Plaxis Users Meeting Singapore 2012

PlaxisUsersMeeting
Singapore
2012
PUMSINGAPORE
Time
9:00
9:45
Title:ModelingSoftToeinBoredPilessocketedinWeatheredRocks
Prof. TanSiewAnn NationalUniversityofSingapore
9:45
10:30
Title:Plaxis2Dand3DFEMAssessmentofTrouserLegDiaphragmWallPanelsina
DeepExcavationinSingaporeSoftClay
MrChuahSzeSeng
10:30
11:00
Break
11:00
11:45
Title:AStudyofTunnelPileInteractionusingPlaxis3D
DrShenRuiFu NationalUniversityofSingapore
11:45
12:30
Title:NumericalModellingofTunnellingandTunnelSoilPileInteraction
MrHartono WuNationalUniversity ofSingapore
12:30
1:30
Lunch
1:30
2:15
Title:PlaxisTechnical Support
MrLinXinChengPlaxisAsiaPac
2:15
3:00
Title:PlottingGroundReactionCurve UsingPlaxis NATMTunnelModelling

MrSajjad AnwarAecomSingapore
3:00
3:30
Break
3:30
4:15
Title:PerformanceofaCantileveredDiaphragmWallIntegratedwithSoilImprovement
Block
MrEdward Lim GeoEngConsultants
4:15
5:00
Title:PlaxisExpertServices
MrJosephWongPlaxisAsiaPac
13/04/2012
ModelingSoftToeinBoredPiles
SocketedinWeatheredRocks
PlaxisUsersForum2012
Date:12April2012
By:ProfHarryTan
Outline
HypotheticalCase FEMmodelofsinglepile
withfixedDeadLoadsubjectedto15m
Drawdownsustainedoveraperiodof200
days
Whatisthedifferenceofpilewithorwithout
softtoe?
3DFEMmodelofboredpilewithorwithout
softtoe
Conclusions
2
13/04/2012
FEMAxissymmetricSinglePileModel
DL=6MN
Fill
GWT
SoftMarineClay
S4ResidualSoil
HighlyWeathered
S2Jurongrocks
Model1.4mDBOREDPILEOFLENGTH=28M
FROMGROUNDLEVEL
PileisconcretemodelaselasticsolidwithE=30
GPa (withdummybeamelementtogetaxialforce
plot)
15mGWTdrawdown
Modelofpossiblesoft
toe100mmthickbelow
pilebase
Interfaceelements
appliedontheinner
surfacecontactswithpile
baseandS3rock
Thenumberand
sizeofelements
arechosentogive
averyhighquality
meshforaccurate
numerical
computation:
Numberof
elements=1247,
averagesize<1m
CheckQualityofFEMMeshforAccurateAnalysis
4
13/04/2012
PlaxisInputParameters
TABLE1PLAXISINPUTFORPIER28PILE
Identification
2KallangMClay(MC)SU3S4a/b(MC)SU=150Rin 4S3(MC)SU=900Rint=05SoftToe0.1mSU=20 1FILL03mPHI'=30RINT=0.9
Identificationnumber
1
2
3
5
6
Materialmodel
MohrCoulomb
MohrCoulomb
MohrCoulomb
MohrCoulomb
MohrCoulomb
Drainagetype
Undrained(B)
Undrained(B)
Undrained(B)
Undrained(B)
Undrained(A)
Colour
RGB25,199,215
RGB135,234,163
RGB229,114,56
RGB54,22,218
RGB198,211,13
Comments
_unsat
kN/m^3
16
20
25
20
18
_sat
kN/m^3
16
20
25
20
20
E
kN/m^2
4000
7.50E+04
3.00E+05
1000
1.00E+04
(nu)
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
c_ref
kN/m^2
20
150
600
20
0.1
(phi)
0
0
0
0
30
C_v,ref
m^2/day
0.2692
10.1
538.5
0.1
134.6
R_inter
0.9
0.5
0.5
1
0.9
K_0,x
0.7601
0.7
0.7
0.658
0.5
k_x
m/day
5.00E04
1.00E03
0.01
1.00E03
0.1
k_y
m/day
5.00E04
1.00E03
0.01
1.00E03
0.1
S4strengthSu=150kPa,fs=0.5Su=75kPa,E=500Su=75,000kPa
S3(weakrock)strengthSu=600kPa,fs=0.5Su=300kPa,E=500Su=300,000kPa
R_inter isthealphavalueofskinfrictionloadtransferinUndrained LoadTest
RInter
RInter=0.5
ForS4soil,Su=150kPa,
Su/Pa=1.5,RInter=0.5
ForS2,Su=900kPa,Su/Pa=9,
RInter=0.33
AlphavalueforboredpileshaftfrictionasfunctionofSu/Pa(wherePa=100kPa)
AlphavalueistheR_inter valuetoapplyinFEMpilemodelinUndrained LoadTest
6
13/04/2012
SimulatedPileLoadTestComparePile
with/withoutSoftToe
6MN
8.7MN
12.3MN
Shaftfriction
FULLYmobilized
inS3/S4
Shaftfriction
NOTfully
mobilizedin
S3/S4
SettlementHistory
At10days,initialpileloadto
6MN;pilessettle67mmw/wo
softtoe
At20days,afterdrawdown
of15m,Pilewithoutsofttoe
settlesadditional67mm
BUTPilewithsofttoesettles
additional1011mm
After200daysofsoil
consolidation,groundsettleby
30mm.
13/04/2012
ConditionofPileWithoutSoftToewith15mdrawdown
NP=20m
NSF=78006000
=1800kN
Pilewithoutsofttoe,havesignificantendbearingresistance(3800kN)
SettlementofPileWithout SoftToewith15mdrawdown
27mm
NP=20m
SoilSettlement
PileSettlement
6mmatNP
Shaftfriction
NOTFULLY
mobilizedin
S3/S4
AtNPof20mdepth,pileandsoilsettletogether=6mm
Piletoepenetration=5.74.3=1.4mmintoS2layer
10
13/04/2012
ConditionofPileWithSoftToewith15mdrawdown
NP=17m
NSF=68306000
=830kN
Shaftfriction
FULLYmobilized
inS3/S4
Pilewithsofttoe,smallendbearingresistance(600kN)
11
SettlementofPileWithSoftToewith15mdrawdown
27mm
SoilSettlement
NP=17m
11mmatNP
PileSettlement
AtNPof17mdepth,pileandsoilsettletogether=11mm
Piletoepenetration=10.93.6=7.3mmintoSoftToelayer
12
13/04/2012
Summary
WithestimateactualDL=6MN,pilewith
adequateshaftfrictionresistancewillsettleby
67mmevenwithlarge15mGWdrawdown.
However,withinadequateshaftfriction
resistanceandsofttoecondition,pile
settlementwillincreaseto1011mmupon
15mdrawdown.
13
3DFEMSimulationofPilewithSoftToe
3DFEManalysisisconductedinthisstudytoexploretheeffect
ofwaterdrawdownonthesettlementbehaviorofthe4pilegroup
usingPlaxis 3DVersion2011.
The site has ground surface at about 104mRL, a pile cap located
at about 1m below ground surface with a pile cap thickness of 2m
supported by 4 bored piles with diameter of 1.4m each with pile
toe elevation located at about 76.2mRL. The centertocenter (c/c)
spacing of the piles is 4.2m.
A working load of 44MN (or 44,000kN) was assumed on top of
the pile cap.
14
13/04/2012
Corresponding3DFEMmeshforthe4pilegroup Topview
Pilecap
4solidcircular
boredpileswith
dia.of1.4mand
shroudedwith
interface
elements
15
ExaggeratedblowoutviewofInterfaceelementssurroundingtheboredpiles
Exaggeratedblowout
viewofInterface
elementssurrounding
theboredpiles.
16
13/04/2012
SoillayersandMohrCoulombParameters:
0~3mbelowgroundsurface:Topfillmaterial(Drained)withtypical
soilparametersofc=0.1kPa,=30 andE=10,000kPa.
3~15mbelowgroundsurface:SoftMarineclay(UnDrained)with
lowerparametersofc=0.1kPa,=22 andE=2000kPa.
15~24mbelowgroundsurface:S4material(Drained)withhigher
soilparametersofc=1kPa,=30.InviewthattheSPTNvaluesis
about40~50(averageof45)forS4layerasrevealedbythepost
boreholesafterstopworkanE=2N=90,000kPawasadopted.
24~32mbelowgroundsurface:S3material(Drained)withhigher
soilparametersofc=45kPa,=28 andE=400,000kPa.
From32mdownward:S2bmaterial(Drained)withhighersoil
stiffnessparametersofc=45kPa,=28 andE=900,000kPa(to
accountforsmallstrainhigherstiffnesseffects).
17
Soillayeringin3DFEMmesh
25kPasurchargeontheroads
besidethepier
Columnloadsappliedtopile
cap(insidetheground)
Topfillmaterial
Marineclaylayer
S4layer
S3layer
S2blayer
VERYMUCHFINER
elementsaroundand
alongthepileshafts
18
13/04/2012
TheFEMsimulationisstraightforward:
(1)Establishtheinsitustressregime;
(2)Wishinplaceofboredpiles/pilecapandapply44MN
(ignoredundrained behavior);
(3)Resetthedisplacementthusfartozero;
(4)ApplyinstantWaterdrawdownof15m.
