First Asian Experienced Plaxis User Course 2003 - 2

1st Asian Course for Experienced
Plaxis Users
Dates
: 31 July to 2 August 2003
Location
: National University of Singapore
Course leader : Associate Professor Harry Tan,

National University of Singapore
INTRODUCTION: This course will follow in the tradition of the International Course for Experienced Plaxis
Users, held annually in The Netherlands. The course is
scheduled to be held 4 days before the 12th Asian
Regional Conference on Geotechnical Engineering in Singapore, so as to allow for maximum participation of
Plaxis users in Asian countries.
COURSE CONTENT: It is aimed to teach the use of
advanced soil models and advanced features in the new
Plaxis V8, and an introduction of the 3D Tunnel programs. The basic course covers the Mohr-Coulomb
model, attention is now focused on the Hardening Soil
model and the Soft Soil Creep model. These model and
advanced features of Plaxis V8 are employed in handson practice in practical problems of excavations,
ratory soil investigations. As before, lectures will be followed by related exercises, which are real case studies.
Also the 3D tunnel program will be introduced.
Deep excavations - Prof H. Tan
Consolidation in excavations and cut slopes Prof H. Tan
Tunneling - Prof P.A. Vermeer
Modeling of shield tunnels - Prof P.A. Vermeer
Introduction to 3D aspects of NATM tunneling Prof P.A. Vermeer
The third day focused on the Soft Soil Creep model and
its applications to embankments on weak foundations
improved with PVD and geosynthetics.
Soft Soil Creep model - Prof P.A. Vermeer
Embankments on weak foundation with PVD and
geosynthetics - Prof H. Tan
SOFTWARE: Exercises and case studies are based on
the PLAXIS computer program V8, which is used by geotechnical engineers worldwide. This user-friendly code
has been developed for deformation analyses, stability
embankments, slopes and tunnels.

The course provides both the knowledge and hands-on
experience in using advanced soil models and new Plaxis features. The theoretical knowledge is provided in lectures, whereas the experience can be obtained from the
exercises and case studies. Some of the main lectures
concentrate on various aspects of excavations, embankments, slopes and tunnels, whereas others go into
details of advanced modeling features.
LECTURES: Experts with theoretical background and
an extensive experience in practical computer modeling
give lectures and prepare exercises of case studies. On
the first day of the course the Hardening Soil model will
be introduced and the effect of groundwater flow will be
considered in detail. The specific areas of lectures are:
Organizers
: PAC, Faculty of Engineering,

PLAXIS BV
Consoft International Pte Ltd
Concepts of plasticity - Prof H. Tan

Soil stiffness - Prof P.A. Vermeer
Hardening Soil model - Prof P.A. Vermeer
Drained and undrained behavior - Prof H. Tan
Parameters of the HS model - Prof P.A. Vermeer
Pore pressures and groundwater flow - Prof H. Tan
During the second day, the focus is on advanced engineering in the field of deep excavations and tunnels, and
the determination of parameters from in-situ and labo-
assessment, groundwater flow and consolidation. It contains special options for soil-structures involving retaining walls, ground anchors,geosynthetics, tunnels linings, etc. The latest V8 has a fully automatic mesh
generator based on graphical input of soil-layer geometries, and several new features to facilitate input and
analysis of complex situations. Amongst other things,
Plaxis V8 allows for fully coupled deformation-consolidation during staged construction.
FORMAT: The course begins with registration on Thursday morning and ends on Saturday afternoon. Each session begins with 60 minutes of lectures followed by an
application exercise of about the same length. Lectures
are in English, and individual assistance will be provided
by graduate students during exercises.
COST: The cost of the course is $1200 per participant.
This includes a full set of instruction manuals and the use
of a computer. The fees also covers all lunches and two
tea-breaks per day.
Prof Harry Tan - Department of Civil Engineering, NUS (course
Prof Pieter Vermeer - Professor of Geotechnical Engineering,
leader)
University of Stuttgart (Germany)
Harry teaches basic and graduate course in Geotechnical Engi-
Pieter teaches both basic courses on Soil Mechanics and special
neering at NUS. He has been a Plaxis user over the last 10 years,
courses of Geotechnical Engineering at the University of
and has taught Plaxis courses in Singapore, Malaysia and Korea
Stuttgart in Germany. He has been involved in constitutive mod-
over the last 3 years. He is involved in geosynthetics and earth
elling and finite element analysis since the early seventies and
reinforcement research, and is very much involved in consulting
initiated the development of the Plaxis code. His interests range
for industry in Singapore and Malaysia using the Plaxis pro-
from field and laboratory testing of soils and rocks up to the
gram. He is currently the Director of Centre for Soft Ground Engi-
analysis of geotechnical structures.
neering at NUS.
The Lecturers
SCHEDULE
1st Asian Course for EXPERIENCED PLAXIS USERS
Dates: 31/07, 1/08 and 2/08 2003
Thursday, 31 July 2003
0900-0915
0915-1000
1000-1015
1015-1100
1100-1200
1200-1300
1300-1345
1345-1415
1415-1515
1515-1530
1530-1615
1615-1700
CG01 Opening
CG02 Concepts of Plasticity
Break
CG03 Stiffness of Soils
CG04 Foundation (Exercise)
Lunch
CG05 Hardening Soil Model
CG06 Drained and Undrained Soil Behavior
CG07 Pile Loading Test (Exercise)
Break
CG08 Selection of Parameters for HS
CG09 Pore Pressures and Groundwater Flow
Tan SA
Tan SA
Vermeer
Vermeer
Tan SA
Vermeer
Tan SA
Friday, 1 August 2003

0900-0945
0945-1015
1015-1030
1030-1200
1200-1300
1300-1400
1400-1500
1500-1515
1515-1630
1630-1700
CG10 Deep Excavations

CG11 Consolidation
Break
CG12 New OG Excavation (Exercise)
Lunch
CG13 Tunnel Heading Stability
CG14 Settlements due to Tunneling
Break
CG15 Shield Tunneling (Exercise)
CG16 Plaxis 3D Tunnel (Demonstration)
Tan SA
Tan SA
Vermeer
Vermeer
Saturday, 2 August 2003

0900-0945
0945-1030
1030-1045
1045-1200
1300-1400
1400-1415
CG17 Soft Soil Creep

CG18 Embankment Modeling
Break
CG19 Muar Test Embankment (Exercise)
Lunch
CG20 Closure
Vermeer
Tan SA
Vermeer/Tan
1ST Asian Course

for
EXPERIENCED PLAXIS USERS

31ST JULY to 2ND AUGUST 2003
THURSDAY, 31ST JULY 2003
CG02 CONCEPTS OF PLASTICITY
Concepts of Plasticity
Ronald Brinkgreve
Plaxis BV /
Delft University of Technology
PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES
Contents
Aspects of real soil behaviour
Stresses and strains
Stress paths in standard soil tests
Standard drained triaxial test (CD-test)
Oedometer test
Consolidated undrained triaxial test (CU-test)
Basic concepts of the Mohr-Coulomb model

Elastic strains, plastic strains
Yield function, plastic potential
Parameters
Possibilities and limitations of the M-C model

Aspects of real soil behaviour
Elasticity (reversible deformation; limited)

Plasticity (irreversible deformation)
Failure (ultimate limit state or critical state)
Presence and role of pore water
Undrained behaviour and consolidation
Stress-dependent stiffness
Time-dependent behaviour (creep, relaxation)
Compaction en dilatancy
Memory of pre-consolidation pressure
Anisotropy (directional strength and/or stiffness)

Stresses
Cartesian stresses:
= xx yy zz
xy yz zx ]T
= '+ w
= total stresses
= effective stresses
w = pore pressure (isotropic):
Hydrostatic
(constant head)
Non-hydrostatic (variable head groundwater flow)
Excess pore press. (undrained behaviour consolidation)

Stresses
Principal stresses:
1 = s * t *
s * = 12 ' xx + ' yy
2 = zz
3 = s * +r *
t*=
1
4
( 'xx ' yy )2 + xy2
Stress invariants (p and q):
p=
1
1
xx + yy + zz = ( 1 + 2 + 3 )
3
3
q=
1
2
2
( xx yy ) 2 + ( yy zz ) 2 + ( zz xx ) 2 + 6 xy
+ 6 2yz + 6 zx
2

Strains
Cartesian strains: = xx
Normal strains
ux
x
uy
yy =
y
xx =
zz =
uz
z
yy zz xy yz zx ]T
Shear strains
xy =
ux u y
+
y x
u y uz
+
z y
u u
zx = z + x
x z
yz =

Visualisation of stresses:
-1
-1
p-axis
q-axis
Rendulic plane q-axis
p-axis
1
-3
2= 3
-2
-32
Principal stress space

Rendulic plane

Visualisation of stresses:
-1
-1
p-axis
Deviator plane
-3
-2
-3
-2
Principal stress space
Deviator plane (-plane)

(p = constant)

Standard drained triaxial test (CD test)
Stress-strain and strain diagram:
1
v
1-3
1
-1
-1
Loose sand
Dense sand
10

Standard drained triaxial test (CD test)
Stress paths:
xy
-1
Axial loading
-3
n
-3
-3
11

Consolidated undrained triaxial test (CU test)
Stress-strain diagram:
1
1-3
v 0
3
1
3
pw
-1
-1
12
13

Consolidated undrained triaxial test (CU test)
Stress paths:
-1
Axial loading
-3
-3
-3
14

Oedometer loading test
1
-1
ln 1
-1
15

Oedometer loading test
Stress paths:
-1
Axial loading
-3
16

Simple shear test
dxy
xy
dxy
xy
v
xy
17

Simple shear test
Stress paths:
-1
Shearing
-3
18
Basic concepts of the M-C model

Division of strains and strain increments:
= e + p
(strains)
d = d e + d p
(strain increments)
Strains (or increments) are divided into

elastic strains and plastic strains
A soil model relates increments of stress to
increments of strain
19

Elastic strain increments:
e
d xx
d e
yy
e
d zz
e
d xy
d eyz
d e
zx
1
=
From Hookes law:
2 + 2
2 + 2
d ' xx
0 d ' yy
0 d ' zz
0 d ' xy
0 d ' yz
2 + 2 d ' zx
0
20
10

Plastic strain increments:
d p = d
From flow rule:
g
'
d
= magnitude of plastic strains (multiplier)
dg/d = direction of plastic strains (vector)
g
= plastic potential (function)
Classical plasticity: g = f
(associated plasticity)
For soils in general: g f
(non-associated plasticity)
f = yield function
21

When do plastic strains occur?
Determination on the basis of a yield function f = f(,)
If f < 0
If f = 0 and df < 0
If f = 0 and df = 0
f>0
Pure elastic behaviour

Unloading from a plastic state
(= elastic behaviour)
Elasto-plastic behaviour
Non-acceptable stress state
22
11

Yield function:
Can be represented as a contour in (principal) stress space
1
f>0
Not acceptable
f=0
Plasticity
f<0
Elasticity
23

Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion:
yy
xy
c cos
t*
xy
xx
c
-3
-s* sin
-1
-s*
The condition c - tan must hold for arbitrary angles

Equivalent expression:
t* c cos - s* sin
24
12

Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion and yield function:
t* c cos - s* sin
t* = (3 - 1)
t *=
s* = (3+1)
s*=
1
2
(
(
)
)
2
1 ' '
xx
yy
4
1 ' + '
xx
yy
2
2
+ xy
( '3 '1 ) c' cos ' 12 ( '3 + '1 )sin '
f = 12 ( '3 '1 ) +
1
2
( '3 + '1 )sin ' c' cos '
Note: Compression is negative and 1 2 3

25

Mohr-Coulomb yield function:
f = 12 ( '3 '1 ) +
1
2
( '3 + '1 )sin ' c' cos '
Mohr-Coulomb plastic potential:

g = 12 ( '3 '1 ) +
1
2
( '3 + '1 )sin ' c' cos '
26
13

-1
Yield directions in
deviator plane:
= 30
= 0
-2
-3
27

Mohr-Coulomb parameters:
E
Youngs modulus
Poissons ratio
(effective) cohesion
(effective) friction angle
Dilatancy angle
[kN/m2]
[-]
[kN/m2]
[]
[]
28
14

Elasticity parameters: E ,
- d1
d3
- 1
E=
d1
d1
d 3
d1
1
- 1
3
29

Alternative elastic parameters:
Shear modulus:
G=
d xy
d xy
dxy
dxy
E
=
2(1 + )
dp
Bulk modulus:
K=
E
dp
=
d v 3(1 2 )
- d1
Oedometer modulus:
Eoed
E (1 )
d
= 1=
d1 (1 + )(1 2 )
dv
- d1
30
15

Plasticity parameters: c,
-1
xy
1
a
c
n
-3
a=
2c ' cos '

1 sin '
b=
1 + sin '
1 sin '
31

Plasticity parameter:
yy
xyxy
xy
xy
xy
xy
p
d yy
p
d xy
xy
= tan
yy
xy
dilatancy
32
16
Plasticity parameter:
d ije = (D e )ijkl d 'kl = 0
1
d ijp = d
g
'ij
d xx = 0
d xxp = d
' ' yy 1
g
+ 2 sin =
= d xx
' xx
4 t*
d yyp = d
' ' xx 1
g
= d yy
+ 2 sin =
' yy
4 t*
d sin
d xyp = d
'
g
= d xy =
' xy
t*
p
d yy
d cos
p
d xy
= tan
33

Meaning of M-C parameters in drained triaxial test:
1-3
3 = confining pressure
2c' cos '2 '3 sin '

1 sin '
-1
2 sin
1 sin
1-2
-1
34
17

Meaning of M-C parameters in oedometer test:
1
-1
1
Eoed
1-
-1
-3
35
Possibilities and limitations of M-C

Possibilities and advantages:
Simple and clear model (elastic perfectly-plastic model)

First order approach of soil behaviour in general
Suitable for many practical applications
Limited number and clear parameters
Good representation of failure behaviour (drained)
Dilatancy can be included
36
18
Possibilities and limitations of M-C

Limitations and disadvantages:
Isotropic and homogeneous behaviour

Linear elastic behaviour until failure
No stress-dependent stiffness
No distinction between primary loading and unloading
or reloading
Dilatancy continues for ever (no critical void)
Undrained behaviour not always realistic
No anisotropy, no time-dependency (creep)
37
Thank you for your attention
Questions ?
38
19
1ST Asian Course

for

CG03 Stiffness of Soils
On the stiffness of soils

1. Hookes law linear elasticity
(in MC-model)
2. Exponential compression law
(in HS-model)
3. Logarithmic compression law as a special case
IGS, Stuttgart
By Pieter A. Vermeer
University of Stuttgart, Germany
Oedometer for one-dimensional compression
Axial load
Soil sample
Porous filter
Containing ring
The soil sample is enclosed in an impermeable rigid cylindrical ring with top and bottom porous filter
stones. Hence, the pore water flow and the strain are one-dimensional. The water pressure in the
porous filter stones is always zero. The pore water pressure in the soil sample varies with varying
axial load.
In common oedometer tests the axial load on the upper plate is varied and the change in height of the
sample is measured.
IGS, University of Stuttgart

z
lx
lx
l0
x =
lz
ly
y =
l0
z =
lz
l0
l0
x = y = 0
Effective normal stresses cause strains

and determine the shear strength.
Oedometer test
Compressive stresses are positive

when we use a dash.
Compressive strains are positive

when we use a dash.
Part I:
Hookes law of linear elasticity
1
(x y z )
E
1
( y z x )
y =
E
1
(z x y )
z =
E
x =
... (1)
... (2)
... (3)
E = modulus of elasticity or Youngs modulus
= Poissons ratio
Oedometer test on an elastic material

z
Eoed
1
h0
z =
elastic material
(1) ...
(2) ...
1
( x y z ) = 0
E
1
=
( y z x ) = 0
E
x =
y
x = y =
z
1
K0 =
hence:
h
h0
Oedometer test on an elastic material

z
Eoed = oedometer modulus

or
1
constrained modulus
h
z =
h0
elastic material
h
h0
(3) ...
1
( z x y )
E
x = y =
z
1
z =
hence:
z =
(1 2 ) (1 + ) z
E
(1 )
Eoed =
(1 )
(1 2 )(1 + )
In many countries Eoed is denoted as M (in Germany Es ).
1-D settlement analysis with a single representative oedometer modulus.

Settlements due to nearly 1D compression!
new dam
q
s
soil sample from
representative position
rock
The soil deformation under the centre of a wide dam resembles that of an oedometer test.
0
0
= representative initial stress
= q
h
s = h =
Eoed = /
Eoed
Stress-strain curves of an oedometer test are generally non-linear. To determine the

oedometer modulus, the curve should be linearized for the representative stress range.
Applied modulus is a so-called secant modulus.
Definition of oedometer modulus as secant or tangent modulus
midpoint
final stress
initial stress
secant modulus
Eoed
tangent modulus
Eoed
d
d
Secant modulus is roughly equal to the tangent modulus in midpoint.
Example of 1-D settlement analysis with a single representative oedometer

modulus
For clays the tangent modulus is mostly

proportional to stress. We will consider
an example with Eoed = 10
40 kPa
representative point
= 10 kN / m
0 = 6 10 = 60 kPa
0 + = 100 kPa
12 m
0 + / 2 :
approximation with Eoed as tangent modulus for
40
=
= 0.05
Eoed 800
s = h 12 0.05 = 0.6 m
Same exercise but a more accurate solution considering sublayers. This

method can also be used for subsoil with different layers
For this particular example the tangent modulus is given to be E oed = 10
40 kPa
sublayer A
sublayer B
sublayer C
4m
4m
4m
A = 40 kPa
Eoed = 400 kPa
= 0.1
s = 0.4 m
B
= 80
Eoed = 800
B = 0.05
s = 0.2 m
C = 120
Eoed = 1200
C = 0.033
s = 0.133 m
s = 0.733 m
Difference with single layer procedure is about 20 %.
Method of single representative oedometer modulus for foundations.

Load spreading has to be considered !
q=qo+q
zo'
z'
q o= d
z
representative point
for z0 and z
1
Eoed
limiting depth
z
b
q
qo
z = 0.5 b
z=b
zo
z = 1.5 b
1
Tangent modulus for z 0 + z might be used in elastic FE-analysis or one might use the
2
2
settlement
1
s=
b q factor
E
formula
.
Sublayering to account for stress-level dependency
EA
Eoed from
z 0 +
A
Eoed
EB
EBoed
EC
ECoed
ED
EF
1
z 0
2
Settlements around the foundation and

horizontal displacements will not be well
predicted as stiffness is based on
stresses underneath the foundation.
Selection of suitable stiffnesses is

more complex than for foundation
problems. It is an unloading problem,
which requires high stiffnesses.
Settlements of shallow foundations on soft soils
460 kPa
70 kPa
59 m
15 m
soft clay
soft clayey silt

soft clay
Pisa, Italy
average settlement 300 cm
Constance, Germany
settlement 3 6 cm
Many buildings in Constance have raft
foundations. Settlement would be considerably
overpredicted when limiting depth and
geological factor would not be considered.
A simple elastic calculation would yield

an average settlement between 200 and
250 cm.
Oedometer tests give sometimes relatively low stiffness moduli

by Tomlinson (1995):
where :
cal s
s = cal s
= a coefficient (geological factor) which depends on the type of clay

= settlement as calculated from oedometer tests
Type of clay
Very sensitive clays (soft alluvial, estuarine and marine clays)
1.0 1.2
Normally consolidated clays
0.7 1.0
Overconsolidated clays (London Clays, Weald, Kimmeridge,

Oxford, and Lias Clays)
0.5 0.7
Heavily overconsolidated clays (glacial till, Keuper Marl)
0.2 0.5
Tomlinson: Although the geological factor has some theoretical basis it is generally regarded
as a means whereby the apparently high settlements calculated from oedometer test results
can be reconciled with the much smaller settlements as measured in foundations on stiff
overconsolidated clays. It is possible that oedometer tests on good samples taken by pistondriven thin-wall tubes will give higher stiffness values than those obtained from conventional
hammer-driven thick-wall tube samples and hence the geological factor will no longer be
required.
Tomlinson (1995): Foundation Design and Construction, Pitman Publishing Inc.
Settlement of high-rise buildings on predominantly stiff Frankfurt clay

RF: raft foundation
PRF: piled raft foundation
PF:
pile foundation
s:
foundation pressure 400 600 kN/m
settlement at the end of construction
Commercial bank II high-rise building

1994-97
PF, s = 2.1 cm
MAIN TOWER
1996-99
PRF, s = 2.5 cm
Citibank EUROTHEUM
1985-86
1997-99
RF,
PRF,
s = 11 cm s = 3.2 cm
Helaba
high-rise
building
1975-77
RF,
s = 10 cm
Euro tower
1974-77
RF, s = 9 cm
Japan Center
1994-96
PRF, s = 3.2 cm
Commercial
bank I
1972-74
RF, s = 9 cm
Simple elastic calculations give reasonable predictions of the average settlements of raft foundations, but
not the influence of new settlements on existing buildings.
Concluding remarks on the use of linear elasticity in geotechnical engineering
- The practical use of linear elasticity for soils requires an appropriate linearization of
real stress-strain curves.
- Appropriate methods of linearization exist for estimating settlements of
dams and foundations.
- The accuracy of elasticity methods can be increase by sublayering.
- In this lecture we did not consider the use of linear elasticity beyond the field of
foundation settlements, as there is no appropriate way to get suitable stiffnesses.
- Beyond the field of foundation settlement, analytical elasticity solutions can be used
for verification of computer codes. The direct practical use is very limited, as it is not
easy to linearise stress-strain curves for problems of: excavations, tunnelling, etc.
Remarks on the use of the Mohr-Coulomb model
For an element test, the MC-model gives a linear

elastic behaviour up to failure.
For structural problems, the MC-model will mostly

produce a non-linear load-displacement curve,
which might give an impression of accuracy.
However, the model requires the same linearization
for stiffness selection as Linear Elasticity.
Appropriate linearization of stress-strain behaviour requires knowledge of relevant

stress paths and matching tests on samples in the lab. One would have to distinguish
between loading and unloading, between low stress levels and high stress levels,
between straight ahead stressing and stress rotation.
As linearization is difficult and in practice often impossible, one is forced to use
non-linear soil models.
Part 2
Exponential compression law
(embedded in Hardening Soil model)
Eoed = m
Es
Oedometer tests on loose and dense Hostun Sand
0.87
0.01
dense ID = 0.91
loose
approximation
with m = 0.7
0.85
void ratio e
axial strain
U = 1.7
d50 = 0.35 mm
nmin = 0.39
nmax = 0.5
0.83
0.67
dense
m = 0.55
loose ID = 0.32
0.02
0.65
0
200
400
stress [kPa ]
100
10
1000
stress [ kPa ]
The exponential law

Eoed = ve at
at
Ohde (1939):
ve and we :
more general:
m 1.0
sands:
m 0.5
where at = 100 kPa

material constants
+ a
ref
Eoed = Eoed
pref + a
E
clays:
We
ref
oed
= v e at =
where pref = at = 100 kPa

a = c cot
reference oedometer modulus
Ohde (1939): Zur Theorie der Druckverteilung im Baugrund. Bauingenieur Nr. 20, 451-459.
10
Moduli for primary loading of NC-soils after von Sooss (2002)
sat
E oed [MPa ]
kN / m 3
n
%
= 100 kPa
very dense quartz sand

very loose quartz sand
21
18
35
50
50
20
0.6
silt
primary loading of normally

consolidated soils
with liquid limit
wL = 0.2
19
45
0.75
clay with liquid limit
wL = 0.6
16
65
1.0
von Sooss (2002) provides much more detailed information on many soil types
Data from:
Geotechnical Engineering Handbook, Vol. 1: (Fundamentals), Publisher: Ernst & Sons
Oedometer moduli for primary loading of NC-soils after Janbu (1963)

Eoed [MPa] for NC-soils and = 100 kPa
105
rock
104
Janbu :
103
Eoed = E
sandy gravel
ref
oed
102

pref
sand
10
more general:
Norwegian
clays
+ a
Eoed = Eref
oed
pref + a
Mexico City Clay
with
0
50
porosity n [%]
a = c cot
100
After Janbu ( 1963 ), Soil Compressibility as Determined by Oedometer and Triaxial Tests; Proceedings
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Publisher: DGEG
11
ref
Correlation for Eoed of normally-consolidated fine-grained soils.

One of the best known geotechnical correlations reads CC 0.9 (wL 0.1) after Terzaghi
and Peck (1967). In combination with the approximation (1+e)ln10 4.5, it can now be
ref
500 kPa / (wL-0.1). This new correlation fits data for 21 different NCderived that Eoed
clays and NC-silts by Engel (2001) extremely well as shown in the figure on the right.
IP = w L w p
Data for 21 soft soils
* = pref / Eref
oed
Eref
oed =
500 kPa
w L 0 .1
Liquid limit wL
Liquid limit wL
Engel (2002): Verfahren zur Festlegung von Kennwerten fr bodenmechanische Nachweise. Report Nr. 10, Institute of
Geotechnical Engineering, University of Dresden.
Terzaghi & Peck (1961: Die Bodenmechanik in der Baupraxis. Publisher: Springer.
Compressibility of OC-clays and NC-clays after Tomlinson (1995)

Type
Qualitative
description
Coefficient of
volume
compressibility
mv [m2/MN]
Eoed
[MPa]
Heavily overconsolidated boulder clays (e.g. many

Scottish boulder clays) and stiff weathered rocks
(e.g. weathered siltstone), hard London Clay, Gault
Clay, and Oxford Clay (at depth)
Very low
compressibility
Below 0.05
> 20
Boulder clays (e.g. Teeside, Cheshire) and very stiff

blue London Clay, Oxford Clay, Keuper Marl
Low
compressibility
0.05 0.10
10 20
Upper blueLondon Clay, weathered brown

London Clay, fluvio-glacial clays, Lake clays,
weathered Oxford Clay, weathered Boulder Clay,
weathered Keuper Marl, normally consolidated
clays (at depth)
Medium
compressibility
0.10 0.30
3 10
Normally consolidated alluvial clays (e.g. estuarine

clays of thames, Firth of Forth, Bristol Channel,
Shatt-al-Arab, Niger Delta, Chicago Clay),
Norwegian QuickClay
High
compressibility
0.30 1.50
0.7 - 3
Very high
compressibility
Above 1.5
< 0.7
Very organic alluvial clays and peats
Note: Tomlinson does not indicate a stress level, but data seem to correspond to pref = 100 kPa.
Tomlinson (1995): Foundation Design and Construction, Pitman Publishing Inc.
12
Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice. Book by Lunne et al. (1997),

Blackie Academic & Professional
Quote from the CPT-book: Most correlations between CPT results and the drained constrained
modulus, M, refer to the tangent modulus, as found from oedometer tests. The reference value of
M is normally based on the effective vertical stress, v 0 , before the start of the in situ test; this
value is denoted M0.
Based on a review of available calibration chamber tests, Lunne and Christophersen (1983)
recommended that an estimate of M0 for NC unaged and uncemented predominantly silica sands
can be obtained from:
M0 = 4qc
for qc < 10 MPa
M0 = 2qc + 20 (MPa)
for 10 MPa < qc < 50 MPa
M0 = 120 MPa
for qc > 50 MPa
Lunne and Christophersen also included OC sands in their study and recommended as a rough
guideline to use:
M0 = 5qc
for qc < 50 MPa
M0 = 250 MPa
for qc > 50 MPa
For an additional stress v , Lunne and Christophersen recommended Janbus (1963)

formulation to compute M for the stress range v 0 to v 0 + v :
M = M0
v 0 + v / 2
v0
Lunne, T. and Christophersen, H. P. (1983): Interpretation of cone penetrometer data for offshore sands.
Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Richardson, Texas, Paper No. 4464.
Part 3
The logarithmic compression law as a special case for m=1
m=1 :
Literature :
pref d
d
=
Eoed
Eref
oed
e = CC log
pref
ln
Eref
oed
CC ln
1 + e0 ln10
Eref
oed = (1 + e 0 ) ln 10
pref
CC
CC = Compression Index
e0 = Initial Void Ratio
13
Results of an oedometer test on a reconstituted clay sample: m=1

e
1,4
e
1 + eo
1,4
Cc
1,2
1,2
1,0
1,0
200
400
600
800
10
100
[kPa ]
1000
[kPa ]
Data from an oedometer test on a reconstituted clay sample (kaolin), wL = 69%, wP = 38%
after: Wood (1990), Soil Behaviour and Critical State Soil Mechanics, Cambridge University Press.
The logarithmic law (m=1) is accurate for soft soils, but not for coarse grained soils
and neither for heavily overconsolidated soils
normally consolidated clay from

Drammen site
1.4
logarithmic law
m=1
void ratio e
1.2
0.9
loose Hostun sand
m<1
0.7
heavily overconsolidated
clay from Beaucaire site
m<1
log
0.5
1
10
100
1000
[kPa]
10000
14
Compression Index for primary loading and a Swelling Index for unloading and reloading
1.80
1
1.30
void ratio e
void ratio e
Cc = compression index
0.80
Cs
Cs = swelling index
0.30
10
100
1000
10000
log
log [kPa]
In normally consolidated region:

Results of oedometer tests on clay
samples taken from the site of leaning
tower in Pisa.
e = Cc log
In overconsolidated region:
e = Cs log
Compression and Unload-Reload Indices versus Plasticity Index
Cur = CS
PI = IP
Kulhawy & Mayne (1990): Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design
15
Correlations for Compression Index and Swelling Index of NC-clays and NC-silts
Wroth & Wood (1987):
CC
4
IP w L 0.1
3
CC = 0.1 1.5
Kulhawy & Mayne (1990):
CS
1
CC
5
CS = 0.02 0.3
primary loading:
unloading-reloading:
N.B.
E oed =
(1 + e 0 ) ln10
500 kPa

CC
w L 0. 1
Eur
oed 5 E oed
(Vermeer)
(Kulhawy & Mayne)
ur
Cs correlation is very crude. As a consequence the correlation for Eoed is

ur
also very crude. Please note that Eoed can be used as a rough estimate of
the stiffness of overconsolidated clays and silts. For small-strain problems
unloading-reloading stiffnesses are needed that exceed by far the above
ur
indications of Eoed
Wroth & Wood (1987): The correlation of index properties with some basic engineering properties of soils.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.15, No.2, pp 137-145.
Conclusions and Remarks
Exponential law has an extremely strong empirical basis.
For non-cemented NC-sands, there is the nice correlation
.]
Eref
oed 60 Id [MPa
Moreover, this stiffness can be estimated by using CPT data.

Eref
oed (500 kPa ) / ( w L 0..1)
For NC-clays and NC-silts, there is the nice correlation
For overconsolidated fine-grained soils, accurate correlations are not available.

There only is the not easy rough indication
Eref
oed ( 2.5 MPa ) / ( w L 0..1)
As yet unloading-reloading, preconsolidation stress, etc have not been discussed.

