresses as zero. The actual design initial stresses are produced during the first calculation stage by applying the soil self weight. This requires the modeller to calculate and input a virtual value of Poissons ratio, , which the program then uses to calculate the initial ground stresses for each soil layer. For example if you want to achieve Ko=0.5 then you would input =0.33 or if you want to achieve Ko=1.0 then you would input =0.50, see below;

The virtual values of Poissons ratio are likely only to be used for the very first calculation stage in the model to produce the initial ground stresses. For subsequent calculation stages the normal design value of Poissons ratio should be used, which requires all soil layers to be redefined. Even though the calculation of the virtual Poissons ratio is quite straightforward, the experience of the authors is that there can be a lack of rigour in doing this, either due to time pressures or maybe even down to laziness. It is easy to check whether the initial ground stresses being generated in the model are as expected, by insisting that the modeller produces a plot of the effective horizontal stresses with depth at a typical position in the model, probably near to the centreline. Figure 1 shows such a plot where Ko=0.5 is being calculated by the program but Ko=1 was required.

Figure 1: Plot checking horizontal effective stresses in a model Groundwater modelling The key to modelling groundwater is having enough experience to know what design water pressures and water pressure distributions are expected beforehand. Knowing these allows the modeller to then define correctly the boundary conditions. A lack of such knowledge is unlikely to result in successful groundwater modelling. Defining the groundwater boundary conditions is not straightforward, may be different for each calculation stage and often requires trial and error to produce the expected results. The Plaxis program allows the use of the following for the modeller to define the groundwater boundary conditions in various parts of the model; General phreatic level Cluster phreatic level Interpolation within a soil cluster

v=

Ko 1 + Ko 0 .5 = 0.33 1 + 0.5 1 .0 = 0.50 1 + 1 .0

v=

v=

Define the cluster as dry, i.e. to have zero pore pressures Closed flow boundaries, i.e. no flow can occur across this boundary Drains where the excess pore pressures are set to zero Wells where there is a specified water discharge User defined.

The ground water pressures can be generated once the boundary conditions have been defined. This is done by either; Steady pore pressures related to phreatic level Time dependent pore pressures due to boundary conditions changing with time Steady-state groundwater flow calculation. It is again easy to check whether the groundwater pressures and groundwater pressure distributions being generated by the program are as expected by insisting that the modeller produces these as coloured shadings. Some examples are shown in Figures 2 to 4. It should be obvious to any engineer that these examples are not correct.

Figure 4: Incorrect groundwater pressure distribution behind the end wall to a cut and cover structure The dangers of underpredicting groundwater pressures for cut and cover structures can be shown by the example in Figure 4. The forces in the wall resulting from the poorly generated pressures shown in Figure 5 were about half of those from the correctly generated pressures in Figure 6.

Figure 5: Underpredicting groundwater pressures behind the end wall to a cut and cover structure Figure 2: Incorrect groundwater pressure distribution beneath a cut and cover structure

Figure 3: Incorrect groundwater pressure distribution beneath adjacent cut and cover structures

Figure 6: Correct design groundwater pressures behind the end wall to a cut and cover structure

MODEL CHECKING PROCEDURES The following in each and every model must be checked as a minimum; Input

Some examples of poor modelling discovered during such checks are shown in Figures 7 to 11;

design ground conditions and stratum boundaries; model co-ordinates, prop levels and soil layers; soil material parameters ; construction sequence; geometry; mesh has a reasonable distribution of elements; structural material parameters; correct definition of structural connections (pinned v fixed); initial boundary conditions - restraints and drainage; initialisation of stresses to be with drained soils; set strains to zero in the appropriate stage; surcharges and applied forces correct in each stage; drained and undrained strength parameters and drainage defined correctly; groundwater pressures specifically checked at initialisation of stresses and any other key stages; consolidation analysis such as permeability, seepage boundary conditions and suction limits.

Figure 7: Pore pressures not defined correctly at wall plate interface

Figure 8: Pore pressures not defined correctly at excavation level

Output check plots of total stresses, effective stresses and pore water pressure (both vertical and horizontal) for first stage where initial ground stresses are generated; check displacement vectors are realistic; check plastic points are reasonable and consider these in relation to the materials in which they occur; look at displacement contours and total stress contours for unrealistic changes; check pore water pressure development in all materials and excess pore water pressure development during stages of excavation in undrained soils; check that applied surcharges or forces and their vectors are in the right location and direction; when forces such as bending moments and shear forces or deflections are investigated for all structural elements in the model, these should be compared to the results by simpler or alternative design methods or rules of thumb.

Figure 9: Pore pressures not defined correctly behind the embedded wall on the retained side

single construction project, in conjunction with another team of about twenty finite element modellers working in another country. All of the modellers have a reasonable background in geotechnical engineering principles and all had prior experience of using finite element software, although only some had used the Plaxis program before this particular project. Concurrent with this project the authors also worked on other projects where modellers in other organisations were using Plaxis as the design tool. Figure 10: Overpredicting settlements on right hand side of model Two key recurring problems were found by the authors when checking Plaxis models, such as the generation of the initial in-situ ground stresses and the modelling of groundwater. Senior managers were probably educated over fifteen years ago and so were unlikely to have been trained in finite element modelling. The geotechnical industry is in a situation at the moment where these senior managers are currently relying on less experienced staff who have had some training in modelling, either at university or post graduation. The quality of this training has been found by the authors to be highly variable and all organisations using programs like Plaxis need to be aware of the potential risks and dangers. The management procedures and engineering checks that are essential to validate the results of these models are described, assuming that those in charge are not experienced modellers themselves. The model checking process is absolutely essential and it is hoped that this paper will form the basis for new management procedures for those organisations that do not have relevant ones already as part of a Quality Assurance system. Figure 11: Incorrect overall wall behaviour being modelled generating incorrect bending moment diagram in embedded wall (top) which was of a different shape and magnitude once model was corrected (bottom) CONCLUSIONS The commercially available finite element program Plaxis, developed in the Netherlands, has a key benefit over most if not all other finite element analysis programs in that it has a relatively simple user interface to input and output data. This benefit though is also its weakness in that anyone, regardless of their grounding in geotechnical engineering, can use the program and produce results for design. The authors spent over a year managing a team of fifteen or so finite element modellers working on a REFERENCES http://www.plaxis.nl PLAXIS B.V. User manual. A.A. Balkema. The Netherlands.