Theinducedpile/piersettlementduetotheabovesimulated15m
waterdrawdownhasaMaxvalueofabout4.1mmasshownin
thenextslideforthiscaseofgoodnormalpileswithoutsofttoe
problem(perfectbasecontactwithS3weakrock).
19
Theinducedpile/piersettlementduetothesimulated15mwaterdrawdown
hasaMaxvalueofabout4.1mmforgoodpileswithoutsofttoeproblem.
20
10
13/04/2012
Likewise,pilecaptopsettlementcontourof
4.1mm
21
Theaboveanalysisshowsthatforgoodnormalboredpiles
supportingthePier,theinducedMaxsettlementwillbeabout
4.1mmsubjectedtothesustained15mwaterdrawdown, which
ismuchlowerthantheactualmeasurementofabout10mm.
Thequestionis:Whatelsecouldcontributetotherestofabout
5~6mmofadditionalpiersettlementwhichcannotbeaccounted
forinexpectednormalboredpiles?
WhatwouldbeeffectofaSoftToe?
22
11
13/04/2012
CorrectSimulationofSoftToeunderaBoredPile: Forthesimulationofsofttoe,
anannulusthincylindercanbecreatedbelowtheboredpilewithathinthicknessof
say100mmwithweakstiffnesslikeE=1000kPaandweakstrengthparametersof
c=0.1kPaand=22 likethoseforsoftclay.
However, foracorrectsimulationofsofttoeunderaboredpilein3DFEM
simulation,itiscriticalthediameterofthethinannulussimulatingthesofttoemust
bemadeslightlylargerthanthediameteroftheboredpile(say100mmlarger)so
thattheboredpileisallowedtosettleintothesofttoematerial.
Otherwise,ifthethinannulusissetasthesamediameteroftheboredpile,the
edgesofthebaseoftheboredpileandtherockmaterial(S3)attheedgeofbaseof
theboredpilewillsharethesameelementnodesandelementsidessuchthatthe
rockmaterialwillpreventtheboredpilefromsqueezingintothesofttoelayerto
settledownintothesofttoeannulus.
Inreality,theboredpilecanreadilysettleintotheunderlyingsofttoeevenifthe
softtoehasthesamediameteroftheboredpile.However,in3DFEMsimulation,
theabovecarefulandjudicioussimulationtechniqueisneededinordertoreplicate
theactualbehaviorofsofttoecorrectly.
23
Propersimulationofsofttoebeneaththeboredpilessimulationwithslightly
largerdiameterofthethincircularlayersimulatingthesofttoesoastoallowthe
boredpiletosettleintothesofttoematerial.
Smallsofttoeelements
aroundthepiletoeso
thatthepileconcrete
elementsandtheS3
elementsDONOTshare
commonelementnodes
andsidestoproviderigid
supporttothepile
elements
24
12
13/04/2012
Impropersimulationofsofttoebeneaththeboredpileswiththeedgesofthebaseof
theboredpileandtherockmaterial(S3)attheedgeofbaseoftheboredpileshare
thesameelementnodesandelementsidessuchthattherockmaterialwillprovide
rigidsupporttotheboredpiles,leadingtoincorrectsimulationin3DFEManalysis
(Thenextslidewillrevealthesofttoebeneaththepilebase)
Pileconcreteelements
andtheS3elementsshare
commonelementnodes
andsidestoproviderigid
supporttothepile
elements;theeffectof
thesofttoebeneaththe
pilebasewillthenbe
artificiallysuppressed
withtheWRONG3DFEM
simulationofsofttoe
25
Revealingofthesofttoebeneath1boredpiles(continuingwiththepreviousslide)
Softtoesamediameteras
pile:showedlittleimpact
tothepilesettlement
behaviorinsuchWRONG
3DFEMsimulation,as
explainedintheprevious
slide.
26
13
13/04/2012
Withthepropersimulationofsofttoebeneaththeboredpiles,whilewithoutchangingany
othersoilparametersandanalysismethodology,thepierisobservedtosettleforabout10.7mm
intothesofttoe;thatisthecorrectsimulationandrightexplanationoftheunusuallylargePier
settlementobservedatsite.
27
Likewise,pilecapsettlementof10.7mm
28
14
13/04/2012
Ontheotherhand,withtheincorrectsimulationofsofttoeasillustratedabove,thepiletoewill
berigidlysupportedbytheedgesoftheS3elementsaroundtheedgeoftheboredpilebase;
andthesofttoeelementsbeneaththeboredpileisnotabletoplayanysubstantialroleinthe
pilesettlementbehavior,whichisaWRONG 3DFEMsimulationofthesofttoe,leadingto
wrongconclusions.
Maxpilesettlementof
5.2mmonlyduetowrong
3DFEMsimulationofsoft
toe,whichisonly1.1mm
largerthanthecase
withoutsofttoeof
4.1mm,leadingtowrong
conclusionthatsofttoe
doesnothavesubstantial
impactonthepile
settlementbehavior
Softtoebeneaththepile
base
29
Conclusions(1)
Fromthe2DFEMstudyofasinglepile,itsobserved
thatforasofttoetoleadtolargerpilesettlements,
nearlyalltheshaftfrictionmustfirstbefullymobilized
forthepiletoplungeintothesofttoelayer.
PilesproperlydesignedtoFOSonshaftfriction>1.3
willnotsufferlargesettlementsevenwiththe
presenceofthinsofttoelayer(withverylowstiffness
of<1MPa).
Correctsimulationofsofttoein2DFEMcanbedone
withproperapplicationsofinterfaceelementsonthe
innersideofthesofttoelayer(interfaceelementsare
alwaysappliedonthesideoftheweakermaterial).
30
15
13/04/2012
Conclusions(2)
Fromthe3DFEMstudyofa4pilegroup,softtoe
mustbemodeledcorrectlytoallowforthepossibility
ofpilestoetoplungeintothethinsofttoelayer.
Theuseofathinlayerofsofttoematerialwithexact
diameterasthepile,withoutinterfaceontheinner
sideofthelayerwillpreventthepilefromplunging
intothesofttoelayer,evenifallshaftfrictionhad
beenmobilized.
Correctsimulationofsofttoein3DFEMcanbe
convenientlydonebyusingathincircularlayerofsoft
soilwithdiameterslightlylargerthanpileradius(say
0.1m).
31
16
16/04/2012
Sharing on Plaxis 2D and 3D FEM

Assessment of Trouser Leg
Diaphragm Wall Panels in a
Deep Excavation in
Singapore Soft Clay
Prof Harry Tan

Dr. N. Mace, C.K. Toh,
Dr. Haibo Yang,
Er. S.S. Chuah
Objectives
a)Sharing on how the Plaxis 2D was used to model
long and short D/Wall panels in DTL1 C908
b)Sharing on how Plaxis 3D was used to model 3D
problem of long and short D/Wall panels and
compared with Plaxis 2D results
c)Sharing on how the water table is considered during
excavation stage in Plaxis 2D and 3D Foundation to
ensure appropriate results were obtained
d)Sharing of parametric study of long and short panel
of D/Walls
16/04/2012
Outline of presentation
a)Project Information and description
b)Plaxis 2D and 3D modeling approach
c)Numerical Results
d)Parametric study on long and short panel
spacing
e)Conclusions
DTL1 C908 Project Information: Telok Ayer Station and Tunnels
16/04/2012
Long and short D/Wall

panels in DTL1 C908
A unique first-of-itskind Trouser Leg

diaphragm wall
panels in
Singapore
underground tunnel
project.
16/04/2012
Construction Sequence of C908 Tunnel Typical Section
Deepest Tunnel Section for Diaphragm Wall panels where

geotechnical analysis and monitoring results were compared
Shaded Panels are Long
Panels
16/04/2012
16/04/2012
16/04/2012
LSS
Backfill
Fill
F1
JGP
UMC
F1
LMC
F2
FCBB
Model I For Short D-wall panels : Out of plane presence of long panels is
modeled using anchor elements that do not interfere with the potential base
heave mechanism
LSS
Backfill
Fill
F1
JGP
UMC
E
LMC
F2
FCBB
Model II For Long D-wall panels