This will be done in a subsequent lecture.
16
Part 5: Questions and Exercises

Question 1
The height of an oedometer sample is 19.73 mm under a vertical effective stress of 60 kPa and 19.45 mm
at an effective stress of 120 kPa. Determine the secant oedometer modulus Eoed for a oedometer loading
range from 60 kPa to 120 kPa. What is the the corresponding Youngs modulus E for a Poissons ratio =
1/3?
Note that the oedometer depends to some extend on the choice of the initial height h0, as h we have the
definition = h/h0. For this question you may use h0 = 19.73 mm.
Question 2
A normally consolidated clay sample has a porosity n = 0.53 and a height of 20 mm under an effective
vertical stress of 10 kPa in an oedometer test. Determine the necessary vertical stress to compress the
sample to a height of 10 mm. The Compression Index Cc is equal to 0.5. Use h0 = 20 mm.
Question 3
An oedometer sample with a height of 2 cm has a porosity n = 0.4. Determine the height of the sample to
which the sample has to be compressed in order to get a porosity n = 0. Also, calculate the required vertical
ref
stress for Eoed = 10 MPa, ref = 100 kPa and m = 0.5.
Please use the formula: Eoed =
m
Eref
oed ( / ref )
Question 4
The settlement due to the construction of an embankment has to be determined. Under the embankment is
a compressible soil layer of 10 m thickness resting on a rock horizon. The soil layer is normally consolidated
and has an submerged unit soil weight of = 12 kN/m3 and a porosity of n = 0.3. The surcharge load
imposed by the embankment is 20 kN/m2. The Compression Index Cc as determined from an oedometer
test is 0.23. Please calculate the settlement of the compressible soil layer assuming that the embankment
is wide as compared to the soil layer thickness of 10 m.
17
1ST Asian Course

for

CG04 Foundation
Eindhoven Warehouse
EINDHOVEN WAREHOUSE
(Determination of soil stiffness parameters)
Course for Experienced PLAXIS Users
Eindhoven Warehouse
BACKGROUNDS ON EXERCISE
This exercise is based on a practical situation, the excavation and loading of a real foundation. In
addition to soil, structural elements are included in the model. The possibility of staged
excavation and construction is shown by switching elements on and off. Attention is focused on
output options for structural elements. It is shown how the stiffness modulus is determined from
results of oedometer tests.
3.00
P1 = 200 kN/m
2.00 m
3.00 m
P2 = 300 kN/m
P1
2.30 m
0.20 m
d = 4.80 m
0.40 m
d = 2.70 m

0
0.20 m
loam
-7.50 m
gravel
Figure 1: Geometry of the problem
Determination of effective plate weights and stiffnesses.
Determination of soil stiffnesses for next exercise.
Eindhoven Warehouse
DETERMINATION OF WEIGHT FOR WALLS, PLATES AND SHELLS
IN GENERAL:
d real
w = ( concrete - soil ) d real
For soil weight, soil, use:
unsat above phreatic line

sat below phreatic line
TUNNELS:
dreal
rinside
routside
lining soil
r = 1 ( rinside + routside )
2
w = ( concrete d real ) - ( soil 1 d real )
2
P.S. this also applies to the weight of other structures besides excavated soil !
Eindhoven Warehouse
DETERMINATION OF EFFECTIVE PLATE WEIGHTS

E = 20106 kPa
= 0.2
= 24 kN/m3
Floor:
d = 0.4 m
I = b d3 / 12 = 1 (0.4)3 / 12 = 5.33 10-3 m4
A = b d = 1 0.4 = 0.4 m2
EI =1 105 kNm2/m
EA =8 106 kN/m
wnet = wgross - soil d
= 0.4 24 - 18 0.4
= 6.0 kN/m2
Wall:
d = 0.2 m
I = 1 (0.2)3 / 12 = 6.67 10-4 m4
A = 1 0.2 = 0.2 m2
EI =0.13 105 kNm2/m
EA =4.0 106 kN/m
wnet = wgross - soil d
= 0.2 24 - 18 0.2
= 3.0 kN/m2
Eindhoven Warehouse
DETERMINATION OF SOIL STIFFNESSES

Calculation of equivalent Young's modulus from oedometer test results.
8 m.
2.5
2.5
Reference
point
2.5
loam
gravel
Stresses at reference point:

INITIAL STRESS:
' = 5 18
90 kPa (initial stress)
INITIAL PRE-CONSOLIDATION STRESS:

c = 5 18 + 20 = 110 kPa
c
5m
18 kPa
20 kPa
(pre-consolidation)
= maximum stress that reference point has ever experienced in the past
= depth of reference point
= specific soil weight
= this is an assumed pre-overburden pressure at soil surface,
characteristic for the region considered
AFTER EXCAVATION:
0 = 2.5 18 = 45 kPa
0
2.5 m
18 kPa
= real vertical stress after excavation in reference point

= depth of reference point after excavation
= specific soil weight
AFTER LOADING:
2 = 45 + 6.0 + 125 = 176 kPa
2
45 kPa
6.0 kPa
125 kPa
= real vertical stress after loading

= (0 see above)
= is weight of floor
= 2 200 kN + 2 300 kN (point loads) / 8 m (width of floor)
Eindhoven Warehouse
)kPa
0
50
90 110 150 180
250
350
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
primary loading
3.0
3.4
)
4.0
5.0
N[%]
unloading/reloading
6.0
Unloading from ' to 0 and reloading from 0 to ' does not give deformation
(elastic behaviour)
From unloading/reloading curve from ' to c (from ~90 kPa to 110 kPa):
1 = 1.5 % - 1.4 % = 0.1 %

From primary loading curve from c to 2 (from 110 kPa to ~180 kPa):
2 = 2.5 % - 1.5 % = 1.0 %
PARAMETERS FOR THE MOHR-COULOMB MODEL
= 1 + 2 = 1.1 %
= 176 - 90 = 86 kPa
E oed =
86
=
= 7800 kPa
1.1 %
= 0.4
E=
1+
1.4
(1 - 2 ) E oed =
0.2 7800 3640 kPa
1 -
0.6
Eindhoven Warehouse
PARAMETERS FOR HARDENING SOIL MODEL

Primary loading
= 2 = 1.0 %
= 176 - 110 = 67 kPa
E oed =
67
=
= 6700 kPa
1.0 %
E oed = E oed (
ref
pref
1
,
0.5
0.5
) = 6700 (
100
)
143
5600 kPa
'1 is the average vertical stress, that is , = (176 + 110) = 143 kPa
1
2
ref
Assuming E50
= Eoedref, we have E ref 50 = 5600 kPa
Unloading-Reloading
ref
We can make a good estimate with Eur = 3E50

E
ref
ur
= 16800 kPa
K0nc = 1 sin(20) = 0.658

= 0.2 (Standard setting)
Eindhoven Warehouse
EINDHOVEN WAREHOUSE
(Calculation with HS model)
3.00
P1 = 200 kN/m
2.00 m
3.00 m
P2 = 300 kN/m
P1
2.30 m
0.20 m
d = 4.80 m
0.40 m
d = 2.70 m

0
0.20 m
loam
-7.50 m
gravel
Eindhoven Warehouse
INTRODUCTION
This exercise concerns a simple practical situation, the excavation and loading of a foundation.
The purpose of this exercise is to get familiar with the Hardening Soil model and to discover the
advantages over the Mohr-Coulomb model.
INPUT
3.00
P1 = 200 kN/m
2.00 m
3.00 m
P2 = 300 kN/m
P1
2.30 m
0.20 m
d = 4.80 m
0.40 m
d = 2.70 m

0
0.20 m
loam
-7.50 m
gravel
As the problem is fully symmetric, it will be sufficient to model only one symmetric half of
the entire geometry. In this example we choose to model the right hand side.
At a depth of 7.5 meter a stiff gravel layer is present. It can be assumed that no significant
deformations occur in this material. To this end the gravel is excluded from the FE model.
Hence we choose the bottom of the geometry at the level of -7.5 m. As no deformations are
assumed to occur, the displacements along this boundary are fully fixed (default option
Standard fixities).
The line loads, indicated as P2 are transfered to the basement bottom by a wall. Hence the
point loads can also be positioned directly on the basement bottom.
Eindhoven Warehouse
GEOMETRY MODEL
(0, 7.5)
(4.0, 7.5)
(10, 7.5)
(1.0, 5.0)
(0, 5.0)
(0, 0)
(4.0, 5.0)
(10, 0)
Create a project with dimensions 10m horizontal. x 7.5 m vertical. Use 15-noded elements in
plane strain.
Use standard fixities.
Use the Load system A to apply the following loads
On point 6, enter a vertical load downwards of 200 kN/m.
On point 7, enter another load of 300 kN/m, downwards.
Eindhoven Warehouse
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
SOIL
Loam
Model
HS
Type
Drained
unsat (kN/m3)
18
sat (kN/m3)
18
kx (m/day)
ky (m/day)
E50ref (kN/m2)
5600
Eoedref (kN/m2)
5600
Eurref (kN/m2)
16800
cref (kN/m2)
' ()
20
()
ur
0.2
pref (kN/m2)
100
power
0.5
K0nc
0.658
PLATES
Type
EA (kN/m)
EI (kNm2/m)
w (kN/m2)
Floor
Elastic
8E6
1E5
6.0
0.2
Wall
Elastic
4E6
1.3E4
3.0
0.2
Eindhoven Warehouse
MESH GENERATION
Generate the mesh, using refinements along the floor and wall.
INITIAL CONDITIONS
The water table is below the area of study. Therefore no water pressure generation is needed.
Deactivate the plate elements (floor and wall).
To generate the initial stresses use K0 = 0.75 and POP = 20 kPa.
CALCULATIONS
Phase 1
Activate the wall and floor.

Remove the soil inside.
Phase 2
Apply vertical forces
Select a point in the 'center' of the floor and one point on top of the wall, to be used in the
Curves program.
Eindhoven Warehouse
OUTPUT
PHASE 1: EXCAVATION
The heave of the basement is around 0.011 m.
PHASE 2: APPLICATION OF VERTICAL FORCES

The settlement of the basement is equal to 0.053 m.
Eindhoven Warehouse
PHASE 1: EXCAVATION
HS Model
Bending moments on plates
29 kNm/m
23 kNm/m
Shear forces on plates
34 kN/m
24 kN/m
Axial forces on plates
22 kN/m
30 kN/m
8
36 kN/m
Eindhoven Warehouse
PHASE 2: APPLICATION OF VERTICAL FORCES

HS Model
Bending moments on plates
42 kNm/m
68 kNm/m
56 kNm/m
112 kNm/m
Shear forces on plates
188 kN/m
73 kN/m
-112 kN/m
-167 kN/m
Axial forces on plates
200 kN/m
178 kN/m
69 kN/m
1ST Asian Course

for

CG05 Hardening Soil Model
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
1ST Asian Course

for

CG06 Drained and Undrained Soil Behaviour
PLAXIS Experienced Users Course, August 2003
Drained and Undrained

Behaviour
presented by Tan S A
Helmut F. Schweiger
Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Graz University of Technology, Austria
CONTENTS
Definition drained / undrained
Drained / undrained soil behaviour
Modelling undrained behaviour with Plaxis
In terms of effective stresses with drained strength parameters

In terms of effective stresses with undrained strength parameters
In terms of total stresses
Influence of constitutive model and parameters
Typical results from drained and undrained triaxial tests

Skemptons parameters A and B
Influence of dilatancy
Undrained behaviour with Mohr-Coulomb Model
Undrained behaviour with Hardening Soil Model
Summary
DRAINED / UNDRAINED
Drained analysis appropriate when
permeability is high
rate of loading is low
short term behaviour is not of interest for problem considered
Undrained analysis appropriate when
permeability is low and rate of loading is high

short term behaviour has to be assessed
Suggestion by Vermeer & Meier (1998) for deep excavations:

T < 0.1
use undrained conditions
T > 0.40 use drained conditions
T=
k E oed
t
w D2
k
Eoed
w
D
t
Tv
=
=
=
=
=
=
permeability
oedometer modulus
unit weight of water
drainage length
construction time
dimensionless time factor
UNDRAINED BEHAVIOUR
Implications of undrained soil behaviour
excess pore pressures are generated

no volume change
in fact small volumetric strains develop because a finite (but high)
bulk modulus of water is introduced in the finite element formulation
predicted undrained shear strength depends on soil model used

assumption of dilatancy angle has serious effects on results
Fig.1 Results from undrained triaxial tests using the Mohr-Coulomb and Hardening Soil Model
TRIAXIAL TEST (NC) DRAINED / UNDRAINED
a)
b)
Fig.2 Typical results from drained (a) and undrained (b) triaxial tests on normally consolidated soils
(from Atkinson & Bransby, 1978)
TRIAXIAL TEST (OC) DRAINED / UNDRAINED
a)
b)
Fig.3 Typical results from drained (a) and undrained (b) triaxial tests on overconsolidated soils
(from Atkinson & Bransby, 1978)
TRIAXIAL TEST UNDRAINED NC / OC

pw
pw
Fig.4 Typical results from undrained triaxial tests on (a) normally consolidated
and (b) overconsolidated clay (from Ortigao, 1995)
PORE PRESSURE PARAMETERS A AND B

Skempton 1954:
pw = B [ 3 + A( 1 3 )]
- fully saturated soil

- no inflow / outflow of pore water
- bulk modulus of soil grains >>>
- isotropic linear elastic material behaviour (Hookes law)
vol , skeleton = vol , pore water

vol , skeleton =
p'
K'
vol , pore water =
n p w
Kw
K' =
E
3(1 2 )

assuming triaxial compression:
1 ; 2 = 3
p w =
1 + 2 3 3 pw K w
3K '
n
leading to
pw =
1
nK '
1+
Kw
3 + 3 ( 1 3 )
pw = B [ 3 + A( 1 3 )]
with
B=
1
nK '
1+
Kw
A=
1
3
notes on parameters A and B:

for Kw large compared to K, parameter B ~ 1.0
(corresponds to pw = p > p = 0)
small amount of drapped air reduces parameter B significantly
(Figure 4)
parameter A depends on stress path, even for elastic material
behaviour
parameter A cannot be determined a priori for complex
elastic-plastic constitutive models > is a result of the model
behaviour for the stress path followed
PORE PRESSURE PARAMETER B
Fig.5 Dependence of pore pressure parameter B on degree of saturation
UNDRAINED BEHAVIOUR WITH PLAXIS

PLAXIS automatically adds stiffness of water when undrained
material type is chosen using the following approximation
K total = K ' +
K total =
Kw
Eu
2 G (1 + u )
=
=
n
3(1 2 u )
3(1 2 u )
E' (1 + u )
3(1 2 u ) (1 + ')
assuming u = 0.495
Note:
- this procedure gives reasonable B-values only for < 0.35 !
- real value of Kw/n ~ 1.106 kPa (for n = 0.5)
- NB: in Version 8 B-value can be entered explicitely

Example 1:
= 0.3,
E = 3 000 kPa,
K = 2 500 kPa,
with
B=
u = 0.495
Ktotal = 115 000 kPa
Kw/n = 112 500 kPa
1
= 0.978 > reasonable value for saturated soil
nK '
1+
Kw
Example 2:
E = 3 000 kPa,
= 0.45,
K = 10 000 kPa,
u = 0.495
Ktotal = 103 103 kPa Kw/n = 93 103 kPa
B = 0.903 > poor value for saturated soil

Method A (analysis in terms of effective stresses):
type of material behaviour: undrained
effective strength parameters c, ,
effective stiffness parameters E50,
Method B (analysis in terms of effective stresses):
type of material behaviour: undrained
undrained strength parameters c = cu, = 0, = 0
effective stiffness parameters E50,
Method C (analysis in terms of total stresses):
type of material behaviour: drained
total strength parameters c = cu, = 0, = 0
undrained stiffness parameters Eu, u = 0.495

Notes on different methods:
Method A:
recommended
soil behaviour is always governed by effective stresses
increase of shear strength during consolidation included
essential for exploiting features of advanced models such as the
Hardening Soil model, the Soft Soil model and the Soft Soil
Creep model
Method B:
only when no information on effective strength parameters is
available
cannot be used with the Soft Soil model and the Soft Soil Creep
model
Method C:
NOT recommended
no information on excess pore pressure distribution (total stress
analysis)
UNDRAINED STRENGTH FROM MOHR CIRCLE

Consider fully undrained isotropic elastic behaviour
(Mohr Coulomb in elastic range)
pw = p > p = 0
centre of Mohr Circle remains at the same point
cu =
1 'o
x + 'yo sin ' + c' cos '
2
Fig.6 Mohr Circle for evaluating undrained shear strength (plane strain)
INFLUENCE OF CONSTITUTIVE MODEL

ref
Model Number
Eur
E50
kN/m
ref
kN/m
ref
kN/m
Eoed
kN/m
nc
ur
kN/m
0.0
0.2
100
0.75 0.426 0.9
ref
K0
Rf
-
HS_1
30 000 90 000
HS_2
50 000 150 000 50 000 35
0.0
0.2
100
0.75 0.426 0.9
HS_3
15 000 45 000
15 000 35
0.0
0.2
100
0.75 0.426 0.9
HS_4
30 000 90 000
40 000 35
0.0
0.2
100
0.75 0.426 0.9
HS_5
30 000 90 000
15 000 35
0.0
0.2
100
0.75 0.426 0.9
HS_6
50 000 150 000 30 000 35
0.0
0.2
100
0.75 0.426 0.9
30 000 35 0 / 10
Table 1 Parameter sets for Hardening Soil model
Parameters for MC Model

E = 30 000 kN/m
ur = 0.2
= 35
= 0 and 10
see also Schweiger (2002)
COMPARISON MC HS / INFLUENCE
300
275
250
225
q [kN/m ]
200
175
150
125
100
75
MC non dil
MC dil
HS_1 non dil
HS_1 dil
50
25
0
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
1 [%]
Fig.7 Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test MC / HS model - q vs 1
300
MC non dil
MC dil
HS_1 non dil
HS_1 dil
total stress path
275
250
225
q [kN/m ]
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
100.00 125.00 150.00 175.00 200.00 225.00 250.00

2
p' [kN/m ]
Fig.8 Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test MC / HS model - q vs p
100
90
MC non dil
MC dil
HS_1 non dil
HS_1 dil
excess pore pressure [kN/m ]
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
1 [%]
Fig.9 Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test MC / HS model - pw vs 1
10
1.0
0.9
MC non dil
MC dil
HS_1 non dil
HS_1 dil
0.8
0.7
0.6
parameter A
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
1 [%]
Fig.10 Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test MC / HS model - A vs 1
PARAMETER VARIATION HARDENING SOIL

150
125
q [kN/m ]
100
HS_1
HS_2
HS_3
HS_4
HS_5
HS_6
total stress path
75
50
25
0
0.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
100.00
125.00
150.00
p' [kN/m ]
Fig.11 Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test HS model - q vs p
11

150
125
q [kN/m ]
100
75
50
HS_1
HS_2
HS_3
HS_4
HS_5
HS_6
25
0
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
1 [%]
Fig.12 Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test HS model - q vs 1

80
excess pore pressure [kN/m ]
70
60
50
40
30
HS_1
HS_2
HS_3
HS_4
HS_5
HS_6
20
10
0
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
1 [%]
Fig.13 Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test HS model - pw vs 1
12

0.8
0.7
parameter A
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
HS_1
HS_2
HS_3
HS_4
HS_5
HS_6
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
1 [%]
Fig.14 Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test HS model - A vs 1
Factor of Safety of Embankments

Critical FS is Shortterm loading
condition,
undrained strength is
key parameter for
safe design
13
Factor of Safety of Cuts/Excavations

Critical FS is Longterm unloading
condition,
For permanent cuts
drained strength is
key parameter for
safe design
For temporary cuts,
need to consider if
undrained or partially
drained condition
SUMMARY
Undrained analysis should be performed in effective stresses

and with effective stiffness and strength parameters
Undrained shear strength is result of the constitutive model
Care must be taken with choice of value for dilatancy angle
Note that for NC-soils in general

factor of safety against failure is lower for short term (undrained)
conditions for loading problems (e.g. embankments)
factor of safety against failure is lower for long term (drained)
conditions for unloading problems (e.g. excavations)
14
REFERENCES
Atkinson, J.H., Bransby, P.L. (1978)
The Mechanics of Soils, An Introduction to Critical State Soil Mechanics. McGraw Hill
Ortigao, J.A.R. (1995)
Soil Mechanics in the Light of Critical State Theories An Introduction. Balkema
Schweiger, H.F. (2002)
Some remarks on pore pressure parameters A and B in undrained analyses with the
Hardening Soil Model. Plaxis Bulletin No.12
Skempton, A.W. (1954)
The Pore-Pressure Coefficients A and B. Geotechnique, 4, 143-147
Vermeer, P.A., Meier, C.-P. (1998)
Proceedings Int. Conf. on Soil-Structure Interaction in Urban Civil Engineering, Darmstadt,
177-191
15
1ST Asian Course

for

CG07 Pile Loading Test
Simulation of a Pile load test
CG07 SIMULATION OF A PILE LOAD TEST
INTRODUCTION
An extensive research program related to bored piles in overconsolidated clay was conducted
by Sommer & Hambach (1974) to optimize the foundation design of a highway bridge in
Germany. Load cells were installed at the pile base to measure the loads carried directly by
pile base. Figure 1 gives the layout of the pile load test arrangement.
The upper 4.5 m subsoil consist of silt (loam) followed by tertiary sediments down to great
depths which are more or less overconsolidated stiff plastic clay similar to the so-cal1ed
Frankfurt clay. Therefore this pile load test is often used to verify the numerical modeling of
the pile behavior in Frankfurt overconsolidated clay. The groundwater table is about 3.5 m
below the ground surface.
The considered tested pile has a diameter of 1.3 m and a length of 9.5 m. It is located
completely in the overconsolidated clay. The loading system consists of two hydraulic jacks
working against a reaction beam. The reaction beam was supported by 16 anchors. The
anchors were installed vertically at a depth between 15 and 20 m below the ground surface at
a distance of about 4 m from the tested pile to minimize the effect of the mutual interaction
between the tested pile and the reaction system (Fig 1.a). Vertical and horizontal loading tests
were carried out. The loads were applied in increments and maintained constant till the
settlement rate was negligible. Both the applied loads and the corresponding displacements at
the tested pile head were measured. Additionally the soil displacements near the pile in
different depths were measured using deep settlement points (Fig 1.b).
Figure 1: Lay of the pile load test and the measured points
AIM
The purpose of this case study is to simulate the pile-loading test, create about the same
amount of settlement and compare the simulation results with the results of Sommer &
Hambach (1974).
GEOMETRY OF THE MODEL
Create an axisymmetric geometry with 15-noded elements. The dimensions are 4 m

width x 15 m depth.
The first 4.5 m of the soil consists of silt (loam)
The following layer consists of overconsolidated stiff plastic clay, similar to the socalled Frankfurt clay, which extends to great depths.
The groundwater table is located at a depth of 3.5 m below the ground surface.
The boundaries are sufficiently far away to apply the standard fixities.
A A
(0.65,15)
(0,15)
(4,15)
loam
concrete pile
water table
(4,10.5)
(0,10.5)
clay
(0,5.5)
(0.65,5.5)
(0.65,5.0)
y
(4,0)
(0,0)
0
The pile has a diameter of 1.3 m and a length of 9.5 m.

Create an interface at the right side of the pile. Extend the interface for half a meter to
allow for sufficient flexibility around the pile tip.
Apply a distributed load (system A) to the pile or a prescribed displacement. When
accurately modelled, both should give the same results.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
The required soil parameters were determined based on the conducted laboratory and in-situ
tests as well as on experience gained in similar soil conditions (see Table 1). The parameters
for the concrete pile are also given in Table 1.
Parameter
Symbol
Material model
Model
Silt (Loam)
OCR Clay
MohrCoulomb
Drained
19
19
10E+3
0.3
5
27.5
0
HardeningSoil
Drained
20
20
?**
?**
0.7
0.2
100
20
20
2
Concrete
Pile
Linear
Elastic
Non-Porous
25
30E+6
0.2
-
Type of behaviour
Type
Dry weight
unsat
Wet weight
sat
Young's modulus
Eref/50
Oedometer modulus
Eoed
Power
M
Unloading modulus
Eur
Poisson's ratio
Reference stress
pref
Cohesion
c
Friction angle
Dilatancy angle
Interface strength
1.0 (rigid)
1.0 (rigid)
1.0 (rigid)
Rinter
reduction
POP
POP
200
OCR
OCR
Table 1: Geotechnical parameters for the 2 layers and the concrete pile.
Unit
kN/m3
kN/m3
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
-
The remaining parameters for the clay (E50ref and Eurref) shall be determined from the
following results of Triaxial tests by Amann (1975).
**
1 kp/cm = 100 kPa
Figure 2: Triaxial Tests with Frankfurt clay (3 = const.)
Do not assign the concrete material properties to the pile yet, but instead assign the
loam and clay material properties to the clusters of the pile. Initial stresses are not
correctly calculated if the pile is alread in place. The material properties of the pile
will be assigned in the first calculations phase.
Create a water table at a depth of 3.5 m and generate water pressures.
Generate initial stresses (assign a value for POP to the clay layer).
CALCULATIONS
In the first phase, activate the pile by assigning the material property of concrete to
the pile clusters.
In the second phase the pile load is activated or a prescribed displacement of 35 mm
is applied.
In the third phase the pile load is increased until a settlement of about 35 mm is
observed (ignore this phase if prescribed displacement is used).
OUTPUT
Figure 3 shows the results of the observed pile load settlement behavior by Sommer &
Hambach (1974).
Load [kN]
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
3250
3500
0.00
Total load
Skin friction
5.00
Base load
Settlement [mm]
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
Figure 3: Observed pile load settlement behavior.
In addition to the total load, check the skin friction (total amount of friction along the
surface of the pile) and the base load of the pile (total load at the base-surface op the
pile).
Plate
element
with negligible
stiffness for the
determination of
normal force in
pile.
Figure 4a: Effective Stresses
Figure 4b: Deformed Mesh
REFERENCES
Amann, P., Breth, H., Stroh, D. (1975) Verformungsverhalten des Baugrundes beim
Baugrubenaushub und anschlieendem Hochhausbau am Beispiel des Frankfurter Tons.
Mitteilungen der Versuchsanstalt fr Bodenmechanik und Grundbau der TH Darmstadt, Heft
15
El-Mossallamy, Y. (1999) Load settlement behavior of large diameter bored piles in overconsolidated clay. Proceedings NUMOG VII Graz, Balkema Rotterdam
Sommer, H. & Hambach, P. (1974) Gropfahlversuche im Ton fr die Grndung der
Talbrcke Alzey. Der Bauingenieur, Vol. 49, pp. 310-317
SOLUTIONS
TO THE SIMULATION OF A PILE LOAD TEST
Course for experienced PLAXIS users
From the Triaxial tests on the Frankfurt clay in figure 2 an E50ref of 20.000 kN/m2 and an
Eurref of 72.000 kN/m2 was found. A Triaxial test of the Frankfurt clay was simulated with
PLAXIS to compare and test the chosen parameters with the Triaxial tests of Amann (1975).
The results are shown in figure 5 and match with the results of Amann (figure 2).
(sig'yy - sig'xx)/2 [kN/m2]
-200
-160
-120
-80
p=300 kN/m2
-40
p=200 kN/m2
p=100 kN/m2
0
0
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
eps-1
Figure 5: Results of the Triaxial test in PLAXIS of the Frankfurt Clay.

With the chosen E50ref and Eurref the pile load test was calculated with a prescribed
displacement of 35 mm applied to the top of the pile. The Total load settlement curve is
shown in figure 6. When using Traction loads, the Total load is obtained by multiplying the
traction loads in Load System A by r2, i.e. the cross section area of the pile. When
Prescribed displacements were used, the total load is obtained by multiplying the vertical
reaction force of the axisymmetric analysis (Force-Y) by 2, i.e. the full circle.
For an axissymmetric problem the Base Load can be calculated as follows:
In output a cross-section of the total stresses is made just below the base of the pile (figure 6).
This cross-section represents the total stresses over the radius of the pile. To obtain the total
base load we need to integrate the total stresses over the total cross section of the pile (~
average total stress * r2). To obtain a correct Base Load value we need to substract the
Initial Load of the pile. The calculated Base Load is plotted in figure 8.
10

x
0.341
0 0.033
0.65
X
[m]
Y
[m]
)n
[kN/m2]
0.000
0.033
0.341
0.650
5.475
5.475
5.475
5.475
Average 'n
Base Load [kN]
Initial Load [kN]
Base Load Initial
Load[kN]
-898
-911
-1004
-1442
-1064
1412
248
)n
Figure 6 and Table 1: Total stresses 2.5 mm

below the base of the pile.
1164
The Skin Friction of an axissymmetric problem can be calculated from the shear stresses in
the interface of the pile (figure 7). The shear stresses shown in figure 7 and table 2 are the
shear stresses along the perimeter of the pile. To obtain the skin friction of the pile the shear
stresses have to be integrated over the total skin surface of the pile (skin
surface=length*circumference=L*2r). The calculated Skin Friction is plotted in figure 8.
0
)s
X
[m]
Y
[m]
)s
[kN/m2]
0.650005
0.650005
0.650005
:
:
0.650005
0.650005
0.650005
0.650005
5.50
5.64
5.78
:
:
14.58
14.72
14.86
15.00
Average s
Skin Friction [kN]
-89
-91
-98
:
:
-20
-13
-12
-14
56
2183
Figure 7 and Table 2: Shear stresses at the interface of the pile.
11

Load [kN]
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
3250
3500
0.00
Total load
5.00
Skin friction
Base load
Total Load with Plaxis
10.00
Base load with Plaxis

Skin Friction with Plaxis
Settlement [mm]
Base load - Initial Load with Plaxis
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
Figure 8: Results of the Pile load test.
12
1ST Asian Course

for

CG08 Selection of Parameters for HS Model
10
11
12
13
1ST Asian Course

for

CG09 Groundwater Flow and Pore Pressures
Pore pressures and groundwater flow

presented by Tan SA
Ronald Brinkgreve
Plaxis BV /
Delft University of Technology
Contents
Water pressures (general)
Water pressure generation:
Using phreatic levels

Cluster pore pressure distribution
Steady-state groundwater flow calculation
Transient flow calculation: PlaxFlow
Parameters for transient flow
Time-dependent conditions
Example: Embankment subjected to tidal movements

Example: Dewatering of an excavation

Water pressures
External water pressures (loads on boundaries)
Internal water pressures (pore pressures)
' = w
Total stress:
From weight and external load
Pore pressure: w = w, steady + w, excess
Effective stress analysis
Excess pore pressures w,excess
Generation in plastic calculation for undrained

materials
Dissipation or generation in consolidation analysis
Steady-state pore pressures w,steady

A. Generation from phreatic levels
B. Generation by groundwater flow calculation
Water pressure generation

General phreatic level
To generate pore pressures in soil clusters (also for
inactive clusters) (A+B)
To generate external water loads when outside the
mesh (A+B)
To generate boundary conditions for groundwater
flow calculation (B)

(example)


(example:
General boven, interpolate midden, cluster onder)
Layer 1
Interpolate from adjacent clusters or lines
Cluster phreatic level
Layer 2
Layer 3

based on Darcys law
Specific discharge:
qx = -kx h/x
qy = -ky h/y
Hydraulic head:
h = y + w /w
Continuity condition:
qx /x + qy /y = 0

Required input:
Permeabilities
Water weight
Boundary conditions for flow
Prescribed hydraulic head (h given)
Closed flow boundary (qx = 0 or qy = 0)
10

(example: boundary conditions)
11
12
Flow Field
Head and Flownet
13

Results:
Flow field
Groundwater head distribution
Pore pressure distribution
Degree of saturation (around phreatic surface)
Total discharge through cross section
14

(example: screen, drain, well)
15
16
Flow Field
Head and Flownet
17

Transient flow calculation: PlaxFlow
Special relations around phreatic level:
Permeability as a function of pressure
Saturation as a function of pressure
18

Transient flow calculation
Parameters: selection from predefined data sets
Material input window
19

Special conditions:
Impermeable screens (qn = 0)
Drains (w = 0)
Wells
Sink (Q < 0)
Source (Q > 0)
Precipitation (infiltration) (qn > 0)

20
10

Time-dependent conditions:
Head
Precipitation (infiltration)
21
Example: Embankment subjected to tidal movements
22
11
Example: No Dewatering of Excavation

