Schweiger

S C I E N C E
P A S S I O N
T E C H N O L O G Y
COMPARISON OF EC7 DESIGN

APPROACHES FOR NUMERICAL
ANALYSIS OF DEEP EXCAVATIONS
Helmut F. Schweiger
Computational Geotechnics Group
Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Graz University of Technology
Eurocode 7 and New Design Challenges / University College London, 19 March 2013
Comparison of EC7 design approaches for numerical analysis of deep excavations

2
Introduction
EC7 Design Approaches
Benchmark Examples
Simplified Case Histories
Summary / Discussion
Introduction
Eurocode 7 Design Approaches
Benchmark Example
Excavation in sand
Excavation in soft clay
- Comparison of constitutive model and design approaches
Issues from simplified case histories
Deep excavation in soft clay
Deep excavation in stiff clay
Wall with prestressed anchors
NATM tunnel
- Comparison of design approaches
Summary and discussion

3
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
Application of numerical methods for ultimate limit state design in

general and in accordance with Eurocode7 is a much discussed
issue and work in progress
what design approach is best suitable for numerical methods?
at what stage should "partial factors" be introduced (if at all)?
should we use the same design approach for numerical and

conventional analysis (for a given type of problem)?
should we use finite element analysis for ULS-design?
see also (with emphasis mainly on deep excavations), e.g.: Schweiger (2009, 2010), Simpson (2007),
Schweiger (2005), Lo (2003), Bauduin, De Vos & Frank (2003), Simpson (2000), Bauduin, De Vos &
Simpson (2000)
With respect to numerical modelling there is a significant difference between

calculating a factor of safety
performing a calculation with factored material parameters according to EC7

4
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
Goal of this presentation

Demonstrate applicability of numerical methods
for design in accordance with EC7 design
approaches
Address some important issues which have to be
considered when using numerical methods for
different design approaches
Provoke some dicussion
NOT Goal of this presentation

Advocate the use of a particular design approach

5
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
PARTIAL FACTORS EC7

Design
approach
DA1/1
DA1/2
DA2
DA3
Actions F
Permanent
1)
2)
unfavourable
Variable
G
Q
1.35
1.50
1.00
1.30
1.35
1.50
3)
Geot. : 1.00
1.30
4)
Struct. :1.35
1.50
Partial factors for actions according to EC7

(can be changed in National Annex)
for deep excavation and

tunnelling problems this
means that earth pressure
has to be factored
in numerical analysis
not feasible
alternatively effects of
actions can be factored
(e.g. bending moments,
strut forces)
> commonly referred to
as DA2*

6
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
PARTIAL FACTORS EC7

Soil properties M
Resistances
Design
approach
tan
cu
Unit weight
Passive
Anchor
DA1/1
DA1/2
DA2
DA3
1.00
1.25
1.00
1.25
c
1.00
1.25
1.00
1.25
cu
1.00
1.40
1.00
1.40
F
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
R;e
1.00
1.00
1.40
1.00
a
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.00
Partial factors for soil properties and resistances according to EC7

DA1/1 and DA1/2: two analysis required

7
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
EC7 design approaches in combination with numerical methods:
DA2:
Analysis is performed in terms of characteristic material parameters
Partial factors applied to loads (feasible only for e.g. foundation problems)
DA2*:
Analysis is performed in terms of characteristic material parameters
Partial factors applied to effects of actions (e.g. bending moments)
> This is straightforward for numerical analysis
DA3:
Option 1:
Analysis is performed in terms of design material parameters
> perform all excavation steps with factored values for soil strength
Option 2:
Analysis is performed in terms of characteristic material parameters but for
all construction steps a check with reduced strength parameters is made

8
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
excavation level 1
Option 1 for DA3:

perform all excavation steps
with factored values for soil strength
i.e. tanfact = tanunfact /
> if failure does not occur in one of the
excavation steps > design criteria fulfilled
N.B. No information on serviceability limit state
excavation level 2
final excavation level