Long panel length (below base of short panels) is modeled as a separate beam
element, with a stiffness divided by the long panel spacing
16/04/2012
Plaxis 3D
Foundation Model
Full thickness of 0.8m D/Wall panel is

modeled
Reduced E value of 19.56E6 kN/m2 to
achieve 70%EI to be similar to Plaxis 2D
70%EI where E=28E6 kN/m2
Geological profile for 2D model applies
to full 3D model
16/04/2012
Plaxis2D:ClusterPhreaticlevelis
intheshadedarea(inJGPzone)
Plaxis2D:GeneralPhreaticlevelissetfor
thehighlightedzonebelowJGPlayer
16/04/2012
JGP is treated as
Undrained material
Work Plane is at 1m interval
below formation level at 89.4.

At RL 89.4, water below is
set at 89.4.
At RL 88.4, the water below
is set as Interpolate from
adjacent clusters or lines.
Similarly, at RL87.4 and
86.4, water level is set at
Interpolate from adjacent
clusters or lines.
At RL 85.4, soffit of JGP
layer, water below is set at
General Phreatic Level.
Enlarged Print
By c-phi reduction calculation,

FoS = 1.52
10
16/04/2012
11
16/04/2012
12
16/04/2012
13
16/04/2012
A Parametric Study to vary Spacing to 18m and

24m
14
16/04/2012
15
16/04/2012
16
16/04/2012
Observation: Apparently, there is no great difference between the magnitude

of results in wall movement, bending moments and shear forces for short and
long panels. This affirms that the complex long and short diaphragm wall
panels are close to a 2D problem with plane strain conditions.
Conclusions
1. Complex short and long diaphragm wall panels
for a tunnel box can be modelled in 2D analyses
with two different models, one with anchor
elements to hold down the short panel walls, and
another one with plate elements to simulate long
panel walls.
2. Spacing of long panel walls does not significantly
affect the results of the wall movements, bending
moments and shear forces. This affirms that the
complex short and long diaphragm wall panels
are close to a 2D problem with plane strain
conditions.
17
16/04/2012
Thank You
!
18
SINGAPORE PLAXIS USER MEETING AT

The National University of Singapore Society
(NUSS)
Performance of Cantilevered Diaphragm Wall

Integrated with Soil Improvement Block
by Edward Lim KH
12 April 2012
Content
Introduction
Design Basis
Design Construction Sequence
Actual Construction Sequence
Action Taken
Conclusion
Introduction
Introduction
Deep Soil Mixing

(DSM) or Jet Grouting
Piles (JGP) are
commonly used to
improve the soft soil
layer beneath the base
of excavation to
enhance the basal
heave and toe stability
of a temporary earth
retaining system.
Introduction
Jet Grouted mass has also been used as self standing

retaining system for canal reconstruction work.
Introduction
In the typical
application of
DSM and JGP,
the entire
improved soil
mass is
grouted by
interlocking
grout piles
Introduction
In this presentation the design and site issues faced in a

construction of a cantilevered diaphragm wall (D-wall)
supported by soil improvement blocks, in rectangular cells
formed by DSM and JGP, will be discussed.
Introduction
A 1.0m thick cantilevered diaphragm wall (D-wall) was

designed to support a terraced platform with a maximum
retained height of 15.8m.
Soil improvement blocks, in rectangular cells formed by
Deep Soil Mixing (DSM) method, was carried out on the
active and passive sides of the D-wall, forming an integrated
earth retaining system together with the D-wall.
Jet Grouting Piles (JGP) were used to fill the gaps between
the DSM and D-wall.
Cross Section of D-wall in Permanent Condition

RL112.0
RL104.5
RL102.0
JGP
FEL96.2
JGP
D-wall
Types of DSM Grid Patterns in Case Study

RL112.0
RL104.5
RL102.0
FEL96.2

RL112.0
RL104.5
RL102.0
FEL96.2

RL112.0
RL104.5
RL102.0
FEL96.2

RL112.0
RL104.5
RL102.0
FEL96.2
Design Basis
Design Basis of In Situ Soil Mixing
In situ soil mixing Topolnicki, M. (2004)
INDIVIDUALCOLUMNS
IMPROVEDMASS
(DSM+SOIL)
IMPROVEDMASS
(DSMONLY)
Example in this project:
Respective total area, A =

3.0m x 10.1m = 30.3m2
Net Area of Soil Mixing
inside resepective total
area, At = 16.47m2
Ratio of area
improvement, ap = At/A =
16.47/30.3 = 0.54
c = 0.54 * 500 = 270kPa;
= 0.54*200,000=108,000kPa
RL112.0
RL112.0
RL112.0
RL112.0
RL109
RL112.0
RL112.0
RL109
RL112.0
RL102.5
RL112.0
FEL
RL96.2
RL112.0
RL112.0
RL112.0
RL112.0
RL109
RL112.0
RL112.0
RL109
JGP installation works

behind D-wall.
Progress of JGP Works
Excavation Side
(RL109)
8th March 2010
Inclinometer IW-1
1000mm THK D-wall
Inclinometer IW-2
12th March 2010

18th March 2010
Retained Soil Side

(RL112)
April 16, 2012
28
Inclinometer IW-1
17/3/2010
10/3/2010
22/3/2010
After JGP
installation
Move > 40mm
12/3/2010
JGP installed
just behind
IW-1
24/3/2010
Close-up
Diagram of
Inclinometer
Reading
Inclinometer IW-2
17/3/2010
22/3/2010
After JGP
installation
Move > 46mm
18/3/2010
JGP installed
just behind
IW-2
24/3/2010
Close-up
Diagram of
Inclinometer
Reading
Time History of IW-2 and Actions Taken
Original WSL = 95mm

Original AL = 67mm
End of June
2010
End of March
2010
STOP WORK. ASSESS

WALL INTEGRITY
Assessed Wall
integrity at this
stage. Still OK.
CURRENT
STAGE OK,
WITHIN
CAPACITY.
SUBSEQUENT
STAGE HOW TO
ASSESS WALL
INTEGRITY?
Stage of excavation during breaching of WSL

1/3 of Final Exc Level
completed. Remaining
2/3 yet to commence.
End of June
2010
Action Taken
Action Taken - Back-Analyses
To properly assess the BM in the D-wall, the shape of the

deflected D-wall must first be reproduced in the FEM
analysis.
To reproduce the measured wall deflection, the cause of the
wall movement has to be identified.
This will gives greater confidence to subsequent predictions
of wall response on resume of remaining 2/3 excavation.
First step to adjust soil parameters to match measured
deflection from stage 1 excavation before JGP work
Back-Analyses Original Soil Parameters
Soil Description
Bulk
Density
(kN/m3)
Cu
(kPa)
C'
(kPa)
Phi'
(deg)
E'50 (kPa)
*E'ur
(kPa)
Ko
k
(m/s)
Loose clayey SAND
18
--
0.5
30
8,000
N.A
0.5
1x10-6
Backfill material
19
--
30
10,000
N.A
1x10-6
Marine CLAY
16
15
20
0.87 x400 x cu
N.A
1.0
1x10-9
Peaty CLAY
16
15
20
0.87 x 400 x cu
N.A
1.0
1x10-9
OA (N<10)
19
5N
30
1,500 N
2.5* E'50
0.8
1x10-8
OA (10<N<30)
19
5N
33
1,500 N
2.5* E'50
0.8
1x10-8
OA (30<N<50)
20
5N
33
1,500 N
2.5* E'50
0.8
1x10-8
OA (50<N<100)
20
5N
35
1,500 N
2.5* E'50
1.0
1x10-9
Back-Analyses Revised Soil Parameters
Soil Description
Bulk
Density
(kN/m3)
Cu
(kPa)
C'
(kPa)
Phi'
(deg)
E'50 (kPa)
*E'ur
(kPa)
Ko
k
(m/s)
Loose clayey SAND
18
--
0.5
30
15,000
N.A
0.5
1x10-6
Backfill material
19
--
30
10,000
N.A
1x10-6
Marine CLAY
16
15
20
0.87 x400 x cu
N.A
1.0
1x10-9
Peaty CLAY
16
15
20
0.87 x 400 x cu
N.A
1.0
1x10-9
OA (N<10)
19
5N
30
1,750 N
2.5* E'50
0.8
1x10-8
OA (10<N<30)
19
5N
33
1,750 N
2.5* E'50
0.8
1x10-8
OA (30<N<50)
20
5N
33
1,750 N
2.5* E'50
0.8
1x10-8
OA (50<N<100)
20
5N
35
1,750 N
2.5* E'50
1.0
1x10-9
Soil parameters calibrated to