BS8004
23
24
Flow Field
12
Head and Flownet
25
Pore Pressures on Wall
26
13
1ST Asian Course

for

Friday, 1ST AUGUST 2003
CG10 Deep Excavations
Deep Excavations
New OG Basement
by Tan SA
Deep Excavations
General Site Condition

Upper Cross Street
T-shaped in plan
Excavation is performed
in 5 stages, supported by 4
levels of struts
Majestic Theatre
Food Centre
The control of ground

movements induced by the
excavation is a crucial
issue
Yu Hua Building
Deep Excavations
Excavation Support System

Grout Mixed Pile wall is
used in the original
design
Due to underground
obstructions, FSP III
sheet piles are installed
at some sections
Excavation support
system consists of
alternating grout mixed
piles and sheet piles
Deep Excavations
Grout Mixed Pile Wall
Overlapping 700mm and 620mm grout piles

Deep Cement Mixing Method
I-beam is installed in each grout pile
Deep Excavations
Excavation Support System

102.2m
First level strut:

H350x350x12x19
101.2m
Other struts:
2H400x400x13x21
99.0m
96.5m
94.5m
Struts are preloaded to

30% of their design strut
loads
91.5m
The first 4 excavation

stages are carried out to
0.5m below the struts
Total depth of
excavation is 10.7m
Deep Excavations
Excavation Zones
C
A
Food Court
Zone 1
At each excavation
stage, Zone 2 is
excavated before
Zone 1 and Zone 3
Zone 2
E
Majestic
Theatre
Zone 3
Yu Hua Building
The excavated area

is divided into three
zones
Deep Excavations
Note
Heavy Struts
to Restraint Out of
Plane Movements
6
Excavation Zones
Y2
X2
A
Zone 1
These two sections

would probably satisfy
Plane Strain condition
Zone 2
F
Section X1-X2 and

Section Y1-Y2 will be
analysed
Zone 3
X1
G
Y1
Deep Excavations
Extent of Site Investigation

Y2
BH1
C6
X2
C7
NB2
C3
C5
C2
C4
C1
C9
NB3
BH2
X1
NB1
Borehole Position
Cone Penetration Test
Position
C10
C8
Y1
BH3
Deep Excavations
Retaining Wall Embedment Depth

C
13.7m
16.0m
Zone 1
Zone 2
18.0m
Zone 3
21.0m
Retaining walls
along CD, EF and
GH consist of
majority of grout
mixed piles
Retaining wall
along AB consists
of majority of sheet
piles
Retaining walls
were terminated at
different depths
9
Deep Excavations
Soil Profile At Section X1-X2

X1
X2
0.0
0.0
Fill
-4.2
-5.7
Marine Clay
Depth
(m)
-12.8
-14.5
Stiff Clay
-14.5
-18.0
Siltstone
Deep Excavations
10
Soil Profile At Section Y1-Y2

Y1
Y2
0.0
0.0
Fill
-5.0
-5.7
Marine Clay
Depth
(m)
-10.0
-13.0
-17.0
Stiff Clay
-23.5
Siltstone
11
Deep Excavations
Finite Element Model At X1-X2
X1
As the soil layers are

not uniform and the
walls at X1 and X2 have
different properties,
symmetry cannot be
assumed
X2
Fill
Marine Clay
Stiff Clay
Siltstone
The whole excavation

has to be modelled
Deep Excavations
12
Finite Element Model At X1-X2
X1
The soil layers are

modelled as MohrCoulomb material
X2
The retaining walls are

modelled as beam
elements
Fill
Marine Clay
Stiff Clay
Siltstone
X1:
Grout mixed
pile wall
X2:
Sheet pile wall
The struts are modelled

as node-to-node anchors
13
Deep Excavations
Finite Element Model At Y1-Y2
Y1
Y2
Fill
Marine Clay
Stiff Clay
Grout mixed
pile wall
Y2:
Grout mixed
pile wall
Bored piles, installed

within Zone 1 and Zone
3, are modelled as
beam elements
Siltstone
Y1:
Deep Excavations
14
Excavation Sequence
Excavation Sequence In Zone 2
Consider the time required for:

Excavation
Installation and preloading of
struts
Periods between two excavation
stages
Strut 1
-2
Strut 2
-4
Strut 3
-6
Strut 4
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Excavation Sequence In Zone 1 And Zone 3
Time (Day)
0
Depth of Excavation (m)
Depth of Excavation (m)
Strut 1
-2
Strut 2
-4
Strut 3
-6
Strut 4
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
0
20
Deep Excavations
40
60
80
Time (Day)
100
120
15
Calibration of Finite Element Model

Some of the soil properties can be obtained
from the soil investigation works
Important parameters are calibrated using:
Consolidated undrained triaxial test results
Marine Clay
Instrumentation results
Deep Excavations
16
Calibration Using Instrumentation

Results
Section X1-X2 is analyzed
The analytical wall deflections at every
stage of the excavation are compared with
the measured wall deflections
17
Deep Excavations
Calibrated Soil Properties

Soil Type
(kN/m3)
(o )
c
(kN/m2)
Eur
(kN/m2)
Increment
of Eur
(kN/m2/m)
kv (m/day)
kh (m/day)
Fill
18
30.0
6000
8.64E-3
8.64E-3
Marine
Clay
15
21.5
7127
718
1.14E-4
3.81E-5
Stiff Clay
18
30.0
10
32000
8.64E-3
8.64E-3
Siltstone
20
35.0
20
600000
8.64E-3
8.64E-3
Marine Clay:
Eu = 300 Cu
1+,
E' =
= Eu
1 + u
Deep Excavations
Eur = 2 E
18
Wall Deflection At X1
X1
Plot of Measured and Analytical

Wall Deflection On Day 10

Lateral Deflection (mm)

-20
20
40
60

80
-20
20
40
60

80
-20
10
12
20
40
60
80
8
Depth (m)
8
Depth (m)
8
Depth (m)

10
12
10
12
14
14
14
16
16
16
18
18
18
20
20
20
22
22
22
Measured
FEM Analysis
19
Deep Excavations
X1



0
20
40
60

80
-20
20
40
60

80
-20
10
12
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
-20

10
12
20
40
60
80
10
12
14
14
14
16
16
16
18
18
18
20
20
20
22
22
22
Measured
FEM Analysis
Deep Excavations
20
10
X2


-50
50
100

150
-50
50
100

150
-50
10
12
10
12
14
16
16
16
18
18
18
20
20
20
22
22
22
21
Deep Excavations
X2

50
100


150
-50
50
100

150
-50
10
12
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
10
12
50
100
150
12
14
14
16
16
16
18
18
18
20
20
20
22
22
22
FEM Analysis, With Preload
10
14
Measured
150
FEM Analysis, No Preload
-50
100
12
14

50
10
14
Measured
8
Depth (m)
8
Depth (m)
8
Depth (m)

Deep Excavations
22
11
Calibration Using Instrumentation

Results
Section Y1-Y2 is analyzed
Soil parameters calibrated in Section X1X2
23
Deep Excavations
Wall Deflection At Y2


0
10
20
30
40


50
-10
10
20
30
40

50
-10
10
12
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
-10
Y2
10
12
10
20
30
40
50
10
12
14
14
14
16
16
16
18
18
18
20
20
20
22
22
22
Measured
FEM Analysis
Deep Excavations
24
12
Wall Deflection At Y2


-10
10
20
30
40


50
-10
10
20
30
40

50
-10
12
10
20
30
40
50
8
Depth (m)
10
Depth (m)
8
Depth (m)
Y2
10
12
10
12
14
14
14
16
16
16
18
18
18
20
20
20
22
22
22
Measured
FEM Analysis
25
Deep Excavations
General Site Condition
Y2
Restraints provided
by diagonal bracings
Plain strain condition
cannot be assumed at
Section Y1-Y2
3D Effects are
significant
Deep Excavations
26
13
Ground Settlement At X1
X1
Plot of Ground Settlement With Time At X1

0
S ettlement (mm)
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
0
20
40
60
Time (Day)
80
100
M easured
FEM Analysis
27
Deep Excavations
Site Condition At X1
X1
Additional settlement
induced by excavation
and construction works
at the Majestic Theatre
Deep Excavations
28
14
X2
Ground Settlement At X2
Plot of Ground Settlement With Time At X2
0
S ettlement (mm)
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
0
20
40
60
Time (Day)
80
100
M easured
29
Deep Excavations
Ground Settlement At Y1
Y1
Plot of Ground Settlement With Time At Y1

0
S ettlement (mm)
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
0
20
40
60
Time (Day)
80
100
M easured
FEM Analysis
Deep Excavations
30
15
Y2
Ground Settlement At Y2
Plot of Ground Settlement With Time At Y2
0
S ettlement (mm)
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
0
20
40
60
Time (Day)
80
100
M easured
FEM Analysis
31
Deep Excavations
Site Condition At Y2
Y2
Settlement Point on
Pile Supported floor
slab
Deep Excavations
32
16
Parametric Study
Examine the influence of various parameters on the
response of the excavation support system at
Section X1-X2 of Zone 2, in particular:
Influence of Wall Embedment Depth

Influence of Excavation Width
Influence of Wall Stiffness and Struts Stiffness
Influence of Wall Type
33
Deep Excavations
Influence of Wall Embedment Depth

Influence of Embedment Depth of Wall On
Maximum Wall Deflection At X1
Influence of Embedment Depth of Wall On

600
600
500
500
400
400
/ o x 100%
/ o x 100%
Marine Stiff
Clay Clay
Siltstone
Stiff
Clay
Marine
Clay
300
300
200
200
100
100
Siltstone
0
10
15
20
25
30
10
Embedment Depth of Wall (m)
15
20
25
30
Embedment Depth of Wall (m)
Deep Excavations
34
17
Influence of Width of Excavation

Influence of Excavation Width On
180
180
160
160
140
140
/ o x 100%
/ o x 100%
Influence of Excavation Width On

120
120
100
100
80
80
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0.0
1.0
Excavation Width Multiplier
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Excavation Width Multiplier
35
Deep Excavations
Comparison Between Influence of Strut

and Wall Stiffness
Influence of Strut Axial Stiffness And Wall Bending
Stiffness On Maximum Wall Deflection At X1
Influence of Strut Axial Stiffness And Wall Bending

Stiffness On Maximum Wall Deflection At X2
500
500
Axial Stiffness of
Struts
Bending Stiffness of
Wall
400
300
/ o x 100%
/ o x 100%
Axial Stiffness of
Struts
Bending Stiffness of
Wall
400
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
10
12
Stiffness Multiplier
10
12
Stiffness Multiplier
Deep Excavations
36
18
Influence of Different Wall Types

Influence of Different Wall Types On
Influence of Different Wall Types On

175
175
150
150
125
125
Maximum Deflection (mm)
Maximum Deflection (mm)
Sheet Pile Wall
100
75
Grout Mixed
Pile Wall
50
100
Sheet Pile Wall

75
Diaphragm Wall
50
Diaphragm Wall
25
25
Grout Mixed
Pile Wall
1.0E+03
1.0E+04
1.0E+05
1.0E+06
1.0E+07
1.0E+08
1.0E+03
1.0E+04
1.0E+05
1.0E+06
1.0E+07
1.0E+08
Bending S tiffness (kNm /m)
Bending S tiffness (kNm /m)
37
Deep Excavations
Wall Deflection Using Sheet Pile Walls

Wall Deflection At X1 (Sheet Pile Wall)
Wall Deflection At X2 (Sheet Pile Wall)
Deflection (mm)
-50
50
100
Deflection (mm)
150
200
-200
-150
-100
-50
10
Maximum
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
50
Maximum
10
12
12
14
14
16
16
18
18
20
20
Deep Excavations
38
19
Wall Deflection Using Diaphragm Walls

Wall Defection At X1 (2.0m Diaphragm Wall)
Deflection (mm)
-50
50
100
Deflection (mm)
150
200
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
8
Depth (m)
8
Depth (m)
10
10
12
12
14
14
16
16
18
18
20
20
Deep Excavations
39

Deflection (mm)
-50
50
100
150
200
Retaining wall at X1 is a
fixed earth support system
0
2
Maximum
4
There is sufficient wall

embedment in Stiff Clay
Layer
Depth (m)
8
10
12
14
16
Retaining wall rotates about

its toe and the maximum
deflection occurs at the top of
the wall
18
20
Deep Excavations
40
20

Retaining wall at X2 is a free
earth support system

Deflection (mm)
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
There is insufficient wall

embedment in Stiff Clay
Layer
2
4
6
8
Depth (m)
Retaining wall kicks out at

its toe and the maximum
deflection occurs at the toe
of the wall
10
12
14
Maximum
16
18
20
Deep Excavations
41
Lessons Learnt
2D FEM can model X1-X2 well, as problem is plane strain

2D FEM cannot model Y1-Y2 well, as problem is 3D
Beware of Limitation of FEM modeling
For good FEM model, need:
Correct Geometry
Correct Soil Layers
Correct Soil Parameters
Correct Construction Sequence
Undrained plus Consolidation Effects
Deep Excavations
42
21
1ST Asian Course

for

CG11 Consolidation
PLAXIS Experienced Users Course, March 2003
CONSOLIDATION
presented by Tan SA
Helmut F. Schweiger
CONTENTS
1D theory of Terzaghi
Influence of constitutive model and parameters
Influence of compressibility of water

Influence of void ratio dependent permeability
Influence of constitutive model
Study on effect of vertical drains and equivalent

permeabilities after CUR
Practical example: application of vertical drains
Summary
1D CONSOLIDATION
initial
ground surface
apply surcharge load rapidly
soft clay layer

fully saturated
pw = pw, o
pw = pw, o + pw, t=o
pw, t=o =
t=0
rigid impermeable layer
consolidation process completed
consolidation takes place
settlement s
settlement st
t=
pw = pw, o
= +
pw = pw, o + pw, t
0<t<
pw, t = t
= + t
1D CONSOLIDATION
the change in pore pressure (pw) with time and
position within the layer can be expressed by the
partial differential equation
p w
2 p w
= cv
t
z 2
with
cv =
k E oed
w
cv . coefficient of consolidation
with boundary conditions:

pw = 0
no flow
pw =
pw = 0
Ut = 1
at the top of layer (independent of t)

at bottom of layer
at t = 0 (independent of z)
at t = (independent of z)
Me
m =0
M 2 Tv
M=
1
(2m + 1)
2
1D CONSOLIDATION
Ut average degree of consolidation
Tv dimensionless time factor
Ut =
p w ,o p w , t
p w , 0
s t
s
Tv =
cv t
D
k E oed
t
w D2
NOTE:
D .... drainage path, NOT thickness of layer !
U .... depends on Tv and boundary conditions
Tv ... depends on problem (pw, o - distribution)
1D CONSOLIDATION
Assumptions made:
soil is fully saturated
pore water is incompressible
Darcy's law is valid
isotropic (constant) permeability
linear elastic soil behaviour
load
applied instantaneously
one-dimensional problem (length of applied load > )
2u 2u 2u
u
= Cv 2 + 2 + 2
3D:
t
y z
x
1D CONSOLIDATION
t1: bottom of layer not yet influenced

by consolidation process
surcharge load
t=0
slope of Isochrones
> hydraulic gradient
t = t1 t = t2
/ w
t = t3
t=
horizontal tangent > dv/dz = 0

(no flow) at bottom boundary
clay layer
fully saturated
45
impermeable
1D CONSOLIDATION
permeable
Tv
D
permeable
degree of consolidation Ut
Isochrones: lines of excess pore pressures (pw, t) at a given time
1D CONSOLIDATION NUMERICAL SIMULATION
Investigate influence of:

compressibility of pore water
(by means of B-value)
permeability depending on void ratio

elastic-plastic soil behaviour
(by means of changing constitutive model)
reference elastic
pore water compressible
(B=0.85)
permeability e-dependent
Hardening Soil model
settlement [mm]
20
40
60
80
100
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
time [days]
excess pore pressure [mm]
-100
-80
-60
-40
reference elastic
pore water compressible
(B=0.85)
permeability e-dependent
-20
0
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
time [days]
elastic
distribution of excess pore pressures at 50% consolidation along centre line
STUDY ON EFFECT OF VERTICAL DRAINS
models investigated:
axisymmetric model
no drainage (reference)
drainage with drain element
(sets zero pore pressure conditions)
drainage with boundary condition

(check on performance of drain element)
plane strain model

equivalent vertical permeability after CUR 191
equivalent horizontal permeability after CUR 191
equivalent horizontal permeability after Indraratna (2000)

unit cell for vertical drains placed in pattern of 2x2 m, 5 m high
drain diameter 25 cm
applied load
10 kN/m
axisymmetric
model
plane strain
model

CUR 191 equivalent vertical permeability
kv = kv +
32
H2
kh
D2
k h = k h
3 1
1
n2
ln(n ) + 2 1
n 2 1
4 n 4 n 2
kv , kh
n=
D
d
true permeability
kv , kh equivalent permeability
H
drainage length
equivalent distance of drains
diameter of drains

CUR 191 equivalent horizontal permeability
k h =
=
U
kv , kh
B2
kh
D2
k v = k v
n2
3 1
1
ln(n ) + 2 1
2
n 1
4 n 4 n 2
0,5
2,26
0,75
2,75
0,9
2,94
0,95
3,01
n=
D
d
0,99
3,09
true permeability
kv , kh equivalent permeability
H
the distance of drains in plane strain
diameter of drains

Indraratna equivalent horizontal permeability
0,67
B2
=
k h [ln (n ) 0,75 ] R 2
k hp
n=
R
rw
khp
equivalent horizontal permeability for plane strain
kh
true horizontal permeability
distance of drains in plane strain
rw
diameter of drains

influence of constitutive model
excess Pore Pressure after 60% consolidation
Lin.El. - Modell
HS - Modell

degree of consolidation for different models
(linear-elastic)
degree of consolidation U [ - ]
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
AX I: no drainage
AX I: drainage boundary condition
AX I: drainage drain-elem ent
PS : equivalent vertical C U R 191
PS : equivalent horizontal C U R 191
PS : equivalent horizontal Indraratna
0.2
0.0
1e+3
1e+4
1e+5
1e+6
1e+7
1e+8
1e+9
tim e [sec]

degree of consolidation for different models
(Hardening Soil model)
degree of consolidation U [ - ]
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
AXI: no drainage
AXI: drainage boundary condition
AXI: drainage drain-element
PS: equivalent vertical CUR 191
PS: equivalent horizontal CUR 191
PS: equivalent horizontal Indraratna
0.2
0.0
1e+3
1e+4
1e+5
1e+6
1e+7
1e+8
1e+9
1e+10
time [sec]
10
EXAMPLE WITH VERTICAL DRAINS
WASSER
KANAL
A1/1
A1/9
PW3
A1/8
A2/9
A2/8
A3/9
A3/8
PW4
A1/7
A1/6
A2/7
A2/6
A1/5
A1/4
A1/3
A1/2
A2/4
A2/3
A2/1
A2/2
A3/4
A3/3
A3/2
E1
A2/5
A3/1
A3/6
A3/7
A4/9
RS1/3
A4/8
A4/7
A5/8
A5/7
A4/1
A4/2
A4/6
A5/5
A5/4
A5/3
A5/1
A5/2
A6/5
A6/4
A6/3
A6/1
A6/2
RS2/9
A5/9
RS2/8
A5/6
PW1
RS2/7
A6/7
Z3/8
E2
A6/6
RS2/6
BRO
LOGISTIK UMSC HLAGHALLE

HALLE
A4/3
A4/4
A4/5
X
A
A3/5
R/1
Z4/8
RS2/5
A7/1
A7/2
A7/4
A7/3
RS2/4
uerer Schutzstreifen
RS2/3
A8/3
5.0
5.0
A8/2
RS2/2
A8/1
RS2/1
Schttabschnitt 1
D
Schttabschnitt 2
D
E
Schttabschnitt 3
soil profile:
pre-load - drained
= 18 kN/m3
3m
2,5 m
man made material - drained

= 19,5 kN/m3
4,5 m
2m
silt / silt-clay - undrained

kx = ky = 0,0001 m/day ; kx = 1,3e-5 m/day
peat - undrained
14 m
silt, clay - undrained

11

FE-MODELL
section D-D
A2/4
A4/4
A6/4

results for section D-D
comparison measurement - Plaxis point A2/4
settlement [cm]
-20
calculated final
settlement
139 cm
-40
-60
-80
Plaxis
measurement
-100
-120
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
time [days]
12

results for section D-D
comparison measurement - Plaxis - point A6/4
settlements [cm]
-10
calculated final
settlement
78 cm
-20
-30
Plaxis
measurements
-40
-50
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
time [days]
SUMMARY
brief summary of 1D consolidation theory of

Terzaghi presented
numerical simulation of 1D consolidation

influence of important parameters highlighted
performance and effect of drain elements tested

on simple example
comparison finite element results and

measurements for practical example presented
13
REFERENCES
CUR 191
Achtergronden bij numeriek modellering van geotechnische constructies, deel 2
Gaube, H. (2003)
Numerische Modellierung von Baugrundverbesserung mittels Vertikaldrainagen und
Tiefenverdichtung. Institut fuer Bodenmechanik und Grundbau, Technische Universitt Graz
Indraratna, B.N., Redana, I.W., Salim, W. (2000)
Predicted and observed behaviour of soft clay foundations stabilised with vertical drains. Proc.
GeoEng. 2000, Melbourne
Terzaghi, K. (1925)
Erdbaumechanik, F. Deutike
14
1ST Asian Course

for

CG12 New OG Excavation
NEW OG EXCAVATION
CG12 NEW OG EXCAVATION
COURSE FOR EXPERIENCED PLAXIS USERS
NEW OG EXCAVATION
1.
INTRODUCTION
The New OG building, which is located at the Chinatown area in Singapore, consists of a
five-storey commercial complex with a 10.7m deep two-level basement. Figure 1 shows
the layout of the excavation site. In order to understand the behaviour of the excavation
support system, undrained finite element analysis is carried out at Section X1-X2 in this
exercise. Groundwater flow calculation is used to generate the water pressure
distribution.
X2
X1
Figure 1: Plan view of excavation site
2.
GENERAL SITE CONDITION
Four non-uniform soil strata have been identified. The fill layer consists of clayey and
silty soil with localised pockets of organic or sandy material. Underlying the fill layer is a
layer of greenish grey marine clay from the Kallang Formation. It is followed by a layer
of stiff clay and a layer of siltstone from the sedimentary Jurong Formation. The
groundwater table lies in approximately 2m below the ground surface. The soil profile at
Section X1-X2 is shown in Figure 2. Bottom-up construction method is adopted in this
project. A grout mixed pile wall is constructed at X1 to a depth of 18m while a sheetpile
wall is installed at X2 to a depth of 13.7m. Excavation is carried out in five stages and it
NEW OG EXCAVATION
is supported by four levels of pre-stressed struts. The width of excavation at Section X1X2 is 12.85m.
X1
X2
0.0
-4.2
Depth (m)
0.0
Fill
-5.7
Marine Clay
-14.5
Stiff Clay
-12.8
-14.5
-18.0
Siltstone
Figure 2:
3.
Soil Profile at Section X1-X2
GEOMETRY OF MODEL
Due to the non-uniform soil stratification and different structural properties and
embedment depths of the retaining walls, the excavation cannot be assumed to be
symmetrical. Thus, the whole excavation is modelled, as shown in Figure 3. The
geometry model used in this exercise has a height of 40m and a width of 123m. 15-nodes
elements are used. The retaining walls are modelled as plates. Interface elements around
the plates are included to model the effects of soil-structure interaction. Node-to-node
anchors are used to model the supporting struts.
Figure 3:
Geometry Model
NEW OG EXCAVATION
4.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Both the Mohr Coulomb model and Hardening Soil model are used to simulate the soil
behaviour. Soil parameters are obtained based on a borehole near X1.
MOHR COULOMB STIFFNESS PARAMETERS

Table 1 shows the derivation of stiffness parameters of the Fill, Stiff Clay and Siltstone
layers.
Table 1:
Computation of Mohr Coulomb Stiffness Parameters
Soil
Average SPT
N-value
cu = 5 N
(kN/m2)
Fill
Stiff Clay
Siltstone
3
10
100
15
50
500
Eu
cu
250
400
750
Eu
(kN/m2)
Eur = 2 E
3750
20000
375000
3000
16000
300000
6000
32000
600000
Stiffness parameters of the Marine Clay layer are computed below.

c
=0
= 21.5o
cu
= c cos +
1
v (1+Ko) sin
2
At top of Marine Clay layer,
= 49.6 kN/m2
cu
= 14.8 kN/m2
Eu
= 300 cu
= 3563 kN/m2
Eur
= 2 E
= 7127 kN/m2
At bottom of Marine Clay Layer
= 101.1kN/m2
cu
= 30.3 kN/m2
Eu
= 300 cu
= 7263 kN/m2
NEW OG EXCAVATION
Eur
= 2 E
= 14526 kN/m2
Thus, rate of increase of Eur = 718 kN/m2/m
HARDENING SOIL STIFFNESS PARAMETERS

Hardening soil stiffness parameters can be obtained using
= E50
E50
Eur
ref
Eurref
Where pref
c' cos ' - 3 ' sin '
c' cos ' + p ref sin '
c' cos ' - 3 ' sin '
c' cos ' + p ref sin '
= 100 kN/m2
= Average x of soil layer
E50
= E in Mohr Coulomb model
Eur
= Eur in Mohr Coulomb model

Table 2:
Soil Parameters Used In Mohr Coulomb Model
Mohr-Coulomb
Fill
Marine Clay
Stiff Clay
Siltstone
Type
Undrained
16.00
18.00
8.64E-3
8.64E-3
6000.000
0.200
0.10
30.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.50
Undrained
14.00
15.00
1.14E-4
3.81E-5
7127.000
0.200
0.10
21.50
0.00
718.00
-4.200
0.00
0.50
Undrained
17.00
18.00
8.64E-5
8.64E-5
32000.000
0.200
10.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.50
Undrained
18.00
20.00
8.64E-5
8.64E-5
600000.000
0.200
20.00
35.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.50
unsat
sat
kx
ky
Eref
cref
Einc
yref
cincrement
Rinter.
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[m/day]
[m/day]
[kN/m]
[-]
[kN/m]
[]
[]
[kN/m/m]
[m]
[kN/m/m]
[-]
NEW OG EXCAVATION
Table 3:
Soil Parameters Used In Hardening Soil Model
Hardening Soil
Fill
Marine Clay
Stiff Clay
Siltstone
Type
Undrained
16.00
18.00
8.64E-3
8.64E-3
14700.00
9685.00
1.00
0.10
30.00
0.00
29410.00
0.200
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.50
Undrained
14.00
15.00
1.14E-4
3.81E-5
11340.00
8500.00
1.00
0.10
21.50
0.00
22680.00
0.200
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.50
Undrained
17.00
18.00
8.64E-5
8.64E-5
25070.00
16000.00
1.00
10.00
30.00
0.00
50140.00
0.200
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.50
Undrained
18.00
20.00
8.64E-5
8.64E-5
295500.00
170000.00
1.00
20.00
35.00
0.00
591000.00
0.200
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.50
unsat
sat
kx
ky
E50ref
Eoedref
power (m)
cref
Eurref
ur(nu)
pref
cincrement
yref
Rf
Rinter
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[m/day]
[m/day]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[-]
[kN/m]
[]
[]
[kN/m]
[-]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[m]
[-]
[-]
Table 4:
Structural Properties of Retaining Wall
Wall Type
EA
(kN/m)
3.832E+06
3.916E+06
Grout Mixed Pile

Sheet Pile
Table 5:
EI
(kN/m2/m)
1.080E+05
1.138E+04
Preloading and Structural Properties of Struts at Section X1-X2
Strut No
Size
1
2
3
4
H350x350x12x19
2H400x400x13x21
2H400x400x13x21
2H400x400x13x21
Strut Level
(m)
-1.0
-3.2
-5.7
-7.7
Preload
(kN/m)
31.0
54.3
68.3
68.3
EA
(kN)
3.565E+06
8.967E+06
8.967E+06
8.967E+06
NEW OG EXCAVATION
5.
INPUT
Assign the material sets to the various components in the geometry model as shown in
Figure 4 and generate the finite element mesh. In the Initial conditions, a water weight of
10kN/m3 is entered. The initial water pressures are generated on the basis of a horizontal
general phreatic line though points (0, -2) and (123, -2). All structural components of the
geometry model are inactive. Since the soil is non-uniform, the initial soil stress field is
not generated by means of the Ko-procedure. It will be generated using Gravity Loading
in Calculations.
X1
Strut 1
Fill
Strut 2
Marine Clay
Strut 3
Strut 4
Sheetpile Wall
Stiff Clay
Grout Mixed
Pile Wall
Siltstone
Figure 4:
6.
Assigning of Material Sets
CALCULATIONS
PHASE 1:
X2
GRAVITY LOADING
This is carried out using a Plastic calculation in which the Loading input is set to
Total multipliers and the Mweight is set to 1.0. Undrained behaviour is ignored.
PHASE 2:
RESET DISPLACEMENTS
Initial displacements generated due to Gravity Loading should be reset to zero, in

Control Parameters. This removes the effect of Gravity Loading procedure on the
displacements developed during subsequent computations.

