Special Project

Comparison of Analytical and Numerical Method

for Analysis of footing,Slope Stability & Sheet Pile
Wall Design

GYARAGANAHALLI SIDDAPPA
MANJU
Matrikel Number-112571
Course:- NHRE

Bauhaus-University Weimar Faculty of Civil Engineering Department of Foundation Engineering

Prof. Dr.-Ing. K. J. Witt, Dipl.-Ing. R.-B. Wudtke

Scope of Work
The primary objective of this project is to compare the analytical method and the
numerical method.In analytical method it has been designed for ultimate limit state and
this design is numerical analysed using the finite element program PLAXIS 2D.The
comparison is made for bearing capacity of strip footing on purely cohesive and purely
frictional soil.Slope stability analysis with and without ground water influence.Sheet pile
design and it is numerical analysed.The deformations are observed.The safety analysis is
carried out for all the different design and failure mechanism is observed. Finally a
comparison and discussion is made for both the methods.

List of Figures
Figure 1: Strip footing with its dimensions ......................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Finite Element Model of Bearing Capacity of footing in PLAXIS ......................... 8
Figure 3:Incremental Dispalcements at failure ................................................................... 8
Figure 4: Comparison of factor of safety for purely cohesive and frictional soil .................. 9
Figure 5: Simplified Bishop Method[TRKE (1999)] .......................................................... 10
Figure 6:Finite Element Model of Slope Stability in PLAXIS ............................................ 13
Figure 7: Shadings of Incremental Displacements at failure ............................................ 14
Figure 8:Deformed Mesh at failure .................................................................................. 15
Figure 9: Factor of Safety With and Without Groundwater ............................................... 15
Figure 10: Typical Sheet pile wall .................................................................................... 17
Figure 11:Sheet Pile Wall Geometry ............................................................................... 22
Figure 12:Total displacements after the First Excavation................................................. 23
Figure 13: Deformed Mesh at failure .............................................................................. 24
Figure 14:Effective Principal Stresses after final excavation ............................................ 24

Page I

List of Tables
Table 1:Material properties ................................................................................................ 3
Table 2: Determining the factor of safety by Simplified Bishop Method[RTZ et al.
(2011)] ...................................................................................................... 11
Table 3: Comparison of factor of safety ........................................................................... 16
Table 4: Soil Properties ................................................................................................... 17
Table 5:Embedment Depth point ..................................................................................... 19
Table 6:Point of Zero Shear force.................................................................................... 19
Table 7:Sheet Pile Profile Section Values ....................................................................... 21
Table 8: Material Parameters of Sheet pile ...................................................................... 22
Table 9:Numerical Analysis Results ................................................................................ 25

Page II

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Scope of Work ................................................................................................................. I
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. I
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. II
1

Introduction........................................................................................................ 1

Task 1 Analysis of Footing ............................................................................ 2

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.4
2.5
2.6

Explanation of the limit state ......................................................................... 3

Formula ........................................................................................................ 4
Analytical Solution ........................................................................................... 6
Numerical Solution .......................................................................................... 7
Comparison and Discussion............................................................................ 9
Task 2 Slope Stability Analysis ................................................................... 10

3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 2
Description of the Task ................................................................................... 2
Footing ............................................................................................................ 3

Introduction ................................................................................................... 10
Description of the Task ................................................................................. 10
Analytical Method .......................................................................................... 10
Numerical Solution ........................................................................................ 12
Comparison and Discussion.......................................................................... 16
Task 3- Sheet Pile Analysis ............................................................................. 17

4.1
Introduction ................................................................................................... 17
4.2
Description of the Task ................................................................................. 17
4.3
Analytical Method .......................................................................................... 17
4.4
Numerical Solution ........................................................................................ 21
4.5
Comparison and Discussion.......................................................................... 25
Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 25
References ................................................................................................................... 26