match site deflection as close
as possible using reasonable
soil parameters.
Measured Site Deflection at this
stage, site = 7.9mm
Black Line Using Original Soil
Parameters, Max = 28mm, far
from measured deflection.
Blue Line After revised
parameters on clayey SAND
and OA soil, Max = 22mm.
Still far from measured
deflection, but better.
These parameters are still
conservative to be adopted.
Clayey
SAND
Revised
Soil
Parameters
Peaty
CLAY
OA,
SPT-N=6
OA,
SPT-N=17
OA,
SPT-N=37
OA,
SPT-N=50
Original
Soil
Parameters
Measured
Deflection

Predicted
Line
JGP effects not considered.

The magnitude of the FE
prediction is less than the
measured value.
The deflection profile also
does not resemble the trend
measured by IW-2.
So, JGP installation effects
has to be taken into
consideration.
Measured
deflection
during 1/3
exc to FEL
Back Analyses: JGP installation effects
How to simulate the JGP installation effects?

Constant Volume Strain?
Varying Volume Strain?
Apply Volume Strain in Plaxis How?

Plaxis Reference
Manual

3% v
Apply CONSTANT VOLUME

STRAIN to see the effects.
Constant Volume Strain were
applied throughout the JGP
layer, using a number of
1%,3% and 5% strain.
None of the predicted
displacements at this stage
shows similar trend to what is
measured at site.
1% v
JGP
thickness
5% v
Measured
Site
Deflection
VARYING VOLUMETRIC
STRAIN was imposed & the
result is Line A.
It is not very close to the
measured deflection, but the
trend is similar.
Predicted
deflection at
Stage Exc to
RL109
Measured Site
Deflection after JGP
works (24/3/2010)
Line A
Note that this is not a prediction,

but a back-analysis by imposing
volumetric strain to fit the
measured wall deflection.
Also note that the imposed
volume strain at a particular soil
cluster is not always fully applied.
The actual wall movement
depends on the stiffness of the
wall and surrounding soils. That is
why Line A is a bit far-off from the
measured deflection on the first
trial.
Therefore, some iterations have
to be carried out to match the
measured deflection.
Predicted
deflection at
Stage Exc to
RL109
Measured Site
Deflection after JGP
works (24/3/2010)
Line A
After a few iterations, a final

profile of Line B, which is
closer to measured deflection,
was obtained.
Once this was done, the
simulation of the remaining
excavation is carried out.
And the deflection and forces
in the D-wall at the end of the
excavation was assessed and
check against its structural
capacity.
Measured
Site
Deflection
Line A
Line B
Install JGP behind Wall (apply volume strain)
April 16, 2012
45
Install Soil Improvement in front of Wall
April 16, 2012
46
Exc to RL104.5
April 16, 2012
47
Excavate to RL96.2 (1/3 of area only)
April 16, 2012
48
Excavate to RL96.2 (1/3 of FEL only)
April 16, 2012
49
Final Profile
April 16, 2012
50
Wall Deflection at the End of Excavation
Inclino
Reading
after install
JGP
Line B
Inclino
Reading at
End of
Construction
Predicted
deflection at
End of
Construction
Considering
JGP installation
Wall Deflection at the End of Excavation
Line B
Inclino
Reading at
End of
Construction
Predicted
deflection at
End of
Construction
Considering
JGP installation
Inclino
Reading
after install
JGP
Conclusion
Conclusion
Design Issue:
The use of DSM in grid/cell form is effective.

The design concept of Soil Improvement Block using the approach of
area replacement ratio in Plaxis works well in this project, but further
research in understanding the actual mechanism is necessary.
The function of Volumetric Strain in Plaxis could be used to simulate
the effect of ground/wall movement due to grouting in back-analysis.
More research to determine the volumetric strain caused by various
types of grouting in different soil condition has to be done before one
could predict the ground movement due grouting work using the
volumetric strain method.
Site Issue:
Be aware of the sequence for JGP installation during construction

period. Do not underestimate the effects of JGP installation process.
Thank you
Back Analyses: After revising soil parameters,

then?
After revised soil parameters, the subsequent steps are:

Simulate JGP installation
effects behind D-wall after
Stage excavate to RL109
B.M. Capacity of Wall

were found insufficient,
Remedial Works required.
Proceed with subsequent

construction sequence until
permanent stage to include
permanent condition of Wall
Remedial
Works
thickening
of
considered.
Assess
Wall.
B.M.
Capacity
of
Will only focus

on this part in
this presentation
by
Wall
Excavate to 1/3 of FEL area.
April 16, 2012
57
Comparison with Inclinometer Reading at End of

