Benchmarking in Geotechnics-1 Part-II

PART II: REFERENCE SOLUTION AND PARAMETRIC STUDY
ABSTRACT
The influence of different modelling assumptions on the results of a numerical analysis of the deep excavation problem, which has been introduced in part I of this report, is discussed. Based on a reference solution, which claims to represent closely the actual behaviour observed in situ, a comprehensive parametric study is performed, identifying modelling assumptions which have a high influence on the calculated displacement behaviour and the bending moments in the wall, and others which do not significantly alter the results obtained. The parameters investigated include wall friction, domain chosen for the analysis, discretisation, length and prestressing force of ground anchors, constitutive models and variation of input parameters for stiffness and strength. It can be concluded from this study that care must be taken when setting up a numerical model because the sum of various assumptions, not considered to be of large importance when looked at it individually, may significantly influence the outcome of the numerical calculation.
1 INTRODUCTION
In part I of this report it has been shown that results obtained from a numerical analysis of a practical problem may scatter significantly depending on assumptions made in establishing the numerical model. Not only constitutive model and material parameters, but also choice of element type for modelling soil, structural elements and soil/structure interaction, finite element discretisation and boundary conditions will influence results. Although the individual influence of each of these modelling details on the deformation behaviour under working load conditions may not be very significant, the sum of all these assumptions, which have to be made when establishing a computational model, may finally lead to quite different results, entirely depending on the user and the software utilized. This has been demonstrated in part I of this report where results from a benchmark exercise have been discussed.
In order to study the influence of various modelling assumptions without introducing software specific features, a systematic parametric study for the deep excavation problem described in part I is performed with a particular code. Based on a reference solution a series of calculations has been made varying only one parameter or modelling detail at once so that its influence could be separated. It is emphasized that no exact solution exists for the this problem, but it is claimed that the model discussed here is reasonably advanced, at least from a practical point of view, so that realistic results can be expected.
COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP
p a g e 26
The commercial finite element code PLAXIS V7.2 is used and the constitutive model employed is the so-called Hardening Soil model. A brief description of the main features of this elastic-plastic constitutive model is provided. However, it is emphasized that using this particular code and constitutive model does not imply that it is a recommendation for using this software. It is argued that the analyses shown in the following are representative for an advanced engineering analysis and the findings of this study also hold for other programmes and other constitutive models with similar features.
2 PROBLEM DEFINITION
Although the problem considered for this study corresponds to the one described in part I of this report some details of the specification are repeated her because some minor changes have been made and additional model parameters are defined for the reference analysis.
2.1 Geometry, basic assumptions and computational steps

The general layout has been given already in part I of this report but is shown here again for continuity (Figure 1). The domain analysed has been chosen as follows: width = 150 m, depth = 100 m. The mesh consists of approximately 1800 6-noded elements, which is refined in areas where high stress gradients can be expected. The mesh was deliberately chosen to be relatively fine in order to minimize the discretisation error (Figure 2).
x z
30 m
120 m 0.00m GW = -3.00m below surface
excavation step 1 = - 4.80m 27 excavation step 2 = - 9.30m 27 excavation step 3 = -14.35m 27 excavation step 4 = -16.80m -17.90m
23. 8m 19. 8m 23. 3m 8.0 m
8.0 m 8.0 m
top of hydraulic barrier = -30.00m -32.00m = base of diaphragm wall 0.8m Specification for anchors: prestressed anchor force: 1. row: 768KN 2. row: 945KN 3. row: 980KN horizontal distance of anchors: 1. row: 2.30m 2. row: 1.35m 3. row: 1.35m cross section area: 15 cm2 Young's modulus E = 2.1 e8 kN/m2
'='sand
68 m
sand
Fig. 1 Geometry and excavation stages
p a g e 27
Fig. 2 Finite element mesh for reference solution
The following assumptions have been postulated: plane strain influence of diaphragm wall construction is neglected, i.e. initial stresses without wall, then wall "wished-in-place" (weight of wall, b = 24 kN/m3, considered as difference to soil weight) diaphragm wall modelling: beam elements (E b = 30e6 kPa, < b = 0.15, d = 0.8 m) interface elements between wall and soil horizontal hydraulic cut off at -30.00 m is not considered as structural support, the same mechanical properties as for the surrounding soil are assumed hydrostatic water pressures corresponding to water levels inside and outside excavation (groundwater lowering is performed in steps in advance to the respective excavation step) anchors are modelled as rods, the grouted body as membrane element (geotextile element in PLAXIS terminology) which guarantee a continuous load transfer to the soil given anchor forces in Figure 1 are design loads
The following computational steps have been performed: stage 0: stage 1: stage 2: stage 3: stage 4: stage 5: initial stress state (given by v = z, h = Koz, Ko = 0.43) activation of diaphragm wall and groundwater lowering to -4.90 m excavation step 1 (to level -4.80 m) activation of anchor 1 at level -4.30 m and prestressing groundwater lowering to -9.40 m excavation step 2 (to level -9.30 m)
p a g e 28
stage 6: stage 7: stage 8: stage 9: stage 10: stage 11:
activation of anchor 2 at level -8.80 m and prestressing groundwater lowering to -14.50 m excavation step 3 (to level -14.35 m) activation of anchor 3 at level -13.85 m and prestressing groundwater lowering to -17.90 m excavation step 4 (to level 16.80 m)
Distance and prestressing loads for anchors follow from Figure 1.
2.2 Brief description of PLAXIS Hardening Soil model