Page III

Introduction

A building's foundation transmits loads from buildings and other structures to the earth.
Geotechnical engineers design foundations based on the load characteristics of the structure and the properties of the soils and/or bedrock at the site. In general, geotechnical
engineers: Estimate the magnitude and location of the loads to be supported. Develop an
investigation plan to subsurface. Determine necessary soil parameters through field and
lab testing (e.g., consolidation test, triaxial shear test, vane shear test, standard penetration test).Design the foundation in the safest and most economical manner.
The primary considerations for foundation support are bearing capacity, settlement, and
ground movement beneath the foundations. Of particular concern is settlement which occurs over time, as immediate settlement can usually be compensated for during construction. Ground movement beneath a structure's foundations can occur due to shrinkage or
swell of expansive soils due to climatic changes, frost expansion of soil, melting of permafrost, slope instability, or other causes.
Shoring of temporary excavations frequently requires a wall design which does not extend
laterally beyond the wall, so shoring extends below the planned base of the excavation.
Common methods of shoring are the use of sheet piles. Sheet piles are a form of driven
piling using thin interlocking sheets of steel to obtain a continuous barrier in the ground,
and are driven prior to excavation. All these can be designed by analytical methods.
Analytical methods are very useful in geomechanics because they provide results with
very limited effort and highlight the most important variables that determine the solution of
a problem. Analytical solutions, however, have often a limited application since they must
be used within the range of assumptions made for their development. Such assumptions
usually include elastic behaviour, homogeneous, isotropic material, time independent behaviour, quasi-static loading, etc. Geomaterials such as soils and rock masses display
non-linear behaviour, either because this is inherent to the material or because it has
been externally induced (e.g., past stress history). Rocks and soils may not be isotropic or
homogeneous, and the loading may not be static, or the geometry of the problem may be
complex. In these cases, solutions can only be obtained numerically.
Numerical methods give only approximations to the correct or exact mathematical solution. This is so because some simplifications are made to solve the system of differential
equations either inside the continuum or at the boundaries of the discretization. It has to
be mentioned also that the problem that is solved is the conceptualization that is done of
the actual physical problem. The conceptualization applies to the geometry of the problem, the loading process or history, and the response of the geomaterials to loading. The
better the approximation to the field problem through this conceptualization process, the
more accurate the solution will be with respect to the response observed in the field.

Page 1

Task 1 Analysis of Footing

2.1 Introduction
The bearing capacity of soils is perhaps the most important in soil engineering. Soils behave in a complex manner when loaded so, it is important to know the bearing capacity of
soils. Soil when stressed due to loading, tend to deform. The resistance to deformation of
the soil depends upon factors like water content, bulk density, angle of internal friction and
the manner in which load is applied on the soil. The maximum load per unit area which the
soil or rock can carry without yielding or displacement is termed as the Bearing capacity of
soils.

2.2 Description of the Task

Firstly we will try and analyze the Footing bearing capacity of soil for different soil conditions (purely cohesive and purely frictional) using the analytical and numerical methods
and finally we will check and compare the results. The design of footing involves checking
that the ground has sufficient bearing capacity resistance to withstand vertical actions,
sufficient sliding resistance to withstand horizontal and inclined actions and sufficient stiffness to prevent unacceptable settlement. Here we are considering purely cohesive and
purely frictional Soils for the design and analysis of the footing.

1500 kN

1m

1.5m x 1.5m

Figure 1: Strip footing with its dimensions

Page 2

Table 1:Material properties

material

cohesion
[kN/m]

friction angle
[]

specific weight
[kN/m]