Construction
If JGP installation effects is

not considered, this behavior
may not be captured.
Line B
Inclino
Inclino at
Reading
Reading
at
End
of
End
of
Construction
Construction
Predicted
Predicted
deflection
deflection
at at
End ofEnd
Construction
of
without
Construction
Considering JGP
installation
16/04/2012
AStudyofTunnelPileInteraction
usingPlaxis3D
RF Shen
Scenario1:
Impactoftunnelling
onexistingpiles
16/04/2012
Scenario2:
Impactofpiling
loadingonexisting
tunnels
(1)Aproposeddevelopmentwaslocatedadjacenttothefuture
developmentMRTtwintunnels;
(2)ThepilingsystemwithinMRTProtectionZoneadoptsboredpiles
soastominimizethedynamicimpactduringconstruction.
RCpilesoutsideMRT
ProtectionZone
Boredpiles
withinMRT
ProtectionZone
MRTProtection
Zone
Future MRTtwin
tunnels
16/04/2012
HOWtosimulatetheproblemusingPlaxis3D?
Mostcritical
sectionadoptedfor
thepresent3DFEM
analysis
Typicalcrosssection
Roadsurface
Boredpiledia.
1000mmwith40m
lengthwith28minto
underlyingOAsoils
16/04/2012
Boreholesatthislocalareaareadoptedfortheinterpretation
ofsubsurfacesoilprofile
GIBR soilparametersareadoptedfortheanalysis.Effectivedrained
parametersareadoptedduetothelongtermnatureoftheproject
Boredpiledia.
1000mmwith40m
lengthtorestonthe
underlyinghardOA
withSPT N>100
16/04/2012
IllustrationofeffectivedrainedsoilparametersfollowingGIBR
adoptedin3DFEManalysis
IllustrationofeffectivedrainedsoilparametersfollowingGIBR
adoptedin3DFEManalysis
10
16/04/2012
Constructingthe3DFEMmesh
11
3DFEMmeshwithsubsurfacesoilprofiles,pilegroups,tunnels
Pilegroups
25kPasurcharge
Workingload
onpilecap
Topfill
OA(E)
OA(D)
OA(C)
OA(B)
F1
F2
Upperand
closertunnel
Lowerand
farthertunnel
Underlyinghard
OA(N>100)
12
16/04/2012
Hidingofsomesoilelementstorevealthetunnelsandpiles
25kPasurcharge
Pilegroups
Workingload
onpilecap
Boredpiles
dia.1mwith
40mlength
tunnels
13
Scenario1:
Pilegroupsassumedtobeconstructedfirst;
Effectof2tunnelling(with2%volumelosseach)
ontheadjacentpilegroups
14
16/04/2012
Simulationsequence:
25kPasurcharge
Pilegroupswith
loadingsappliedfirst
TunnelsNOT
constructedyet
15
Lowertunnelactivatedwith2%volumeloss
Lowertunnel
activatedwith
2%volumeloss
16
16/04/2012
Theinvertofthetunnelwasrestrainedfromheavingup,soas
toinducemaximumtunnelshrinkinginwardwithmaximum
impacttosurroundingground
Crosssectionofmodeltunnel
3Dview
Asurprise:tunnelhasanoverallshrinkingin,therestraintat
theinverthasNOTeffect
18
16/04/2012
Asurprise:tunnelhasanoverallshrinkingin,therestraintat
theinverthasNOTeffect
hexagon
hexagon
tunnel
tunnel
composedof30
composedof24
sides,each12
sides,each15
19
Arelieftoremovetheunpleasantsurprise
Correctrestraintof
invertoftunnel
20
10
16/04/2012
Followedbytheuppertunnelactivatedwith2%volumeloss
Followedbythe
uppertunnel
activatedwith
2%volumeloss
21
Finaltunnelvolumelossshapes(scaledupby25times)
22
11
16/04/2012
Finalgroundmovementcontourplot
Maxgroundmovementaroundtunnelcrown,anddissipatesawayfromthetunnels
Immediatelyabovethetunnel,theinducedgroundsurfacesettlementisabout25mm;
whilethegroundmovementattheadjacentsiteisabout10mm
10mm
25mm
23
Theinducedmaxpiledeflectionisonlyabout6mmduetothe
2tunnelling with2%volumelosseach
24
12
16/04/2012
Theinducedmaxpilesettlementislessthan5mm
25
Maxpileaxialforceof5386kNbeforetunnelling;and5766kNafter2
tunnelling,anincrementof380kN,orabout7%incrementonly.
AxialforceBEFORE2tunnelling
AxialforceAFTER2tunnelling 26
13
16/04/2012
MaxpileBMtowardstunnels(M22)of90kNmbeforetunnelling;and104kNmafter2
tunnelling,anincrementof14kNmwhichisnegligibleforaboredpileof1mdiameter.
Bendingmomenttowardstunnels
M22BEFOREtwotunnelling
M22AFTERtwotunnelling 27
MaxpileBMparalleltotunnels(M33)of60kNmbeforetunnelling;and63kNmafter2
tunnelling,indicatingnegligibleincrementofBMparalleltothetwotunnelling.
M33BEFOREtwotunnelling
M33AFTERtwotunnelling 28
14
16/04/2012
Finalpilemaxloading
condition:
FinalMaxworkingaxialforce=
5766kN;
FOS=1.4;
Factoredaxialforce=5766*1.4=
8072kN
MaxworkingBM:
M22=104kNm;M33=63kNm;
SoCompositeBM=122kNm;
FOS=1.4;
FactoredBM=170*1.4=170kNm
Thefinalloadingstateislocated
wellwithintheMNplot
envelope
29
Scenario2:
Tunnelsassumedtobeconstructedfirst;
Effectofpilegrouploadingsontheadjacent
tunnels;
30
15
16/04/2012
Simulationsequence
Twotunnelsin
placefirst
31
Pilegroupssubsequentlyinstalledandloadedsubsequently
Pilegroups
Workingload
onpilecap
Somesoil
elements
hiddentoshow
thepilegroups
32
16
16/04/2012
Additionaltunnelmovement(predominatelyverticalsettlement,scaledupby250times):
4.8mmforthetop/neartunnel
1.3mmforthelower/fartunnel
Botharequitesmallandtolerable
Bluecolortunnelis
original position
beforepileloadings
Redcolortunnelis
shifted position
afterpileloadings
33
Theadditionaltunnelmovementsaremainlysettlementwithminorlateralmovement:
Verticalsettlement:4.7mmforthetop/neartunnel
Horizontalmovement:1.2mmforthetop/neartunnel
Verticalsettlement
Horizontalmovement
34
17
16/04/2012
Totalnormalstressonthetunnelwallis957kPabeforepile
loadings;andincreasesto964kPaafterpileloadings,an
incrementofabout7kPa,farlessthanthespecified15kPa.
Interfaceelements
aroundthetunnels
LTA required
BEFOREpilegroup Incrementalpressure
ontunnel<15kPa
loadings
AFTERpilegroup
loadings
35
(1)ItisnottheintentionofthepresentanalysistoevaluatetheBMonthetunnel,but
justtoevaluatetheorderofincrementofBMonthetunnelduetopilegrouploadings.
(2)Thesagging/hoggingBMvaluesbeforepileloadingsis77/66kNm/m,respectively;
whileBMvaluesincreaseto80/67kNm/mafterpilegrouploadings,withanincrement
of1~3kNm/m onlywhichisquitenegligible.
BEFOREpilegroup
loadings
AFTERpilegroup
loadings
36
18
16/04/2012
Conclusions(1)
1) The1st3DFEManalysiswasconductedfortheScenario#1withpile
groupsassumedtobeconstructedfirst,followedbythe2tunnelling
with2%volumelosseachtoevalute theimpactonthepilegroups.
2) Inthe3DFEMvolumelosssimulation,theinvertofthetunnelwas
restrainedfromheavingup(becarefulofthesurprise!),soasto
inducemaximumtunnelshrinkinginwardwithmaximumimpactto
surroundingground.
3) TheMaxgroundmovementoccursaroundtunnelcrowns,and
dissipatesawayfromthetunnels.Immediatelyabovethetunnel,the
inducedgroundsurfacesettlementisabout25mm;whiletheground
movementattheadjacentsiteisabout10mm.
4) Theinducedmaxpiledeflectionisonlyabout6mmduetothe2
tunnelling with2%volumelosseach,andtheinducedmaxpile
settlementislessthan5mm,botharetolerabletothepilefoundation.
5) ThefinalforcesactingonboredpilesarecheckedtobewithintheMN
envelopeplot,indicatingthestructuralsoundnessoftheboredpiles
37
aftertunnelling impact.
Conclusions(2)
1) The2nd 3DFEManalysiswasconductedfortheScenario#2with
thetunnelsassumedtobeconstructedfirst,followedbythe
applicationoftheadjacentpilegrouploadingsandevaluateits
impacttothetunnels.
2) Theadditionaltotaltunnelmovementduetothepilegroup
loadingsisonlyabout4.8mmforthetoptunnelandisonlyabout
1.3mmforthelowertunnel,botharequitesmallandtolerable(<
15mm).
3) Theinducedincrementofpressureonthetunnelwallisonly
about7kPa,whichisfarlessthanthespecified15kPa.
4) Accordingly,theincrementofsagging/hoggingBMvaluesofthe
tunnelisonlyabout1~3kNm/mwhichisquitenegligible.
5) The3DFEManalysisillustratesthatdebondingoftheupper
portionofthepileslocatedwithintheMRTProtectionZoneis
notnecessary.
38
19
16/04/2012
Thankyouforyourpatience!
39
20
16/04/2012
Plotting Ground Reaction