The so-called "Hardening Soil model" is an elastic-plastic constitutive model which incorporates shear hardening and volumetric hardening with an associated flow rule for the cap yield surface and a nonassociated flow rule for the deviatoric yield surface (references see part I).
The basic characteristics of the model can be summarizes as following: stress dependent stiffness according to a power law hyperbolic relationship between strain and deviatoric stress for triaxial stress paths distinction between primary loading and unloading / reloading failure according to Mohr-Coulomb criterion
Figure 3 includes the stress strain relation for triaxial compression on which the "Hardening-Soil model" is based. Figure 4 schematically shows the deviatoric yield surfaces described by the hardening parameter (function of plastic shear strains). In addition to deviatoric hardening, volumetric hardening is considered and consequently plastic volumetric strains occurring for hydrostatic or Kostress paths are taken into account. Figure 5 contains the complete yield surface in p-q space.
Fig. 3 Hyperbolic stress-strain relation of the Hardening Soil model for drained triaxial compression test
p a g e 29
q
e ad er hg uc Br he c b's
m ulo Co hr Mo
p'
Fig. 4 Schematic representation of deviatoric hardening in the Hardening Soil model
Fig. 5 Schematic representation of the Hardening Soil model in p-q space
In addition to the Mohr Coulomb strength parameters the Hardening Soil model requires the following input parameters representing the stiffness of the soil (a complete list of input parameters is given in section 2.3): E50ref: secant modulus for primary loading at 50% of the maximum deviatoric stress in triaxial compression test at a reference stress (= 3) Eur ref: modulus for unloading / reloading at a reference stress (= 3) Eoedref : value of tangent modulus in one-dimensional compression at a reference stress (= 1) The stress dependence of the modulus is defined by an exponent m. pref denotes the reference stress.
E50 = E
ref 50
c cot - 3 c cot + p ref
p a g e 30
The stress dependence of the unloading modulus Eur is defined in analogy to the relation for E50. The so-called cap used to describe the volumetric strain behaviour is defined by the stiffness modulus of the oedometer test (Eoed) which is also stress dependent.
2.3 Material parameters for Hardening Soil model

The basic set of material parameters used to obtain the reference solution is based on data available in the literature and also on published experimental data from triaxial and one-dimensional compression test for Berlin sand. It is emphasized at this point that parameter identification for numerical analysis for a given soil based on experimental data is not an easy task. For more advanced constitutive models this procedure depends highly on the model employed and cannot be generalized.
Although the Hardening Soil model takes into account the stress dependency of stiffness for primary loading as well as unloading/reloading stress paths, three layers (see Table 1) are introduced in order to increase this effect and to take into account the high stiffness at low strains, which will be prevailing in most of the deeper layers of the domain analysed, at least in a very approximate way. Rinter in Table 1 determines the reduction of strength parameters and c in the interface elements as compared to the surrounding soil (taninter = Rinter tan, cinter = Rinter c). The stiffness of the interface is reduced as well. A value of 1 kPa is introduced for the cohesion which improves numerical stability, this is however not strictly required. E50ref kPa Eurref kPa Eoedref kPa <ur -
depth of layer m 0 - 20 20 - 40 > 40
pref kPa
m -
Rf Rinter -
kPa
45 000 180 000 45 000 35 5 1.0 0.2 100 0.55 0.9 0.8 75 000 300 000 75 000 38 6 1.0 0.2 100 0.55 0.9 0.8 105 000 315 000 105 000 38 6 1.0 0.2 100 0.55 0.9
Table 1 Material parameters for HS-Model - reference solution
2.4 Material parameters for structural elements

diaphragm wall EA = 2.4e7 EI = 1.28e6 < = 0.15 w = 7.5 kN/m kNm2/m kN/m/m
p a g e 31
anchor row 1 EA = 2.87e5 kN
anchor rows 2 and 3 EA = 3.22e5 kN
membrane elements for modelling grout body (anchor row 1) EA = 4.92e5 kN/m
membrane elements for modelling grout body (anchor rows 2 and 3) EA = 8.38e5 kN/m
Anchor row 1 and rows 2 and 3 have been modelled with different cross sections respectively.
3 RESULTS FOR REFERENCE SOLUTION