NEW OG EXCAVATION
PHASE 3:
Activate both the retaining walls and their interfaces.
PHASE 4:
INSTALLATION OF RETAINING WALL
EXCAVATE TO 1.5m
Deactivate the clusters between the retaining walls till 1.5m.
PHASE 5:
INSTALLATION OF FIRST STRUT
Activate the first level strut.
Apply a pre-stressing force = -31.0 kN/m.
PHASE 6:
EXCAVATE TO 3.7m
Click the switch to go to the water pressures mode.
Select the Closed flow boundary button from the toolbar. Click on the lower left point
of the geometry model and click on the lower right point of the model.
Click on the selection button
Click on the General phreatic level button and draw a new phreatic line. Start from
(0, -2), (55, -3.7), (67.85, -3.7) and (123, -2)
Generate water pressure using Groundwater calculation.
PHASE 7:
INSTALLATION OF SECOND STRUT
Activate the second level strut.
PHASE 8:
EXCAVATE TO 6.2m
(0, -2), (55, -6.2), (67.85, -6.2) and (123, -2)
NEW OG EXCAVATION
PHASE 9:
INSTALLATION OF THIRD STRUT
Activate the third level strut.
PHASE 10:
EXCAVATE TO 8.2m
(0, -2), (55, -8.2), (67.85, -8.2) and (123, -2)
PHASE 11:
INSTALLATION OF FOURTH STRUT
Activate the fourth level strut.
PHASE 12:
EXCAVATE TO 10.7m
(0, -2), (55, -10.7), (67.85, -10.7) and (123, -2)
NEW OG EXCAVATION
7.
RESULTS
Deflection of Sheet Pile
Wall (mm)
Deflection of Grout Mixed

Pile Wall (mm)
0
10
20
-30
30
-20
-10
0
2
4
8
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
10
12
6
8
10
14
16
Mohr Coulomb
Model
18
Hardening Soil
Model
12
Mohr Coulomb
Model
14
20
Hardening Soil
Model
16
Figure 5:
Wall Deflection At Excavated Depth of 1.5m

Pile Wall (mm)
0
10
20
30
40

Wall (mm)
-60
50
-40
-20
20
4
8
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
10
12
6
8
10
14
16
Mohr Coulomb
Model
18
Hardening Soil
Model
20
12
14
Mohr Coulomb
Model
Hardening Soil
Model
16
Figure 6:
10
NEW OG EXCAVATION
Pile Wall (mm)
0
20
40
60

Wall (mm)
80
-100 -75
-50
-25
25
4
4
8
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
10
12
6
8
10
14
16
Mohr Coulomb
Model
18
Hardening Soil
Model
12
14
20
Mohr Coulomb
Model
Hardening Soil
Model
16
Figure 7:

Pile Wall (mm)
0
20
40
60

Wall (mm)
80
-120
-80
-40
4
4
8
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
10
12
6
8
10
14
16
Mohr Coulomb
Model
18
Hardening Soil
Model
20
12
14
Mohr Coulomb
Model
Hardening Soil
Model
16
Figure 8:
11
1ST Asian Course

for

CG13 Tunnel Heading Stability
Tunnel Heading Stability
Part 1: Shield Tunnelling

Part 2: NATM - New Austrian Tunnelling Method
Part 3: Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) without shield
Vermeer, P. A.; Ruse, N.; Marcher, T.: Tunnel Heading Stability in
Drained Ground. In: Felsbau 20 (2002), No. 6, pp. 8-18.
Vermeer, P. A.; Marcher, T.; Ruse, N.: On the Ground Response Curve.
In: Felsbau 20 (2002), No. 6, pp. 19-24.
Part 1: Shield Tunnelling

The first shield for the tunnel underneath the Thames (by Brunel)
Time of construction:
Length of tunnel:
Cross section:
Cover:
1825 1843
about 400 m
4.8 * 4.2 m
34m
More than 5 serious cases of

flooding.
Shield Tunnelling
Tunnel Boring Machine with Shield

EPB-Shield for
a tunnel project
in Singapore
D = 4.45 m
Active failures for minimum support pressure

pf = minimum support pressure
= failure pressure
z
pf
eah
45 +
active failure
active failure
p f = D N cN c
e ah = z K agh cK ach
Porewater-pressure at the tunnel face
drained: steady state pore pressures
undrained: also exces pressures
sand and gravel
silt and clay

drained conditions apply in case
of standstill
Drained versus undrained

During tunnelling one has to distinguish between drained and undrained
ground conditions which is dependent on the degree of consolidation.
The degree of consolidation depends on:
permeability of the ground

advance rate of excavation, i.e. consolidation time
Anagnostou (1996):
... drained conditions apply when the ground permeability is higher than
10-7 to 10-6 m/s and the net excavation rate is 2.5 to 25 m per day or
less ...
State-of-the-art on face stability

Engineering practice in A, CH, D, NL:
Wedge model as based on an idea after Horn (1961)
The calculation of the vertical stress z acting on the sliding

wedge is based on the silo-theory
This model is used both for drained and undrained analyses
Jancsecz & Steiner (1994), Anagnostou & Kovri (1994)
Sternath & Baumann (1997), Broere (2001)
State-of-the-art in advanced engineering

For drained analyses:
Atkinson & Mair (1981):
p f = D N
Anagnostou & Kovri (1996):
p f = cN c + D N
c = effective cohesion
= unit soil weight
D = diameter of the tunnel
The parameters Nc and N are highly dependent on

The formulas resemble the one for
active earth pressure
Approach for drained conditions
Failure pressure:
N c = cot
=
=
=
unit soil weight

effective cohesion
effektive friction angle
Nc
N
=
=
cohesion stability number

soil weight stability number
p f = N c c + D N
N =
1
0.05
9 tan
Formula for 20
p f = N c c + D N
pf is independent of the cover H
N c = cot
N =
1
0,05
9 tan
Derivation of the stability numbers Nc and N
1)
2D model tests (Atkinson & Mair, 1981)
2)
Analysis of possible failure models (Krause, 1987)
3)
Analysis of possible failure models (Lca & Dormieux, 1990)
4)
Wedge model computations (Anagnostou & Kovri, 1996)
5)
3D FEM calculations (Ruse, 1999 2003)
Atkinson, J.H.; Mair, R.J.: Soil mechanics aspects of soft ground tunneling. In: Ground
Engineering 14 (1981), No. 2, pp. 20-38.
Krause, T.: Schildvortrieb mit flssigkeits- und erdgesttzter Ortsbrust, Inst. of Geotech. Engng of
the University of Braunschweig, Report No. 24, 1987.
Lca, E.; Dormieux, L.: Upper and lower bound solutions for the face stability of shallow circular
tunnels in frictional material. In: Gotechnique 40 (1990), No. 4, pp. 581-606.
Anagnostou, G.; Kovri, K.: Face stability conditions with earth-pressure-balanced shields. In:
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 11 (1996), No. 2, pp. 165-173.
Finite Element Analyses
Typical pressure-displacement curve

on using the MC-Model with c and
Flow area at collapse
Initial situation is with p0 = K 0 z . Hereafter p is successively

decreased down to the failure-value pf.
Stability Number N as determined by different methods
FEM shows validity for 20 and H/D 0.5

Arching effect at the tunnel heading
Arching depends largely on friction angle. This explains the lower

bound 20 in equations for pf.
The cohesion Number Nc according to different models
FEM:
N c = cot
Nc = cot: valid for 20 and H/D 1.0

Influence of the relative cover H/D
There seems to be no influence for 20

Summary for Shield Tunnelling and drained conditions
p f = cN c + D N
for 20 and H/D 1.0
N =
1
0.05
9 tan
N c = cot
For layered soil we recommend FE-analyses
N.B.
pf < 0
for
c >
D
(1 0.45 tan ) D
9
10
Recommendations on the FE-mesh to be used
Besides the given dimensions

for the FE-modell in the figure,
we recommend that the
average length of the 15-noded
pentaeder-element must be
smaller than 10 % of the tunnel
diameter. This is valid at least
for the elements in the area
around the tunnel heading.
In order to get an accurate
result, the tolerated equilibrium
error should be taken to 0.03 or
smaller for the FE-calculation.
N.B. Standard settings in Plaxis Version 8 is 0.01.
Influence of the Parameters used in the Mohr-Coulomb Model
There is no influence on the failure pressure pf by:

angle of dilatancy
poissons ratio
earthpressure coefficient at rest K0
modulus of elasticity E (on neglegting the theory of 2. order)
There is influence on the failure pressure pf by :
effective cohesion c
effective friction angle
10
Approach for undrained conditions
r
cu
=
=
Ncu =
Nu =
p f = N cu c u + r D N u
saturated soil weight

undrained shear strength
cohesion stability number
soil weight stability numbert
( D)
N cu = 5.86 H
0.42
N u = H + 0.5
D
For layered soil we recommend FE-analyses
Factor of safety for shield tunnelling
11
Definition of a factor of safety

f
= shear strength
mob = mobilised strength
mob
Using the Mohr-Coulomb criterion the safety factor can be written as:
c+ tan
cmob + tanmob
cmob =
tan mob =
tan
This definition after Fellenius can be used for shield tunnelling (p > 0),
as well as for NATM-tunnelling with p = 0.
Calculation of from pf -formulas
Formula:
c
1
pf = D
0.05
9
tan
tan
using cmob = c/ and tanmob = tan/, it can be derived that:

=
9
(p tan +c) + 0.45 tan
D
where p is the applied face pressure
12
Calculation of from - c- reduction

The factor of safety is calculated by a numerical - c-reduction.
The factor of safety is defined as:
mob
Example for a shield tunnel with a given face pressure

Tunnel data:
D = 5 m,
H = 1.5 D,
Soil data:
= 30,
c = 5 kN/m,
- c-reduction
d = 0,
pmob = 10 kN/m
= 20 kN/m
formula
- c - reduction gives same factor of safety as formula, being based on

pressure reduction.
13
tan numerical
tan
tan
tan numerical
Conclusions and remarks on shield-tunnelling

Formulas on can be used for stability analyses in homogeneous
ground.
Formulas on can be used to validate computer programs with
- c- reduction.
In clayey soil we always need both, a drained and an undrained
analysis. Drained in case of a standstill and undrained during
continuous tunnel advancement.
For undrained analysis, the cover has a strong influence on the stability.
14
Part 2: NATM - New Austrian Tunnelling Method
d = 0:
D max =
9c
10c
(1 0.45 tan )
(drained,
non-layered ground)
We will focus on the influence of the cutting length d in drained

non-layered ground
Sequential excavation in NATM
D max
10 c
If the cohesion is large enough, a tunnel can be driven at its full size. In
case of relatively small values of c, the tunnel can be driven in sections.
In this case of a sequential excavation the equivalent diameter of the
excavated area applies to the previous equations.
15
NATM: Schemes of sequential excavation
Dmax does not apply to the entire tunnel, but to a partial excavation section
NATM - New Austrian Tunnelling Method
Top-heading excavation of Rennsteig Tunnel in Thuringia

16
NATM - New Austrian Tunnelling Method
Sequential excavation of Heslacher Tunnel in Stuttgart

Tension cut-off criteria in the Mohr-Coulomb Model
Tensile stresses allowed
Tensile stresses not allowed
tension cut-off
17
Example for a NATM tunnel
(no face pressure)
Tunnel data:
D = 5 m,
H = 1.5 D,
Soil data:
= 30,
c = 10 kN/m,
d=0
= 20 kN/m
- c- reduction
- c- reduction
(tensile stresses
allowed)
(tensile stresses
not allowed)
The influence of the tension cut-off criteria is 10% for this problem
Rennsteig Motorway Tunnel in Thuringia, Germany

Geological cross section of the Baecker Stream Valley
slope talus
= 20 kN/m
= 27.5
c = 5 kN/m
weathered rock
= 21 kN/m
= 30
c = 20 kN/m
18
Calculation of safety for d = 1.5 m by the FEM
- c- reduction:
- c- reduction:
Tensile stresses allowed:

= 1.32
Tensile stresses allowed:

= 1.17
Tensile stresses not allowed:

= 1.29
Tensile stresses not allowed:

= 1.14
On using tension cut-off one obtains slightly lower factors of safety.

In this case only small differences, but one observes sometimes a
considerable influence of the tension cut-off.
tan numerical
tan
tan
tan numerical
19
Conclusions and remarks on NATM-tunnelling

Formulas on Dmax and can be used for stability analyses in
homogeneous ground.
Formulas on Dmax and can be used to validate computer programs
with - c- reduction.
Numerical - c- reduction can be used for stability analyses in
layered ground.
In clayey soil we always need both, a drained and an undrained
analysis. Drained in case of a standstill and undrained during
continuous tunnel advancement.
For undrained analysis both, the cover and the cutting length have a
strong influence on the stability.
Part 3: Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) without shield
e.g. d = 50m
Non-supported cutting length is extremely large: c > D /3 (=20)
c > D /6 (=40)
20
Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) without shield
TBM without shield

At a shield driven TBM, failure occurs at the tunnel face, whereas at a
TBM without shield, failure occurs at the roof of the tunnel.
face failure
roof collapse
NATM and
TBM with shield
TBM without shield
Without a shield the unsupported length is several times the tunnel diameter
and one may perform 2D FE-analyses
21
Typical ground response curve after Pacher (1964)
The ground response curve is also called the Fenner-Pacher-curve

Both TBM and NATM situations: -c-reduction
TBM situation is simply 2D !
Results for a fully unlined Tunnel

a)
The idea of a ground ring in the sense of Rabcewicz (1944)
b)
Contours of deviatoric stresses |1- 3| in analysis with K0 = 1
c)
Contours of mobilised shear strength in analysis with K0 = 1
In classical literature on NATM one finds the concept of the mobilisation of a supporting
ground ring around tunnels as a function of deformations. We detect such a ring numerically
quite directly. It is nicely visualised by plotting contours of deviatoric stresses |1- 3|.
22
Cohesion softening ground
softening modulus
Triaxial curve for softening ground
Linear cohesion softening
Vermeer, P. A.; Marcher, T.; Ruse, N.: On the Ground Response Curve.
In: Felsbau 20 (2002), No. 6, pp. 19-24.
Computed curves for a tunnel with H/D = 1 and cohesion softening
H=8m
D=8m
= 20 kN/m
= 30
= 5
cpeak = 40 kN/m
A = Failure State
B & C = Residual states
23
Development of softening zones for a shallow tunnel
A) Failure State
B) Residual State
C) Residual State
Development of softening zones for material with hc = 600 kPa. Red

colour indicates fully softened material with c= 0.
Conclusions and remarks on TBM-tunnelling
In the classical literature on tunnelling one finds the concept of

the mobilisation of a supporting ground ring around tunnels as
a function of deformations. In numerical analyses it can be
visualised by plotting contours of deviatoric stresses l1 3l
For a shallow tunnel and softening ground, a trough-like ground
response curve with a marked minimum is computed
24
St. Barbara
takes care off all the miners
25
VERMEER, RUSE AND MARCHER: TUNNEL HEADING STABILITY IN DRAINED GROUND
TUNNELLING
Tunnel Heading Stability in

Drained Ground
By Pieter A. Vermeer, Nico Ruse and Thomas Marcher
hen considering ground conditions for

tunnelling one might distinguish between
ground with and without a macro structure due
to stratification, schistarity and jointing. In this
study attention is focused on soils and very soft
rock without a significant macro structure.
These materials tend to be encountered for shallow tunnelling in urban areas, whereas macrostructured ground is dominant in deep tunnelling. For soils and very soft rock, as considered in
this study, stability is governed by shear strength
parameters that can be measured in laboratory
tests. For soft soils with little (effective) cohesion,
it is necessary to drive the tunnel using a shield.
For soils or rock with greater cohesion, it is possible to use an open face tunnelling method such
as the NATM. Here, if necessary the stability of
the tunnel face can be improved by inclining the
face or by reducing the cross section of the excavation. In this study we will consider face stability both for closed-face shield tunnelling and
open-face NATM tunnelling.
When discussing previous research on tunnel
heading stability, one has to distinguish between
drained and undrained conditions. For undrained conditions, as dominant in clays, practical design curves have been derived on the basis
Standsicherheit der Ortsbrust von Tunneln

unter drnierten Baugrundbedingungen
Die Standsicherheit der Ortsbrust von Tunneln wird zunchst im Hinblick auf Schildvortrieb betrachtet. Anschlieend wird die Spritzbetonbauweise einbezogen, indem an
der Ortsbrust von keinem Sttzdruck ausgegangen wird.
Mit der Absicht einfache Formeln zu entwickeln, werden
zunchst Tunnel mit einem Kreisquerschnitt in homogenem, drnierten Mohr-Coulomb Material betrachtet. Ergebnisse aus nichtlinearen Finite-Elemente-Berechnungen
werden verwendet, um zu zeigen, wie zumindest in Reibungsmaterial die Spannungsverteilung am Tunnel durch
Gewlbewirkung dominiert wird. Wenn der Reibungswinkel grer als 20 ist, scheint die Standsicherheit der Ortsbrust vllig unabhngig von der berdeckung des Tunnels
zu sein. Unter drnierten Bedingungen scheint die Spritzbetonbauweise mglich zu sein, wenn die effektive Kohsion etwa 10 % von D erreicht, wobei die Bodenwichte ist.
D ist entweder der Durchmesser des Tunnels bei einem
Vollausbruch oder der Durchmesser der Ausbruchsflche
bei Teilausbruch. Bei der Betrachtung typischer Querschnitte von NT-Tunneln wird gezeigt, da ein quivalenter Wert fr D in den Standsicherheitsformeln verwendet
werden kann. In geschichtetem Baugrund sind die Gleichungen schwierig anzuwenden, weswegen dafr eine numerische -c-Reduktion vorgeschlagen wird.
Tunnel heading stability is initially considered with a view
towards closed face tunnelling. At the end open face tunnelling is included by assuming face pressures to be equal
to zero. In order to arrive at simple formulas, attention is
initially focused on circular tunnels in a homogenous
Mohr-Coulomb material. Data from non-linear finite element analyses are used to show that stress distributions in
drained ground are dominated by arching. Once the friction angle is larger than about 20, stability appears to be
completely independent of the cover on top of the tunnel.
For drained conditions, open face tunnelling appears to be
possible when the effective cohesion exceeds some 10 % of
D, where is the unit soil weight. Here D may either be
the full tunnel diameter or a subsection diameter of a sequential excavation. Considering typical shapes of NATM
tunnels, it is shown that an equivalent D-value can be calculated for use in the stability formulas. For layered
ground, the formulas are difficult to apply and it is proposed to use a numerical procedure named -c-reduction
method.
FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
TUNNELLING
of model tests (2) and these curves have been

largely confirmed by theoretical studies (8). The
question whether a drained or undrained stability analysis should be carried out can be answered by considering the type of ground and
the advance rate of the tunnel face. According to
a parametric study by Anagnostou and Kovri
(1), drained conditions tend to apply when the
ground permeability is higher than 10-7 to 10-6
m/s and the net excavation advance rate is 0.1 to
1.0 m/hr or less. In a predominately sandy soil,
therefore, drained stability conditions should be
considered. In a clayey, low-permeability soil the
undrained analysis is valid during excavation,
but the drained analysis applies in case of a
standstill. Hence, even for excavations in clay it
is important to investigate drained soil conditions.
It would seem that Horn (25) was one of the
first to propose a model for assessing the stability under drained conditions. He considered the
limit equilibrium of a sliding wedge at the tunnel
face. Jancsecz and Steiner (11) applied this model to shield-tunnelling, whilst Sternath and Baumann (19) used it to analyse NATM-tunnelling.
The idea of considering drained stability on
the basis of a single equation was first suggested
by Atkinson and Mair (2), as they proposed a formula of the form pf = qNq+DN for shield tunnels in dry cohesionless sand. Here pf is the minimum support pressure at collapse, which will be
referred to as failure pressure. The influence of a
possible ground surface load is taken into account by a uniformly distributed load q and a
surcharge stability number Nq. The diameter of
the tunnel is denoted as D, the unit soil weight as
and N is the soil weight stability number. It
should be noted that Atkinson and Mair used the
symbol T to denote the stability number. The
above formula for failure pressure was extended
by Anagnostou and Kovri (1) to cover cohesivefrictional materials by proposing an equation of
the form
pf = c N c + qN q + DN .............................. [1]
where c is the effective cohesion and Nc the cohesion stability number. Anagnostou and Kovri
denoted stability numbers by the symbol F instead of N. The stability numbers are analogous
to the bearing capacity factors of footings, in the
sense that they depend on the friction angle .
Vermeer and Ruse (20) presented data from
elastic-plastic finite element analyses to show
that the stability numbers are independent of the
depth of the tunnel, at least for friction angles
beyond twenty degrees. Moreover, simple formulas were put forward for the stability numbers. Later Vermeer and Ruse (21) extended this
study by considering non-circular cross-sections
to show that the shape of the excavation is not
particular important.
2 FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
Bitte Quellennachweis ergnzen,

s. Seite 17
TUNNELLING
The present paper summarises first of all previous research on stability numbers for drained
situations. Hereafter the influence of an unlined
wall near the tunnel face is considered, and attention is focused on NATM tunnelling without
any supporting pressure. This paper will concentrate mainly on results from numerical simulations, and for this reason a brief description of
the finite element procedure being used will be
given in the following section.
Finite element-analyses
of failure pressures
Semprich (18) was one of the first to perform
three-dimensional finite element calculations to
analyse the deformations near an open tunnel
face. More recently Baumann et al. (3) studied
the face stability of tunnels in soils and soft rocks
by using the finite element method in combination with the elastic-plastic Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model. Several authors (22, 24) have
shown that the elastic-plastic finite-element
method is well-suited to predict collapse loads of
geotechnical structures. For limit load analyses,
pre-failure deformations are not of great importance and are assumed to be linearly elastic, as is
usual within the elastic-plastic Mohr-Coulomb
model being used in this paper. Elastic strains
are governed by the elasticity modulus E and
Poissons ratio . The particular values of these
input parameters influence load-displacement
curves as shown in Figure 1a, but not the failure
pressure pf. For this reason they will not get any
further attention in this study. In addition to the
elasticity modulus and Poissons ratio, there are
three material parameters for the plastic behaviour: the effective cohesion c, the effective angle
of friction and the angle of dilatancy . Different dilatancy angles give different load-displacement curves and different collapse mechanisms,
but they have very little influence on the failure
load. For this reason, nearly all our computations were performed for non-dilatant material.
As symmetrical tunnels are considered, the
collapse-load calculations are based on only half
a circular tunnel which is cut lengthwise along
the central axis. Figure 1b shows a typical finite
element mesh as used for the calculations. The
ground is represented by 15-noded prismatic
volume elements and the tunnel lining is modelled with 8-noded shell elements. The boundary
conditions of the finite element mesh are as follows: The ground surface is free to displace, the
side surfaces have roller boundaries and the
base is fixed. It is assumed that the distribution
of the initial stresses is geostatic according to the
rule h = K0 v, where h is the horizontal effective stress and v is the vertical effective stress.
K0 is the coefficient of lateral earth pressure.
Vermeer and Ruse (20) investigated the possible
influence of the initial state of stress, by varying
the coefficient of lateral earth pressure and
Fig. 1 Typical pressure-displacement curve (a) and flow

area at collapse (b).
Bild 1 Typische Druck-Verschiebungskurve (a) und der
Fliebereich im Bruchzustand (b).
FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
TUNNELLING
found that the K0-value influences the magnitude

of the displacements but not the pressure at failure.
The first stage of the calculations is to remove
the volume elements inside the tunnel and to activate the shell elements of the lining. This does
not disturb the equilibrium as equivalent pressures are applied on the inside of the entire tunnel. To get a full equivalence between the initial
supporting pressure and the initial geostatic
stress field, the pressure distribution is not constant but increases with depth. This is obviously
significant for very shallow tunnels, but a nearly
constant pressure occurs for deep tunnels. The
minimum amount of pressure needed to support
the tunnel is then determined by a stepwise reduction of the supporting pressure.
A typical pressure-displacement curve is
shown in Figure 1a, where p is the supporting
pressure at the level of the tunnel axis and u the
displacement of the corresponding control point
at the tunnel face. The control point has to be
chosen within the collapsing body; otherwise the
load-displacement curve in Figure 1a will come
to an almost sudden end and the curve then cannot be used to conclude that failure has been
reached. Rather than selecting a single control
point, it is appropriate to select a few of such
points. With the reduction in supporting pressure, there is increasing displacement. When
failure occurs the curve has become horizontal.
For shallow tunnels, a chimney-like collapse
mechanism is obtained as indicated in
Figure 1b, where incremental displacements at
failure are shown as graded shades from blue to
red.
Upon extending finite element procedures to
limit load computations, it appears that the entire numerical procedure should be well designed in order that an accurate assessment of
the failure load can be made. For each decrement of supporting pressure, equilibrium iterations are performed and plastic stress redistribution is accomplished by using a radial-return
algorithm. A general validation of the computer
code is given in the manual of the 3D-Plaxis program by Brinkgreve and Vermeer (4) and the
method of collapse load computations is fully described by Vermeer and Van Langen (22). In
more recent papers the authors have shown that
such finite element analyses can also yield highly
accurate data on failure pressure of tunnel headings.
Arching at the face of

fully lined tunnels
Besides failure pressures, the finite elementmethod produces insight into the stress distribution around a tunnel face and the role of friction.
This can be seen from Figure 2 for a tunnel with
a relative ground cover of H/D = 5. In this figure
principal stresses are plotted in lengthwise sec4 FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
Fig. 2 Principal stresses (a - c) and incremental displacements (d - f) at failure. Close-up around the face for a tunnel with H/D = 5.
Bild 2 Hauptspannungen (a - c) und inkrementelle Verschiebungen (d - f) im Bruchzustand. Ausschnitt aus dem
Bereich der Ortsbrust fr einen Tunnel mit H/D = 5.
N =
TUNNELLING
tions through circular tunnels; firstly for a tunnel

in non-frictional soil, secondly for a friction angle of only 20 and finally for a highly frictional
material with a friction angle of 35. In all these
different cases the ground is non-cohesive and
the supporting pressure has been reduced down
to the failure pressure by performing three-dimensional finite-element analyses. Moreover,
fully lined tunnels are considered with a lining
up to the very tunnel face.
Figure 2a shows a stress distribution with
stress crosses that rotate around the tunnel face.
All these crosses have about the same size,
which indicates a high supporting pressure. On
the other hand, small stress crosses are seen
around the tunnel face of Figure 2b. Hence in
frictional material the failure pressure is relatively low. For the highly frictional material of
Figure 2c, the arching is extremely clear. Here
the supporting pressure is nearly equal to zero
and a strong stress arch is observed directly between the top and the bottom of the tunnel.
The influence of the angle of friction can also
be recognised by the failure patterns in
Figures 2d to 2f. Here increasing displacements
at failure are shown in graded shades from blue
to red. One observes in Figure 2d the extreme of
a non-frictional material that flows more or less
like a liquid into the tunnel. For a moderate friction angle of 20, one observes in Figure 2e the
development of a tall cave. In case of a shallow
tunnel this type of failure will extend to the surface to create a crater. For the highly frictional
soil of Figure 2f, a relatively small body is dropping into the tunnel.
The consequences of friction dependent arching are considerable. The stress arch carries the
ground cover independent of the magnitude of
its thickness. In an earlier study by Vermeer and
Ruse (20) the ground cover has been varied systematically to assess its influence on the failure
pressure. It appeared that once the friction angle
is larger than about twenty degrees, stability is
completely independent of the ground cover.
Considering non-cohesive ground, it was found
from a series of 25 different calculations that
pf = DN with
1
0.05 ..................................... [2]
9 tan
under the conditions that > 20 and H/D > 1.

Hence, the soil weight stability number is dependent on friction, but not dependent on
ground cover.
Figure 3 shows that the finite element method
(FEM) yields soil-weight stability numbers between the theoretical bound solution by Lca and
Dormieux (14) and the results of a study by
Krause (13). The latter assumed a shell-shaped
failure body at the tunnel face that can slide into
the tunnel. In finite element analyses no assump-
Fig. 3 The soil weight stability number as determined by

different methods.
Bild 3 Die Stabilittszahl N fr vollstndig ausgekleidete
Tunnels nach verschiedenen Methoden.
FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
TUNNELLING
tion at all is made about the failure mechanism

and both dome-like failure bodies are found, as
observed in Figure 2e, and shell-shaped ones
(see Figure 2d) can be obtained. Anagnostou and
Kovri (1) present curves for N which lie well
above the FE-results. Their sliding wedge model
yields slightly different curves for different relative depths. The lower boundary of the shaded
area in Figure 3 corresponds to H/D = 1 and the
upper one to situations with H/D > 5. Hence, the
sliding wedge model would seem to be very conservative when cohesionless soils with friction
angles less than about 30 are considered. The
curve by Atkinson and Mair (2) is extremely conservative as it is based on 2D-experiments, that
show obviously less arching as 3D tunnel headings.
For high friction angles above forty degrees,
most existing models give N 0.1 and match
the experimental data by Chambon and Cort (6)
reasonably well, as can be seen in Figure 3. The
experimental data were obtained from 3D centrifuge tests with nearly cohesionless sand and
friction angles in the range between 38 and 42.
All their experimental data, i.e. assuming c = 0
as well as c = 2.5 kPa, fit into the shaded bar in
Figure 3.
The stability numbers for

cohesion and surcharge
In contrast to the soil weight number, the cohesion number can be derived theoretically. In fact,
Vermeer and Ruse (20) derived the simple expression Nc = cot , which was also verified by
use of the finite element method (FEM). Again
this expression can be compared to findings by
other researchers, as also done in Figure 4. Once
more Krauses results (13) are based on a shellshaped failure body, whereas the data by Anagnostou and Kovri (1) are based on the sliding
wedge model, as also described by Jancsecz and
Steiner (11).
The theoretical derivation of Nc = cot is
based on the assumption that ground surface
loads have no influence at all. In other words the
stability number Nq in equation [1] is supposed to
be equal to zero. This has been checked by performing a series of 24 finite element analyses
with different uniformly distributed surface
loads q and resulting data are presented in Figure 5. For friction angles above 25, it is observed that a surface load has no influence on
the failure pressure. In these cases arching is
apparently so strong that all surface loads can be
carried, independent of the ground cover on top
of the tunnel. For a low friction angle of only 20,
however, the situation is slightly different. In this
case one needs a ground cover of at least twice
the tunnel diameter to eliminate the influence of
a surface load completely. For a friction angle of
20 and a cover of H = D, on the other hand, one
observes a small increase of the failure pressure
6 FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
Fig. 4 The cohesion stability number according to different models.

Bild 4 Der Kohsionsbeiwert Nc auf der Grundlage verschiedener Modelle.
Fig. 5 Influence of uniformly distributed surface load on

failure pressure.
Bild 5 Einflu einer gleichmig verteilten Auflast an der
Gelndeoberflche auf den Bruchdruck.
TUNNELLING
as a function of q such that Nq 0.01. Compared

to the soil weight stability number of about 0.25
(see Figure 3 for = 20) and the cohesion stability number of 2.75 (see Figure 4), a Nq-value of
0.01 is very low and it can be disregarded. Hence
Nq 0 and Nc = cot ................................. [3]
at least under the conditions that > 20 and
H > 2D. This relatively large cover is, however,
not needed for high friction angles. For friction
angles beyond 25 the above equation appears to
hold for smaller values of H, namely for H > D.
Influence of an unlined wall

near the tunnel face
In order to determine the influence of an unlined
wall with length d near the tunnel face, as indicated in Figure 6b, additional finite element
analyses were carried out. In these analyses a
supporting pressure was applied both at the tunnel face and at the unlined part of the wall. This
supporting pressure was then reduced until failure occurred. Again circular tunnels are considered and again we begin to consider purely frictional soil without any effective cohesion. Then it
was found from a series of 75 different calculations that pf = DN with the stability numbers as
plotted in Figure 6. It shows that the soil weight
stability number increases as a function of the
relative cutting length d/D. Different curves are
obtained for different friction angles, but all
curves show basically the same shape. Indeed,
up to d = D the curves are concave and then one
observes a convex shape. Finally they approach
an asymptotic limiting value that depends on the
friction angle. The asymptotic values correspond
to completely unlined tunnels.
Considering the complex shape of the curves
in Figure 6a, it would seem difficult to find an
analytical expression that matches these curves.
For small values of d/D, however, the curves
have a simple concave shape, and the following
fairly simple analytical approximation can be
used:
N =
Fig. 6 The soil weight stability number as a function of

the relative cutting length.
Bild 6 Die Stabilittszahl N als Funktion der relativen Abschlagslnge.
2 + 3 (d / D)6 tan
0.05 ....................... [4]
18 tan
under the conditions that > 20 and d < 0.5D.