sand

30

20/10

clay

30

20/10

concrete

25/0

2.3 Footing
2.3.1

Explanation of the limit state

A direct method, in which separate analyses are carried out for each limit state. When
checking against an ultimate limit state, the calculation shall model as closely as possible
the failure mechanism, which is envisaged. When checking against a serviceability limit
state, a settlement calculation shall be used, comp. [DIN EN 1997-1 (2009) 6.4 (5)P].
Calculation models for ultimate and serviceability limit state design of spread foundations
on soil given in 6.5 and 6.6 respectively should be applied [DIN EN 1997-1 (2009)
6.4(6)P.]
An analytical evaluation of the short-term and long-term values of Rd shall be considered
particularly in fine-grained soils. Where the soil or rock mass beneath a foundation presents a definite structural pattern of layering or other discontinuities, the assumed rupture
mechanism and the selected shear strength and deformation parameters shall take into
account the structural characteristics of the ground. When calculating the design bearing
resistance of a foundation on layered deposits, the properties of which vary greatly between one another, the design values of the ground parameters shall be determined for
each layer.
Analytical methods are often not applicable to the design situations described above Numerical procedures should then be applied to determine the most unfavorable failure
mechanism.
In ultimate limit states, design free water and ground-water levels, or their combination,
shall be selected from available hydrological data and in situ observations to give the most
unfavorable conditions that could occur in the design situation being considered. The possibility
of
failure
of
drains,
filters
or
seals
shall
be
considered.
[DIN EN 1997-1 (2009) 11.3(3) P]
The overall stability of slopes including existing, affected or planned structures shall be
verified in ultimate limit states (GEO and STR) with design values of actions, resistances
and strengths, where the partial factors defined in A.3.1(1)P, A.3.2(1)P and A.3.3.6(1)P
shall be used. [DIN EN 1997-1 (2009) 11.5.1(1)P].

Page 3

Note: The values of the partial factors may be set by the National annex. The recommended values for persistent and transient situations are given in Tables A.3, A.4 and
A.14.

2.3.2

Formula

Footings subjected to vertical actions.

For spread foundation subject to vertical actions, Euro code 7 [DIN EN 1997-1 (2009) exp
(6.1)] requires the design vertical actions
acting on the foundation to be less than or
equal to the design bearing resistance
of the ground beneath it:
(1)
should include the self weight of the foundation and backfill on it.
The characteristic bearing pressure

is given by
(2)

Within this:
is a representative vertical action

and

is the combination factor applicable to the ith variable action

The design bearing pressure

beneath the footing is

)

Where

and

are partial factors on permanent and variable actions respectively

Permanent load
Variable load
Self Weight and Backfill upon the footing both being the permanent Actions
Formula used for calculation of bearing Resistance.

Undrained Conditions

[DIN EN 1997-1 (2009) Annex D]

With dimensionless factors for:

The inclination of the foundation base:

The shape of the Foundations

, For a rectangular shape;
For a square or circular shape;

Page 4

The inclination of load, caused by a horizontal load H:

With

Drained Conditions

[ DIN EN 1997-1 (2009) Annex D]

The design bearing resistance may be calculated from;

With the design values of dimensionless factors for:

The bearing resistance:

The inclination of the foundation base:

The shape of the foundation:

For a rectangular shape;
For a square or circular shape;
, for a rectangular shape;
For a square or circular shape
For rectangular, square or circular shape;
The inclination of the load, caused by a horizontal load H:

Where
When H acts in the direction of ;

Page 5

When H acts in the direction of

In cases where the horizontal load component acts in a direction forming an angle
the direction of
m may be calculated by:

with

2.4 Analytical Solution

a) Action
Self Weight

b) Partial Factors
,
=

c)Material Properties & Resistance

Partial factors from set M1 and M2:
Design angle of shearing resistance is
Design Cohesion is

=0

d) Bearing Capacity Factors

For overburden

For Cohesion
For Self Weight
E) Shape Factors

F) Bearing Resistance
Over burden at the foundation base is
Partial factor from set R1 :

Page 6

G) Verification

The Design is unacceptable. We have to redesign

Lets us consider utilization factor is equal to 90%
ie

Verification of Resistance

Design is acceptable

2.5

Numerical Solution

Aim
The aim is to analyze the footing bearing capacity of soil for different soil conditions (purely cohesive and purely frictional without groundwater) using PLAXIS 2D. Its a twodimensional finite element program; PLAXIS is used to simulate the bearing capacity and
settlement of footing. The variation in strength parameters c and
was done since the
bearing capacity of soil depends on strength parameters. To carry out a finite analysis
using PLAXIS, a finite element mesh has been created and the material properties and
boundary conditions are specified. To set up a FEM, geometry model composed of points,
lines and other components has been created in the XY-plane for PLAXIS 2D. The finite
element mesh was generated in PLAXIS 2D after the material properties and boundary
conditions are assigned.
Modelling and Parameters
In this project a strip footing is used and we have considered plain strain model and 15
node element. The mohr-coloumb model was used for analysis. The standard fixities have
been used as boundary conditions and point load has been considered for vertical loading
on the footing. The mesh is generated using the fine and medium coarseness.