In the following the most relevant results obtained for the reference solution are presented. Unlike otherwise stated the last construction stage is considered. In addition a few results for the first excavation step (no anchors installed) are shown.
Deformed Mesh Extreme total displacement 46.55*10- 3 m (displacements scaled up 100.00 times)
Fig. 6 Deformed mesh (detail) - reference solution
p a g e 32
In Figure 6 the deformed mesh is shown and in Figure 9 the surface settlements are plotted for the first and final excavation stage. Settlements increase from approximately 5 mm for the first stage to over 15 mm for the final stage, which can be considered to be a very plausible result. Figure 7 depicts the lateral displacement of the wall together with the inclinometer measurements, again for the first and final excavation step. The measurements for the final stage have been corrected for lateral movement of the base of the wall which is not reflected in the inclinometer measurement but most likely to occur (see also comments in part I of this report). Figure 8 shows calculated bending moments.
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
600 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
depth below surface [m]
final stage 1. excavation stage
24 26 28 30 32 600
measurement (final stage) measurement corrected reference solution (final stage) measurement (1. excavation stage) reference solution (1. excavation stage)
26 28 30 32
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
horizontal displacement [mm]
bending moments [kNm/m]
Fig. 7 Wall deflection - reference solution
Fig. 8 Bending moments - reference solution
p a g e 33
distance from wall [m]

0 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
vertical displacement of surface [mm]
5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 final stage 1. excavation stage
Fig. 9 Surface settlements - reference solution
4 INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS

In this chapter modelling assumptions such as the dimensions of the domain analysed, modelling of wall friction and grout body of anchors and variation in stiffness and strength parameters are investigated. The influence of the constitutive model is addressed in chapter 5.
4.1 Influence of groundwater lowering

For the reference solution the groundwater lowering was performed in steps in advance to the corresponding excavation steps. In order to study the influence of performing the groundwater lowering in one step to the final level of drawdown (as specified in the benchmark exercise discussed in part I of this report) an analysis has been made where the groundwater level was lowered in the numerical model to the final level of -17.90 m below surface before the first excavation step. The results of this analysis follow from Figures 10 to 12 and it can be seen that the maximum wall deflection increases by approximately 10 mm, when the Hardening Soil model is used. However as will be discussed in chapter 5 the influence of this modelling detail depends on the constitutive model employed.
p a g e 34

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 reference solution (final stage) 1 step GW-lowering (final stage) reference solution (1. excavation step) 1 step GW-lowering (1. excavation step)
Fig. 10 Surface settlements - influence of groundwater lowering
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
600 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 600
reference solution (final stage) 1 step GW-lowering (final stage) reference solution (1. excavation step) 1 step GW-lowering (1. excavation step)
reference solution (final stage) 1 step GW-lowering (final stage) reference solution (1. excavation step) 1 step GW-lowering (1. excavation step) -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
26 28 30 32 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400
Fig. 11 Wall deflection - influence of groundwater lowering
Fig. 12 Bending moments - influence of groundwater lowering
p a g e 35
4.2 Influence of wall friction

For the reference solution the interface elements implemented in the code PLAXIS have been used in a standard way, i.e. the factor Rinter was used in order to reduce the strength properties of the interface elements with respect to the surrounding soil (see section 2.3). The elastic stiffness of the interface elements is governed by a so-called "virtual thickness" which is based on the average element size of the mesh adjacent to the wall. For the reference solution Rinter = 0.8 has been assumed, a value which is based on experience. In order to study the effect of this parameter an analysis has been performed changing Rinter to 0.5. It follows from Figures 13 to 15 that this parameter has a significant influence on the displacements. The horizontal displacement of the top of the wall increases by approx. 25 mm and the settlement behind the wall by approx. 15 mm. Bending moments to not change significantly. In order to evaluate the influence of the elastic properties of the interface elements a calculation was performed with a reduced virtual thickness as compared to the default value set in PLAXIS, thus the stiffness of the interface is increased. This results in a reduction of the maximum horizontal displacement of the wall in the order of 5 mm (Figure 14).
It is obvious from these results that input parameters for modelling wall / soil interaction have to be chosen very carefully, which is however a difficult task because the elastic stiffness of an interface is not a well defined mechanical property. Although results presented here are related to the particular interface element formulation implemented in PLAXIS it can be expected that other formulations will show a similar sensitivity to input parameters.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -40 reference solution Rinter = 0.5
Fig. 13 Surface settlements - influence of wall friction
p a g e 36
-70 -65 -60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
600 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 600
reference solution Rinter = 0.8 (final stage) Rinter = 0.5 (final stage) Rinter = 0.8 t_virt = 0.01 (final stage) reference solution (1. excavation stage) Rinter = 0.5 (1. excavation stage) Rinter = 0.8 t_virt = 0.01 (1. excavation stage) -70 -65 -60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
24 26 28 30 32
reference solution Rinter = 0.5
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
Fig. 14 Wall deflection - influence of wall friction
Fig. 15 Bending moments - influence of wall friction
4.3 Influence of discretisation