This analytical approximation reduces to equation [2] when the cutting length is equal to zero.
It matches the computational results up to
d = 0.5D, as can be seen in Figure 7 that shows a
close up of Figure 6a. It is expected that equation [4] is valid for a ground cover of at least
1.5D, but as yet this has not been investigated.
On considering Figure 7, it would seem that the
cutting length has relatively little influence on
the tunnel heading stability. In particular up to
d/D = 0.3, the soil weight stability number is
Fig. 7 The soil weight stability number as a function of

the relative cutting length.
Bild 7 Die Stabilittszahl Ng als Funktion der relativen Abschlagslnge.
FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
TUNNELLING
found to be nearly independent of the cutting

length.
The relatively small influence of the cutting
length would seem to suggest that safety can
hardly be improved by a reduction of the cutting
length, but distinction should be made between
drained and undrained conditions. Indeed, all
results apply to drained situations with considerable arching and consequently a relatively small
influence of the cutting length. For undrained
conditions, on the other hand, the situation is different. Here model test results on tunnels in clay
by Kimura and Mair (12) have shown a clear influence of the cutting length. This was even observed for small lengths where drained analyses
show little or no influence of d. It should also be
realised that our drained formulas have been
derived for circular tunnels in non-layered
ground. In a later section it will be shown that
the influence of the cutting length is somewhat
more important when considering NATMshapes. Finally a significant influence of the cutting length will be reported later, when considering NATM tunnels in layered ground.
Having shown failure mechanisms for fully
lined tunnels in Figure 2, it is now of interest to
consider collapse patterns for partially lined tunnels. To this end computational data are shown
in the three-dimensional perspective in Figure 8.
It shows close ups around the heading of deep
tunnels with different cutting lengths in ground
with a friction angle of 30. The lining is indicated by shades from white to black, the volume elements of the ground by black lines. Similar to
Figures 2e to 2f the rate of displacements are
shown in graded shades from blue to red. For
small values of d, the failure mechanism remains
at the tunnel face (Figure 8a), but for larger values one observes a collapsing roof (Figures 8b
and 8c).
Fully unlined tunnels

On increasing the cutting length up to extremely
large values, one finally obtains the two-dimensional situation of an unlined tunnel. The data in
Figure 6 indicate that such a situation is virtually
reached when d > 10D. Vermeer and Vogler
(2002) performed two-dimensional analyses of
unlined tunnels and reported for the soil weight
stability number the expression
N = 0.6 cot 2 2 + 0.18 , for d = ................. [5]
under the conditions that > 25 and H/D > 2.
On comparing the extremes of a fully lined tunnel with d = 0 (equation [2]) and a fully unlined
one with d = (equation [5]), one compares a
face failure as indicated in Figure 8a with a
plane strain roof failure. The difference is tremendous and this is also reflected in the failure
pressure; Figure 6a shows that failure pressures
8 FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
Fig. 8 Incremental displacements at failure for different

cutting lengths. Red colour indicates the zone with the
largest incremental displacements.
Bild 8 Inkrementelle Verschiebungen im Bruchzustand bei
unterschiedlichen Abschlagslngen. Rot gibt die Bereiche
mit den grten inkrementellen Verschiebungen an.
differ at least a factor two and for low friction

angles even more than a factor three. This demonstrates that the three-dimensional arching for
d = 0 is much stronger than the two-dimensional
arching for d = . The data by Vermeer and Vogler (23) also shows that full two-dimensional
arching, such that the failure pressure is independent of depth, requires a relatively large friction angle of at least 25 and a relatively large
ground cover of at least 2D.
As the unlined tunnel involves a roof failure, it
is logical to plot the supporting pressure as a
function of the roof settlements. In this case the
curve of Figure 1a reduces to the well-known
ground response curve (15), which plays an important conceptual role in NATM tunnelling. In
addition there is the idea of a supporting ground
ring as indicated in Figure 9a. We will consider a
cross-section around a tunnel in order to investigate whether or not a so-called pressure ring in
the sense of Rabcewicz (17) will be formed. Within such a ring one would expect tangential normal stresses (1) that are large with respect to
the radial normal stresses (3). The stress difference 1-3 has thus been visualised to obtain
Figure 9b.
The red colour in Figure 9b is used to indicate
extreme stress differences and the blue colour
means that there is either an isotropic state of
stress with 1 = 3 or a state with very low stresses. The large blue zone in Figure 9b relates to
the assumption of an initial isotropic state with
1 = 3. The smaller blue area just around the
tunnel indicates a zone with very small stresses.
The red-green oval around the tunnel indicates
an arching ground ring in the sense of Rabcewicz
(17). The ring is characterised by large tangential stresses (1) and small radial stresses (3).
Excentric ovals around the tunnel can also be
observed in Figure 9c. This figure shows the mobilisation of the shear strength f = c+tan .
The red colour indicates full mobilisation and the
blue colour is used for the area where there is no
mobilisation at all, i.e. a zone with 1 = 3. This
study thus confirms the idea of a pressure ring
around a tunnel. It is particularly observed when
considering principal stress differences, as done
in Figure 9b.
TUNNELLING
Fig. 9 a) The idea of a ground ring, b) deviatoric stresses

|1 - 3|, c) mobilised shear strength for a deep tunnel.
Bild 9 a) Die Idee des Gebirgstragrings, b) Deviatorspannungen |1 - 3|, c) mobilisierte Scherfestigkeit fr einen tiefen Tunnel.
Maximum diameter in
open-face tunnelling
In usual open-face tunnelling, the face pressure
is equal to zero and the failure pressure as computed from equation [1] must be negative; otherwise the situation would not be stable. Open-face
tunnelling is thus subject to the criterion pf < 0.
In order to consider this criterion in more detail,
expressions [3] and [4] for the stability numbers
are substituted into equation [1] to obtain:
2 + 3 (d D)6 tan
c
0.05
pf = D
.... [6]
18 tan
tan
FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
TUNNELLING
under the conditions that > 20 and d/D < 0.5.

The stability criterion pf < 0 can now be reformulated to obtain an upper bound for the diameter of a tunnel. It yields for d/D < 0.5
D
18 c
2 + 3 (d D)
6 tan
0.9 tan ...................... [7]
This equation would seem to be implicit in

terms of the diameter, but this is not the case as
long as d/D has a given constant value. On the
other hand, if the cutting length is taken as a
constant rather than the relative cutting length
d/D, one has to solve the above equation iteratively. In many practical situations, however, d/D
is relatively small and its contribution to equation [7] can be disregarded. On disregarding this
term one obtains for d/D < 0.3
D
9c
1
.................................... [8]
1 0.45 tan
It can be observed from this equation that the

angle of friction makes only a moderate contribution to the safety of an open tunnel face. One
can consider for example a soil with a friction
angle of only 20, then equation [8] yields
D < 10 c. For a friction angle of 30, the situation is only slightly better as equation [8] then
gives D < 12 c. Hence the friction angle is not of
great importance. It can thus be concluded that
open face tunnelling under drained conditions is
possible when the effective cohesion is at least
10 % of D.
If the cohesion is large enough a tunnel can be
driven at its full size. In case of relatively small
values of c, on the other hand, the tunnel can be
driven in sections (Figure 10). In the latter case
of a sequential excavation the equivalent diameter of the top heading applies and equation [8]
can be used to compute its maximum value. The
above condition [8] on the tunnel diameter demonstrates the impact of the cohesion in open-face
tunnelling. The maximum diameter is simply linearly related to the cohesion.
Factor of safety for

open-face tunnelling
Instead of computing a maximum tunnel diameter, as done in the previous section, it is possible
to consider a tunnel with a given diameter and to
compute a factor of safety. In structural engineering the safety factor is usually defined as the
ratio of the collapse load to the working load, but
for tunnel headings, this definition is not appropriate. Here one better adopts the definition that
is used in the analysis of slope stability, i.e.
= f mob ..................................................... [9]
10 FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
Fig. 10 Possible sequential excavations.

Bild 10 Mgliche Teilausbruchsflchen.
TUNNELLING
where f represents the shear strength. This ratio of the shear strength to the mobilised
strength is a safety factor, which is to be considered in the rest of this paper. By introducing the
definition f = c + tan , where is the effective normal stress on a potential slip plane, the
safety factor is found to be
c + tan
cmob + tan mob ................................... [10]
The parameters cmob and mob are mobilised

shear strength parameters that are just large
enough to maintain equilibrium. Let us now return to equation [6], where the failure pressure
pf is related to the shear strength parameters.
This relationship does not only hold for the parameters pf, c and but also for the mobilised
ones pmob, cmob and mob. It yields
2 + 3 (d D)6 tan mob
pmob = D
0.05
18 tan mob
...... [11]
c mob
tan mob
where pmob is the really applied face pressure.

Within the concept of a single global factor of
safety it is appropriate to define cmob = c/ and
mob = /, as also suggested by equation [10].
On substituting these expressions into equation [11] and on considering open-face tunnelling with pmob = 0, it follows that
0.9 tan + 18 c D
2 + 3 (d D)
6 tan
.......................... [12]
For d = 0 the safety factor can be computed

straight forwardly, but an iterative procedure is
needed when the cutting length is not equal to
zero. However, the influence of the cutting
length on the safety factor is relatively small, as
already discussed in a section above. For usual
friction angles beyond 20 and safety factors below = 1.5, it can be shown that
0.87d = 0 < d = 0 for d/D < 0.2D ............ [13]
oder d/D < 0.2
Hence, the influence of the relative cutting

length on the safety factor is below 13 % and a
relatively close estimate of the safety factor is
thus obtained on using d = 0. For a more exact
solution of equation [12], the factor d=0 can be
used as a first iterate and a nearly exact solution
will be found when performing two or three iterations.
Up to now open-face tunnelling has been considered to be a special case of closed-face tunnelling, i.e. by setting pmob equal to zero. In non-linear finite element analysis, however, the factor
FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
11
TUNNELLING
of safety can be computed directly by means of

so-called -c-reduction. This procedure was basically proposed by Zienkiewicz (24), improved
by Brinkgreve and Bakker (4) and also published
by Dawson et al. (9). The procedure has been
implemented in the Plaxis code (5) as well as in
the FLAC code (10). In this -c-reduction procedure the actual shear strength parameters are
proportionally reduced until failure occurs for
cmob and mob. Then the factor of safety is obtained
from the ratio of c and cmob, or equivalently from
the ratio of tan and tan mob. Several such calculations where performed by Vermeer and
Ruse (21) in order to validate equation [12] for
circular tunnels in homogeneous ground.
NATM-tunnel in homogeneous
ground
As a first case study a cross section of the
Rennsteig tunnel in Thuringia is considered.
This relatively new tunnel with a length of nearly
8 km is part of the German motorway A71 (Figure 11). The excavation of the double-tube tunnel was done by a sequential construction of a
top heading followed by bench and invert. Figure 12 shows a particular cross section with a
relatively small ground cover of only 9 m. We
have analysed this cross section both for uniform
ground as well as for a layered ground profile.
The layered ground profile is to be considered in
a subsequent section. In this section a non-layered ground with properties as indicated in Figure 13 is to be considered.
Attention will be focused on the stability of the
non-circular top heading. Here it might be wondered whether or not such an oval shape can be
considered on the basis of equation [12], as this
relation was derived for circular cross sections.
However, it will be shown that equation [12] can
handle non-circular NATM tunnels. In order to
apply this equation, an equivalent tunnel diameter is needed. The top heading of the Rennsteig
tunnel has a width of a = 11.5 m, a height of
b = 5.3 m and a cross sectional area of 44 m2.
The area can be used to calculate an equivalent
diameter of D = 7.5 m. The problem is now fully
characterised by the parameter set in Figure 12.
On using equation [12] this leads to a safety factor of = 1.36.
In order to check the above result of equation [12], a finite element analysis has been carried out for the real non-circular cross section. In
this numerical analysis both c and were stepwise decreased down to failure values, i.e. down
to cmob and mob, as explained at the end of the
previous section. In this manner a safety factor
of = 1.35 was obtained, being practically equal
to the one from equation [12].
The considered cross section of the Rennsteig
tunnel suffers from a relatively small ground
cover of H/D = 1.2, where D is the equivalent diameter. In such a case one might wonder wheth12 FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
Fig. 11 An entrance of the Rennsteig tunnel.

Bild 11 Portalbereich des Rennsteigtunnels.
Fig. 12 Top heading of Rennsteig tunnel in homogeneous

ground.
Bild 12 Kalottenvortrieb des Rennsteigtunnels in homogenem Baugrund.
Fig. 13 Geological cross section of the Baecker Stream

Valley.
Bild 13 Geologischer Schnitt im Bereich Bckerbachtal.
er or not the stability of the tunnel heading is

influenced by this small cover and for this reason
we also analysed a situation with an extremely
large ground cover. Again a factor of safety of
about = 1.35 was found, as also listed in the
Table. This equivalence between the very shallow and the very deep tunnel may be more generally expected for friction angles above 25. For
lower angles of friction between 20 and 25,
depth independence requires relative ground
covers of at least two, as also concluded from the
data in Figure 5.
The nearly exact correspondence between
present results for a circular shape and a top
heading shape for d = 1.5 m are a coincidence.
On using for instance d = 0 instead of d = 1.5 m,
differences between both shapes are found to be
larger. For zero cutting length, the top heading
shape happens to yield = 1.48, whereas a circular shape leads to = 1.40 as listed in the Table. Hence, it would seem that the top heading
shape tends to a slightly larger safety factor than
the circular shape, but differences remain within
a margin of 6 %. It is thus conducted that equation [12] applies both to circular shapes and
NATM shapes.
TUNNELLING
Safety factors for Rennsteig tunnel in homogeneous

ground.
Sicherheitsfaktoren fr den Rennsteig Tunnel in homogenem Baugrund.
Method
Equation 12
FEM
FEM
Geometry
circle
shallow top heading
deep top heading
d=0
d=1.5
1.40
1.48
1.36
1.35
1.37
NATM-tunnel in layered ground

Instead of considering tunnel excavations in homogeneous ground, as done in the previous section, attention will now be paid to excavations in
layered ground. Again the top heading excavation of the Rennsteig tunnel is considered and
the crossing of a valley with ground layers as indicated in Figure 13. On the extreme left hand
side one observes that the top heading and the
ground cover are nearly completely in a weathered rock layer. This case has already been considered in the previous section on non-layered
ground. On moving from the left hand side of Figure 13 towards the middle, the ground cover
changes from weathered rock into slope talus.
The subsequent cross sections are clearly shown
in Figure 14. Please note that the slope talus has
a slightly smaller friction angle and a considerably smaller cohesion than the weathered rock
underneath. The data for the weathered rock
are as indicated in Figure 12 and the properties
of the slope talus are indicated in Figure 14.
All three different cases in Figure 14 have
been analysed numerically. As equation [12]
does not hold for layered ground, safety factors
were computed by performing three-dimensional finite element analyses. In all analyses the
shape of the top heading was exactly modelled
and the -c-reduction procedure was applied.
The computed -values are indicated in Figure 14 and show a very logical trend; the thicker
the soft top layer, the lower the factor of safety.
On plotting results as a function of the effective
ground cover
Fig. 14 Different ground profiles for Rennsteig tunnel with

computed safety factors for d = 1.5 m.
Bild 14 Verschiedene Bodenprofile fr den Rennsteigtunnel mit den jeweils berechneten Sicherheitsfaktoren fr
d = 1,5 m.
FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
13
TUNNELLING
H = H H top layer .......................................... [14]
one obtains Figure 15, in which the safety factor

is plotted as a function of the effective ground
cover. This figure illustrates the impact of an effective ground cover. For relatively small effective ground covers, the safety factor depends significantly on this cover, but starting from H D,
a more or less constant factor of safety is found.
This is fully in the line with the data in Figure 5
on the influence of the ground cover. It is also
fully in line with our findings of arching around
tunnel headings. For H > D arching can fully develop and equation [12] applies. For smaller
thicknesses of the effective cover, the soft layer
plays a role and equation [12] should not be applied. Instead it is recommended to perform finite element analyses with -c-reduction, as
done to obtain Figure 15. On decreasing H below the critical value of D, one observes first a
gradual decrease of the safety factor and a dramatic decrease as soon as H has become negative.
For negative values of the effective ground
cover, the tunnel face consists partly out of relatively soft ground and its influences the failure
mechanism considerably. As long as the tunnel
face is completely in the weathered rock, a full
face failure is obtained, as indicated in
Figures 2e and 2f. For the case of Figure 14c, on
the other hand, a more local failure entirely inside the soft top layer was observed. Figure 16
shows the local failure for a situation with zero
cutting length; on the left a cross section and on
the right a longitudinal section of the top heading. Increasing displacements are shown in
graded shades from blue to red.
Let us now consider the influence of the cutting length in somewhat more detail. To this end,
it should be realised that the very local face failure in Figure 16 corresponds to d =0. For nonzero cutting lengths, however, the failure zone is
larger due to the inclusion of the unsupported
part of the tunnel roof. As long as the soft top
layer is not far below the tunnel roof and significant cutting lengths are used, the failure mode is
even a roof failure instead of a face failure. As a
consequence of such different failure modes, the
cutting length plays an important role in layered
ground and this is reflected by the two curves in
Figure 15.
On performing non-linear finite element analyses in layered ground, it appears that the element mesh should be well designed in order that
an accurate assessment of the failure mechanism can be made. For meshes with 15-noded
prismatic elements as illustrated in Figure 1b
and homogeneous ground, fine meshes with an
average element length of D/10 around the tunnel face were used. In order to obtain accurate
results for tunnel faces in layered ground, refined meshes in the soft zones near the tunnel
face were used, as failure tends to localise in
14 FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
Fig. 15 Factor of safety as a function of the effective cover.

Bild 15 Der Standsicherheitsfaktor als Funktion der effektiven Tunnelberdeckung.
Fig. 16 Local failure inside the soft top layer for d = 0.

Bild 16 Ein lokaler Verbruch bildet sich in der oberen Bodenschicht aus (fr d = 0).
TUNNELLING
such zones.
Conclusions
Results of three-dimensional finite element calculations have been considered for tunnel headings in drained ground. Restriction has been
made to an isotropic Mohr-Coulomb material,
which excludes materials with a highly anisotropic strength such as jointed rocks and heavily
bedded sediments. Stress distributions around
tunnel headings in soils and soft rocks were
found to be dominated by arching, at least for
friction angles beyond 20. Once the friction angle is beyond this value, stability appears to be
independent of the ground cover as well as possible surface loads. For shield tunnelling, this
leads to an extremely simple expression for the
minimum support pressure required. For open
face tunnelling, it results in rules for the maximum diameter of the excavation and it involves
the cutting-length. Considering small cutting
lengths, the very simple approximate stability
criteria of D < 10 c was found to apply. The diameter D may either be the full tunnel diameter
or a subsection diameter of a sequential excavation. Instead of considering a maximum diameter, it is also possible to calculate a factor of safety for a fixed given value of the diameter.
In the last part of this study non-circular tunnels have been considered. In such cases an
equivalent diameter, for use in the stability criteria, can be computed from the excavation area
considered. Unfortunately the stability equations
do not hold when the tunnel face is dominated by
different ground layers. In such cases it is advocated to apply a non-linear finite element analysis and to use the so-called -c-reduction method. Even in the general case of layered ground
the formulas for non-layered ground remain of
interest for understanding tendencies and for
validating different numerical models and computer codes.
In classical literature on the NATM one finds
the concept of the mobilisation of a supporting
ground ring around tunnels as a function of deformations. It would seem that we detected such
a ring numerically quite directly. It is nicely visualised by plotting contours of deviatoric stresses
|1 - 3|. For circular tunnels such a ground ring
is found to be elliptical.
It should be realised that not all aspects of
tunnel heading stability have been addressed,
e.g. not the destabilising effect of pore water
pressure. When driving a shield tunnel under the
ground-water table and drained conditions apply, the effective failure pressure naturally has
to be increased by the pore water pressure.
Moreover, one would have to use the submerged
weight in all previous formulas. When open
face tunnels are driven under the ground-water
table and drained conditions apply, the water
has an additional destabilising effect due to
FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
15
TUNNELLING
groundwater flow towards the tunnel heading,

which has not been considered in this paper.
The present equations do not always apply to
tunnelling in saturated clays, as they behave initially undrained with cu as the undrained shear
strength. For such situations, the equation
pf = -cu Tc + 0 applies, where 0 is the initial vertical overburden stress at the tunnel axis. Atkinson and Mair (2) used model test data to derive
design curves that give Tc as a function of H/D
and d/D. For a standstill, however, drained conditions will occur and one may apply the formulas of the present study.
It should also be realised that perfect plasticity is a strong assumption, when considering
highly cohesive clays and weak rocks that show a
peak strength and a much lower residual
strength. This softening with its resulting tendency of progressive failure is well-known for
clay slopes, e.g. by the papers of Chen et al. (7)
and Potts et al. (16), but as yet it was not thoroughly investigated for tunnel heading stability.
For the two-dimensional problem of a fully unlined tunnel, consequences of softening are studied in another paper in the same issue of this
journal. For the three-dimensional problem of a
tunnel heading, it is a topic of further research.
Finally it should be realised that attention has
been purely focused on stability and not on surface settlements, which are important for tunnelling in urban areas. There is no doubt that the
successful design of tunnel excavations in such
areas is based on both stability and deformation
considerations.
References
1. Anagnostou, G. ; Kovri, K.: Face Stability Conditions with
Earth-Pressure-Balanced Shields. In: Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 11 (1996), No. 2, pp. 165-173.
2. Atkinson, J.H. ; Mair, R.J.: Soil mechanics aspects of soft
ground tunnelling. In: Ground Engineering 14 (1981), No. 5,
pp. 20-38.
3. Baumann, T. ; Sternath, R. ; Schwarz, J.: Face stability of
tunnels in soft rock Possibilities for the computational analysis. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Hamburg,
Vol. 3, pp. 1389-1392. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1997.
4. Brinkgreve, R.B.J. ; Bakker, H.L. : Non-linear finite element
analysis of safety factors. Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Cairns, Vol. 2, pp.
1117-1122. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1991.
5. Brinkgreve, R.B.J. ; Vermeer, P.A.: Manual of Plaxis 3D
Tunnel. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 2001.
6. Chambon, J.F. ; Cort, J.F.: Shallow tunnels in cohesionless soil: Stability of tunnel face. In: J. Geotech. Engng ASCE
120 (1994), No. 7, pp. 1150-1163.
7. Chen, Z. ; Morgenstern, N.R. ; Chan, D.H.: Progressive
failure of the Carsington Dam: a numerical study. In: Can.
Geotech. J. 29 (1992), No. 6, pp. 971-988.
8. Davis, E.H. ; Gunn, M.J. ; Mair, R.J. ; Seneviratne, H.N.:
The stability of shallow tunnels and underground openings in
cohesive material. In: Gotechnique 30 (1980), No. 4, pp.
397-416.
9. Dawson, E.M. ; Roth, W.H. ; Drescher, A.: Slope stability
analysis by strength reduction. In: Gotechnique 49 (1999),
No. 6, pp. 835-840.
10. Itasca Consulting Group Inc.: FLAC Version 4.0. Users
Guide. Itasca consulting Group Inc., Minneapolis, 2002.
11. Jancsecz, S. ; Steiner, W.: Face support for large mixshield in heterogeneous ground conditions. Proc. Tunnelling
16 FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
TUNNELLING
94, London, pp. 531-550. London: Chapman & Hall, 1994.

12. Kimura ; Mair (1981). Centrifugal Testing of Model Tunnels in Soft Clay. Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found.
Engng, Stockholm, Vol. 1, 319-322. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema Publishers.
13. Krause, T.: Schildvortrieb mit flssigkeits- und erdgesttzter Ortsbrust. Report of the Inst. of Geotech. Engng of
the University of Braunschweig, Report No. 24, 1987.
14. Lca, E. ; Dormieux, L.: Upper and lower bound solutions
for the face stability of shallow circular tunnels in frictional
material. In: Gotechnique 40 (1990), No. 4, pp. 581-606.
15. Pacher, F.: Deformationsmessungen im Versuchsstollen
als Mittel zur Erforschung des Gebirgsverhaltens und zur
Bemessung des Ausbaus. Felsmechanik und Ingenieurgeologie, Supplementum I. Wien: Springer, 1964.
16. Potts, D.M. ; Kovacevic, N. ; Vaughan, P.R.: Delayed collapse of cut slopes in stiff clay. In: Gotechnique 47 (1997),
No. 5, pp. 953-982.
17. Rabcewicz von, R.: Gebirgsdruck und Tunnelbau. Wien:
Springer, 1944.
18. Semprich, S.: Berechnung der Spannungen und Verformungen im Bereich der Ortsbrust von Tunnelbauwerken in
Fels. Report of the Inst. of Geotech. Engng of the RWTH
Aachen, Report No. 8, 1980.
19. Sternath, R. ; Baumann, T.: Face support for tunnels in
loose ground. World Tunnel Congress Wien97. Rotterdam:
A.A. Balkema, 1997.
20. Vermeer, P.A. ; Ruse, N.: Die Stabilitt der Tunnelortsbrust in homogenem Baugrund. In: geotechnik 24 (2001),
No. 3, pp. 186-193.
21. Vermeer, P.A. ; Ruse, N.: Neue Entwicklungen in der
Tunnelstatik. Proc. 3rd Kolloquium Bauen in Boden und Fels,
Technische Akademie Esslingen (ed.: Schad, H.), pp. 3-14.
Ostfildern: TAE, 2002.
22. Vermeer, P.A. ; van Langen, H.: Soil collapse computations with finite elements. In: Ingenieur-Archiv 59 (1989),pp.
221-236.
23. Vermeer, P.A. ; Vogler, U.: On the stability of unlined tunnels. In Learned and Applied Soil Mechanics out of Delft (eds
Barends & Steijger), pp. 127-134. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema,
2002.
24. Zienkiewicz, O.C. ; Humpheson, C. ; Lewis, R.W.: Associated and non-associated visco-plasticity in soil mechanics.
In: Gotechnique 25 (1975), No. 4, pp. 671-689.
25. Horn, ?: Bitte ergnzen
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to Dr. ir. P. Bonnier from Plaxis for
his support in the numerical calculations. The authors would
also like to thank Dr.-Ing. habil. H. Schad for his very helpful
comments and his thorough review of this paper.
Authors
Professor Dr.-Ing. Pieter A. Vermeer and Dipl.-Geol. Nico
Ruse, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, University of
Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 35, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany,
E-Mail vermeer@igs.uni-stuttgart.de; ruse@igs.uni-stuttgart.
de, Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Marcher, ILF Consulting Engineers ZT
GmbH, Framsweg 16, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria, E-Mail
thomas.marcher@ibk.ilf.com.
FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
17
RUBRIK
BILDERSEITEN VERMEER I
BILD 1
BILD 2
BILD 3
FELSBAU 19 (2001) NO. 1
RUBRIK
BILD 4
BILD 5
BILD 6
2 FELSBAU 19 (2001) NO. 1
RUBRIK
BILD 7
BILD 8
BILD 9
FELSBAU 19 (2001) NO. 1
RUBRIK
BILD 10
BILD 11
BILD 13
4 FELSBAU 19 (2001) NO. 1
BILD 12
RUBRIK
BILD 14
BILD 15
BILD 16
FELSBAU 19 (2001) NO. 1
1ST Asian Course

for

CG14 Settlements due to Tunneling
Singapore 2003
Settlements due to Tunnelling

Observations and Numerical Analyses
Vermeer, P.A., Bonnier, P.G., Mller, S.C.: On A Smart Use of 3D-FEM in

Tunneling. NUMOG, Rome, 2002.
Bonnier, P.G., Mller, S.C. and Vermeer, P.A.: Bending Moments and Normal
Forces in Tunnel linings. 5th Eur. Conf. Num. Methods in Geot. Eng., Paris, 2002.
Mller, S.C., Vermeer, P.A. and Bonnier, P.G.: A fast 3D tunnel analysis. Second
MIT Conference on Computational Fluid and Solid Mechanics. Boston, 2003.
Pieter A. Vermeer
Institute of Geotechnical Engineering
University of Stuttgart
IGS
Large Settlements after Construction of a Tunnel
IGS
Damage due to Settlements
IGS
Settlement Trough above Tunnel Excavation
IGS
Shield Tunnelling
IGS
Settlements are dependent on

Support-pressure at the face
Grouting-pressure at the tail
The better the face support and the
grouting at the tail, the smaller the
settlements.
Detail
NATM-Tunnelling
IGS
The design of sequential excavations depends

on the quality of the ground
The smaller the
excavated area the
smaller the
settlements.
Tunnel Boring Machine without Shield
IGS
Tunnelling with TBM (Tunnel Boring Machine)
In non-solid rock
large settlements
would occur.
Influence of Excavation Method
IGS
Comparison of settlement trough for NATM tunnels and for shield

tunnels
Causes of Settlements
IGS
Shield Tunnelling
NATM Tunnelling
1.) Deformation of tunnel face

2.) Conical shape of the shield
3.) Tail void
4.) Deformation of tunnel lining
Observed Settlements during Shield Tunnelling
IGS
Settlements during shield

tunnelling in sands
(Ata, 1996)
Settlements as a function
of time during shield
tunnelling in silty sand
(Moh et al, 1996)
Gaussian Distribution Curve
S = S max exp x 2 / 2 i 2
IGS
)
(Peck, 1969)
= settlement
Smax
= maximum settlement above tunnel axis
= horizontal distance from tunnel axis
= horizontal distance from tunnel axis to

point of inflection of settlement trough
Width of the Settlement Trough
IGS
Distance of point of inflection
K = width factor of settlement trough
i = K z0
z0 = depth of tunnel axis
(Peck, 1969)
Mair, 1997 :
Representative values for sand:
Representative values for clay:
0.25 < K < 0.45
0.4 < K < 0.6

Influence of Cover on the Settlement Trough
IGS
Deep tunnels give flat settlement troughs

Shallow tunnels give steep settlement troughs
Prediction of Settlements
IGS
Smax must be determined

State of the art:
Whole settlement trough from FEM (Finite Element Method) for NATM
tunnelling
Mostly empirical approaches for shield tunnelling

Smax from:
S = S max exp x 2 / 2 i 2
and
VTrough = 2 i Smax
e.g. VTrough / VTunnel 1%
volume loss
3D FE Models for Settlement Analyses
IGS
3D FE Models
(spatial models)
Transverse settlement trough
Longitudinal settlement trough
For simulating tunnel construction

the Step-by-Step excavation
method is used, where the soil
in front of the tunnel is removed
stepwise and at the same time
the tunnel lining is installed to
support the previous excavation.
Calculation of Settlement Trough with FEM
IGS
Removing volume elements and installing the tunnel

lining step by step.
Development of the Longitudinal Settlement Trough
IGS
The steady state of the settlement trough is reached, when the

boundary conditions show no more influence and the longitudinal
settlement trough approaches a horizontal tangent.
Mohr-Coulomb model:
E = 42 MPa, = 0.25 , c = 20 kPa, = 20 = 20, = 0, K0 = 1-sin
Lining linear-elastic:
EA = 6000 kN/m, EI = 45 kNm/m, = 0
Tunnel: Diameter = 8m, cover = 16m, excavation length = 2m

Tunnel with Partial Excavations
IGS
Total displacements:
Excavation of top heading
Excavation of bottom
Settlement Trough due to Excavation of the Invert
IGS
The longitudinal settlement trough due to the excavation of the

bottom does not show a Sshape as from the excavation of
the top heading.
The settlements ahead the heading of the bottom are small
due to the stabilizing effect of the stiff lining of the top heading.
Most of the settlements occur behind the heading.
Comparison with Gaussian Distribution Curve
IGS
Transverse
settlement trough due
to the excavation of
the top heading
Transverse
settlement trough due
to the excavation of
the bottom
10
2D FE Models for Settlement Analyses
IGS
2D FE Models
(plane models)
Only transverse settlement trough
2D FEM Calculation
IGS
In a 2D calculation the arching effect of a 3D

calculation is taken into account by using the load
reduction method.
11
2D Calculation of the Transversal Settlement Trough
IGS
Calculation of the initial stress-state

x
x
unit soil weight
z
z
K0 z
K0 (1 sin) OCR
input
12
2D Calculation of the Transversal Settlement Trough
IGS
0
Support pressure
Step 1: Deactivation of volume elements and installation of support pressure
Step 2: Installation of lining and deactivation of support pressure

Load Reduction Method ( Method )
IGS
0 is the intermediate support pressure

13
Gauss and 2D FEM Calculation
IGS
Gaussian Distribution is valid for tunnels with

Smax/z0 = 0.00185 < 0.5% (Cording & Hansmire, 1975)
In a FE calculation the shape of the settlement trough is dependent

on the applied soil model. Mohr-Coulomb Model gives often too wide
troughs, Hardening Soil Model does better, at least for
overconsolidated soils.
Comparison of 2D and 3D FEM
IGS
2D and 3D FE calculations result in the same transversal

settlement trough when applying appropriate -factors.
14
Steinhaldenfeld Tunnel in Stuttgart (1000m), Germany
IGS
Construction method:
NATM
Cutting length:
1.20m
Considered length of
tunnel:
120m
120m
Geological Soil Profile
IGS
Longitudinal section of considered part of the tunnel
Simplified soil profile for FEM analysis