Page 7

Figure 2: Finite Element Model of Bearing Capacity of footing in PLAXIS

Analysis and Results

The Program uses phi-c Reduction method to calculate the factor of safety. In the safety
approach the strength parameters phi-c of the soil are successively reduced until the failure of the structure occurs. A safety calculation is performed using the load advancement
number of steps procedure. The incremental multiplier Msf is used to specify the increment of strength reduction of the first calculation step. The strength parameters are successively reduced automatically until all steps have been performed. It must always be
checked whether the final step has resulted in a fully developed failure mechanism. If its
not fully developed then calculation must be repeated with larger number of additional
steps. Here we have analysed for both purely cohesive and purely frictional soils without
ground water. As we can see from the below graph the factor of safety is less for purely
frictional soil as compared to purely cohesive soils. Purely cohesive soil will have better
soil bearing capacity without the influence of groundwater.

Figure 3:Incremental Dispalcements at failure

Page 8

Figure 4: Comparison of factor of safety for purely cohesive and frictional soil

2.6 Comparison and Discussion

The analytical approach to check the bearing capacity of soil only gives the design situation and for complex problems with different layers of soil and different soil properties numerical analysis will give us a better idea for designing the footing and with the help of the
numerical analysis we will be able to predict the probable failure mechanism. In numerical
method we will be able to judge the area which will be more stressed and strained. The
modeling process showed that the level of mesh coarsens influenced the results accuracy. A too coarse mesh could lead to have no accurate results, and the finer mesh will give
larger deformations, but only until a certain point. When reaching certain coarseness in
the model, the results no longer differs when refine the mesh. A finer mesh will only increase the calculation time, and only a slight different will results from the calculations.
Moreover, this is a very important aspects could affect the reliability of the results.

Page 9

Task 2 Slope Stability Analysis

3.1 Introduction
Evaluating the stability of slopes in soil is an important, interesting, and challenging aspect
of civil engineering. Slope instability is a geo-dynamic process that naturally shapes up
the geo-morphology of the earth. However, they are a major concern when those unstable
slopes would have an effect on the safety of people and property. Concerns with slope
stability have driven some of the most important advances in our understanding of the
complex behaviour of soils.

3.2 Description of the Task

Slope stability analysis is done using analytical and numerical method. Analytical method
is done using Simplified Bishop method and Numerical analysis is done using PLAXIS 2D.

3.3

Analytical Method

The simplified Bishop Method uses the method of slices to discretize the soil mass and
determine the FS (Factor of Safety). This method satisfies vertical force equilibrium for
each slice and overall moment equilibrium about the center of the circular trial surface.
Since horizontal forces are not considered at each slice, the simplified Bishop method
also assumes zero inter-slice shear forces.

O
X
2

P=5kN/m
R=23.02

z0=23

1:1.6

zi

hi

H=10.4
X2
X1

bi

zo-zi

E1

xi =2.95
x0=1

E2

xi+x0 =
N

Figure
5: Simplified
Bishop
Method[T
RKE (1999)]
Figure
4: Simplified
Bishop
Method

Page 10

The total normal force is assumed to act at the center of the base of each slice, and is
derived by summing forces in a vertical direction. Substituting the failure criteria, the normal force is then given by the expression .

Where

Taking the moments about the centre of the circles derives the factor of safety:

As this equation contains F on both sides, it has to be solved iteratively. Convergence is

usually quick and so the method is suitable for hand calculation. Although the simplified
Bishop method does not satisfy complete static equilibrium, the procedure gives relatively
accurate values for the factor of safety Bishop (1955) showed that the Simplified Bishop
method is more accurate than the Ordinary Method of Slices, especially for effective
stress analysis with high pore water pressure. Also, Wright et al., (1973) have shown that
the factor of safety calculated by the Simplified Bishop method agrees favourably (within
about 5%) with the factor of safety calculated using finite element procedures. The primary limitation of the Simplified Bishop method is that it is limited to circular slip surface.
The analytical method is presented below.