Curve Using Plaxis
NATM Tunnel Modeling
Presented by
SAJJAD ANWAR
AECOM SINGAPORE
Slide 1
Overview
Slide 2
16/04/2012
GROUNDREACTION
MStage =0
MStage >0
MStage =1
Slide 3
PATTERNOFDEFORMATION
(withoutSupport)
Tunnel
Face
Slide 4
16/04/2012
GROUNDREACTIONCURVE
Slide 5
CONVERGENCECONFINEMENTCURVE
CONVERGENCECURVE
(GROUNDREACTIONCURVE)
CONFINEMENTCURVE
(SUPPORTREACTIONCURVE)
Deformation
before
installationof
support
Support
Elastic
Deformation
Slide 6
16/04/2012
LONGITUDINALDEFORMATIONPROFILE
Slide 7
SUPPORTDESIGN
AdequateSupportDesign/Capacity
Slide 8
16/04/2012
SUPPORTDESIGN
InadequateSupportDesign/Capacity
Slide 9
Empirical Method
Slide 10
16/04/2012
EMPIRICALEQUATIONS
Slide 11
REFERENCES
Slide 12
16/04/2012
SUPPORTCAPACITYESTIMATION
Slide 13
CONVERGENCECONFINEMENTCURVE
Slide 14
16/04/2012
LONGITUDINALDEFORMATIONPROFILE
Slide 15
Slide 16
16/04/2012
Numerical Modeling
Plaxis 2D
Plaxis 3D Tunnel
Slide 17
Plaxis2D
Plaxis3D
WhyNumerical
Modeling?
Slide 18
16/04/2012
Because!
EmpiricalMethodbasedonCloseForm
Solution
SuitableforCircularTunnelProfile/Geometry
HomogeneousGroundCondition
IsotropicStressRegime
Slide 19
WhyNumerical
Modeling?
NumericalMethodnotbasedonCloseForm
Solution
SuitableforAnyTunnelProfile/Geometry
InhomogeneousGroundCondition(Multilayers)
AnisotropicStressRegime
Slide 20
10
16/04/2012
Plotting Ground
Reaction Curve by
using Plaxis 2D
Slide 21
GROUNDPROFILE
63m
Slide 22
11
16/04/2012
CURVECONSTRUCTIONSEQUENCE
Slide 23
RELAXATIONFACTOR( FACTOR)
Slide 24
12
16/04/2012
TUNNELDEFORMATIONPROFILE
0,41.02
Slide 25
SELECTIONOFPOINTTOPLOTCURVE
0,41.02
Slide 26
13
16/04/2012
PLOTTINGCURVE
Slide 27
GROUNDREACTIONCURVE
Slide 28
14
16/04/2012
GROUNDREACTIONCURVE
Slide 29
Plotting Longitudinal
Deformation Curve
by using Empirical
Method
Slide 30
15
16/04/2012
LONGITUDINALDEFORMATIONPROFILE(LDP)
Thisprofilecanbeusedto
Establishadistanceconvergencerelationshipfor2D
modelingorforanalyticalsolutions
ThefollowingEquationsareproposedby
Vlachopoulos andDiederichs (2009a)toestimate
LDP
Slide 31
InputParameters
RadiusofPlasticZone(Rp)
TunnelRadius(Rt)
TotalTunnelDeformation(Umax)
DistanceIntervalAheadandBehindof
Tunnelface(X)
Slide 32
16
16/04/2012
TUNNELANDPLASTICZONERADIUS
(FinalStage)
Slide 33
TOTALTUNNELDEFORMATION
Slide 34
17
16/04/2012
Slide 35
Plotting Support
Reaction Curve
Slide 36
18
16/04/2012
SUPPORTREACTIONCURVE
Slide 37
SUPPORTREACTIONCURVE
SFPsm/peq>1.0
psm
equilibrium
peq
Slide 38
19
16/04/2012
DESIGNSPREADSHEET
Slide 39
RELAXATIONFACTORDETERMINATION
MStage =0.7
15.6mm
Slide 40
20
16/04/2012
COMPARISON
Slide 41
Verification by
Plaxis 3D
Slide 42
21
16/04/2012
3DTUNNELMODELMESH
Slide 43
TUNNELDEFORMATION
Slide 44
22
16/04/2012
TUNNELDEFORMATION
Slide 45
TUNNELDEFORMATION
Comparison
3D
2D
Slide 46
23
16/04/2012
TUNNELRADIALDEFORMATION
DEFORMEDMESH
Slide 47
Slide 48
24
16/04/2012
Slide 49
Slide 50
25
16/04/2012
TUNNELDEFORMATION
RADIAL
FACE
Slide 51
RADIALDEFORMATION
Slide 52
26
16/04/2012
FACEDEFORMATION
Slide 53
DEFORMEDPROFILE
Slide 54
27
16/04/2012
DEFORMEDPROFILE
Slide 55
DEFORMATIONPROFILE
Slide 56
28
16/04/2012
DEFORMATIONPROFILE
Slide 57
PLANVIEW
TunnelFace
TunnelDrive
SECTIONALVIEW
Slide 58
29
16/04/2012
With Support
Slide 59
DEFORMEDPROFILE
WithSupport
Slide 60
30
16/04/2012
DEFORMEDPROFILE
WithSupportandExcavation
Slide 61
PLANVIEW
Slide 62
31
16/04/2012
SIDEVIEW
Slide 63
COMPARISON
Slide 64
32
16/04/2012
THANKYOU
Slide 65
33
Numerical modelling of tunnelling and tunnel-soil-pile interaction
Hartono
Research Scholar
The National University of Singapore
Courtesy of Keller
Plaxis Users Meeting, Singapore, 12 April 2012
Content
Ground movements due to tunnelling
Current predictive methods
Numerical modelling of tunnelling-induced ground movements
Case histories: Second Heinenoord Tunnel and C704 NEL Tunnel
Behaviour of piled foundation due to tunnelling
Back analysis of C704 NEL tunnel-soil-pile interaction
Concluding remarks
Typical TBM EPB machine

11
1
9
5
1.
Tunnel face
2.
Cutter head
3.
Excavation chamber
4.
Bulkhead
5.
Airlock
6.
Thrust cylinders
7.
Screw conveyor
8.
Lining erector
9.
Lining segments
10.
Belt conveyor
11.
TBM shield
10
4
2
7
3
6
Courtesy of Herrenknecht
Tunnelling inevitably causes ground movements

Surface displacements
- Settlement trough
(transverse/longitudinal)
- Horizontal displacement
- Horizontal strain
Subsurface displacements
Greenfield or
tunnel-structure
interaction
- Subsurface settlement
- Subsurface horizontal
displacement
These movements must be quantified
Predictive methods:
- Empirical (Gaussian)
- Analytical
- Numerical (FEM)
Surface ground displacements can be estimated accurately using empirical

and analytical methods, but not so for the subsurface displacements
Results of FEA are very sensitive to many variables, but not so for
empirical and analytical methods
Five (5) primary sources of ground movements
The ground movements, mainly due to over excavation, are usually

quantified as a lump parameter of volume loss.
Volume Loss - Definition
Gaussian settlement trough
y/i
-3
-2
-1
3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
S/Smax
0.8
The volume of settlement trough is expressed as a proportion of the theoretical volume of

the tunnel excavation. The percentage is termed as a useful index of loss of ground or
volume loss (Peck, 1969)
The volume loss, VL, is the amount of ground lost in the region close to the tunnel.
Volume of settlement = Volume of over-excavation

Volume of settlement < Volume of over-excavation
Volume of settlement > Volume of over-excavation
no volume change
dilation
compression
However, for convenience, it is expressed as: (Mair and Taylor, 1997)

Volume Loss
Volume of settlement trough Area of settlement trough

=
Volume of excavated tunnel
Area of excavated tunnel
Ground movements due to tunnelling Gaussian
The most widely used method in practice due to its simplicity as only two parameters are
required to establish the curve, namely volume loss (VL) and trough width parameter (K).
The trough width parameter (K) has been established on the basis of the worldwide field
database. K is typically 0.4-0.6 for clays and 0.25-0.45 for sands and gravels (Mair and
Taylor, 1997).
OReilly and New (1982)
Loganathan, Poulos & Xu (2001) Analytical Solution
u z 0 o R 2
4 H 1
1.38 x 2
exp
2
H x
H cot R
2
zH
zH
2 z x 2 z H 2
u z 0 R 2
3 4
2
x 2 z H 2
x 2 z H 2
x 2 z H 2
1
3 4 4 z z H
u x 0 R 2 x
x 2 H z 2 x 2 H z 2
x 2 H z 2
exp
1.38 x 2
H cot R 2
4R 2
0.69 z 2
H 2

1.38 x 2
0.69 z 2
exp
2
H 2
H cot R
4 gR g 2
100%
Hypothetical problem
D = 6.5m; Zo = 30 m; VL = 1.5%
Offset from tunnel center-line (m)
-40
-20
20
40
-60
60
10
15
20
K=0.30 (Sand)
K=0.40
K=0.50 (Clay)
K=0.60
25
30
Surface settlement (mm)
Surface settlement (mm)
-60
-20
20
40
60
10
15
v=0
v=0.25
v=0.50
20
25
30
Gaussian
Offset from tunnel center-line (m)
-40
Loganathan, Poulos & Xu (2001)
Gaussian and analytical solution are not sensitive to a wide range of

variables, but not so in FEA
Back-analysis of settlement trough using FE
In literatures, there is no clear conclusion which facets of modelling affect the predicted
results
Soil model
Simulation technique of tunnelling (2D or 3D)
Simple soil model versus advanced soil model (Gunn, 1993; Dasari, 1996; Addenbrooke
et al., 1997)
Stiffness nonlinearity (Mair, 1993; Atkinson, 2000)
Anisotropic (Lee and Rowe, 1989; Simpson et al., 1996)
2D analysis: Lining contraction method (Vermeer and Brinkgreve, 1993), stress
reduction Beta method (Panet and Guenot, 1982), GAP method (Lee et al., 1991),
tunnel-volume loss method (Addenbrooke et al., 1997), grout pressure method (Moller
and vermeer, 2008), etc.
3D analysis: step-by-step procedure that simulating face pressure, shield advancement,
over-excavation due to pitching or yawing, tail-void grouting, lining installation, etc.
Effect of initial stress conditions