15
Geotechnical Soil Properties
IGS
Estimated soil parameters from site investigation

(no laboratory testing)
Top layer
Upper
Keuper Marl
Lower
Keuper Marl
Lacustrine
Limestone
[kN/m]
20
24
23
23
E [MN/m]
15
100
60
750
[-]
0.375
0.2
0.35
0.2
' [ ]
25
25
25
35
c' [KN/m]
10
25
25
200
Settlement Analysis with Mohr-Coulomb Model
IGS
Measured and calculated surface settlements
FEM results give 28% less settlements

Inclination of settlement trough is too flat
16
Analysis with Hardening-Soil Model
IGS
Second approach with the Hardening Soil model

Mohr-Coulomb
model
Hardening-Soil
model
Stress dependent
stiffness
Different stiffness for

primary loading and
unloading-reloading
Plastic strains before

Mohr-Coulomb failure
line
Failure criterion after

Mohr-Coulomb
(deviatoric and
volumetric)
Yield Surfaces of HS Model
E50
Eur
Eoed
IGS
Plastic strains (deviatoric

and volumetric) before
reaching the Mohr-Coulomb
failure line (primary loading)
Higher stiffness in elastic
region (unloading-reloading)
Total yield contour of the

Hardening-Soil model
17
HS-Model for Overconsolidated Soils
Point of
initial stress
due to OCR
IGS
OCR = p / yy0
For actual analysis OCR = 2
Overconsolidated stress
state obtained from primary
loading and subsequent
unloading
Results from Hardening-Soil Model
IGS
Measured and calculated surface settlements
FEM results give 5% less settlements

Inclination of settlement trough is still too flat
A model with strain dependent stiffness is needed to do better
18
References
IGS
Ata, A. A. (1996). Ground settlements induced by slurry shield tunnelling in

stratified soils. Proc. North American Tunnelling 96, ed. L Ozdemir, Vol. 1,
pp. 43 50.
Cording, E. J. and Hansmire, W. H. (1975). Displacements around soft ground
tunnels General Report 5th Pan American Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering Buenos Aires, Session IV, pp 571 632.
Mair, R. J. and Taylor, R. N. (1997). Bored tunnelling in the urban environment.
Proc. 14th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering. Hamburg, Vol. 4, pp. 2353 2385.
Moh, Z-C., Ju, D. H. and Hwang, R. N. (1996). Ground movements around
tunnels in soft ground. Proc. Int. Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of
Underground Construction in Soft Ground, London (eds R. J. Mair an R. N.
Taylor). Balkema, pp. 725 - 730.
Peck, R. B. (1969). Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground. Proc. 7th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
Mexico City, State of the Art Volume, pp. 225 290.
Conclusions
IGS
The shape of the transverse settlement trough in tunnelling problems

is well described by a Gaussian Distribution Curve
For shield driven tunnels the transverse settlement trough can be
obtained from the Gaussian Distribution Curve by estimating a
respective volume loss
For NATM tunnels 3D FEM calculation give results close to Gaussian
Distribution Curve
When considering a NATM tunnel with partial excavations the bottom
excavation however does not show a Gaussian shape
The shape of the settlement trough is dependent on the soil model.
MC tends to give too wide settlement troughs, HS improves a lot, at
least for overconsolidated soils
The transverse settlement trough can be modelled in a 2D calculation
using the load reduction method
By applying appropriate load reduction factors 2D and 3D calculations
give the same transverse settlement trough
19
VERMEER, MARCHER AND RUSE: ON THE GROUND RESPONSE CURVE
TUNNELLING
On the Ground Response Curve
By Pieter A. Vermeer, Thomas Marcher and Nico Ruse
n NATM-tunnelling the ground response

curve, also referred to as Fenner-Pacher
curve, is used to illustrate the ground pressure
on the lining as a function of deformations. A
steep ground response curve with a low minimum indicates a stiff and strong ground which
needs little support of a lining. Such a cohesive
and frictional soil is able to carry the overburden
load by arching around the tunnel. Vice versa, a
relatively flat ground response curve with a high
minimum corresponds to a relatively soft ground
that needs significant support from a lining. The
hypothesis by Pacher (10) concerning the
trough-shaped ground response curve and the
minimisation of the rock pressure and the related lining thickness would seem to be important
elements of NATM-tunnelling. The idea of a
trough-shaped ground response curve was however questioned by Kovri (7) and thereupon defended by Vavrovsky (15). The latter argues that
distinction should be made between shallow and
deep tunnelling. On the basis of his tunnelling
experiences, Vavrovsky considered a concave
ground response curve as realistic for shallow
tunnels rather than for deep tunnels. In this
study these ideas will be confirmed on the basis
of numerical analyses.
Attention will be focused on relatively shallow
tunnels in isotropic ground without a macro
structure due to stratification, schistarity or
jointing. Material behaviour will be described by
an elastoplastic constitutive model that involves
softening. This model will be used in finite element analyses in order to compute ground response curves. The idea of calculating ground
response curves on the basis of elementary
ground properties was probably first suggested
by Seeber (13) and later by Kovri (6) and Kolymbas (5). Most recently this was done for deep
tunnels by Bliem and Fellin (2) to find non-concave curves. In contrast, we will consider shallow tunnels to find trough-like ground response
curves.
Finite element-analyses
in softening ground
Several authors (16, 17) have shown that the
elastic-plastic finite-element method is well-suited to predict collapse loads of geotechnical
structures. For softening ground, however, such
Untersuchungen zur Gebirgskennlinie

Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird das mechanische Verhalten von Tunnels in steifen Bden und weichem, nachgiebigem Fels numerisch
untersucht. Der Schwerpunkt liegt bei der Analyse von seicht bis
mitteltief liegenden NT-Tunneln. Es wird gezeigt, da sich in diesen Fllen im Unterschied zu sehr tiefliegenden Tunnel durch den
progressiven Entfestigungsproze ein Bruch ergeben kann, der
durch die sogenannte ansteigende Gebirgskennlinie veranschaulicht wird.
This numerical study concerns the mechanical behaviour of tunnels
in stiff soils and soft rocks. Attention is focused on shallow to medium deep NATM tunnels. It is shown that such situations differ from
very deep tunnels in the sense that material softening can produce
failure, as demonstrated by a trough-like ground response curve.
FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
TUNNELLING
numerical analyses tend to require a considerable computational effort. At present such computations are feasible for two-dimensional problems rather than for three-dimensional ones. In
the present study such a two-dimensional problem is considered. The finite element analyses
were performed with an advanced constitutive
model that accounts for a drop in strength, i.e.
softening. This model will be briefly introduced
in a separate section.
As symmetrical tunnels are considered, calculations are based on only half a circular tunnel.
The ground is represented by 6-noded triangular
elements. The boundary conditions of the finite
element mesh are as follows: The ground surface
is free to displace, the side surfaces have roller
boundaries and the base is fixed. It is assumed
that the distribution of the initial stresses is geostatic according to h = K0 v, where h is the
horizontal effective stress and v is the vertical
one. K0 is the coefficient of lateral earth pressure
at rest as illustrated in Figure 1.
The first stage of the calculations is to remove
the elements inside the tunnel. This does not disturb the equilibrium as equivalent pressures are
applied on the inside of the entire tunnel. The
minimum amount of pressure needed to support
the tunnel is then determined by a stepwise reduction of the supporting pressure.
Upon extending finite element procedures to
include softening, it appears that the entire numerical procedure should be well designed in
order that an accurate assessment of the ground
response can be made. For each decrement of
supporting pressure, equilibrium iterations are
performed and plastic stress redistribution is accomplished using a radial-return algorithm in
combination with so-called arc-length control
(3). In this manner ground response curves, being also known as Fenner-Pacher curves, are
obtained for an assumed plane strain tunnelling
situation. In the following such curves will be
obtained by plotting the average supporting
pressure as a function of the roof settlement.
Within the context of classical continuum mechanics and conventional finite element analyses, softening models create mesh dependency.
Hence, computational results will depend on the
size of the elements being used. In order to obtain objective results that are independent of the
finite element mesh, classical continuum models
have to be enhanced by a so-called regularization technique. In this study the nonlocal method
(1) is used to achieve mesh independent computational results. Within this method the shear
band thickness is governed by an internal length
parameter. Unfortunately this additional input
parameter is difficult to measure and this
renders the use of softening analyses presently
non-attractive for use in engineering practise.
For details on this parameter as well as the socalled nonlocal method being used, the reader is
referred to Marcher (9).
2 FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
Fig. 1 Geometry and typical pressure-displacement curve

(ground response curve).
Bild 1 Tunnelgeometrie und eine typische Druck-Verschiebungskurve (Gebirgskennlinie).
TUNNELLING
Constitutive model with

cohesion softening
Stiff clays and weak rocks tend to show a peak
strength and a much lower residual strength.
The transition from the peak to the residual
strength is referred to as softening and it usual
occurs in combination with the localisation of
deformations in shear bands, i.e. thin zones of
intensively shearing material. Softening shear
bands imply a reduction of shear stresses both
inside and outside the band; otherwise there
would be no equilibrium. In adjacent regions
outside the band the shear stress reduction causes a quasi-elastic unloading so that one observes
more or less rigid block movements. The resulting tendency of progressive failure is well-known
for clay slopes (4, 11, 14). In tunnelling, softening
may result in a concave ground-response curve
as considered e.g. by Pacher (10) and more recently by Vavrovsky (15).
In stiff clays softening occurs both for the friction angle and the cohesion, but friction softening is not as dangerous as cohesion softening.
This relates to the fact that bonds between particles conferring effective cohesion are destroyed
after small deformations, finally resulting in zero
cohesion. In contrast, friction angles tend to drop
much more slowly down to a residual value well
above zero. A gradual loss of stability due to ductile friction softening is thus less severe and
more readily observed within the framework of a
monitoring programme, whereas more brittle
cohesion softening may lead to a more sudden
loss of stability. It is thus logic to concentrate on
cohesion softening.
Instead of the use of a simple elastic-perfectly
plastic model such as the Mohr-Coulomb model,
a hardening-softening model is adopted. This is
basically the so-called Hardening-Soil Model as
used in the Plaxis program (3), but this constitutive model was extended by adding softening behaviour. Rather than describing the mathematical formulation of this particular constitutive soil
model, full focus will be on the meaning of the
input parameters of this model. The considered
ground has a unit weight of = 20 kN/m3, a friction angle of = 30 and an initial effective cohesion of cpeak = 40 kPa. Similar to the strength
parameters, stiffness parameters are taken conform the properties of the stiff clay tested at
Stuttgart University (8).
Cohesion softening is modelled by considering
the effective cohesion to be a function of the void
ratio e. On introducing a constant softening modulus hc, the cohesion is written as
c = cpeak - hc (e - eo) ......................................... [1]
as illustrated in figure 2. The constants cpeak and
e0 are initial values at the onset of tunnelling. For
details on this constitutive model, the reader is
referred to Marcher (9). The softening modulus
Fig. 2 a) Typical load displacement curve for a triaxial test

on softening material; b) linear cohesion softening.
Bild 2 a) Typische Last-Verschiebungskurve eines Triaxialversuchs an einem entfestigenden Material; b) lineare Kohsionsentfestigung.
FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
TUNNELLING
hc can be obtained on the basis of high-quality

triaxial tests with a relatively homogeneous
post-peak sample deformations. At Stuttgart
University such tests were carried out on a particular stiff clay, named Beaucaire Marl (8), to
find hc = 600 kPa. This particular value is to be
used as a reference value when studying the effect of softening in tunnel stability. No doubt, different clays will give different values of hc, but
the number of 600 kPa can at least be used as a
reference value in the context of a sensitivity
analysis. The experiments on Beaucaire Marl
showed cohesion softening rather than friction
softening.
Stiffness parameters
being used
Figure 3 shows a typical curve of a drained triaxial test with constant lateral pressure 3. Under
primary loading the behaviour is distinctly nonlinear and is assumed to be hyperbolic up to a
failure stress. Here compressive stresses and
strains are considered positive. While the maximum stress is determined by the Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion, the hyperbolic part of the curve
can be defined by using a single secant modulus
as additional input parameter. In the hardeningsoftening model this is E50, as shown in Figure 3.
It determines the magnitude of both the elastic
and the plastic strains. In contrast, Eur is an elasticity modulus. In conjunction with a Poissons
ratio ur, the elasticity modulus Eur determines
the soil behaviour under unloading and reloading; the indices ur stand for unloading/reloading. Both the secant virgin loading modulus E50
and the unloading modulus Eur are stress-level
dependent. It yields:

ref c cot + 3
E50 = E50
ref
c cot + p

ref c cot + 3
Eur = Eur
c cot + pref
............................. [2]
............................. [3]
ref
ref
E50
and Eur
are input parameters for a particular reference pressure pref. The exponent m can
be measured both in oedometer tests and in triaxial tests. One tends to find values between 0.4
and 1.0. A value of 0.5 is typical for sands and
clays tend to have m 1.0.
Figure 4 shows the typical curve of an oedometer test. For purposes of comparison with the
triaxial curve in Figure 3, the oedometer diagram has been rotated 90 from its normal position, so that the strain axis is horizontal. The virgin oedometer stiffness obeys a stress dependency according to the formula
4 FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
Fig. 3 Typical curve of a drained triaxial compression test.

Bild 3 Typischer Kurvenverlauf eines drnierten Triaxialversuchs.
Fig. 4 Typical curve of a drained oedometer test.

Bild 4 Typischer Kurvenverlauf eines drnierten Oedometerversuchs.
TUNNELLING

ref c cot + 1
Eoed = Eoed
ref
c cot + p
........................... [4]
In the special case of m = 1 one obtains a linear stress-dependency as usual for a clay. In addiref
ref
tion to the moduli E50
and Eur
, the oedometer
modulus Eoedref is also an input parameter. Together with the parameters m, ur, c, and the
dilatancy angle , there are a total of eight material parameters. Within the hardening-softening
model c is not a constant, but a void ratio dependent parameter as specified by equation 1.
Often, no triaxial test results are available for
ref
ref
determining ur, Eur
and E50
, in which case one
has to rely on oedometer results and general
empirical data, such as ur = 0.1 - 0.2. For sands
ref
ref
and stiff clays, one can mostly use E50
Eoe
.
d
However, this equality of reference stiffnesses
does not mean that the triaxial stiffness E50
equals the oedometer stiffness, Eoed. It should be
noted that the reference triaxial stiffness is obtained by normalizing to the minor principal
stress, 3, and the reference oedometer stiffness
follows after normalizing to the major principal
stress, 1
ref
The elasticity modulus Eur
can be determined
directly from a triaxial test or indirectly with the
help of oedometer results. If the unloading modulus from the oedometer test is termed Eur
, acoed
cording to isotropic linear elasticity the following
relationship holds
Eur = (1 2 ur )
1 + ur ur
Eoed .............................. [5]
1 ur
Hence with proper estimates of Poissons ratio, Eur can be calculated from Eur
.
oed
Shallow unlined tunnel

in softening ground
The authors consider an unlined circular tunnel
with a diameter of 8 m and a ground cover of the
same thickness. As already mentioned, the authors concentrate on a plane strain situation and
analyses can be carried out in a plane strain
cross-section. Initial stresses are taken to be geostatic with a coefficient of lateral earth pressure K0 = 1
Firstly a response curve was computed for a
non-cohesive ground to obtain the dashed upper
curve in Figure 5 with a failure pressure of
pf = 0.4D. Secondly a non-softening cohesive
ground with c = 40 kPa was considered to obtain the lower curve in Figure 5 with a slightly
negative failure pressure indicating a stable situation. Analyses involving cohesion softening
should obviously render ground response curves
in between the upper curve for c = 0 kPa and the
lower curve for c = 40 kPa.
In order to model softening in narrow shear
Fig. 5 Computed ground response curves for a shallow

tunnel with H/D = 1.
Bild 5 Berechnete Gebirgskennlinien fr einen flachliegenden Tunnel mit H/D = 1.
FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
TUNNELLING
bands sufficiently accurate, a very fine mesh

around the tunnel were used, as indicated in Figure 6. In fact, such a fine mesh is needed when
applying a nonlocal model in combination with a
small internal length. First of all a softening
analysis was carried out for a stiff clay with a
softening modulus hc = 600 kPa. This yields the
blue ground response curve in Figure 5 with a
marked peak in point A. Well before peak the
blue curve deviates already from the non-softening lower bound and it meets the non-cohesive
upper bound finally in point B. The peak point A
yields a peak pressure of pf = 0.23D, being
about half way in between the failure pressures
for non-softening materials with c = 0 kPa and
c = 40 kPa respectively.
As different clays will have different softening
moduli, the softening modulus around the above
value of hc = 600 kPa have been varied . Resulting ground response curves for hc = 300 kPa and
hc = 1 200 kPa are indicated by the red and
green curves in Figure 5. A very slight decrease
of the minimum pressure is observed for
hc = 300 kPa and a noticeable increase for
hc = 1 200 kPa.
Considering present computational data for a
very shallow tunnel in a particular softening
clay, it is thus observed that material softening
produces a structural softening in the sense of
concave ground response curve as also suggested e.g. by Pacher (10) and Vavrovsky (15).
Figure 6 shows a close up around the tunnel
with softening zones at and beyond peak, i.e. for
point A, B and C of the blue curve in Figure 5.
The yellow zones indicate regions where cohesion has softened down to about 10 kPa. These
regions are surrounded by green zones with
c 20 kPa. States B and C in Figure 6 show postpeak softening zones with a shear band starting
at the tunnel side and gradually growing towards the surface. Here the colour red is used to
indicate fully softened soil. Similar results have
been obtained by Schuller and Schweiger (12)
using a multilaminate model that includes softening behaviour.
Fig. 6 Development of softening zones for materials with

hc = 600 kPa. Red indicates fully softened material with
c = 0. First for failure state, then for intermediate state and
finally for residual state.
Bild 6 Entwicklung der Entfestigungszonen fr ein Material mit hc = 600 kPa. Rot bedeutet vollstndig entfestigtes
Material mit c = 0, zunchst im Bruchzustand, dann in einem Zwischenzustand und letztendlich vollstndig entfestigt.
Deeper unlined tunnel

in softening ground
In this section a deeper tunnel with a cover of
H = 32 m is considered and all other parameters
conform to the shallow tunnel of the previous
section. The initial supporting pressure is given
by p0 = (H + 0.5D) and this pressure is stepwise
reduced to failure. As in the previous section,
upper and lower bounds to the ground response
curve are obtained for non-softening material
with c = 0 and c = 40 kPa respectively. Instead
of showing the full curves starting at p = 4.5D,
Figure 7 focuses on the lower part from p = 2D
down to failure. As in the previous section the
upper curve reaches a failure pressure of
pf = 0.4D and the lower curve reaches a slightly
6 FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
Fig. 7 Computed ground response curves for a deeper

tunnel with H/D = 4.
Bild 7 Berechnete Gebirgskennlinien fr einen tiefer liegenden Tunnel mit H/D = 4.
negative failure pressure.

The computed ground response curve for the
stiff clay with a softening modulus of
hc = 600 kPa is found to be well in between the
bound solutions. However, there is a distinct difference to the response curve of a shallow tunnel. Instead of following the lower bound for
c = 40 kPa, the deep-tunnel response curve
tends to remain closer to the upper bound for
c = 0 kPa. Accordingly the computed peak of
pf = 0.33D at point A is only slightly below the
upper bound of pf = 0.4D. In fact, there is a difference of only pf = 0.07D with non-cohesive
material. At the same time the deeper tunnel is
subject to much larger deformations than the
shallow tunnel, as can be observed by comparing
Figures 5 and 7. No doubt, the relatively large
deformations in deep tunnelling induce a relatively large amount of cohesion softening.
Figure 8 shows the development of the softening zone around the tunnel. In the following the
authors concentrate on the fully softened red
zone. At failure (state A) one observes already a
thin red zone and post peak this zone increases
rapidly. For state C, one observes the initiation of
a shear band towards the surface. For state D
this shear band has extended to the surface, but
the red part of the band has not yet reached the
surface.
TUNNELLING
Fig. 8 Development of softening zones for a deep tunnel.

Bild 8 Entwicklung der Entfestigungszonen fr einen tiefliegenden Tunnel.
Conclusions
Attention has been focused on tunnels in softening ground. To study consequences of cohesion
degradation, ground response curves have been
computed both for a shallow tunnel and a deeper
one. The computed ground response curves appear to depend significantly on tunnel depth. For
a very shallow tunnel, a trough-like FennerPacher curve is computed with a marked minimum as failure pressure. The deeper the tunnel,
however, the smaller the softening behaviour on
the structural level of the tunnel. The present
study suggests that ground response curves for
very deep tunnels will show no softening at all.
This is conform to recent numerical studies by
Bliem and Fellin (2). Moreover it confirms practical experiences by Vavrovsky (15).
References
1. Bazant, P. ; Gambarova, B.: Shear crack in concrete:
Crack band microplane model. In: J. Struct. Engng., ASCE
110 (1984), pp. 2015-2036.
2. Bliem, C. ; Fellin, W.: Die ansteigende Gebirgskennlinie.
In: Bautechnik 78 (2001), Nr. 4, S. 296-305.
3. Brinkgreve, R. ; Vermeer, P.A.: Plaxis, Version 7.2. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 2000.
4. Chen, Z. ; Morgenstern, N.R. ; Chan, D.H.: Progressive
failure of the Carsington Dam: a numerical study. In: Can.
Geotech. J. 29 (1992), No. 6, pp. 971-988.
5. Kolymbas, D.: Geotechnik Tunnelbau und Tunnelmechanik. Berlin: Springer, 1998.
6. Kovri, K.: Probleme der Gebirgsverformung bei der Anwendung von Vollvortriebsmaschinen im Fels. Sonderdruck
aus SIA-Dokumentation 91 Tunnel- und Stollenbau im Fels
mit Vollvortriebsmaschinen, Sammelband d. Ref. d. FGU-
FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
TUNNELLING
Studientagung, ETH Zrich, 1985, S. 55-71.

7. Kovri, K.: Erroneous Concepts behind NATM. Lecture
given at the Rabcewicz-Geomechanical Colloquium, Salzburg, 1993.
8. Marcher, T.: Resultate eines Versuchsprogramms an
Beaucaire-Mergel. Mitteilung des Instituts fr Geotechnik der
Universitt Stuttgart, Heft Nr. 49, 2002.
9. Marcher, T.: Nichtlokale Modellierung der Entfestigung
dichter Sande und steifer Tone. Dissertation, Institut fr Geotechnik der Universitt Stuttgart, eingereicht Juni 2002.
10. Pacher, F.: Deformationsmessungen im Versuchsstollen
als Mittel zur Erforschung des Gebirgsverhaltens und zur
Bemessung des Ausbaus. In: Felsmechanik u. Ingenieurgeologie, Suppl. I, (1964).
11. Potts, D. ; Kovacevic, N. ; Vaughan, P.R.: Delayed collapse of cut slopes in stiff clays. In: Gotechnique 47 (1997),
No. 5, pp. 953-982.
12. Schuller ; Schweiger: Application of a multilaminate model to the shear and formation in NATM tunnelling. In: Computers and Geotechnics 29 (2002), No. 7, pp. 501-524.
13. Seeber, G.: Zur Tunnelberechnung in druckhaftem Gebirge. In: Rock Mechanics (1978), Suppl. 6.
14. Skempton, A.W.: Fourth Rankine Lecture: Long-term stability of clay slopes. In: Gotechnique 14 (1964), No. 2, pp.
77-102.
15. Vavrovsky, G.-M.: Gebirgsdruckentwicklung, Hohlraumverformung und Ausbaudimensionierung. In: Felsbau 12
(1994), Nr. 5, S. 312-329.
16. Vermeer, P.A. ; van Langen, H.: Soil collapse computations with finite elements. In: Ingenieur-Archiv 59 (1989), pp.
221-236.
17. Zienkiewicz, O.C. ; Humpheson, C. ; Lewis, R.W.: Associated and non-associated visco-plasticity in soil mechanics.
In: Gotechnique 25 (1975), No. 4, pp. 671-689.
Authors
Professor Dr.-Ing. Pieter A. Vermeer and Dipl.-Geol. Nico
Ruse, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, University of
Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 35, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany,
E-Mail vermeer@igs.uni-stuttgart.de, ruse@igs.uni-stuttgart.
de; Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Marcher, ILF Consulting Engineers ZT
GmbH, Framsweg 16, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria, E-Mail
thomas.marcher@ibk.ilf.com
8 FELSBAU 20 (2002) NO. 6
RUBRIK
VERMEER II BILD ERSEITEN
BILD 1
BILD 2
BILD 3
BILD 4
FELSBAU 19 (2001) NO. 1
RUBRIK
BILD 5
BILD 6
BILD 7
2 FELSBAU 19 (2001) NO. 1
RUBRIK
BILD 8
FELSBAU 19 (2001) NO. 1
1ST Asian Course

for

CG15 Shield Tunneling
Modelling of Shield Tunnels

Wout Broere
Plaxis BV / Delft University of Technology
Tunnel Designer
Tunnel Designer
Tunnel Construction
1. Initial conditions
2. Excavation
IV
III
II
Remove soil/water
Install TBM,
conicity
Tail void
3. Lining installation
4. Grouting
5. Consolidation/creep
Tunnel Construction
Activate shield
Remove soil and water
Contraction
Simulate (combined) effects of volume
loss in a staged construction phase
Grout Pressure Modelling

Simulate conicity and tail void by contraction
Simulate grouting process (user defined pore
pressure)
Install lining
- Method
Simulate spatial arching around tunnel

NATM tunnelling
1. Generate initial conditions

2. Staged construction, using
-Mstage = 1-
3. Activate lining, continue
s.c. to -Mstage = 1
Lyon Vaise Subway
Settlements
Shield tunnel in Lyon with HS model
SHIELD TUNNEL IN LYON WITH HS MODEL
PRESENTATION OF THE MODEL OF THE SUBWAY

SHIELD TUNNEL OF LYON VAISE
By Marc Boulon, University Joseph Fourier,
Laboratory Soils, Solids, Structures ,
Grenoble, France
SITUATION OF THE SUBWAY TUNNEL OF LYON VAISE

The subway of Lyon in the Vaise area (north of Lyon, France) consists in two tubes excavated
successively by a TBM according to the mud pressure technique. Vaise is an urban area where
only very small settlements are allowed, as usual in such case. The subsoil consists in several
layers of alluviums, under the water table excepted for the upper fill layer. The tunnels are
shallow, and their diameter excavated is 6.30 m. The support is prefabricated in 13 circular
segments whose external diameter is 6.16 m, and whose length is 1.00 m. Many mechanical tests
(laboratory and in situ) have been performed on the soil layers. The section hereafter calculated
has been equipped with many systems (extensometers, inclinometers, pore pressure cells) in
order to record the data during and after the construction of the tunnels. This case study is an
opportunity for developping an advanced simulation of staged construction, in order to evaluate
the magnitude of displacements due to the construction process.
Geometry
The geometry of this urban site, of the layers of soil, and the position of the tubes are given at
figure 1. It should be highlighted that a retaining wall has been built in the past, and that the
upper part of the soil consists in an artificial fill. The depth of the axis of the tubes is 16.4 m at
the right side and only 11.5 m at the left side. The order of construction of the tubes has been
first V1 and then V2.
Figure 1. Subway metro of Lyon Vaise. Section S1, showing the soil layers and the retaining
wall, the water table, the two tubes, and the various systems of measurement during and after
the construction (EX = extensometer ; I = inclinometer ; CP = por pressure cell).
Soil layers
Many triaxial tests, pressuremeter tests, SPT and CPT are available for this site, as indicated in
figure 2 (mean values and standard deviation). The soils are really soft soils except the lower
layer ( sable et graviers roux ), and the sand layer called sable gris . The depth of the water
table, coming from the river Sane is 8.3 m. The alluvium should be considered as permeable
(drained) according to the slow advancement of the tunnel (3 m / day). Only the purple clay
( argile violette ) is less permeable, but its thickness is small.
In situ measurements of displacements

Among the various measurements of displacement realised on this site, the settlements recorded
by the extensometer EX11 are remarkable, because they clearly show the mechanisms linked to
each phase of construction. The history of these settlements is shown at figure 3, at several levels
from the surface until the top of the tube V1. From this chart, important events accompanying the
construction seem to be :
Passing the front of the shield

Passing the end of the TBM
Injection of grouting between the soil and the lining
Consolidation of the grouting
Figure 2. From the top ( remblai ) to the bottom ( Sables et graviers roux ), physical,
strength and stiffness properties of the soil layers of the Vaise site, after laboratory and in
situ tests. The values displayed are mean values (standard deviation is about 15 %) for each
layer.
Figure 3. Settlement (vertical axis) versus time (horizontal axis) recorded by the extensometer
EX11, placed vertically above the tube V1.
Advanced staged construction

As a software specially oriented to the geotechnical engineering, PLAXIS involves a very
important feature : the staged construction. This feature should not only be considered for
excavation phases (in case of tunnels), but its meaning should also be extended to any kind of
changes accompanying the construction. Here :
Change of local mechanical properties

Change of weight
In addition, the procedure of contraction is used to model the gap between the soil excavation
and the lining. Furthermore a special procedure is used for taking into account first the injection
of grouting in this annular zone, and secondly the long term consolidation of this material.
A model remains a model

We suggest to model this case story in 2D (plane strain) with PLAXIS. The user should keep in
mind that he uses a numerical model, allowing but also imposing some approximations, and
some precautions.
For example, the modelisation proposed for this case story is 2D. It means that the stabilising
influences (in terms of stiffness) of the installed part of the lining and of the front of the
excavation on the calculated section are ignored. The interpretation of the computational results
and their comparison with the in situ measurements should be made with this reserve.
The classical boundary conditions (in displacements) should be applied at a distance large
enough from every kind of loading acting on the model.
A geometrical approximation is made when the radius of the excavated soil, the radius of the
lining, and the position of the soil structure interface are supposed to be the same.
Using a constitutive model is an other approximation (here, the Hardening Soil model is
recommended), as well as a mean value of the constitutive parameters.
CASE STUDY:
SHIELD TUNNEL IN LYON WITH HS MODEL
GEOMETRY
The situation of the shield tunnel in Lyon is to be modelled by means of a plane strain model
composed of fifteen noded triangular elements. The model should be sufficiently wide to avoid
influence from the boundaries.
The sub soil is to be divided in 5 soil layers, as indicated in Fig. 1. Initially, the massive wall has
the properties of the fill layer. When the wall is constructed, the properties change into concrete.
The wall and the fill behind the wall are constructed in one stage to set the initial situation before
the tunnels are constructed. The two tunnels have an outer diameter of 6.3 m and the lining
segments are 300 mm thick. Both tunnels should have a lining and an interface, representing the
TBM, and volume elements to represent the lining segments. The locations of the tunnel centre
points are indicated in Fig. 1, together with the other relevant geometry coordinates. It is
suggested to create an area around the main section of the geometry for mesh refinement
purposes. Standard fixities are used as boundary conditions.
Fill
Figure 1: Geometry and boundary conditions
Figure 2: Tunnel geometry in the tunnel designer
MESH
In the mesh generation, sufficient accuracy should be given to the middle area, particularly at the
tunnels (use local element size factors). A possible mesh is shown in Fig. 2.
Figure 3. Possible finite element mesh (15-noded elements)
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Except for the Concrete and the Lining (which are assumed linear elastic), the Hardening Soil is
used to simulate the behaviour of all soil layers. All layers are considered to behave drained. The
properties as listed in Table 1 are based on the available soil investigation data.
Table 1. Model parameters
Parameter
Model
Type
dry
wet
E50ref *)
Eoedref *)
Eurref *)
Power
Rinter
Unit
kN/m3
kN/m3
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
Concrete
LE
non-por.
25
25106
0.2
1.0
Lining
LE
non-por
25
1106
0.2
0.5
Fill
HS
drained
16.5
18.0
35000
35000
105000
0.5
0.2
30
38
4
1.0
Silt
HS
drained
16.7
19.1
11650
11650
34950
0.7
0.2
35
27
0
0.5
Sand
HS
drained
18.0
21.0
40000
40000
120000
0.5
0.2
5
35
5
0.5
Clay
HS
drained
16.0
18.5
8000
8000
40000
1.0
0.2
35
27
0
1.0
Gravel
HS
drained
18.0
21.0
50000
50000
150000
0.4
0.2
1
34
4
1.0
*) Pref = 100 kN/m2