Table 2: Determining the factor of safety by Simplified Bishop Method[RTZ et al. (2011)]
Slope Stability Check Using Bishop Simplified Methods

Unit
Slice weight Radius
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21

23.02
23.02
23.02
23.02
23.02
23.02
23.02
23.02

Z0
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23

Friction
Angle Cohesion
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

H Width

Xi

10.4 1.5 -0.25

10.4 3.2 2.95
10.4 3.2 6.15
10.4 3.2 9.35
10.4 3.2 12.55
10.4 3.3 15.85
10.4 1.325 17.18
10.4 1.325 18.5

Xo

Zi

Sine
Angle

Base
Angle

-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1

23.02
22.83
22.18
21.04
19.30
16.69
15.33
13.70

-0.81
1.12
2.59
3.56
3.93
3.51
3.02
2.27

0.01
0.13
0.27
0.41
0.55
0.69
0.75
0.80

0.62
7.36
15.50
23.96
33.04
43.51
48.25
53.48

Page 11

Radius Cohesion
Times
Times base
Radius
Weight Plus weight
Times
Times
Times
Trial FS
Sin base Weight Load(P) Sin Bas Tan friction Value
Angle
Angl
Angl
0.25
25.4
0.0
6.4
28.2 1.4
2.95
75.2
0.0
221.8
71.1 1.4
6.15 173.9
0.0 1068.8
122.5 1.4
9.35 238.9
0.0 2232.6
156.3 1.4
12.54 264.3
0.0 3315.2
169.5 1.4
15.84 243.3
0.0 3854.0
159.6 1.4
17.17
84.0
5.0 1528.3
59.6 1.4
18.49
63.1
5.0 1259.0
48.7 1.4
Sum
13486.1

Bishop
Term
Value
1.004
1.039
1.063
1.065
1.041
0.981
0.943
0.894
Sum
New F S

Bishop
Bishop
T * Radius Term T* Radius Term
Value
Value
647.4 1.0041
647.3 1.004086
1575.3 1.0405 1573.7 1.040672
2652.2 1.0652 2646.4 1.065653
3379.0 1.0683 3367.9 1.068905
3748.1 1.0457 3731.3 1.046561
3743.2 0.9872 3720.7 0.988279
1453.5 0.9498 1443.7 0.950948
1253.1 0.9010 1243.5 0.902248
18451.9 Sum
18374.45 Sum
1.368 New FS
1.362 New FS

T*Radius

647.3315
1573.358
2645.377
3365.843
3728.169
3716.536
1441.851
1241.697
18360.16
1.361

3.4 Numerical Solution

Aim
The aim is to evaluate the stability of slope using finite element program PLAXIS 2D.The
cross section used for numerical simulation is the same as the one which is described in
analytical part.Analysis is carried out for with and without groundwater.

Modelling and Parameters

The 2D finite element analysis was carried out using 15-node triangular elements. The
mesh was generated using the automated mesh generation tool in PLAXIS. The Mohr
Coulomb model was used for this analysis. This model involves five parameters, namely
Youngs modulus, E, Poissons ratio, , the cohesion, c, the friction angle, , and the dilatancy angle, . Distributed load has been considered. Standard boundary conditions
have been considered.

Page 12

Figure 6:Finite Element Model of Slope Stability in PLAXIS

Analysis and Results

The Program uses phi-c Reduction method to calculate the factor of safety. EC7 approach
tells you that you are safe, but not how far from the failure you are. In order to check that it
is possible to use phi-c reduction analysis in PLAXIS. Phi-c reduction method is based on
the reduction of shear strength(c) and tangent of the friction angle (phi) of the soil. The
parameters are reduced in steps until the soil mass fails and a clear failure mechanism is
identified. PLAXIS uses a factor to relate the reduction in the parameters during the calculation at any stage with the input parameters according to the following equation.

