- construction stage 2: excavation step 1 (to level -4.80 m),
I f this
- construction stage 3: activation of anchor 1 at level —4.30 m
and prestressing,
- construction stage 4: excavation step 2 (to level -9.30 m),
- construction stage 5: activation of anchor 2 at level -8.80 m
and prestressing,
- construction stage 6: excavation step 3 (to level -14.35 m),
- construction stage 7: activation of anchor 3 at level -13.85 m
and prestressing, and
- construction stage 8: excavation step 4 (to level -16.80 m).
The length of the anchors and their prestressing loads are in­
dicated in Figure 7.10.
A wide variety o f computer programs and constitutive models
was employed to solve this problem. Details may be found in
Schweiger (2000) and Carter et al. (2000). Only a limited num­
ber of analysts utilised the laboratory test results provided in the
specification to calibrate their models. M ost o f the analysts used
data from the literature for Berlin sand or their own experience
to arrive at input parameters for their analysis. Only marginal
differences exist in the assumptions made about the strength pa­
rameters for the sand (everybody believed the laboratory ex­
periments in this respect), and the angle of internal friction 0'
was taken as 36° or 37° and a small cohesion was assumed by
many authors to increase numerical stability. A significant
variation was observed however in the assumption of the dila-
tancy angle iff, with values ranging from 0° to 15°. An even more
significant scatter was observed in the assumption of the soil
stiffness parameters. Although most analysts assumed an in­
crease with depth, either by introducing some sort of power law,
similar to the formulation presented by Ohde (1951), which in
turn corresponds to the formulation by Janbu (1963), or by de­
fining different layers with different Young’s moduli. Additional
variation was introduced by different formulations for the inter­
face elements, element types, domains analysed and modelling
of the prestressed anchors. Some computer codes and possibly
some analysts may have had problems in modelling the
prestressing o f the ground anchors, and actually part of the force
developed due to deformations occurring in the ground appears
lost.
A total of 15 organisations (comprising University Institutes
and Consulting Companies from Germany, Austria, Switzerland
and Italy), referred to as B1 to B15 in the following, submitted
predictions. Figure 7.12 shows the deflection curves of the dia­
phragm wall for all entries. It is obvious from the figure that the
results scatter over a very wide range, which is unsatisfactory
and probably unacceptable to most critical observers of this im­
portant validation exercise. For example, the predicted horizontal
displacement of the top o f the wall varied between -229 mm and
+33 mm (-ve means displacement towards the excavation).
Looking into more detail in Figure 7.12, it can be observed that
entries B2, B3, B9a and B7 are well out of the “mainstream” of
results. These are the ones that derived their input parameters
mainly from the oedometer tests provided to all analysts, but it
should be remembered that these tests showed very low stiff­
nesses as compared to values given in the literature. Some others
had small errors in the specific weight, but these discrepancies
alone cannot account for the large differences in predictions.
As mentioned previously, field measurements are available
for this project and although the example here has been slighdy
modified in order to facilitate the calculations, the order of mag­
nitude of displacements is known. Figure 7.13 shows the meas­
ured wall deflections for the final construction stage together
with the calculated results. Only those calculations that are con­
sidered to be “near” the measured values are included. The scat­
ter is still significant. It should be mentioned that measurements
have been taken by inclinometer, but unfortunately no geodetic
survey of the wall head is available. It is very like ly that the base
of the wall did not remain fixed, as was assumed in the interpre­
tation o f the inclinometer measurements, and that a parallel shift
of the measurement of about 5 to 10 mm would probably reflect
the in situ behaviour more accurately. This has been confirmed
2594
by other measurements under similar conditions in Berlin.
is true a maximum horizontal displacement of about 30 mm can
be assumed and all entries that are within 100% difference (i.e.,
up to 60 mm) have been considered in the diagram. The pre­
dicted maximum horizontal wall displacements still varied be­
tween 7 and 57 mm, and the shapes of the predicted curves are
also quite different from the measured shape. Some of the differ­
ences between prediction and measurements can be attributed to
the fact that the lowering of the groundwater table inside the ex­
cavation has been modelled in one step whereas in reality a
stepwise drawdown was performed (the same has been assumed
by calculation B15). Thus the analyses overpredict horizontal
displacements, the amount being strongly dependent on the con­
stitutive model employed, as was revealed in further studies. In
addition, it can be assumed that the details of the formulation of
the interface element have a significant influence on the lateral
deflections o f the wall, and arguments similar to those discussed
in the previous section for implementing constitutive laws also
hold, i.e., no general guidelines and recommendations are cur­
rently available. A need for them is clearly evident from this ex­
ercise.
Figure 7.14 depicts the calculated surface settlements, again
only for the same solutions that are presented in Figure 7.13.
These key displacement predictions vary from settlements of up
to approximately 50 mm to surface heaves of about 15 mm.
Considering the fact that calculation of surface settlements is one
of the main goals of such an analysis, this lack of agreement is
disappointing. It also highlights again the pressing need for rec­
ommendations and guidelines that are capable of minimising the
unrealistic modelling assumptions that have been adopted and
consequently the unrealistic predictions that have been obtained.
The importance of developing such guidelines should be obvi­
ous.
Figure 7.15 shows predictions of the development of anchor
forces for the upper layer of anchors. M aximum anchor forces
for the final excavation stage range from 106 to 634 kN/m. As
mentioned previously, some of the analyses did not correctly
model the prestressing of the anchors because they do not show
the specified prestressing force in the appropriate construction
step. Predicted bending moments, important from a design per­
spective, also diffe r significantly from 500 to 1350 kNm/m.
Taking into account the information presented in Figures 7.12
to 7.15, it is interesting to note that no definitive conclusions are
possible with respect to the constitutive model or assumptions
concerning element types and so on. It is worth mentioning that
even with the same finite element code and the same constitutive
model significant differences in the predicted results are ob­
served. Clearly these differences depend entirely on the personal
interpretation of the stiffness parameters from the information
available. Again, it is noted that a more comprehensive coverage
of this exercise is beyond the scope of this paper but further de­
tails may be found in Schweiger (2000).
The exercise presented here very clearly indicates the need
for guidelines and training for numerical analysis in geotechnical
engineering in order to achieve reliable solutions for practical
problems. However, at the same time these examples demon­
strate the power of numerical modelling techniques provided ex­
perienced users apply them. A full analysis of the second
benchmark problem discussed above w ill be given in a forth­
coming report of the working group of the German Society, and
the problem w ill be further dealt with also by Technical Com­
mittee 12 (TC 12 - Validation of Computer Simulations) of the
International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engi­
neering (ISSMGE).
7.5 Summary
This limited review o f retaining structures has identified a num­
ber of issues of major significance to geotechnical practitioners,
and some areas where our knowledge and design methods are
incomplete or imperfect. These are identified as follows.