9
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
Option 2 for DA3:

perform excavation step 1
with unfactored values for soil strength
> reduce tan to tanunfact /
> check for failure
excavation level 1
excavation level 2

10
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
Option 2 for DA3:

> check for failure
(start from results for excavation step 1 with
unfactored properties)

> check for failure
excavation level 1
excavation level 2

11
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
Option 2 for DA3:
excavation level 1

> check for failure
excavation level 2


> check for failure

> check for failure
N.B. Serviceability limit state obtained as well

12
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
EXCAVATION IN SAND
Phases:
1: Initial stresses (K0 = 1 - sin')
2: Sheet pile wall (wished-in-place)
> displacements set to 0
3: Excavation 1 to -2.00 m
4: Activation of strut at -1.50 m
5: GW-lowering to -6.0 m
8: Surcharge 15 kPA (variable load)

Introduction
EXCAVATION IN SAND
Benchmark Examples
Constitutive models compared:

Hardening Soil (small) model*
Mohr-Coulomb model
* MC failure criterion
40000
Secant modulus G [kN/m]
13
30000
20000
10000
HS-Small
Hardin & Drnevich
1E-5
0.0001
Shear strain [-]
0.001
0.01

14
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
EXCAVATION IN SAND
Parameters for HSS-model

Parameter
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
r
[]
c
[kPa]
[]
[-]
ur
ref
E50
[kPa]
Eoedref
[kPa]
Eurref
[kPa]
m
[-]
pref
[kPa]
Meaning
Unit weight (unsaturated)
Unit weight (saturated)
Friction angle
Cohesion
Angle of dilatancy
Poissons ratio unloading-reloading
Secant modulus for primary triaxial loading
Tangent modulus for oedometric loading
Secant modulus for un- and reloading
Exponent of the Ohde/Janbu law
Reference stress for the stiffness parameters
K0nc
Rf
Tension
G0
Coefficient of earth pressure at rest (NC)

Failure ratio
Tensile strength
Small-strain shear modulus
Reference shear strain where Gsec=0.7G0
0,7
[-]
[-]
[kPa]
[kPa]
[-]
Value
18
20
41
0
15
0.20
30 000
30 000
90 000
0.55
100
1-sin()
0.90
0
112 500
0.0002

15
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
EXCAVATION IN SAND
bending moments [kNm/m]
horizontal wall displacement [mm]

9
-3
-80
-6
-60
-40
HS
HSS
MC
HS
HSS
MC
20
40
-20
depth below surface [m]
12
15

16
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
EC7 PARTIAL FACTORS

DA2*:
Permanent loads: G = 1.35
Variable loads:
Q = 1.50
All soil factors = 1.0
surchargepermanent = 10 kPa
surchargevariable = 15 kPa
Note: if an advanced model is used, where

strength depends on e.g. density then this
approach cannot be used.
It becomes more complex but can still be
done, see:
Potts and Zdravkovic
Accounting for partial material factors in
numerical analysis, Geotechnique 2012
DA3:
Permanent loads:
Variable loads:
Strength:
> ' = 28.35
G = 1.00
Q = 1.30
c = = 1.25
( = 12)
> surchargevariable = 15 kPa > 19.5 kPa
Initial stresses (DA3):
K0c = 1 sin(41) = 0.344 (based on characteristic ')

17
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
COMPARISON OF RESULTS
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
0
Mdesign, DA2* = M1 x 1.35 + (M2 M1) x 1.5
HSS-DA3
MC-DA3
HSS-DA2
MC-DA2
M1 bending moment excluding variable load

M2 bending moment including variable load
Difference in maximum design bending

moment between DA2 and DA3 smaller
for HSS model than for MC model (in
this particular example)

18
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
200
design strut force [kN/m]
180
181
MC
HSS
160
140
176
161
138
120
100
80
60
40
DA2
20
0
DA2
DA3
design approach
MC
HSS
DA3
MC
HSS
Strut force after

excavation
78
108.6
Strut force
due to load
21.6
23.1
Design strut
force
138
181
Strut force after

excavation
122
140
Strut force
due to load
39
36
Design strut
force
161
176

19
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
EXCAVATION IN CLAY
Phases:
1: Initial stresses (K0 = 1 - sin')
2: Sheet pile wall (wished-in-place)
> displacements set to 0
4: Activation of strut at -1.50 m
7: Surcharge 15 kPa (variable load)