Where RF = the reduction factor at any stage during calculations, tan and
are the
input parameters of the soil. tan reduced and reduced are the parameters calculated by the
program.

At the failure stage of the slope, the factor of safety is given by

It can be seen that the factor of safety in this case is of the stress level in this method
and therefore, the modulus of elasticity and the Poissons ratio will have negligible effect
on the obtained factors of safety. This method is suitable for our comparison since the

Page 13

same parameters that are used in the limit equilibrium method will be used in the finite
element analysis method. The total displacements in the final step (at failure) give an indication of likely failure mechanism. The Shading of the total displacements indicating the
most applicable failure mechanism in the final stage.

Figure 7: Shadings of Incremental Displacements at failure

Page 14

Figure 8:Deformed Mesh at failure

Figure 9: Factor of Safety With and Without Groundwater

Page 15

Analysis was carried out for both with and without ground water as we can see from the
figure 5 the factor of safety has reduced when groundwater is considered this because
water table increases the risk of failure as the shear resistance in the potential failure
plane decreases due to increased water pressure between the soil particles.

3.5

Comparison and Discussion

The factor of safety by both the methods are given in the below table as we can see the
factor of safety given by analytical and numerical method differ by about 15%. Analytical
method only gives the factor of safety but when we do the Numerical analysis we can see
the most favourable failure mechanism. For more complicated problems, it is appropriate
to perform limit equilibrium analysis using a numerical method. Complex phenomenon can
be modelled and constitutive model can be introduced.
Table 3: Comparison of factor of safety

Methods
Analytical
Numerical
Without GW
Numerical
With GW

Factor of safety
1.362
1.39
1.23

Page 16

Task 3- Sheet Pile Analysis

4.1

Introduction

A sheet pile wall is a type of retaining wall. Retaining walls are installed, mainly, when a
difference in ground elevation with a greater angle than the soils angle of repose is
wanted.Where the angle of repose is the maximum angle a soil can withstand without
sliding. When the soil is forced into this state the soil wants to transform back to its natural
state and lateral pressure towards the wall occurs, called lateral earth pressure. The main
purpose of the wall is to resist this pressure.

4.2

Description of the Task

Design of sheet pile using eurocode and analysis of the sheet pile using mohr coloumb
model and hardened soil model using plaxis 2D

4.3 Analytical Method

Design of sheet pile wall. The soil parameters are given in the below table. Typical sheet
pile is given in the below picture

Upper Ground Level

Sheet pile wall

H=4
Lower Ground Level

Passive earth pressure

Active earth pressure

Figure 10: Typical Sheet pile wall

Table 4: Soil Properties

Material

Cohesion
3

Friction angle

[kN/m ]

[]

32.5

Specific weight

Clay
20

Page 17

Angle of wall friction:

Earth pressure
Active earth pressure

Earth pressure co-efficient from [Annex C of EN1997-1 (2009)]

Passive earth pressure

Active earth pressure and ordinates

Passive earth pressure and ordinates

Earth Pressure Forces (active)

Earth Pressure Force (Passive)

Moment

of active earth pressure

Moment

of passive earth pressure

=0.75[adjustment factor]
Condition

Page 18

Table 5:Embedment Depth point

2.8

253.54

260.97

2.9

281.69

272.66

3.0

311.85

284.69

For

the condition satisfies

Embedment depth t by approximate methods of Blum

Selected Embedment: t=4m

Transverse Force

Table 6:Point of Zero Shear force

1.1

55.902

65.285

1.2

66.528

67.87

Evidence for vertical forces

Page 19

Calculation of Blum s Power

Verification

Maximum Active moment

Maximum Passive moment

Ultimate limit for sheet pile wall

Partial safety Factors

For Permanent actions
For Variable actions
Material Strength Steel components
Profile Section
Determination of the required section modulus W of the sheet pile profile
Rated Elastic-Elastic
Material:

With the help of steel sheet profile tables below profile was chosen according to the condition