In this analysis a relatively coarse mesh was chosen, reducing the number of elements from approx. 1800 to 460 (Figure 16). However, zones with high stress gradients have been refined again and therefore the differences in displacements are very small (Figure 17). Examining bending moments one would argue that the mesh may be slightly to crude to obtain a smooth distribution and therefore some differences as compared to the reference solution can be observed (Figure 18).
p a g e 37
Fig. 16 Finite element mesh - coarse mesh
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
600 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 600
reference solution coarse mesh
reference solution coarse mesh
30 32
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
Fig. 17 Wall deflection - influence of discretisation
Fig. 18 Bending moments - influence of discretisation
p a g e 38
depth below surface[m]
4.4 Influence of domain analysed

For the reference solution the domain analysed was chosen as 150 x 100 m for width (W) and depth (D) of the mesh respectively. In order to study the influence of the discretised domain chosen the following analyses have been performed: W x D = 150 x 70, W x D = 100 x 100, W x D = 100 x 70 and W x D = 200 x 150 m. It follows from Figures 19 to 21 that bending moments are hardly influenced but displacements (horizontal displacements of wall and surface settlements) differ in the order of approx. 6 mm, the deeper meshes resulting in smaller surface settlements. This is a result of the vertical upwards displacements caused by the elastic unloading due to excavation which increases with deeper meshes. The width of the mesh has practically no influence on the surface settlements.
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0 0 2 4
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
600 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
final stage
6 8
1. excavation stage
10 12 14 16 18 20
reference solution D=100 W=150 D=100 W=100 D=70 W=100 D=70 W=150 D=150 W=200 reference solution D=100 W=150 D=100 W=100 D=70 W=100 D=70 W=150 D=150 W=200
22 24 26 28 30 32
reference solution D=100 W=150 D=100 W=100 D=70 W=100 D=70 W=150 D=150 W=200
22 24 26 28 30 32 600
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
Fig. 19 Wall deflection - influence of domain analysed
Fig. 20 Bending moments - influence of domain analysed
p a g e 39

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 reference solution D=100 W=150 D=100 W=100 D=70 W=100 D=70 W=150 D=150 W=200
Fig. 21 Surface settlements - influence of domain analysed
4.5 Influence of modelling ground anchors

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 reference solution no membrane element for load transfer no membrane element free anchor length increased
Fig. 22 Surface settlements - influence of modelling grout body
When using the code PLAXIS the load transfer from the free length of the ground anchors into the ground can be conveniently modelled with membrane elements. These elements, which have no bending stiffness but axial stiffness only, allow a continuous load transfer from the membrane element to the ground along its entire length and avoid a concentrated point load at the end of the free anchor length. Of course this modelling technique is only applicable for working load conditions because the limiting pull out force cannot be taken into account correctly with this simple model. To emphasize the
p a g e 40
importance of a continuous load transfer along the grout body two analyses without membrane elements have been performed. In the first one the free anchor length has been kept the same as in the reference solution and in the second one the free anchor length has been increased by half of the length of the grout body in order to compensate for not modelling the load transfer in more detail. Figures 22 to 24 clearly show that care must be taken when choosing the model representing the ground anchor and grout body.
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
-1250 -1000 -750 -500 -250
250
500
750 1000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
reference solution no membrane element for load transfer no membrane element free anchor length increased
22 24 26 28 30 32 750 1000
reference solution no membrane element for load transfer no membrane element free anchor length increased -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0
28 30 32 -1250 -1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500
Fig. 23 Wall deflection - influence of modelling grout body
Fig. 24 Bending moments influence of modelling grout body
4.6 Influence of free anchor length

The strong influence of the free anchor length could be seen from the previous section already but is addressed again in this chapter. One analysis assumed an increase of free anchor length of 8 m as compared to the reference solution, the other calculation a decrease of 4 m. The length of the grout body (8 m) has not been changed. Figures 25 to 27 reveal a significant increase of displacements for
p a g e 41
the short anchor (-4 m) and roughly the same amount of decrease in displacements for the long anchor (+8 m), thus the relationship is, as expected, highly nonlinear. Of course the choice of the free anchor length, and some other variations discussed in the following, are design assumptions and not modelling assumptions at the discretion of the numerical analyst, but they are included here to complete the parametric study.
-60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
600 0 2 4 6 8 10
14 16 18 20 22 reference solution anchor - 4 m anchor + 8 m 24 26 28 30 32 600
reference solution anchor -4m anchor +8m
30 32
-60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
Fig. 25 Wall deflection - influence of free anchor length
Fig. 26 Bending moments - influence of free anchor length
p a g e 42
12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 reference solution anchor -4m anchor +8m
Fig. 27 Surface settlements - influence of free anchor length
4.7 Influence of anchor prestress force