Initially the volume elements representing the lining segment have the properties of the soil
layers.
Regarding the properties of the tunnel lining, distinction is made between two different cases.
The first case is the front of the TBM, which is very stiff and heavy. The second case is the tail
of the TBM, which is less stiff and lighter. Create two beam data sets with the properties as listed
in Table 2. Initially apply the TBM front data set.
NOTE: when changing data sets for beam elements without intermediately deactivating the
beam, it is absolutely necessary that the equivalent thickness parameter, deq, remains equal. This
can be achieved by keeping the ratio EI/EA equal. Verify that this condition is obeyed.
Table 2. Properties of TBM and lining
Parameter
Unit
TBM front
EA
kN/m
1.11107
EI
kNm2/m
83333
deq
m
0.3
w
kNm/m
17.7
0.0
TBM tail
3105
2250
0.3
9.25
0.2
INITIAL STRESSES
In the initial conditions, pore water pressures are generated on the basis of a general phreatic line
at a level of 22.7 m. Before generating the initial stresses, the upper part of the fill and the wall
(above 26 m) are deactivated, so that there is a horizontal surface. The initial stresses are then
generated on the basis of the K0-procedure, using the default K0-values. For the active parts of
the fill, an OCR-value of 2.0 should be used.
CALCULATIONS
The first calculation phase is used to create the initial situation before the first tunnel is
excavated. This involves the construction of the wall, including the change of material sets into
Concrete, and the construction of the fill layers.
Phase 1.
Activate the wall and apply the Concrete material set to the two wall clusters.
Activate the Fill layer behind the wall
In phases 2 8 the first (right-hand) tunnel is constructed according to the shield tunnel boring
process. This involves the excavation and dewatering of the tunnel, the activation of the heavy
and stiff TBM front part, the contraction due to conicity of the TBM, the reduction of the TBM
stiffness and weight at the TBM tail, the application of a contraction to simulate the volume loss
behind the tail of the TBM, the grout injection process at the tail and the installation of the tunnel
lining. To compare the load-settlement curves with the measurements, artificial time intervals
should be given to the individual calculation phases.
Phase 2.
Reset displacements to zero. Activate the right-hand tunnel lining and deactivate
the soil inside the tunnel. In the water conditions mode, remove the water from the soil clusters
inside the tunnel by selecting the cluster is dry option and generate the water pressures. Time
interval: 1 day.
Phase 3.
2.5 days.
Apply a contraction of 0.1% to simulate the conicity of the TBM. Time interval:
Phase 4.
Apply the TBM tail data set to the tunnel lining. Time interval: 0 days.
Phase 5.
Apply a contraction of 0.2% to simulate the volume loss behind the tail of the
TBM. Time interval: 0.5 days.
Phase 6.
In the water conditions mode, apply a user defined pore pressure distribution to
simulate the grouting pressure at the tail. Select the (inactive) volume elements representing the
final lining and enter a reference level = 11.25 m, reference pressure = -285 kPa and gradient =
-10 kPa/m. Switch off the beam representing the TBM. Time interval: 1.5 days.
Phase 7.
Apply the Lining data set to the volume elements representing the tunnel lining.
Switch these elements on. Time interval: 1 day.
Phase 8.
Switch off the grouting pressure activated in phase 6, by selecting the cluster is
dry option again for these clusters. Time interval: 1.5 day.
The construction of the first tunnel is now complete. Start the calculation for the construction of
the first tunnel. Before starting the calculations, select five nodes right above the first tunnel for
load-displacement curves. The position of the selected points should correspond with the
position of the measuring points of extensometer EX11.
After the calculation has finished, and there is time remaining, you could also model the
construction of the second tunnel. In that case phases 9 16 model the construction of the second
(left-hand) tunnel, according to the same steps outlined above.
10
C
D
E
Figure 4. Nodes for load-displacement curves (corresponding to EX11)
11
RESULTS
Figure 5. Deformed mesh after construction of the first tunnel
Figure 6. Deformed mesh after construction of the second tunnel
12

Chart 1
Displacement [m]
0
Point A
Point B
Point C
-4e-3
Point D
Point E
-8e-3
-0.012
-0.016
-0.02
0
12
16
Time [day]
Figure 7. Time-settlement curve for points above the first tunnel
13
1ST Asian Course

for

CG16 Plaxis 3D Tunnel
3D ASPECTS OF TUNNELLING
Helmut F. Schweiger
Computational Geotechnics Group
Graz University of Technology
helmut.schweiger@tugraz.at
www.geotechnical-group.TUGraz.at/
1. Introduction
2. Typical excavation sequence for NATM-tunnels
3. 2D-Modelling of deformation ahead of face
3.1 Load reduction method
3.2 Stiffness reduction method
4. Summary
5. References
COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP
page 1
1 INTRODUCTION
Tunnelling is a three-dimensional problem and therefore 3D analyses should be carried out if the
deformation behaviour due to tunnelling is investigated with numerical methods. This holds for shield
tunnelling as well as NATM tunnels. For the latter 3D effects are important in particular if the stability of
the tunnel face is to be investigated and indeed there is no simple solution around this problem.
Although a fully 3D analyses would allow a more detailed modelling of the relevant excavation stages,
2D analyses are still common practice for assessing stability and deformation at some distance behind
the tunnel face. In this case some computational steps have to be introduced in order to take into
account 3D effects at least in an approximate way. These will be discussed in section 3.
2 TYPICAL EXCAVATION SEQUENCE FOR NATM-TUNNELS
INITIAL STRESS STATE
SUPPORTED TOP HEADING
4
UNSUPPORTED
TOP HEADING
UNSUPPORTED BENCH
5
SUPPORTED BENCH
6
UNSUPPORTED INVERT
7
SUPPORTED INVERT
8
FINAL LINING
Fig. 1 Typical excavation sequence for NATM-Tunnels
Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of a typical excavation sequence for a NATM tunnel and
Figure 2 vertical displacements of the crown, again schematically. A corresponding calculated
settlement curve from a 3D analysis using the Hardening Soil model is plotted in Figure 4 for a top
heading-bench excavation sequence.
page 2
tunnel face
monitoring section
excavation
sequence
chainage
settlements ahead
of tunnel face
settlements of
unsupported zone
settlements after
installation of
monitoring
section
settlement
Fig. 2 Schematic representation of settlements ahead of tunnel face and measured settlements
The equivalent numerical model for the excavation sequence shown in Figure 1 is given in Figure 3. It
is obvious that the numerical model involves a larger number of elements, basically depending on the
distance between top heading, bench and invert excavation. Much smaller models are needed for
assessing the face stabilty, as indicated in Figure 5. The fully three-dimensional nature of tunnel
excavation is clearly depicted in Figures 6 and 7 where effective stress trajectories are plotted in
longitudinal and horizontal cross sections.
Fig. 3 FE-Model excavation sequence top heading bench - invert
page 3
tunnel advance ----->

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
passing of bench
-2
top heading passing
settlement crown [mm]
-1
start of bench excavation
settlement of crown
-9
-10
Fig. 4 Typical settlement curve of crown calculated from 3D analysis
Fig. 5 FE-Model for face stability analysis indicating failure mechanism
page 4
Fig. 6 Effective stresses in longitudinal cross section
Fig. 7 Effectice stresses in horizontal cross section
page 5
3 2D-MODELLING OF DEFORMATION AHEAD OF FACE

3.1 Load reduction method
E0
E0
s = 0
FINAL LINING
Fig. 8 Schematic representation of load reduction method
3.2 Stiffness reduction method
E0
E0
Ec = E0
FINAL LINING
Fig. 9 Schematic representation of stiffness reduction method
3.3 Choice of and

Estimation of parameters and is based on experience and not straightforward, they depend in
general on
-
ground conditions
length of unsupported section
advance rate
time of construction of invert
experience of personel
..
page 6
Suggestion for values of (Laabmayr and Swoboda, 1986):

-
0.2 to 0.5 for top heading excavation
0.4 to 0.8 for side drift excavation
Suggestion for values of (Schikora and Fink, 1982):

-
0.3 to 0.5
It is emphasized that these values quoted from the literature are estimates, they may vary significantly
depending on ground conditions and construction methods.
The Working Group 1.6 of the German Society for Geotechnics (Meiner, 1996) recommends the use
of the load reduction method because the influence of the constitutive model and the parameters used
inside the tunnel cross section introduce additional complications when the stiffness reduction method
is used. In PLAXIS the load redcution method can be applied easily by defining a value < 1 for Mstage
(Mstage = 1-).
4 SUMMARY
3-D Models:
-
essential for assessing face stability
detailed modelling of excavation sequence possible
large number of elements required > computational effort high
Plane Strain:
-
excavation sequence in cross section can be modelled
face stability cannot be considered
assumption of pre-relaxation factors
still "state of the art" in practice
5 REFERENCES
Laabmayr & G. Swoboda (1986). Grundlagen und Entwicklung bei Entwurf und Berechnung im
seichtliegenden Tunnel - Teil 1. Felsbau 4, 138-143.
Schikora, K. & T. Fink (1982). Berechnungsmethoden moderner bergmnnischer Bauweisen beim UBahn-Bau. Bauingenieur 57, 193-198.
H. Meiner (1996). Tunnelbau unter Tage - Empfehlungen des Arbeitskreises 1.6 "Numerik in der
Geotechnik", Abschnitt 2. Geotechnik 19, 99-108.
page 7
EXERCISE 3D analysis of NATM Tunnel / face stability
FACE STABILITY (3D) WITH MOHR COULOMB
Helmut F. Schweiger
Computational Geotechnics Group
19_3D_analysis_Tunnel / 1
Face stability (3D) with Mohr-Coulomb

The stability of a tunnel face has to be investigated with the PLAXIS 3D Tunnel Program. Drained
conditions can be assumed and no groundwater tabel is considered.
Three different analyses should be performed, two without face reinforcement and one with fibreglass
reinforcement at the face.
The geometry of the problem is given as follows (Figure 1):

Model width: 20 m
Model height: 21 m
Centre of tunnel cross section: 12.0 m below surface
Diameter of Tunnel: 8.0 m
The following slices should be defined along the tunnel axis.

z = 0, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 und 28 m
Fig. 1 Model for exercise tunnel face stability
A homogeneous ground layer with following material properties is assumed:
(unsat = (sat
<
Eref
cref
kN/m3
kN/m2
kN/m2
o
o
20.0
0.30
35 000
10.0
30.0
0.0
Shotcrete lining
EA
EI
<
w
kN/m
kNm2/m
kN/m2
9.0E6
67500
0.15
0
Analysis 1
Slices 0-8, 8-10 and 10-11 m have to be excavated, whereas the shotcrete lining is put in place at the
same time for slices 0-8 und 8-10 m. This ensures that the influence of the boundary condition is
minimized for evaluating the stability of the face. Thus the face stability of slice 10-11 is investigated
(Fig. 1). A subdivision within slices 0-8 and 20-28 m is noticed from Fig. 1, these are automatically
generated from Plaxis in order to guarantee acceptable mesh geometries.
As follows from this analysis the tunnel face is not stable under these conditions, which is clearly
indicated by displacement vectors shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 3 shows the failure points in plane E.
Fig. 2 Displacement vectors obtained from analysis 1
Fig. 3 Mohr-Coulomb failure points in plane E
Analysis 2
Analysis 2 is similar to analysis 1, but in order to ensure stability of the face
fibreglass reinforcement is applied. Because modelling of each individual
reinforcement rod would require a very fine mesh, it is suggested to model the
reinforcement by geotextile elements with a width of 1-2 m. A possible
arrangement of geotextile elements in the cross section is depicted in Fig. 4. The
geotextil elements should be placed in slices between z = 11 und 18 m.
When reinforceing the face, a stable solution is obtained because the fibreglass
rods provide the required support as can be seen from Fig. 5 which shows a
typical distribution of normal force along a geotextile element.
Stiffness of geotextil elements: EA = 3.9 E4

Fig. 4 Possible arrangement of geotextile elements in cross section
Fig. 5 Typical normal force distribution in geotextile element
Analysis 3
Analysis 3 correspond to analysis 1, with the exception that the cohesion is increased to 20 kN/m2, so
that the face becomes stable. In order to determine the factor of safety a /c-reduction should be
performed, which yields a Msf-value of approx. 1.2 (Fig. 6).
Chart
Sum-Msf
1.25
Curve 1
1.2
1.15
1.1
1.05
1
0
20
40
60
80
100
Step
Fig. 6 Factor of safety obtained from /c-reduction
1ST Asian Course

for

Saturday, 2ND AUGUST 2003
CG17 Soft Soil Creep Model
A soft soil model with creep
- 1D model for oedometer states

- general 3D model
- validation on triaxial tests
- application on the Leaning Tower of Pisa
Cs swelling index
NC-Line = normal consolidation line
compression index Cc
1
log s
ln s
A
strain
void ratio e
Idealised curves from oedometer tests on soft soil
Cs
A=
2.3 (1 + e0 )
Cc
2.3 (1 + e0 )
OCR = OverConsolidation Ratio = p/0

e
s0 = existing stress
s p = preconsolidation stress
s0
sp
NC-Line
log s
Many soft soil layers show p - values that cannot be explained by preloading.
Bjerrum (1967): increase of OCR due to creep

s
ear
3y
30
300
0
300
NC-Linie
creep
Cs
1
s0
sp
log s
Secondary Compression: Creep is better wording !
Bjerrum (1967): 7th Rankine Lecture, Gotechnique, Vol. 17, pp. 81-118.
1D-Consolidation and 1D- Creep

p
0
e
Creep or secondary compression
Consolidation
ec
1
C = secondary compression index
log t
tc
tc = end of consolidation
Early literature on secondary compression

Buisman (1936) used strain instead of void ratio e:
e = ec + CB log
+ t
= ec + CB log t c
tc
tc
t
ec = consolidation strain
tc = end of consolidation
e = compressive strain
Bjerrum (1967) and Garlanger (1972):
e = e c - Ca log
t + t
t
with
Ca = (1+ e 0 ) CB
t = extra parameter , e.g. one day

Buisman (1936): Results of long duration settlement tests, Proceedings 1st International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 103-107
Garlanger (1972): The consolidation of soils exhibiting creep under constant effective stress,
Gotechnique 22 (1), pp. 71-78
24-hours load-stepping is common

e
De e = - C s D log s
e
De c = - C c D log s
24 hours
(NCL)
1
week
log s
log t
tc 30
= 24 h
De = De elastic + Decreep = De e + De c
NC-line is usually a 24 hours line. This implies = 24 hours

Constant Rate of Deformation Tests by Marques (1996)

(kPa)
Strain rate
1.7 x 10-5 s-1
e (%)
2.0 x 10-6 s-1
Fast loading combined with fast

drainage gives states beyond the
NC-line (see also Sllfors, 1975)
NCL
N.B.
e=
De
1+ e0
e = - e
Marques (1996): Influencia da velocidade de deformacao e da temperatura no adensamento de argilas naturais

(in Portuguese), M. Sc. Thesis, Universit Laval, Ste-Foy, Canada
Sllfors (1975): Preconsolidation pressure of soft high plastic clays, Ph. D. Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology,
Gothenburg, Sweden
24-hours
NCL
creep
unloading
s0
sp
sp
s0
log s
log s
sp < s0
usual case : s0 < sp
unusual case :
by creep or unloading
fast loading + fast drainage
1D constitutive model that matches existing data

In differential form:
- c s s&
- c a 1 s
de
e&
= e& e + e& c =
+
dt
ln10 s
ln10 t s p
c c -c s
ca
Creep implies a decrease of e and thus a continuous increase of p. The increasing

p must be continuously updated by using
Typical soil data:
Cs Cc / 10
and
D log s p = - De c /(C c - C s )
Ca Cc / 30
It follows that the creep rate is proportional to
s

s
p
27
Cc - C s
27
Ca
1
OCR 27
It follows that the creep rate is negligibly small for OCR > 1.4
The influence of the overconsolidation ratio on the creep rate

Typical ratios :
creep rate :
Cs = Cc/10
e& =
c
- Ca
t ln10
Ca = Cc/30
s

s
p
C c -C s
Ca
OCR
Dec/day (%)
Dec/year
0.5
1.1
0.04
0.146
1.2
0.0035
0.013
1.3
0.0004
0.0015
1.4
0.00006
0.0002
1.5
0.000009
0.00003
s

s
p
- 0.005
day
27
- 0.005
1
day OCR 27
e
s
log
NC-line
with s p = s
log s
Part 2:
From oedometer states to general stress states

oedometer
general
s = oedometer stress
s p = preconsolidation stress
D log s p = - Dec / (Cc - Cs )
- Ca
e& =
t ln10
c
s

s
p
p e = p + q2 / M2p = equivalent stress

ppe = equivalent preconsolidation stress
D ln ppe = - Dec / (l - k )
27
-m
e& c =
t
pe

pe
p
l=
Cc
ln10
27
m=
Ca
ln10
Definition of pe and constants and k comes from Modified Cam Clay model
From principal stress space to p-q plane

Rendulic plane:
-s 1
-s 1
s2 = s3
p 3
-s 3
-s 2
- s3 2
mean stress:
p =
deviatoric stress:
1
(s1 + s2 + s3
3
1
2
(s1 - s 2 )2 + (s 2 - s3 )2 + (s3 - s1 )2
Yield cap of Modified Cam-Clay Model
p e = p +
CS - Line
p e = ppe
M =
cap
q2
M2p
6 sin jCS
3 - sin jCS
CS = Critical State
e
p
D ln ppe = - Dec /(l - k )
Elastoplastic MCC-Model versus viscoplastic SSC-Model
Both models have decomposition:
e = ee + ec
Both with moving cap (density hardening):
ec
ppe
q
MCC: cap is moved by primary loading
SSC: cap is moved by time,
stress well below cap: low creep rate
cap
stress near the cap: high creep rate
ppe
MCC = Modified Cam Clay
SSC = Soft Soil Creep
The 3D Soft Soil Creep Model
e = e& e + e& c
e& c p e
& c = vol
a
& c
e&
e
p
c
vol
e& c
m*
=
= 1 + e0
t
pe
ppe
27
a = p e / p
Part 3:
Performance of Soft-Soil Creep Model on triaxial tests
q
drained
drained
failure
undrained
undrained
vertical strain
-e1
Undrained triaxial tests after Vaid et al. (1977) and simulation with SSC Model
undrained
q
CS-Line
fast shearing
slow
Vaid & Campanella (1977): Time-dependent behaviour of undisturbed clay, J. Geotech. Engng. Div., ASCE;
Vol. 103(7), pp. 693-709
Influence of strain rate on the undrained shear strength in triaxial compression

after Kulhawy and Mayne (1990)
Kulhawy & Mayne (1990): Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design
Options: effective cohesion and steep cap

critical state line
Mohr-Coulomb failure line
1
Mcs
Mmc
1
cap
ppe
ccot j
Mmc
6 sin j
3 - sin j
Mcs
6 sin jcs
3 - sin jcs
Value of jcs can be selected such that
K0nc = 1 sin j
The more difference between Mmc and Mcs the steeper the cap. The above picture would
suggest the possibility of tensile stresses, but these can be omitted by using a tension cut-off.
10
Input Parameters for Soft Soil Creep Model

deformation parameters:
l* =
l
Cc
=
1 + e0
(1 + e0 ) ln10
k * l* / 10
modified swelling index
m * l* / 30
modified creep index
nur 0.2
strength parameters:
special parameters:
modified compression index
(for soft soil: y = 0 )
sp
Poissons ratio
( or 0.15 )
( or
POP = sp - s0
or
OCR =
sp
)
s
K nc
0 1 - sin j
K 0 K nc
0 OCR
Initial geostatic state for overconsolidated soils
POP = s p - s0
y
x
input of OCR
input of POP
s0 s p
s0 sp
sy
sp
K nc
0
sy 0
1- vur
vur
sx 0
POP
sx
11
Comparison of input data for two models

hardening soil model
k * 3 p ref (1 - 2 n ur ) / E ref
ur
E ref
ur
n ur
n ur
E
l * = p ref / E ref
oed
ref
oed
c , j , y
s p 0 ( input
c , j , y
sp0
with OCR or POP )
E ref
50
m*
always m = 1
m
q
soft soil creep model
MC
MC
cap hardening + shear hardening
p`
cap hardening
Part 4: application of SSC Model on the Leaning Tower of Pisa
1173
Start of construction
1370
End of construction
1590
Galileo Galileis fall tests
12
1370
1278
a = 5 .5
1178
centre of gravity
58 m
22.5 m
wP = 28 %
wL = 38 %
w = 28 %
wP = 30 %
wL = 70 %
w = 52 %
wP = 13 %
wL = 43 %
w = 24 %
wP = 25 %
wL = 51 %
w = 38 %
Laval Cc1
Laval Cc2
Lancellotta e Pepe (1990)
Calabresi et al. (1993)
first analysis
last analysis
13
Deformation parameters l* , k * and m *
l* =
Cc
w L -0.1
2.3(1 + e )
5
k* =
3 1 - nur Cs
= l* / 10
2.3 1 + n ur (1 + e )
m* =
Ca
= l* / 30
2.3(1 + e )
sz
[kPa]
[m]
data Calabresi (1993) on s p
depth
data Lancellotta (1990) on s p

data from Laval samples on s p
sz0
14
first stage of construction (height 29 m)

average foundation pressure 310 kPa
settlement 0.5 m / inclination 0.2
1178
maximum excess pore
pressure 74 kPa
second stage of construction (height 51 m)

aettlement 1.7 m / inclination 1.0
1278
maximum excess
pore pressure 59 kPa
15
third construction stage: Bell Chamber (height 58 m)

Settlement 2.6 m / inclination 2.8
1370
maximum excess
pore pressure 3 kPa
16
final analysis:
stiff clay layers and soft fill
1993
relative shear stresses
I MC
I MC
I MC
17
1ST Asian Course

for

CG18 Embankment Modeling
Back Analysis of Muar Test

Embankments
Scope of Presentation
Introduction
Site Condition and PVD Properties
Embankment Constructed To Failure
Unimproved Soil vs. PVD Stabilised Soil
Conclusion
Go to View> Master >r Slide Master to input

subject here !!
Introduction

subject here !!
Site Condition
Depth, m
+2.5m RL
+0.5
-5.6
-15.2
Soil Description
kh (m/sec)
110
Crust
Yellowish brown mottled red CLAY with

roots, root holes and laterite concretions
Upper
Clay
Light greenish grey CLAY with a few shells,

very thin discontinuous sand partings,
occasional near vertical roots and some
decaying organic matter (<2%)
40
4x10-9
Lower
Clay
Grey CLAY with some shells, very thin

discontinuous sand partings and some
decaying organic matter (<2%)
60
1x10-9
60
2x10-9
Peat
-15.9
-19.9
c (kPa)
Sandy
Clay
Sand
Dark brown PEAT with no smell

Greyish brown sandy CLAY with a little
decaying organic matter
Dark grey, very silty medium to coarse
SAND (SPT>20)

subject here !!
Site Condition

subject here !!
PVD Properties
Drainage
Length, l
(m)
Drain
Spacing, s
(m)
Equivalent
Diameter, dw
(m)
Influence Zone
Diameter, de
(m)
Smeared Zone
Diameter, ds
(m)
18.0
1.3
0.07
1.365
0.4
Triangular Layout

subject here !!
Loading Characteristics for

Embankment Constructed
to Failure
Embankment constructed directly on the
subsoil
Fill compacted in 0.2m layers at a nominal
rate of 0.4m per week until failure occurred.

subject here !!
FEM Model of Embankment

Constructed to Failure
GWT at 1.75m below
ground surface
20 m
Fill
Crust
Upper Clay (OCR = 1.2)
6.4 m
Lower Clay (OCR = 1.2)
10 m
Sandy Clay
4.1 m
2m
80 m

subject here !!
Soil Properties Used In

FEM Analysis
References include A.S. Balasubramaniam, 1994 & B. Indraratna, 2000
RL (m)
sat
(kN/m3)
unsat
(kN/m3)
c
(kPa)
(o)
E
(kPa)
kh
(m/day)
kv
(m/day)
Fill
20.5
20.5
19
26
5200
1.0
1.0
0.3
Crust
+2.5
+0.5
16.5
14.5
20
26
14000
1.3E-4
6.9E-5
0.3
Sandy
Clay
-15.9
-20.0
16.0
16.0
10
22
2500
9.5E-5
6.0E-5
0.3
Material
Mohr Coulomb Model

Materia
l
RL
(m
)

subject here !!
sat
(kN/m3)
c
(kPa)
(o)
kh
(m/day)
kv
(m/day)
Upper
Clay
+0.5
-6.0
15.5
20
0.13
0.05
1.3E-4
6.9E-5
0.15
Lower
Clay
-6.0
-15.9
15.5
22
0.11
0.08
9.5E-5
6.0E-5
0.15
Soft Soil Model

subject here !!
Instrumentation Plan of Embankment

Constructed to Failure
Plan View
Elevation View

subject here !!
Excess Pore Pressure Variation

10
Excess Porewater Pressure (m)
Piezometer P2
6
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
0
0
Thickness of Fill (m)

subject here !!

3
Piezometer P7
2
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
0
0

subject here !!
Pore Pressure Variation

3
Reduced Level (m)
-1 0
-3
Fill Height = 3m
-5
-7
-9
-11
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
-13

subject here !!

3
Reduced Level (m)
-1 0
10
-3
Fill Height = 4m
-5
-7
-9
Field Measurement
-11
FEM Prediction
-13

subject here !!

3
Reduced Level (m)
-1 0
10
12
-3
-5
Fill Height = 5m
-7
-9
-11
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
-13

subject here !!
Lateral Displacement at 4.6m depth

0.6
Field Measurement
Lateral Displacement (m)
FEM Prediction
0.4
Inclinometer I3
0.2
0
0

subject here !!
Lateral Displacement
3
Reduced Level (m)
-1 0
-3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Inclinometer I3
-5
-7
-9
Field Measurement
-11
FEM Prediction
-13
Lateral Movement (m)
At Failure Height (5.5m)


subject here !!
Surface Settlement Profile

0.2
0
Vertical Movement (m)
10
15
20
25
30
35
-0.2
-0.4
Field Measurement
Fill Height = 3m
FEM Prediction
-0.6
Distance from Centerline of Embankment (m)

subject here !!

0.2
10
15
20
25
30
35
-0.2
-0.4
Field Measurement
-0.6
FEM Prediction
Fill Height = 4m
-0.8

subject here !!
10

0.2
Fill Height = 5m
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
-0.2
-0.4
Field Measurement
-0.6
FEM Prediction
-0.8

subject here !!
Actual Failure Mode of Embankment
30m from
toe

subject here !!
11
FEM Predicted Failure Mode

of Embankment
Upper Clay
30 m

subject here !!
Cross Section of Embankment on PVD

Stabilized Foundation Soil

subject here !!
12
Construction Sequence of
Embankment on PVD Stabilized
Foundation Soil
Stage
Fill Periods
(Days)
Fill Thickness
(m)
Rate of Filling
(m/day)
Rest Period
(days)
1 - 14
0.0 2.57
0.18
14 105
105 - 129
2.57 4.74
0.09
129 - present

subject here !!
FEM Model of Embankment

on PVD Stabilized Soil
43 m
20 m
Soil Parameters were the same as

that of the embankment constructed
to failure. GWT at 1.75m below
ground surface
Fill
PVD Stabilized
Zone
Crust
Upper Clay (OCR = 1.2)
2m
6.4 m
Lower Clay (OCR = 1.2)

Sandy Clay
4.1 m
10 m
36 m
135 m

subject here !!
13
PVD Modeling Technique (Equivalent

Vertical Permeability)
n
s
where
2l2kh
3qw
2 .5l 2 k h
)k v
D e 2 k v
k
kr
3
4
l
n
=
=
de
dw
s
=
=
=
Diameter of unit cell

Diameter of drain
ds
kh
kr
qw
kv
=
=
=
=
=
Diameter of smear zone

Horizontal permeability of natural soil
Horizontal permeability of smear zone
Discharge capacity of PVD
Vertical permeability of natural soil
= ln( ) + h ln(s) +
k ve = (1 +
Drainage length
Verified by Tay, E.L

(2002)
de
dw
ds
dw

subject here !!
PVD Modeling Technique

kh
kr
General
kh / kr
Spacing (m)
H(m)
18
Configuration
Triangular
Equivalent Flow
12
Material
Crust
Upper Clay
Lower Clay
kv (m/day)
6.9E-5
6.9E-5
6.0E-5
Axisymmetric
Radial Flow
12
1.3
qw (m /yr)
100
dw (m)
0.07
de (m)
1.365
19.5
dm (m)
0.2
ds (m)
0.4
5.714
Material
Crust
Upper Clay
Lower Clay
kve (m/day)
5.99E-3
2.66E-3
1.97E-3
qw (m3/yr)
100

subject here !!
14


subject here !!


subject here !!
15

8
3
Field Measurement
Piezometer P2
FEM Prediction (PVD)

1
FEM Prediction (W/O PVD)
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Time (days)

subject here !!

8
3
Field Measurement
2
Piezometer P3
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Time (days)

subject here !!
16

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
Field Measurement
Piezometer P6
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Time (days)

subject here !!
Ground Settlement at 23m From

Centerline of Embankment
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
-0.2
Verical Movement (m)
-0.4
-0.6
Ground Surface
-0.8
-1
Field Measurement
-1.2

-1.4
Time (days)

subject here !!
17
Ground Settlement at 23m From

Centerline of Embankment
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Field Measurement
-0.8
5.5m Below
Ground Surface

-1
Time (days)

subject here !!

0.2
0
Verical Movement (m)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-0.2
Field Measurement
-0.4
At 45 Days
-0.6
Distance from centerline (m)

subject here !!
18

0.2
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-0.2
-0.4
Field Measurement
-0.6
At 105 Days

-0.8

subject here !!