20
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
EXCAVATION IN CLAY
Parameters for HSS-model

Parameter
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
sat
[]
'
Meaning
Unit weight (unsaturated)
Unit weight (saturated)
Friction angle (Mohr-Coulomb)
Value
15
16
27
ur
E50ref
Eoedref
Eurref
m
pref
[kPa]
[]
[-]
[kPa]
[kPa]
[kPa]
[-]
[kPa]
Cohesion (Mohr-Coulomb)
Angle of dilatancy
Poissons ratio unloading-reloading
Secant modulus for primary triaxial loading
Tangent modulus for oedometric loading
Secant modulus for un- and reloading
Exponent of the Ohde/Janbu law
Reference stress for the stiffness parameters
15
0
0.20
4 300
1 800
14 400
0.90
100
K0nc
Rf
t
G0
0.7
[-]
[-]
[kPa]
[kPa]
[-]
Coefficient of earth pressure at rest (NC)

Failure ratio
Tensile strength
Small-strain shear modulus
Reference shear strain where Gsec=0.7G0
"Method A":
undrained analysis with
effective strength parameters
1-sin()
0.90
0
25 000
0.0003
Undrained analysis with "Method B" (undrained strength parameters):

cu = 23.9 kPa at -2.0m
cu = 2.1 kPa/m

21
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
EXCAVATION IN CLAY
horizontal wall displacement [mm]
60
50
40
30
20
10
-10
0
HS
HSS
MC
SS
Comparison of constitutive models
distance from wall [m]

3
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
60
50
40
30
HS
HSS
MC
SS
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
10
11
surface displacement [mm]

22
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
EC7 PARTIAL FACTORS

DA2*:
Variable loads:
Q = 1.50
All soil factors = 1.0
surchargevariable = 15 kPa
DA3:
Variable loads:
Q = 1.30
Strength:
c = = 1.25
> ' = 22.2
> c' = 12 kPa
> surchargevariable = 15 kPa > 19.5 kPa
Undrained strength:
cu = 17.1 kPa at -2.0m,
cu = 1.40
cu = 1.5 kPa/m
Initial stresses (DA3):

K0c = 1 sin(27) = 0.546 (based on characteristic ')

Introduction
Benchmark Examples
design bending moments [kNm/m]
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
0
Difference resulting from choice of

constitutive model much larger than
difference between DA2 and DA3
Note: undrained strength for "Method B"

is chosen such that cu is the same for
Methods A and B for MC-model and this
value is also used for the HSS analysis
using Method B
HSS_DA2-A
MC_DA2-A
HSS_DA2-B
MC_DA2-B
HSS_DA3-A
MC_DA3-A
HSS_DA3-B
MC_DA3-B
10
11
23
EXAMPLE AK 1.6 - KLEI

Introduction
Design Approaches
DA2EC7
- DA3
/ Method Benchmark
A - B Examples
24
250
design strut force [kN/m]
206
200
193
193
176
150
159
150
HSS-A
MC-A
HSS-B
MC-B
152
123
100
DA2
MC
HSS
MC_B
HSS_B
50
0
DA2
strut force after

excavation
95.7
121
100.6
121.4
strut force
due to load
13.7
19.6
15.3
19.4
design
strut force
150
193
159
193
strut force after

excavation
101.4
140.2
116.7
161.9
strut force
due to load
21.1
35.3
35.1
43.8
design
strut force
123
176
152
206
DA3
design approach
DA3
MC
HSS
MC_B
HSS_B

25
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
CASE HISTORY - STIFF CLAY