A variation of +/- 25% of the anchor prestress force as compared to the reference solution has been assumed and again a nonlinear relationship between calculated displacements and applied prestress force in the anchors is observed (Figures 28 to 30), i.e. a reduction of anchor force of 25% results in an increase of lateral displacements and settlements of approx. 40%. Maximum bending moments increase roughly at the same amount.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 reference solution prestress force +25% prestress force -25%
Fig. 28 Surface settlements - influence of anchor prestress force
p a g e 43
-60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
600 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 600
reference solution prestress force +25% prestress force -25%
reference solution prestress force +25% prestress force -25%
30 32
-60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
Fig. 29 Wall deflection - influence of anchor prestress force
Fig. 30 Bending moments - influence of anchor prestress force
4.8 Influence of wall thickness

In the reference solution a diaphragm wall of thickness d = 0.8 m was assumed, and as follows from Figure 31 an increase to d = 1.2 m does reduce the maximum horizontal displacement, but not significantly. Surface settlements also do not change much. Of course bending moments increase dramatically (Figure 32).
p a g e 44
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
-1250 -1000
-750
-500
-250
250
500 0
reference solution (final stage) wall120 cm (final stage) reference solution (1. excavation stage) wall 120 cm (1. excavation stage)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
reference solution (final stage) wall120 cm (final stage) reference solution (1. excavation stage) wall 120 cm (1. excavation stage)
26 28 30 32
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
-1250 -1000
-750
-500
-250
250
500
Fig. 31 Wall deflection - influence of wall thickness
Fig. 32 Bending moments - influence of wall thickness
4.9 Influence of variation in stiffness and strength parameters of soil

In part I of this report the difficulties in defining appropriate material parameters, in particular stiffness properties, have been briefly addressed. In order to quantify the uncertainties in material properties on the solution of the deep excavation problem considered here, the stiffness parameters have been varied by +/-25% and the strength parameters by +/-10% respectively. In the latter case the friction angle for all layers has been varied, but the dilatancy angle has been kept the same as in the reference analysis. The variation in stiffness parameters was introduced by changing E50ref, Eoedref and Eurref for all layers accordingly. The results follow from Figures 33 to 38 and the large differences in calculated horizontal displacements and settlements emphasize again that careful considerations are required in determining appropriate input parameters.
p a g e 45
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
600 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
reference solution (final stage) stiffness+25% (final stage) stiffness -25% (final stage) reference solution (1. excavation stage) stiffness +25% (1. excavation stage) stiffness -25% (1. excavation stage) -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
24 26 28 30 32
reference solution stiffness +25% stiffness -25%
24 26 28 30 32 600
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
Fig. 33 Wall deflection - influence of soil stiffness
Fig. 34 Bending moments - influence of soil stiffness

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 reference solution stiffness +25% stiffness -25%
Fig. 35 Surface settlements - influence of soil stiffness
p a g e 46
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
600 0 2
reference solution friction angle +10% friction angle -10%
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 600
reference solution (final stage) friction angle +10% (final stage) friction angle -10% (final stage) reference solution (1. excavation stage) friction angle +10% (1. excavation stage) friction angle -10% (1. excavation stage) -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
24 26 28 30 32 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400
Fig. 36 Wall deflection - influence of soil strength
Fig. 37 Bending moments - influence of soil strength