Effect of boundary conditions
Nevertheless, it has been well accepted that soil models with stiffness nonlinearity
better predict the ground movements compared to simple soil models (e.g., Mohr
Coulomb)
Finite element analysis of shield tunnelling 2D model

ground
ground
GAP
GAP method
Lining contraction
Vermeer and Brinkgreve, 1993
ground
Rowe et al. (1983)
ground
ground
-T/i
Pcrown
grout
Po
Stress reduction method
Tunnel volume loss method
Panet and Guenot (1982)
Addenbrooke et al. (1997)
PA
Grout pressure method
Moller and Vermeer (2008)
On Grout Pressure Method
FEA is very sensitive not only to soil models but also applied pressure. Moller
and Vermeer (2008) also arrived with a conclusion that the estimated ground
displacements are very sensitive to the grout pressure.
Comparison with the actual tunnelling process?
On Grout Pressure Method
The pressure at the tunnel crown could be taken from the pressure-volume
loss curve according to the expected volume loss
The unit weight of water is taken as a rate of increment
Volume loss is a prescribed value rather than a predicted value
Pressure (kPa)
ground
Pcrown
w
Modified grout pressure method
Case history Second Heinenoord Tunnel in the Netherland
8.3 m diameter tunnel with 15.6 m depth of the tunnel axis
Plaxis 2D v.9.0 was used. 1110 number of 6-noded triangular elements. Plane strain model.
Field record of surface settlement trough and subsurface horizontal ground movement was used as
a comparison with back-analysis results (Data from Moller, 2006)
Soil parameters were derived from Moller (2006) based on the soil report (Bakker, 2000)
Drained response is assumed for all soil layers

40m
35
Fill
19.75 m
23.25 m
27.5 m
Sand
Clay
27.5m
Sand
Max. surface settlement (mm)
0m
1.5 m
4m
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
1000
2000
3000 4000 5000

No. of elements
6000
7000
Hardening soil (HS)
Stress dependent stiffness

ref c cos 3 sin
E50 E50
c cos p ref sin
ref c cos 3 sin

Eur Eur
c cos p ref sin
Modulus
ref c cos 1 sin

Eoed Eoed
c cos p ref sin
m=0
0<m<1
Schanz, Vermeer and Bonnier (1999)
Hardening soil with small strain (HSSmall)
Atkinson & Sallfors (1991); Mair (1993)
Santos & Correia (2001)
q = 1 - 3
Gs
G0
1 0.385
0 .7
c cos 3 sin
G0 G0ref
c cos p ref sin
1
Benz (2006)
m=1

Soil Parameters: MC and HSSmall
sat
(kN/m3)
Eoed
(MPa)
c
(kPa)
(kPa)
Ko
17.2
0.34
27
0.58
Sand
20
0.30
40
0.01
35
0.47
Sand
20
0.30
120
0.01
35
0.47
Clay, local parts of sand
20
0.32
48
31
0.55
Soil
Fill
ref
Eoed
(MPa)
ur
Soil
ref
E50
(MPa)
Eurref
(MPa)
G0ref
(MPa)
0.7
OCR
Fill
0.20
14
14
42
52
5.10-4
0.5
Sand
0.20
35
35
105
175
5.10-4
0.5
Sand
0.20
35
35
105
175
5.10-4
0.5
Clay, local parts of sand
0.20
12
35
88
5.10-4
0.9
Stiffness, E50 (MPa)

0
20
40
60
Stiffness, Eoed (MPa)

20
40
60
Stiffness, Eur (MPa)

20 40 60 80 100 120 140
1
Stiffness, Go (MPa)
40 80 120 160
200
0
5
Depth (m)
10
15
20
25
HS - HSSmall
MC
30
35

250
134
Max. settlement (mm)
130
128
126
124
122
120
200
150
100
Gaussian
50
Current method
118
0
0
2
3
4
Volume Loss (%)
2
3
4
Volume Loss (%)
y/D
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Sv/Smax
Pressure (kPa)
132

-40
-30
Distance from centre line (m)

-20
-10
Measurement
Gaussian (K=0.42) VL=0.8%
HS-Contraction(C=0.95%) VL=1.40%
HS-Contraction with invert fixity (C=0.8%) VL=1.43%
HS-Stress reduction (0.747) VL=1.39%
HS-Grout pressure (135 kPa) VL=1.21%
HS-Modified grout pressure (142 kPa) VL=1.23%
Settlement (cm)

-30
Distance from centre line (m)

-20
-10
0
0
Measurement
Gaussian (K=0.42, GLR=0.8%)
HSSmall-Contraction(C=0.85%) VL=0.96%
HSSmall-Contraction with invert fixity (C=0.8%) VL=0.97%
HSSmall-Stress reduction (0.702) VL=0.90%
HSSmall-Grout pressure (118.5 kPa) VL=0.73%
HSSmall-Modified grout pressure (125 kPa) VL=0.80%
Settlement (cm)
-40

Horizontal displacements (mm)
-5
0
5
10
15
-5
Horizontal displacements (mm)

0
5
10
15
0
5
Depth (m)
10
Tunnel axis
15
20
25
Measurement
HSSmall-Contraction (0.85%)
HSSmall-Contraction with total fixity (0.8%)
HSSmall-Stress reduction (0.702)
HSSmall-Grout pressure (118.5 kPa)
HSSmall-Modified grout pressure (125 kPa)
30
35
6m
10 m
Contraction
100 times scale
GAP
Grout pressure
Stress reduction
Modified grout pressure

Subsurface settlement (mm)
0m
-10
0
Depth (m)
10
20
5m
30
40
-10 0
10 20 30 40 0
10 m
4
12
16
20
HSSmall-Contraction
HSSmall-Contraction with invert fixity
HSSmall-Stress reduction
HSSmall-Grout pressure
HSSmall-Modified grout pressure
10
15
20
25
30
Case history C704 NEL Tunnel in Singapore
6.5 m diamater EPB shield machine was used. The tunnel axis was 21 m. The distance of SB and
NB tunnel was 16 m. SB tunnel was advancing first and later followed by NB tunnel
1.9 km viaduct was being constructed along the twin tunnels of Contract 704
The viaduct was supported by piers seating on bored piles
Comprehensive field measurements of ground movements and pile responses were reported by
Pang (2005)
62 m
30 m
0m
G4a
16 m
G4b
G4a
74 m
30 m
G4c
NB
tunnel
SB
tunnel
44 m
G4b
G4c
G4d
G4d
140 m
74 m
1623 of 6-noded triangular elements
(Plaxis 2D v9.2.)
329,872 of 10-noded tetrahedron elements

(Plaxis 3D General 2011)

HSSmall was used as a soil model. Basic soil parameters were obtained from Pang (2005).
sat
(kN/m3)
E50
(MPa)
G4a (0 < N < 15)
18
0.30
8.7
20
28
1.0
G4b (15 < N < 30)
19
0.30
40
30
30
1.0
G4c (30 < N < 60)
20
0.30
65
30
30
1.0
G4d (60 < N <100)
20
0.30
86.7
30
30
1.0
Soil
ref
Eoed
(MPa)
E50ref
(MPa)
Eurref
(MPa)
G0ref
(MPa)
G4a (0 < N < 15)
0.20
8.7
8.7
26.1
G4b (15 < N < 30)
0.20
40
40
120
G4c (30 < N < 60)
0.20
65
65
G4d (60 < N <100)
0.20
86.7
86.7
Stiffness, E50 (MPa)

0
40
80
120
10
20
Depth (m)
30
40
50
60
70
80
(kPa)
ur
Soil
c
(kPa)
Stiffness, Eoed (MPa)

40
80
120
Ko
0.7
Pref
(kPa)
179
2.10-5
0.5
100
534
2.10-5
0.5
250
195
907
2.10-5
0.5
350
260
1523
2.10-5
0.5
Stiffness, Eur (MPa)