0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-0.2
-0.4
At 413 Days
-0.6
-0.8
Field Measurement
-1

-1.2
-1.4

subject here !!
19
Factor of Safety
2.2
Height of Fill =
2.57 m
2.1
With PVD Installation

Without PVD Installation
Factor of Safety
1.9
1.8
1.7
Height of Fill =
4.74 m
1.6
1.5
1.4
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Time Elapsed (days)

subject here !!
Conclusion
Coupled consolidation was effective in predicting
the excess pore pressure and settlement variation
PVD stabilized foundation soil showed efficient
drainage
Loading rate of embankment on PVD stabilized
foundation can be much faster

subject here !!
20
1ST Asian Course

for

CG19 Muar Test Embankment
Muar Test Embankments
CG19 MUAR TEST EMBANKMENTS
1. Introduction
This exercise means to demonstrate the use of Plaxis 8 to simulate the
construction of an embankment over soft clay, and to discover the advantages of coupled
consolidation calculation.
1.1 General
The
Malaysian
Highway
Authority
constructed
several
full-scale
test
embankments at a site on the Muar plain. This is a well-documented case history with
high quality instrumentation. The clays, which have low bearing capacity, stretches along
the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia constitute coastal plain marine clay up to 20m
thick, with a lateral extent of about 25km. The site of the test embankment was located
about 20km inland from Muar and 50km due east of Malacca on the southwest coast of
Malaysia shown in Figure 1. Two cases are considered in this exercise, 1) embankment
on unstabilised soil; 2) embankment on PVD (perforated vertical drain) stabilised soil.
Figure 1: Location of marine clay deposits and trial embankments
1.2. Soil Profile

The soil profile is shown in Table 1. It consists of a 2.0m thick weathered crust on
top of a 16.5m thick layer of soft silty clay. The silty clay layer can be divided into an
upper very soft and lower soft clay. Immediately beneath this lower clay layer is a 0.3
0.5m thick peaty soil followed by stiff sandy clay. A dense sand layer extends from
22.5m below the ground surface. The groundwater table of the site was found to be
around 1.75m below the ground surface.
Table 1
Soil profile and permeability at Muar site
Depth, m
Soil Description
+2.5m RL
+0.5
-5.6
110
Yellowish brown mottled red CLAY with roots, root

holes and laterite concretions
Upper
Clay
Light greenish grey CLAY with a few shells, very

thin discontinuous sand partings, occasional near
vertical roots and some decaying organic matter
(<2%)
40
4x10-9
Lower
Clay
Grey CLAY with some shells, very thin

discontinuous sand partings and some decaying
organic matter (<2%)
60
1x10-9
60
2x10-9
Peat
-19.9
kh
(m/sec)
Crust
-15.2
-15.9
c
(kPa)
Sandy
Clay
Sand
Dark brown PEAT with no smell

Greyish brown sandy CLAY with a little decaying
organic matter
Dark grey, very silty medium to coarse SAND
(SPT>20)
2. Embankment on unstabilised soil

The cross section and instrumentation profile of this embankment is shown in
Figure 2. The rate of construction for this embankment was at 0.4m/wk. Site records
showed that failure occurred when the height of fill was at 5.5m. Combined
topographical survey and inclinometer response showed that the circular failure surface
was directly above the upper clay layer and emerged approximately 30m away from the
toe on the ground surface.
Figure 2
Plan and cross section of test embankment constructed to

failure with key instrumentation locations indicated
2.1 Input
Geometry
This situation is to be solved by plane strain model composed of 15 nodes
triangular element as shown in Figure 3. Because this problem is symmetrical in nature,
only half of the problem is modeled with axis of symmetry at the centerline of
embankment. Mesh refinement is done for elements below embankment due to the
expected high strain gradient.
Distance (m)
20m
Elevation (m)
Fill
5.5m
2.0m
6.4m
Crust
Upper Clay
Lower Clay
10.0m
Sandy Clay
4.1m
80m
Figure 3
Finite element mesh of the embankment on unstabilised soil
Material Properties
In this problem, the fill, crust and sandy clay are modeled by Mohr Coulomb
model while the upper and lower soft clay are modeled by soft soil model. The details
material properties are listed in Table 2 as proposed by Balasubramaniam et al. (1994)
and Indraratna (2000). The soft clay layer was reported to be slightly over-consolidated.
Fill material was assumed to be fully saturated.
Initial Condition
The initial pore water pressure is generated by general phreatic line located at
1.75m below ground surface (Figure 4). The closed consolidation boundaries are set at
both vertical boundary. The initial effective stress is generated through Ko-procedures
with the fill cluster is deactivated. The OCR of upper and lower soft clay are assumed as
1.2.
1.75m
Figure 4
Initial pore water pressure
Table 2
Material Properties
Parameter
Material model
Type of behavior
Fill
Crust
Upper
clay
Soft soil
Mohr
Mohr
Coulomb Coulomb
Undrained Undrained Undrained
Lower
clay
Soft soil
Undrained
Sandy
clay
Mohr
Coulomb
Undrained
unsaturated (kN/m3)
20.5
14.5
15.5
15.5
16
saturated (kN/m3)
20.5
16.5
15.5
15.5
16
kx (m/day)
1.3 e-4
1.3 e-4
9.5 e-5
9.5 e-5
ky (m/day)
6.9 e-4
6.9 e-4
6.0 e-5
6.0 e-5
0.3
0.3
0.3
Eref (kN/m2)
5200
14000
2500
cref (kN/m2)
19
20
10
(o)
26
26-
20
22
22
0.13
0.11
0.05
0.08
Rinter
2.2 Calculations
The construction sequence of 0.4m per week is simulated by staged construction
procedures with coupled consolidation. The calculation steps are as below:a) In general tab sheet, switch calculation type to consolidation.
b) In parameters tab sheet, choose staged construction.
c) Click on define button. In the geometry configuration window, activate the fill
layer, ex. the first 2m thick fill layer above ground surface. Click on update
button to back to calculation window.
d) Fill in the time interval according to the construction speed and the thickness of
constructed fill in the calculation phase. As an example, if a 2m thick fill with
construction speed of 0.4m per week is to be constructed in this phase, the
corresponding time interval is 35 days.
e) Step (a) (f) are repeated in the subsequent calculation phase until the maximum
fill height.
2.3 Output
Figure 5 shows the ground surface settlement profile for phase with 5.5m thick
fill, corresponding to the recorded collapsed fill height. Figure 6 shows the incremental
strains plot at that phase. A clear rotational slip circle is formed below the embankment.
Figure 7 presents the plot of excess pore water pressure versus construction time
measured at depth 4.13m below original ground surface under the centerline of
embankment.
embankment
0.4m
-1.0m
Figure 5
Ground surface settlement profile with 5.5m fill
Figure 6
Incremental strains plot with 5.5m fill.
Pore pressure [kN/m2]

120
90
60
30
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Time [day]
Figure 7
Excess pore water pressure versus construction time, measured at depth
4.13m below original ground surface under the centerline of embankment.
3. Embankment on PVD stabilized soil

The cross section of the embankment on PVD stabilized soil is shown in Figure 8.
The total fill height was 4.74m and constructed over a period of four months. The
construction sequence is summarized in Table 3. The vertical drains were installed in a

triangular pattern and its characteristic is summarized in Table 4.
Figure 8
Table 3
Cross section of embankment on PVD stabilized foundation soil
Construction sequence of embankment on PVD stabilized

foundation soil
Stage
Fill Periods
(Days)
Fill Thickness
(m)
Rate of Filling
(m/day)
Rest Period
(days)
1 - 14
0.0 2.57
0.18
14 105
105 - 129
2.57 4.74
0.09
129 - present
Table 4
Summary of drain parameters
Drainage
Length (m)
Drain Spacing
(m)
Equivalent
Diameter (m)
Influence Zone
Diameter (m)
Smeared Zone
Diameter (m)
18.0
1.3
0.07
1.365
0.4
10
3.1 Input
Geometry
The FEM mesh used to solve this situation is shown in Figure 9. The extent of
PVD stabilized soil is located at 36m from the centerline of embankment.
Elevation (m)
Distance (m)
Fill
PVD Stabilized
Soil
Crust
Upper Clay
Lower Clay
Sandy Clay
2.0m
6.4m
10.0m
4.1m
135m
Figure 9
FEM mesh of the embankment on PVD stabilized soil
Material Properties
The material properties listed in Table 2 is applicable for this situation, only
modification needed for the PVD stabilized soil.
The function of PVD is assumed to increase the vertical soils permeability only,
without affects the other soils mechanical and strength properties. The equivalent
vertical permeability of PVD stabilized soil can be calculated by the equation below
(Tay, 2002):
11
n
s
= ln( ) +
k ve = (1 +
kh
2l 2 k h
3
ln(s ) +
kr
4
3q w
(6.2)
2.5l 2 k h
)k v
De 2 k v
(6.3)
where l
Drainage length
de
dw
de
Diameter of unit cell
dw
Diameter of drain
ds
dw
ds
Diameter of smear zone
kh
Horizontal permeability of natural soil
kr
Horizontal permeability of smear zone
qw
Discharge capacity of PVD
kv
Vertical permeability of natural soil
By assuming discharge capacity, qw as 100m3/yr, the equivalent vertical permeability for

PVD stabilized crust, upper soft clay and lower soft clay is presented in Table 5.
Table 5
The equivalent vertical permeability of PVD stabilized soil

Material
Equivalent vertical
permeability, kve (m/day)
Crust
Upper soft clay
Lower soft clay
5.99E-3
2.66E-3
1.97E-3
12
Initial Condition
The initial condition the generated by the same procedures discussed for case with
embankment on unstabilised soil.
3.2 Calculations
By refers to the construction sequence showed in Table 3, the calculation steps are
as below:a) The first loading stage (2.57m of fill) was performed using coupled consolidation
process as discussed in section 2 with time interval equals to 14 days.
b) The second stage involves pure consolidation process of 91 days. The same
coupled consolidation procedures of step (a) is utilized here, but without any
change to the geometry configuration (any increase in fill height). Set the time
interval to 91 days.
c) The second loading stage (up to a height of 4.74m) in 24 days using the coupled
consolidation process was performed by the same procedures as step (a).
d) Follow by pure consolidation process as described in step (b).
3.3 Output
Figure 10 shows the ground surface settlement profile just after the completion of
4.74m fill. Figure 11 presents the excess pore water pressure at point 8.9m below the
ground surface under the centerline of embankment.
13
embankment
0.12m
-0.66m
Figure 10
The ground surface settlement profile just after the completion of 4.74m
fill.
Pore pressure [kN/m2]

100
80
60
40
20
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
Time [day]
Figure 11
Excess pore water pressure versus construction time, measured at depth
8.9m below original ground surface under the centerline of embankment
14
1ST Asian Course

for

CGXX PILE AND RAFT FOUNDATIONS
Pile and Raft Foundations
PILE AND RAFT FOUNDATIONS

Course: Experienced PLAXIS Users - Noordwijkerhout, March 2003
CG 23 PILE AND
RAFT FOUNDATIONS
Markus Wehnert
Institut fr Geotechnik
Universitt Stuttgart
IGS
Contents
Axial bearing behaviour
Long large-diameter bored pile in layered soil
Bridge in the harbour of Thessaloniki: D = 1.5 m / L = 45 m
Numerical assessment of axial pile group response based on load tests
Comodromos, E.M. & Anagnostopoulos, C.T. & Georgiadis, M.K., accepted for
publication in Computer & Geotechnics (2003)
Short large-diameter bored pile in homogeneous soil

Bridge Alzey: D = 1.3 m / L = 9.5 m
Load settlement behavior of large diameter bored piles in over-consolidated clay
El-Mossalamy, Y., NUMOG VII, Graz (1999)
Single pile - pile group - piled raft

Bearing behaviour
Nachweiskonzept fr die Kombinierte Pfahl-Platten-Grndung (KPP)
Katzenbach, R.; Arslan, U.; Moormann, C., Geotechnik 19 (1996)
Results / conclusions / references
Load-displacement curves of single piles

Load Q
Load Q
ts
Settlement s
Qb
sb
Qs
floating pile
Qb
Qs
end-bearing pile
b ^= base
s ^= shaft
Long large-diameter bored pile in layered soil

Hydraulic
jacking system
0.0m GL + WL
Layer A: ML, SM
Soft Clayey Silt
with thin layers
of Silty Sand
Pile under test,

D=150cm
Tension pile
Tension pile
-6.0m
Layer B: CH
High plastic
Soft Clay
Tension pile, D=1.5m
Concrete cross beam, 2.0x2.0m
Pile under test, D=1.5m
-18.0m
Layer C: CL
Medium Stiff
Clay of medium
plasticity
-42.0m
Layer D: GM
Very dense
Sandy Gravel
with Clay
-45.0m
Geometry
y
Pile:
D = 1.5 m
L = 45 m
024
11
326
13
19
527
14
20
728
15
21
929
16
22
10
Model: B = 20.0 m
H = 57.0 m
Mesh refinement: B = 7.5 m
H = 51.0 m
Calculations: with interface
without interface
Constitutive law: Mohr-Coulomb
For exclusive determination of the
load-settlement curve it is not
necessary to generate a very wide
mesh.
17
25
12
31
30
23
18
Material parameters for MC-model
Material
cu
Soft Clayey Silt
Soft Clay
Stiff Clay
Sandy Gravel
15 - 25
25 - 45
[kPa]
[]
30
35
[]
10
12
[kN/m]
20
17
21
22
K0
[-]
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.426
[-]
0.25
0.35
0.30
0.25
[MPa]
10
7.5
20
65
Material
g
[kN/m]
[-]
[MPa]
Pile
24
0.20
42000
Finite-element mesh
Mesh dependency for calculations with

interface very small !
Mesh dependency for calculations

without interface very big !
Very fine mesh because of calculation

without interface !
Beam element with negligible stiffness for

determination of the normal force in the pile
Results of FE-analyses and measurements

Load [MN]
0
10
15
20
Some remarks:
5
10
Settlement [mm]
15
20
25
Base resistance is equal for calculation

with (Qb wI) and without (Qb woI)
interface
Shaft resistance / skin friction is bigger
for the calculation without interface (Qs
woI) than for the calculation with
interface (Qs wI)
Total load out of pile load test (Q PPB)
agrees very well with the total load out of
the calculation without interface (Q woI)
30
Layered soil lots of parameters

35
40
45
not very easy to analyse

for better understanding
pile in homogenous soil
is better, see next
example
50
Short large-diameter bored pile
Dial gauges + levelling

Settlement points in 0.5 m, 5 m
and 10 m depth
Load cells
4.0
GW
-0.5
stiff
clay
-5.0
9.5 m
Instrumentation:
Levelling
4.0
Load
cells
Geology:
-10.0
1.3 m
overconsolidated stiff clay

w = 0.22
wp = 0.20
wl = 0.60
Instrumentation
Layout of load test
Geometry
Pile:
D = 1.3 m
L = 9.5 m
y
0 145
6 164
20
21
12
Model: B = 9.0 m
H = 15.0 m
Mesh refinement: B = 3.15 m
H = 12.0 m
111713
Calculations: with interface

without interface
Constitutive law: 1) Mohr-Coulomb
2) Hardening-Soil
7 158
18
Mesh is wider than it has to be for the

determination of the load-displacementcurve, but the soil displacements are
also considered !
10
19
Material parameters
Material
Overconsolidated Clay
Model
Pile
Mohr-Coulomb-Model
Hardening-Soil-Model
Linear-Elastic-Model
[kPa]
20
20
[]
20
20
[]
[kN/m]
20
20
25
K0
[-]
0.8
0.8
[-]
0.3
0.2
[MPa]
60
45
30000
[MPa]
33
[MPa]
90
[-]
0.5
Finite-element mesh
Beam element with negligible

stiffness for determination of
the normal force in the pile
Results of pile-load-test
Settlement s
Measured soil settlements
Load Q
Qb
Qs
Results after
Sommer & Hammbach
Results of FE-calculation
Mohr-Coulomb-Model
1
Hardening-Soil-Model
4
10
10
20
20
30
40
Settlement [mm]
Settlement [mm]
Load [MN]
2
Load [MN]
2
30
40
50
50
60
60
70
70
Comparison of the skin friction

Load [MN]
0
MC-model
10
20
Settlement [mm]
HS-model
30
Distribution of the skin friction

40
Elastic-plastic distribution for the MC-model

Higher skin friction for the calculation without interface than with interface
Hyperbolic distribution for the HS-model
Nearly the same distribution for the calculation with and without interface
50
For both calculations interface elements

were used.
60
One would expect for all calculations a

more or less elastic-plastic distribution !
70
Relative shear shadings for MC-model

Calculation with interface, for a
pile head displacement of 70mm
t rel
1.000
0.960
0.920
0.880
t max
0.840
0.800
0 t rel
0.760
0.720
0.680
0.640
0.600
0.560
0.520
0.480
0.440
0.400
0.360
0.320
0.280
0.240
0.200
0.160
0.120
0.080
0.040
0.000
10
Relative shear shadings for MC-model

Calculation without interface, for a
t rel
1.000
0.960
0.920
0.880
t max
0.840
0.800
0 t rel
0.760
0.720
More soil around the shaft of the

pile is mobilised compared to the
calculation with interface.
Shaft resistance / skin friction
is bigger than for the calculation with interface !
0.680
0.640
0.600
0.560
0.520
0.480
0.440
0.400
0.360
0.320
0.280
0.240
0.200
0.160
0.120
0.080
0.040
0.000
Relative shear shadings for HS-model

Calculation with interface, for a
t rel
1.000
0.960
0.920
0.880
t max
0.840
0.800
0 t rel
0.760
0.720
0.680
0.640
0.600
0.560
0.520
0.480
0.440
0.400
0.360
0.320
0.280
0.240
0.200
0.160
0.120
0.080
0.040
0.000
11
Relative shear shadings for HS-model

Calculation without interface, for a
t rel
1.000
0.960
0.920
0.880
t max
0.840
0.800
0 t rel
0.760
0.720
0.680
Nearly the same amount of soil

around the shaft of the pile is mobilised compared to the calculation with interface.
0.640
0.600
0.560
0.520
0.480
Nearly the same shaft resistance / skin friction for the

calculation with and without
interface !
0.440
0.400
0.360
0.320
0.280
0.240
0.200
0.160
0.120
0.080
0.040
0.000
Soil displacements with the MC-model
Displacements at a
depth of 0.5m
Soil displacements in 2 different depths from x = D = 0.65 m to x = 2.65 m

displacements for a pile head settlement of 70 mm
all soil displacements in mm
calculations with the Mohr-Coulomb-model
1.15
1.65
2.15
2.65
1.15
1.65
2.15
2.65
10
20
30
40
50
60
Displacements
at a depth of 10m
70
12
10
20
30
40
Soil displacements with the HS-model
Displacements at a
depth of 0.5m
Soil displacements in 2 different depths from x = D = 0.65 m to x = 2.65 m

displacements for a pile head settlement of 70 mm
all soil displacements in mm
calculations with the Hardening-Soil-model
1.15
1.65
2.15
2.65
1.15
1.65
2.15
2.65
10
20
30
40
50
60
Displacements
at a depth of 10m
70
10
20
30
40
Single pile versus pile group versus piled raft
Resistance Q
Single pile
Piled raft
Pile group
Settlement s
Pile group
Piled raft foundation
After El-Mossalamy 1996
13
Single pile versus piled raft
Resistance Q
Single pile
E
Settlement s
Corner pile
Edge pile
Inner pile
Conclusion:
Group behaviour and pile-raft-interaction
reduce on the one hand the stiffness of
the piles and increase on the other hand
their bearing capacity!
After El-Mossalamy 1996
Bearing behaviour of a piled raft

Piled-Raft Foundation (PRF)
Raft Foundation
DIN 1054
DIN 4017
DIN 4018
DIN 4019
after Hanisch, Katzenbach, Knig
Pile Foundation
DIN
DIN
DIN
DIN
1054
4014
4026
4128
aPRF
a PRF
sPRF/sRF
14
Q ( s )
P
Qtot ( s )

after Hanisch, Katzenbach, Knig
S QP + QR
Qtot
QP
= Qb + Qs
QR
Qtot
h S Stot
s(x,y) dA
Stot
QP,1
with h = 2,00 for loading case 1

1,75 for loading case 2
1,50 for loading case 3
Interaction influences:
Pile-soil interaction
Pile-Pile interaction
Raft-soil interaction
Pile-raft interaction
s(x,y)
QP,j
Interaction between
Piled raft and subsoil
s(x,y)
z
ts,j
ss,1
sb,j

Example out of the literature by Katzenbach, Arslan, Moormann
Piles:
diameter 1.5m
length 30m
Model 1: quadratic raft with a width of 50m
64 piles with a distance of 3D
Model 2: quadratic raft with a width of 50m
16 piles with a distance of 6D
Model 1
Model 2
15

Load Q [MN]
D = 1.5m
L = 30m
64 piles
e = 3D
10
20
30
40
Q single pile
Q inner pile
Q edge pile
Settlement [cm]
10
Q corner pile
15
20
25
30

Load Q [MN]
D = 1.5m
L = 30m
64 piles
e = 3D
10
20
30
40
Q centre pile M1
16 piles
e = 6D
Q inner pile M2
Q edge pile M2
Settlement [cm]
10
Q corner pile M2
15
20
25
30
16
Examples
Messe-Torhaus
after Katzenbach, Moormann, Reul
1984
h = 130 m
30 floors
Normal force [MN]
Inner pile
Depth [m]
Edge pile
Shaft friction [kN/m2]
Depth [m]
Examples
Messeturm
1991
h = 256 m
60 floors
O
Normal force [MN]
Inner pile ring

Middle pile ring
Outer pile ring
Shaft friction [kN/m2]
17
Examples
RF:
Raft Foundation
PF:
Pile Foundation
PRF: Piled Raft Foundation
s:
Settlements at end of construction

MAIN TOWER
1996-99
KPP, s = 2.5 cm
Citibank
1985-86
FG,
s = 11 cm
EUROTHEUM
1997-99
KPP,
s = 3.2 cm
Commerzbank II Hochhaus
1994-97
PG, s = 2.1 cm
Eurotower
1974-77
FG, s = 9 cm
Helaba
Hochhaus
1975-77
FG,
Japan Center
s = 10 cm
1994-96
KPP, s = 3.2 cm
Commerz
bank I
Hochhaus
1972-74
FG, s = 9 cm
Results / Conclusions / References

Results / conclusions
Simulation of pile load tests without interface element is very mesh dependent
Big influence of the interface on the load settlement curve of piles, especially when using the MC-model
When using the HS-model the influence is more or less negligible
Results of calculations without interface elements seem to be more exact
This was shown only for examples of bored piles !
Problem of parameter determination - no laboratory tests were available !
FE-calculations are very important for pile groups and for piled raft foundations
Group behaviour and pile-raft-interaction reduce on the one hand the stiffness of the piles and increase on the other
hand their bearing capacity !
References
Comodromos, E.M.; Anagnostopoulos, C.T.; Georgiadis, M.K. Numerical assessment of axial pile group response
based on load tests. accepted for publication in Computer & Geotechnics (2003)
El-Mossalamy, Y. Load settlement behavior of large diameter bored piles in over-consolidated clay. NUMOG VII,
Graz (1999)
Sommer, H.; Hambach, P. Gropfahlversuche im Ton fr die Grndung der Talbrcke Alzey. Bauingenieur 49 (1974)
El-Mossalamy, Y. Ein Berechnungsmodell zum Tragverhalten der Kombinierten Pfahl-Plattengrndung. Mitteilungen
des Instituts und der Versuchsanstalt fr Geotechnik der TH Darmstadt (1996)
Hanisch, J.; Katzenbach, R.; Knig, G. Kombinierte Pfahl-Plattengrndungen. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 2002
Katzenbach, R.; Arslan, U.; Moormann, C. Nachweiskonzept fr die Kombinierte Pfahl-Platten-Grndung (KPP),
Geotechnik 19 (1996)
Katzenbach, R.; Moormann, C.; Reul, O. Ein Beitrag zur Klrung des Tragverhaltens von Kombinierten PfahlPlattengrndungen. Pfahl-Symposium 1999. Mitteilung des Instituts fr Grundbau und Bodenmechanik Technische
Universitt Braunschweig, Heft 60, 261-299
18
1ST Asian Course

for

CGXX RAFT FOUNDATION ON SOFT SOILS
Raft Foundation on Soft Soil
RAFT FOUNDATION ON SOFT SOIL
(CALCULATION WITH HS MODEL)
Course for Experienced Plaxis Users
Course Computational Geotechnics
INTRODUCTION
This exercise is based on a case from practice, the excavation and the loading of a raft foundation
on soft soil. Beside the modelling of soil also structural elements are included in the model. The
option of both staged excavation of the soil and construction of the building is shown by
switching respective elements on and off. Further more the use of several point loads is shown,
which are simulating the force of the building on the foundation, whereas it will be pointed at
accruing bending moments in the foundation plate. This exercise will use the Hardening Soil
model. For the application of this model the determination of the soil stiffness modulus from
results of oedometer tests will be performed.
DETERMINATION OF SOIL STIFFNESSES
Hardening soil model:
s ' +c cot j
E oed = E oed 1
p
c
cot
+
ref
but for s '1 >> c cot j it yields
ref
Eoed
s'
= E ref oed 1
p
ref
with m=1:
Eoed
Result from oedometer test in general
1
E ref oed
=
s '1 =
s 1 '
l*
pref
E ref oed =
pref
A+B
pref
l*
Results from oedometer tests of Lacustrine clay
TASK:
In the figure above you see results from oedometer tests of Lacustrine clay. The test data do not
show a clear preconsolidation pressure sp. This is related to sample disturbance. Therefore it is
assumed, that sp = sv0+POP (pre over burden pressure), with POP = 20 kN/m. No unloading
reloading loops were performed. Because of sample disturbance it is not possible to determine the
reloading trajectory. On account of this we assume A = 0,006667.
Use the oedometer test data from above to determine the l*-value.
Afterwards determine Erefoed
Determine E50ref = 2Erefoed
For the derivation of Erefur use the following relations:
(1 + n ) (1 - 2n )
Eur , oed
(1 - n )
(1)
Eur =
(2)
s'
Eur = E ref ur 3
p
ref
s'
= E ur ,oed 1
p
ref
(3)
Eur ,oed
(4)
E ref ur ,oed =
ref
pref
A
(2) and (3) in (1):
ref
ref
ur
(1 + n ) (1 - 2n ) s '1 ref
E ur ,oed
=

s
(1 - n )
'
3
ur
(1 + n ) (1 - 2n ) 1 ref
=
nc E ur ,oed
(1 - n )
K0
INPUT
As the problem is fully symmetric, it will be sufficient to model only one quarter of the entire
geometry. In this case we choose to model the right upper part of the plan view.
At a depth of 28 meter a stiff layer is found and it can be assumed, that no significant
deformations occur in this material. Therefore this soil layer will be excluded from the FE model
and we choose the bottom of the geometry at the level of -28 m. As no deformations are assumed
to occur, the displacements along this boundary are fully fixed (default option Standard fixities).
The point loads, as shown in the figure above, are transferred to the basement bottom by piers.
Therefore this point loads can also be positioned directly to the basement bottom.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Lacustrine clay
Basement
Model
HS
Model
Linear-elastic
Type
Drained
Type
Non-porous
gunsat (kN/m)
18.5
gunsat (kN/m)
11.5
gsat (kN/m)
18.5
gsat (kN/m)
11.5
kx (m/day)
Eref (kN/m)
30000
ky (m/day)
E50ref (kN/m)
Eoedref (kN/m)
Eurref (kN/m)
Model
Elastic
cref (kN/m)
10
EA (kN/m/m)
1.5 E7
j ()
30
EI (kN/m/m)
3.125 E5
y ()
w (kN/m)
nur
0.2
0.2
pref (kN/m)
100
power (m)
K0nc
1 - sinj
Plate
GEOMETRY MODEL
(19.2/0)
(0/0)
(0/-2)
(2.5/-2)
(19.2/-2)
(12.5/-2)
(7.5/-2)
(17.5/-2)
Create a model with dimensions 50 m horizontal and 28 m vertical.

Use standard fixities.
Use load system A to apply a point load four times.
MESH GENERATION
Generate the 2D mesh as described below:
Use one time gobal coarsness Very coarse.
Two times refine the cluster of the basement.
One time refine the line of the foundation plate for a better output of the bending moments.
Generate the 3D mesh as described below:

Use fife planes as shown below.
Activate the respective planes by clicking on them in the second column. Then click on the
red plane and fill in the following local element size factor:
Local element size factor:

Rear
1.0
0.5
0.25
0.25
Front
1.0
Now generate the 3D mesh
INITIAL CONDITIONS
Set the water table 1m below the surface.
Generate water pressures.
Before generating the initial stresses put in the pre over burden pressure (POP) of 20 kN/m
for the Lacustrine clay. Be careful that no plates or loads are activated.
Now generate initial stresses.
CALCULATIONS
Phase 1:
Deactivate the soil inside the excavation for Slice 1, Slice 2 and Slice 3.
Phase 2:
Activate the foundation plate and the basement for Slice 1, Slice 2 and Slice 3.
Phase 3:
Activate the four point loads on Plane A and Plane B (double click) with a force of
-1306 kN for the Y-Value.
Select 3 points to be used in Curves program:
A (0/-2/0)
Front Plane
B (0/-2/-9.3)
Plane C
C (19.2/-2/-9.3) Plane C
OUTPUT
Phase 3:
Settlements
10
Bending Moments on Foundation Plate (Plane A)

11
Normal Forces on Foundation Plate (Plane A)
RESULTS FOR STIFFNESSES

l*
Erefoed
E50ref
Erefur,oed
Erefur
Erefur
12
=
=
=
=
=
=
0.03334
pref / l* = 100 / 0.03334 = 3000 kN/m
2Erefoed = 23000 = 6000 kN/m
pref / A = 100 / 0.006667 = 15000 kN/m
(1 + n) (1 - 2n) / (1 - n) (1 / K0nc)m Erefur,oed
(1 + 0.2) (1 20.2) / (1 - 0.2) (1 / 0.5)1 15000 = 27000 kN/m
l*
0.03334
Eoedref (kN/m)
3000
E50ref (kN/m)
6000
Erefur,oed (kN/m)
15000
Eurref (kN/m)
27000

First Asian Experienced Plaxis User Course 2003 - 2

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

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

First Asian Experienced Plaxis User Course 2003 - 2

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1st Asian Course for Experienced

: 31 July to 2 August 2003

: National University of Singapore

Course leader : Associate Professor Harry Tan,

embankments, slopes and tunnels.

: PAC, Faculty of Engineering,

Concepts of plasticity - Prof H. Tan

Prof Harry Tan - Department of Civil Engineering, NUS (course

Prof Pieter Vermeer - Professor of Geotechnical Engineering,

University of Stuttgart (Germany)

Harry teaches basic and graduate course in Geotechnical Engi-

Pieter teaches both basic courses on Soil Mechanics and special

courses of Geotechnical Engineering at the University of

and has taught Plaxis courses in Singapore, Malaysia and Korea

Stuttgart in Germany. He has been involved in constitutive mod-

over the last 3 years. He is involved in geosynthetics and earth

reinforcement research, and is very much involved in consulting

initiated the development of the Plaxis code. His interests range

for industry in Singapore and Malaysia using the Plaxis pro-

from field and laboratory testing of soils and rocks up to the

gram. He is currently the Director of Centre for Soft Ground Engi-

analysis of geotechnical structures.

Friday, 1 August 2003

CG10 Deep Excavations

Saturday, 2 August 2003

CG17 Soft Soil Creep

1ST Asian Course

EXPERIENCED PLAXIS USERS

THURSDAY, 31ST JULY 2003

CG02 CONCEPTS OF PLASTICITY

PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES

Basic concepts of the Mohr-Coulomb model

Possibilities and limitations of the M-C model

Aspects of real soil behaviour

Elasticity (reversible deformation; limited)

PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES

Stresses and strains

Stresses and strains

( 'xx ' yy )2 + xy2

Stress invariants (p and q):

PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES

Stresses and strains

PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES

Stresses and strains

Rendulic plane q-axis

Principal stress space

Stresses and strains

Deviator plane (-plane)

PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES

Stress paths in standard soil tests

PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES

Stress paths in standard soil tests

Stress paths in standard soil tests

PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES

Stress paths in standard soil tests

PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES

Stress paths in standard soil tests

PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES

Stress paths in standard soil tests

PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES

Stress paths in standard soil tests

Stress paths in standard soil tests

Stress paths in standard soil tests