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 reference solution friction angle +10% friction angle -10%
Fig. 38 Surface settlements - influence of soil strength
p a g e 47
It has to be mentioned that the variation in friction angle has different consequences depending on the constitutive model employed. A reduction of 10% increases the lateral displacement of the top of the wall from 30 mm to approx. 40 mm when using the Hardening Soil model, whereas the same variation leads to an increase from 20 mm to 40 mm when employing the Mohr-Coulomb model with parameter set MC_1 (see section 5.2.3 and Figure 59)
4.10 Wall deflection and anchor forces for all construction stages
Wall deflection
In Figures 39 and 40 the development of the lateral displacements of the diaphragm wall are shown for the reference solution and the solution where the groundwater lowering was simulated in one step (see section 4.1). The significant increase of lateral displacement in excavation steps 3 and 4 is clearly evident.
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
-60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
GW-lowering 1 excavation 1 anchor 1 GW-lowering 2 excavation 2 anchor 2 GW-lowering 3 excavation 3 anchor 3 GW-lowering 4 final excavation -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
24 26 28 30 32
GW-lowering to final level excavation 1 anchor 1 excavation 2 anchor 2 excavation 3 anchor 3 final excavation
-60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5
Fig. 39 Wall deflection for all construction steps - reference solution
Fig. 40 Wall deflection for all construction steps - groundwater lowering 1 step
p a g e 48
Anchor forces
Figures 41 and 42 show the development of anchor forces for rows 1 and 2 with progressing excavation. An increase in anchor forces is calculated in row 1 for construction step 5 and row 2 for construction step 8 respectively. This holds for all analyses, but depending on the modelling assumptions the amount of increase of force differs. In Figure 43 the change in anchor forces for rows 1 and 2 is depicted for the cases where length of anchors and prestress forces have been varied. It follows that the anchor length does not have a significant influence on the change of anchor forces, but - as expected - the applied prestress force has.
500
400
force in anchor [kN/m]
300
200
reference solution Rinter = 0.5 GW-lowering 1 step no membrane element wall 120 cm stiffness +25% stiffness -25% friction angle +10% friction angle -10% 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
100
computational step
Fig. 41 Development of anchor forces - upper row
1000 900 800
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 reference solution Rinter = 0.5 GW-lowering 1 step no membrane elements wall = 120 cm stiffness +25% stiffness -25% friction angle +10% friction angle -10%
computational step
Fig. 42 Development of anchor forces - middle row
p a g e 49
1000 900 800
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 3
reference solution free length +8m free length -4m prestress force +25% prestress force -25% reference solution free length +8m free length -4m prestress force +25% prestress force -25%
middle row
upper row
10
11
computational step
Fig. 43 Development of anchor forces - upper and middle row - influence of anchor length and prestress force
5 INFLUENCE OF CONSTITUTIVE MODEL

Because linear elastic - perfectly plastic constitutive models are still widely used in practice some analyses are performed with a Mohr-Coulomb model, and for purposes of comparision linear elastic analyses are also included and compared to the reference solution.
5.1 Elastic analysis

In this elastic analysis again three soil layers are introduced in order to take into account an increase of stiffness with depth in an approximate way. A constant Young's modulus in each layer is assumed (Table 2), based on the values given in the specification of the benchmark problem for Berlin sand (see part I of this report). < 0.3
depth of layer m 0 - 20 20 - 40 > 40
E kPa 47 000
Rinter 0.8 0.8 -
244 000 0.3 373 000 0.3
Table 2 Young's - moduli for elastic analysis
The results of this analysis clearly show the well known fact that calculations based on linear elastic material behaviour do not produce a realistic deformation pattern, which is evident from Figures 44
p a g e 50
and 45 indicating a heave of the surface behind the wall of approximately 20 mm. In Figures 45 to 47 results for an analysis where the groundwater lowering is performed in one step are also included and it follows that - as expected - for elastic material behaviour both analysis do not differ much, in contrary to the elastic-plastic analyses. In Figure 48 the development of wall deflection with progressing excavation is plotted and the differences, qualitatively and quantitatively, to elastic-plastic analyses are evident (compare to Figure 39).
Deformed Mesh Extreme total displacement 56.66*10-3 m (displacements scaled up 200.00 times)
Fig. 44 Deformed mesh (detail) - elastic solution

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 reference solution elastic GW-lowering stepwise elastic GW-lowering 1 step 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Fig. 45 Surface settlements - elastic solution
p a g e 51
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
600 0 2 4 6 8 10
reference solution elastic GW-lowering stepwise elastic GW-lowering 1 step
14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 600
reference solution (final stage) elastic GW-lowering stepwise (final stage) elastic GW-lowering 1 step (final stage) reference solution (1. excavation stage) elastic GW-lowering stepwise (1. excavation stage) -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
Fig. 46 Wall deflection - elastic solution
Fig. 47 Bending moments - elastic solution
p a g e 52
12
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
GW-lowering 1 excavation 1 anchor 1 GW-lowering 2 excavation 2 anchor 2 GW-lowering 3 excavation 3 anchor 3 GW-lowering 4 final construction stage
24 26 28 30 32
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
Fig. 48 Wall deflection - elastic solution
5.2 Elastic-perfectly plastic analyses (Mohr-Coulomb model)