75
150 225 300
HS - HSSmall
MC
500
Stiffness, Go (MPa)
400 800 1200 1600 2000

3.0
HSSmall-2D
HSSmall-3D General
FE Vol. Loss (%)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
Pressure (kPa)
220.0
240.0

2D FE analysis Single Tunnel
0
Distance from SB centre line (m)

10
20
30
40
50
-50
Distance from NB centre line (m)

-40
-30
-20
-10
0
5
10
10
15
20
Measurement - Face loss
Measurement - Face loss
Measurement - Shield loss

Measurement
Measurement--Face
Taill loss
void closure
- Face 1.07,
loss 1.38%)
Measurement
- Shield
loss
GaussianMeasurement
(K=0.50,
VL=0.68,
Measurement
Measurement
- Taill void- Shield
closureloss
HSSmall-Modified grout pressure (161 kPa)
- Taill 1.07,
void 1.38%)
closure
Gaussian Measurement
(K=0.50, VL=0.68,
HSSmall-Modified grout pressure (154.5 kPa)
SB Tunnel
Measurement - Taill void closure

Measurement
Face
loss 1.00, 1.67%)
Measurement
- -Face
loss
Gaussian
(K=0.50,
VL=0.45,
HSSmall-Modified
groutloss
pressure (162.5 kPa)
Measurement - Shield
Measurement - Taill void closure
HSSmall-Modified
grout
(150.5 kPa)
Measurement
- Taill
voidpressure
closure
Gaussian (K=0.50,
VL=0.45,
1.00, 1.67%)
NB Tunnel
15
20
25
30
Settlement (mm)
Settlement (mm)

3D General
-50
-40
Distance from SB tunnel centre line (m)

-30 -20 -10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-20
60
10
10
20
-10
Lateral displ. (mm)

0
10
20
20
30
Depth (m)
Settlement (mm)
-60
40
Measurement - SB+NB (at pier P20)
3D-FE-SB+NB tunnels
3D-FE-Tunnel-pile (SB + NB)
50
60
30
40
50
60
70
Measurement (SB)
Loganathan & Poulos (1998)
FE-SB Tunnel
FE-SB+NB Tunnels
1 m away from SB tunnel

Subsurface ground settlement due to SB only
-20
-10

0
10
20
30
40
50
-20
60
Offset
10, 8, 6, 4, 0 m
Offset
6, 4, 0 m
10
5
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
20
30
40
60
70

0
10
20
30
40
50
-10
10
15
Mair et al. (1993) - y=0 m
Mair et al. (1993) - y=4 m
Mair et al. (1993) - y=6 m
Mair et al. (1993) - y=8 m
Mair et al. (1993) - y=10 m
Loganathan
& Poulos
(1998) - y=0 m
Mair
et al. (1993)
- y=0 m
Loganathan
& Poulos
(1998) - y=4 m
Mair
et al. (1993)
- y=4 m
Loganathan
& Poulos
(1998) - y=6 m
Mair
et al. (1993)
- y=6 m
Loganathan
& Poulos
(1998) - y=8 m
Mair
et al. (1993)
- y=8 m
Loganathan
&
Poulos
(1998)
- y=10 m
Mair
et
al.
(1993)
y=10
m
FE Modified grout pressure
FE
FEModified
Modifiedgrout
groutpressure
pressure
20
25
50
60
30
Content
Concluding remarks
C704 Tunnel Tunnel-soil-pile interaction
6.5 m
329,872 of 10-noded tetrahedron elements

3D analysis Pile group P1
-10
Settlement (mm)
10 20 30 40
50
Axial Load (kN)

2000
4000
6000
60 0
8000
10
Depth (m)
20
30
40
50
60
70
Measurement - P1 (SB)
Measurement - P1 (SB+NB)
FE-P1 (SB)
FE-P1 (SB+NB)
FE-Soil settlement (SB)

FE-Soil Settlement (SB+NB)
FE-P1 (SB)
FE-P1 (SB+NB)

-1000
0
Bending Moment (kN.m)

-500
0
500
1000
-15
-10
Lateral displc. (mm)

-5
0
5
10
10
Depth (m)
20
30
40
50
60
70
FE-P1 (SB)
FE-P1 (SB+NB)
FE-Soil lateral displc. (SB)

FE-Soil lateral displc. (SB+NB)
FE-P1 (SB)
FE-P1 (SB+NB)
15
20

-10
Settlement (mm)
10 20 30 40
50
60
Axial Load (kN)

2000
4000
6000
8000
10
Depth (m)
20
30
40
50
60
70
FE-Soil settlement (SB)

FE-Soil Settlement (SB+NB)
FE-P2 (SB)
FE-P2 (SB+NB)
FE-P2 (SB)
FE-P2 (SB+NB)

-400
0
Bending Moment (kN.m)

-200
0
200
400
600 -15
-10
Lateral displc. (mm)

-5
0
5
10
10
Depth (m)
20
30
40
50
60
70
FE-Soil lateral displc. (SB)
FE-Soil lateral displc. (SB+NB)
FE-P2 (SB)
FE-P2 (SB)
FE-P2 (SB+NB)
FE-P2 (SB+NB)
15
Content
Concluding remarks
Concluding Remarks
Two case histories have been back-analysed using HSSmall
Stiffness nonlinearity (e.g., HSSmall) is a necessary soil model

feature for better estimation of ground movements induced by
tunnelling.
Soil constitutive models play a more influential role, compared

to the numerical tunnelling techniques, on the estimated
surface settlement trough.
Tunnelling methods influence the curvature of subsurface

settlement profile particularly that closes to the tunnel
Concluding Remarks
Pile behaviour due to tunnelling of C704 NEL has been

successfully back-analyzed using HSSmall coupled with the
modified grout pressure method.
More works probably need to be done on the 3D simulation

technique before it is being used routinely in practice
Acknowledgement
The National University of Singapore
Prof. C.F. Leung
Prof. Y.K. Chow
Prof. Harry Tan
Thank you for you kind attention

Plaxis Users Meeting Singapore 2012

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Plaxis Users Meeting Singapore 2012

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

PlaxisUsersMeeting

Title:PlottingGroundReactionCurve UsingPlaxis NATMTunnelModelling

Sharing on Plaxis 2D and 3D FEM

Prof Harry Tan

DTL1 C908 Project Information: Telok Ayer Station and Tunnels

Long and short D/Wall

A unique first-of-itskind Trouser Leg

Construction Sequence of C908 Tunnel Typical Section

Deepest Tunnel Section for Diaphragm Wall panels where

Model II For Long D-wall panels

Full thickness of 0.8m D/Wall panel is

below formation level at 89.4.

By c-phi reduction calculation,

A Parametric Study to vary Spacing to 18m and

Observation: Apparently, there is no great difference between the magnitude

SINGAPORE PLAXIS USER MEETING AT

Performance of Cantilevered Diaphragm Wall

Deep Soil Mixing

Jet Grouted mass has also been used as self standing

In this presentation the design and site issues faced in a

A 1.0m thick cantilevered diaphragm wall (D-wall) was

Cross Section of D-wall in Permanent Condition

Types of DSM Grid Patterns in Case Study

Types of DSM Grid Patterns in Case Study

Types of DSM Grid Patterns in Case Study

Types of DSM Grid Patterns in Case Study

Design Basis of In Situ Soil Mixing

In situ soil mixing Topolnicki, M. (2004)

Design Basis of In Situ Soil Mixing

Design Basis of In Situ Soil Mixing

Example in this project:

Respective total area, A =

Design Construction Sequence

Design Construction Sequence

Design Construction Sequence

Design Construction Sequence

Design Construction Sequence

Design Construction Sequence

Actual Construction Sequence

Actual Construction Sequence

Actual Construction Sequence

Actual Construction Sequence

JGP installation works

Progress of JGP Works

8th March 2010

1000mm THK D-wall

12th March 2010

Retained Soil Side

April 16, 2012

Time History of IW-2 and Actions Taken

Original WSL = 95mm

STOP WORK. ASSESS

Stage of excavation during breaching of WSL

Action Taken - Back-Analyses

To properly assess the BM in the D-wall, the shape of the

Back-Analyses Original Soil Parameters

Loose clayey SAND

Back-Analyses Revised Soil Parameters

Loose clayey SAND

Back-Analyses Revised Soil Parameters

Soil parameters calibrated to

Back-Analyses Revised Soil Parameters

JGP effects not considered.