+ 13.7 m
+ 10.0 m
P1
+ 6.5 m
+ 2.5 m
- 3.0 m
- 7.5 m
- 12.5 m
- 17.5 m
- 22.5 m
GWT
+ 6.5 m
P2
P3
P4
Diaphragm Wall
t = 46.7 m
P5
P6
London Clay
stiff
clay
P7
- 27.0 m
- 33.0 m
1.2 m
Prop Level
17.5 m
Excavation Level
- 53.0 m
Chalk
d = 66.7 m

Introduction
Benchmark Examples
EXAMPLE STIFF CLAY - STAGE 3

DA2
/ DA3
- HSS-Model
Simplified
Case
Histories
CASE HISTORY - STIFF CLAY

-3000
-2000
-1000
1000
0
DA2
DA2
DA3
DA3
DA2*1.35
DA2*1.35
10
15
Partial factor on strength parameters

does not influence bending moments
significantly > higher design values
for DA2*
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
26

27
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
DIAPHRAGM WALL WITH PRESTRESSED GROUND ANCHORS
Prestressed
ground anchors

28
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
DIAPHRAGM WALL WITH PRESTRESSED GROUND ANCHORS

max. bending
moment
kNm/m
anchor force
layer 1
(kN/m)
anchor force
layer 2
(kN/m)
anchor force
layer 3
(kN/m)
factor of
safety
characteristic
658
334
756
755
1.57
x 1.35 (DA2*)
888
451
1021
1020
DA3
867
358
805
766
Only sligthly increased as compared to prestress forces

Increase in anchor force due to factored soil strength < 10%
Consequence: anchor forces DA2* >> DA3
bending moments are not so much different
N.B. effect of water is fully factored in DA2* but not in DA3
1.26

29
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
CASE HISTORY - SOFT CLAY

Strut levels
(Prestress forces)
-1.0 m (200)
-4.0 m (550)
10.0 m
Excavation
steps
surface 0.0 m
-2.0 m
FILL
GW-Table -4.0 m
K0 = 0.5
-5.0 m
-7.5 m (650)
-8.5 m
-11.0 m (600)
-14.5 m (700)
-17.5 m (700)
-12.0 m
-15.5 m
-18.5 m
MARINE CLAY
K0 = 0.625
-21.0 m (800)
-22.5 m
-24.0 m (850)
-27.0 m (800)
-25.0 m
-27.5 m
JGP 1: 2 m
-30.0 m (700)
-31.0 m
Final excavation -33.0 m
-36 m
JGP 2: 3 m
-40 m
-38.0 m
0.8 m
OLD ALLUVIUM SW2

K0 = 0.46
-45.0 m
OLD ALLUVIUM CZ
K0 = 0.46

Benchmark Examples
EXAMPLE MARINE CLAY

DA2 / DA3
CASE HISTORY - SOFT CLAY
wall deflection [mm]

200 180 160 140 120 100 80
60
40
20
-3000
-20 -40
-2000
-1000
1000
2000
0
MC_DA2_A
MC_DA2_B
MC_DA3_A
MC_DA3_B
MC_DA3_A2
10
10
15
20
25
MC_DA2c
MC_DA2c
MC_DA2d
MC_DA2d
MC_DA3_A
MC_DA3_A
MC_DA3_B
MC_DA3_B
MC_DA3_A2
MC_DA3_A2
15
20
25
30
30
35
3000
0
Note: Analysis A2
> partial factor on
stiffness of soil layers
40
35
40
EXAMPLE MARINE CLAY

Introduction
DA2 / DA3
30

31
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
NATM TUNNEL
Phases:
Step 0: Initial stresses (K0 = 1.25)
Step 1: Pre-relaxation top heading (55%)
Step 2: Full excavation top heading with
lining in place (shotcrete "young")
Step 3: Pre-relaxation bench (35%, shotcrete
top heading > "old"))
Step 4: Full excavation bench with lining in
place (shotcrete bench "young")
Step 5: Pre-relaxation invert (20%, shotcrete
bench > "old"))
Step 6: Full excavation invert with lining in
place (shotcrete invert "young")

32
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
NATM TUNNEL
design normal force [kN/m]
1400
1200
HSS
MC
HS
SS
1000
800
600
400
200
0
DA2
DA3
maximum design bending moment [kNm/m]
Normal force in lining smaller for DA3?