5.2.1 MC-model 1 and 2
Analysis MC_1 corresponds to the elastic analysis discussed in the previous section as far as Young's moduli are concerned but introduces the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. < -
depth of layer m 0 - 20 20 - 40 > 40
E kPa
Rinter -
kPa
47 000 35 5 1.0 0.3 0.8 244 000 38 6 1.0 0.3 0.8 373 000 38 6 1.0 0.3 -
Table 3 Material parameters MC-model 1
p a g e 53
Analysis MC_2 assumes a linear increase of stiffness with depth according to the specification of the benchmark problem for Berlin sand (see part I), assuming a minimum value of E = 33 000 kPa. The complete list of parameters used for these analyses is given in Tables 3 and 4.
depth of layer m 0-5 5 - 20 20 - 40 40 - 100
E kPa 33 000 33 000 - 66 500 (linear)
< -
Rinter 0.8 0.8 0.8 -
kPa
35 5 1.0 0.3 35 5 1.0 0.3
200 000 - 282 000 (linear) 38 6 1.0 0.3 282 000 - 446 000 (linear) 38 6 1.0 0.3
Table 4 Material parameters MC-model 2
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
600 0 2
elastic GW-lowering stepwise elastic GW-lowering 1 step MC_1 GW-lowering stepwise MC_2 GW-lowering stepwise MC_1 GW-lowering 1 step MC_2 GW-lowering 1 step
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 600
elastic GW-lowering stepwise elastic GW-lowering 1 step MC_1 GW-lowering stepwise MC_2 Gw-lowering stepwise MC_1 GW-lowering 1 step MC_2 GW-lowering 1 step
28 30 32
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
Fig. 49 Wall deflection - MC-models 1 and 2
Fig. 50 Bending moments - MC-models 1 and 2
p a g e 54
Figures 49 to 51 compare the MC-analyses with the elastic solution for both cases of groundwater lowering (stepwise and one step) and it is apparent that the groundwater lowering in one step increases the horizontal displacement of the top of the wall by approximately 15 mm, which is slightly more than in the reference solution (the reference solution is not included because the stiffness parameters are not comparable in these cases). It is evident that MC-models tend to produce a surface heave in a similar way as the elastic solutions. Bending moments do not differ significantly with the exception of the lower end of the wall.

0 30 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 elastic GW-lowering stepwise elastic GW-lowering 1 step MC_1 GW-lowering stepwise MC_2 GW-lowering stepwise MC_1 GW-lowering 1 step MC_2 GW-lowering 1 step
Fig. 51 Surface settlements - MC-models 1 and 2
5.2.2
MC-model 3 and 4
Here the Young's moduli are back-calculated for each layer corresponding to the initial stiffness introduced in the Hardening Soil model of the reference solution in the middle of each layer (Table 5). MC_3 uses the loading stiffness (E50ref) and MC_4 the unloading stiffness (Eurref). It follows from the results shown in Figures 52 to 54 that high differences are obtained for displacements but less for bending moments. Again the deficiencies of elastic-perfectly plastic models become apparent, in particular when looking at the displacements behind the surface in Figure 54.
depth of layer E (MC_3) E (MC_4) m 0 - 20 20 - 40 > 40 kPa 32 000 90 000 196 000 kPa 128 000 360 000 588 000
< -
Rinter -
kPa
35 5 1.0 0.3 0.8 38 6 1.0 0.3 0.8 38 6 1.0 0.3 -
Table 5 Material parameters MC-model 3 and 4
p a g e 55
-60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
600 0 2 4
reference solution MC_3 (E-loading) MC_4 (E-unloading)
6 8 10
14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 600
reference solution MC_3 (E-loading) MC_4 (E-unloading) -60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
30 32
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
Fig. 52 Wall deflection - MC-models 3 and 4
Fig. 53 Bending moments - MC-models 3 and 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 reference solution MC_3 (E-loading) MC_4 (E-unloading)
Fig. 54 Surface settlements - MC-models 3 and 4
p a g e 56
12
5.2.3
Parameter variation with MC-model 1
In this section a limited parametric study, similar to section 4, is performed with the parameter set of MC_1 as basic analysis. It is interesting to see that with certain, however not very realistic, assumptions the Mohr-Coulomb model calculates a similar lateral deflection of the wall as the Hardening Soil model (Figure 55). A match of surface settlements however cannot be achieved (Figure 57). Bending moments are not influenced so much (Figure 56). Again the strong influence on the results of the assumptions made for wall friction is obvious. It is worth noting that the Poisson's ratio has a pronounced influence in the Mohr-Coulomb model, which is not the case in the Hardening Soil model because in the elastic-plastic constitutive model Poisson's ratio does influence primarily unloading / reloading stress paths. In Figure 58 the wall deflection is shown for all construction steps and in Figure 59 the influence of a +/- 10% variation of the friction angle is shown. It can be seen that the reduction of the friction angle leads to a much higher relative increase of displacements as compared with the Hardening Soil model (Figure 36 in section 4.9).
-60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
600 0 2
MC_1 Poisson = 0.2 Poisson = 0.4 Rinter = 0.5 reference solution (Hardening Soil)
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 600
MC_1 Poisson = 0.2 Poisson = 0.4 Rinter = 0.5 reference solution (Hardening Soil)
26 28 30 32
-60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5
-1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
Fig. 55 Wall deflection - MC-variations
Fig. 56 Bending moments - MC-variations
p a g e 57