Page 20

Table 7:Sheet Pile Profile Section Values

Profile

Larssen

in [

20

600

Mass in
[

79

Area (

6600

101

Verification
Proof:
Calculation of material parameters for sheet pile

4.4 Numerical Solution

Aim
To aim is to analyse the sheet pile wall and to check the interaction between soil materials
when it is simulated and to observe the deformations

Page 21

Modelling and Parameters

The Soil is modelled using Mohr Coulomb model[PLAXIS2D (2012)]. Three different elements are presented in the model; The 15 node element for the clusters, plate element for
sheet pile wall and interface element for the interaction between soil and structural elements. The Soil parameters used for analytical calculations are used here and the sheet
pile parameters are given in the below table. The standard boundary conditions have
been used.

Table 8: Material Parameters of Sheet pile

Input parameter

Sheet Pile Wall

Unit

Normal Stiffness,
Flexural rigidity,
Poissons Ratio,

Weight,

Figure 11:Sheet Pile Wall Geometry

Page 22

Analysis and Results

The analysis is carried out in different stages. The initial calculation is carried out using
KO procedure[PLAXIS2D (2012)].In the second step sheet pile wall is activated followed
by assigning the water condition. Steady state flow condition is used. After this excavation
is carried out in four stages and final safety analysis is carried by reducing the stiffness
parameters till the failure occurs. Moment and Deformations are recorded at this stage.

Figure 12:Total displacements after the First Excavation

Page 23

Figure 13: Deformed Mesh at failure

Figure 14:Effective Principal Stresses after final excavation

Page 24

From the analysis it can be observed that displacement results are within the allowable
limit. It can be reflected from the analysis that decreasing of stiffness parameters of the
soil layers will cause increase in displacement and maximum bending moment. From the
analysis we can notice that the sheet pile wall design is safe.

Table 9:Numerical Analysis Results

Numerical Analysis

Results

Total

First
Excavation

Second
Excavation

Third
Excavation

Final
Excavation

Safety

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

(cm)

0.3

0.8

2.0

5.5

93.1

Displacements

4.5 Comparison and Discussion

When the analytical and numerical method is compared we can observe that in analytical
method we will design and check for the condition to be satisfied to say whether the design is safe or we have to redesign but in numerical method we can clearly observe the
failure pattern and we can check our analytical design and with good geotechnical knowledge and numerical method we will be able to predict the outcome correctly.

Conclusions
The numerical method enables the boundary conditions to be taken into account in better
way than the classical design. It also can predict the failure patterns by the indication of
the deformation occurring close to the point of the failure. The soil considered as a continuum and then split into elements to enable the finding of a numerical solution. The mesh
of elements can only cover a limited area, so that the boundary conditions will have a
considerable effect on the results. The material laws specified based on concepts of models and this will give good picture of the real behaviour as a function of the loading history.
Moreover, the results influenced mainly by inputting parameters of the soil like strength.
The calculation of the geotechnical correlations are complex because it contains many
parameters such as stress, strain, bending moments, shear forces and deflections . That
makes the numerical modelling one of the most important alternatives that is capable of
making the complex calculations of the problem easier and more accurate. The convergences between the results of the analytical and numerical calculation makes the PLAXIS
program reliable for further calculation and can give dependable results, but it is always
better to use the analytical calculations to have more certainties results.

Page 25

References

DIN EN 1997-1. (2009). Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design, Part 1: General rules; German
version EN 1997-1. Normenausschuss Bauwesen (NABau) im DIN. DIN Deutsches
Institut fr Normung e.V.
PLAXIS2D. (2012). PLAXIS 2D 2012. Netherlands, Plaxis bv & Delft University of
Technology, Plaxis Manual.
RTZ, D., W ITT, K. J., NOACK, M. & RTZ, J. (2011). Wissensspeicher Geotechnik. 18.
Bauhaus-Universitt Weimar - Universittsverlag.
TRKE, H. (1999). Statik im Erdbau. 3. Auflage. Verlag Ernst & Sohn, 3433017913.

Page 26