100
80
HSS
MC
HS
SS
60
40
20
design approach
DA2
DA3
design approach

33
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
NATM TUNNEL
DA3
DA2
Vertical displacements
DA3: possibly pre-relaxation factors have to be modified too

34
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
EC7 - ULS-design approaches using FEM:

Different design approaches (DA2 / DA3) will lead to
different design (true also for conventional analysis)
Choice of constitutive model may have larger influence than
choice of design approach
It seems that difference between DA2 and DA3 is less
pronounced for advanced constitutive models
Application of numerical methods complying with EC7
requirements is in general possible, but
results of numerical analysis depend on constitutive model and other

modelling assumptions
not all failure modes required to be checked by EC7 are easily covered,
but is this really required?
Structural elements have to be considered in a consistent manner


35
Introduction
Benchmark Examples
Arguments for DA2 (DA2*), against DA3

"Real" soil is considered
"Limit state" of working load conditions are obtained, only one
analysis required (not exactly true if variable loads are present)
Unrealistic system behaviour (e.g. struts in tension) is avoided
Arguments against DA2 (DA2*), for DA3

Partial factor should be placed where one of the uncertainty is > soil
parameters
Soil is load and resistance > not always clear cut, automatically taken
into account in DA3/DA1
Some critical mechanisms may be missed in DA2*

Schweiger

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Schweiger

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

S C I E N C E

COMPARISON OF EC7 DESIGN

Comparison of EC7 design approaches for numerical analysis of deep excavations

EC7 Design Approaches

Simplified Case Histories

Comparison of EC7 design approaches for numerical analysis of deep excavations

EC7 Design Approaches

Simplified Case Histories

Application of numerical methods for ultimate limit state design in

should we use the same design approach for numerical and

With respect to numerical modelling there is a significant difference between

Comparison of EC7 design approaches for numerical analysis of deep excavations

EC7 Design Approaches

Simplified Case Histories

Goal of this presentation

NOT Goal of this presentation

Comparison of EC7 design approaches for numerical analysis of deep excavations

EC7 Design Approaches

Simplified Case Histories

PARTIAL FACTORS EC7

Partial factors for actions according to EC7

for deep excavation and

Comparison of EC7 design approaches for numerical analysis of deep excavations

EC7 Design Approaches

Simplified Case Histories

PARTIAL FACTORS EC7

Partial factors for soil properties and resistances according to EC7

Comparison of EC7 design approaches for numerical analysis of deep excavations

EC7 Design Approaches

Simplified Case Histories

EC7 design approaches in combination with numerical methods:

> This is straightforward for numerical analysis

Comparison of EC7 design approaches for numerical analysis of deep excavations

EC7 Design Approaches

Simplified Case Histories

Option 1 for DA3:

Comparison of EC7 design approaches for numerical analysis of deep excavations

EC7 Design Approaches

Simplified Case Histories

Option 2 for DA3:

Comparison of EC7 design approaches for numerical analysis of deep excavations

EC7 Design Approaches

Simplified Case Histories

Option 2 for DA3:

> reduce tan to tanunfact /

Comparison of EC7 design approaches for numerical analysis of deep excavations

EC7 Design Approaches

Simplified Case Histories

Option 2 for DA3:

perform excavation step 1

(start from results for excavation step 1 with

> reduce tan to tanunfact /

> reduce tan to tanunfact /

N.B. Serviceability limit state obtained as well

Comparison of EC7 design approaches for numerical analysis of deep excavations

EC7 Design Approaches

Simplified Case Histories

Comparison of EC7 design approaches for numerical analysis of deep excavations

EC7 Design Approaches

Simplified Case Histories

Constitutive models compared:

Secant modulus G [kN/m]

Comparison of EC7 design approaches for numerical analysis of deep excavations

EC7 Design Approaches