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
vertical displacements of surface [mm]
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 MC_1 Poisson = 0.2 Poisson = 0.4 Rinter = 0.5 reference solution (Hardening Soil)
Fig. 57 Surface settlements - MC-variations
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
GW-lowering 1 excavation 1 anchor 1 GW-lowering 2 excavation 2 anchor 2 GW-lowering 3 excavation 3 anchor 3 GW-lowering 4 final construction stage
MC_1 (final stage) friction angle +10% (final stage) friction angle -10% (final stage) MC_1 (1. excavation stage) friction angle +10% (1. excavation stage) friction angle -10% (1. excavation stage)
24 26 28 30 32
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
Fig. 58 Wall deflection - MC_1
Fig. 59 Wall deflection - influence of strength in MC_1 model
p a g e 58
6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

A reference solution for a deep excavation problem utilizing a commercial finite element code and an elastic-plastic constitutive model as been presented in part II of this report. Based on this solution a comprehensive study was performed in order to evaluate quantitatively the influence of various modelling assumptions on calculated displacements and bending moments. Some analyses assuming elastic and elastic-perfectly plastic material behaviour confirmed the well known fact that these very simple constitutive models are not suited for predicting realistic deformations for these types of problems.
It is emphasized that the reference solution is not an exact solution which in fact does not exist for such a problem. However it is claimed that the solution can be considered as a good approximation because care has been taken in establishing the numerical model and in choosing input parameters. Therefore very similar results can be expected if the problem is solved with other finite element codes and constitutive models but a perfect match cannot be expected.
No emphasis was put on parameter identification in this study but it has become evident from the benchmark study presented in part I of this report that the choice of appropriate input parameters is of paramount importance for any numerical analysis and a sound knowledge of the effect of input parameters on the results, which depend on the constitutive model employed, is required in order to achieve sensible results. The analyses considering a realistic scatter in stiffness and strength properties presented in part II of this report confirm this aspect.
Finally it is concluded that benchmark exercises and parametric studies as presented in this report are necessary and very helpful in improving the validity and reliability of numerical predictions, and that there is a strong need for formulating guidelines and recommendations for numerical analysis in practice.
p a g e 59

Benchmarking in Geotechnics-1 Part-II

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

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

Benchmarking in Geotechnics-1 Part-II

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PART II: REFERENCE SOLUTION AND PARAMETRIC STUDY

2.1 Geometry, basic assumptions and computational steps

120 m 0.00m GW = -3.00m below surface

Fig. 1 Geometry and excavation stages

Fig. 2 Finite element mesh for reference solution

stage 6: stage 7: stage 8: stage 9: stage 10: stage 11:

Distance and prestressing loads for anchors follow from Figure 1.

2.2 Brief description of PLAXIS Hardening Soil model

Fig. 4 Schematic representation of deviatoric hardening in the Hardening Soil model

Fig. 5 Schematic representation of the Hardening Soil model in p-q space

c cot - 3 c cot + p ref

2.3 Material parameters for Hardening Soil model

depth of layer m 0 - 20 20 - 40 > 40

2.4 Material parameters for structural elements

anchor row 1 EA = 2.87e5 kN

anchor rows 2 and 3 EA = 3.22e5 kN

3 RESULTS FOR REFERENCE SOLUTION

Fig. 6 Deformed mesh (detail) - reference solution

depth below surface [m]

final stage 1. excavation stage

horizontal displacement [mm]

bending moments [kNm/m]

Fig. 7 Wall deflection - reference solution

Fig. 8 Bending moments - reference solution

depth below surface [m]

distance from wall [m]

vertical displacement of surface [mm]

5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 final stage 1. excavation stage

Fig. 9 Surface settlements - reference solution

4 INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS

4.1 Influence of groundwater lowering

distance from wall [m]

vertical displacement of surface [mm]

Fig. 10 Surface settlements - influence of groundwater lowering

26 28 30 32 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400

depth below surface [m]

horizontal displacement [mm]

bending moments [kNm/m]

Fig. 11 Wall deflection - influence of groundwater lowering

Fig. 12 Bending moments - influence of groundwater lowering

depth below surface [m]

4.2 Influence of wall friction

distance from wall [m]

vertical displacement of surface [mm]

Fig. 13 Surface settlements - influence of wall friction

depth below surface [m]

reference solution Rinter = 0.5

horizontal displacement [mm]

bending moments [kNm/m]

Fig. 14 Wall deflection - influence of wall friction

Fig. 15 Bending moments - influence of wall friction

4.3 Influence of discretisation

depth below surface [m]

Fig. 16 Finite element mesh - coarse mesh

depth below surface [m]

reference solution coarse mesh

reference solution coarse mesh

horizontal displacement [mm]

bending moments [kNm/m]

Fig. 17 Wall deflection - influence of discretisation

Fig. 18 Bending moments - influence of discretisation

depth below surface[m]

4.4 Influence of domain analysed