Lecture 1

finite element for soil and rock analyses 15‐JUNE‐2007
Plaxis Vietnam Seminar
No Title Time
1 The Plaxis Approach‐ Geotechnics, Deep

Excavation, Foundations and etc
2 Soil Models and Structural Elements
3 Geometry, Model Space, Mesh and Initial Stresses
4 Notes on usage of Plaxis Codes on the modelling of

Excavations and Tunnels
F I N I T E E L E M E N T C O D E F O R S O I L A N D R O C K A N A LY S E S
Vietnam 2008 2
PLAXIS SEMINAR‐HO CHI MINH 1
finite element code for soil and rock analyses
PLAXIS SEMINAR
KUCHING 2008
Malaysia
C
Computational Geomechanics in Routine Geotechnical Analysis
t ti l G h i i R ti G t h i l A l i
THE PLAXIS APPROACH

VISUALISE ANALYSE OPTIMISE > T H E W A Y F O R W A R D
Contributed
William W.L. CHEANG Ir. Erwin BEERNINK

Ir. Dennis WATERMAN
Dr. Erick SEPTANIKA
Regional Technical Manager Dr. Ronald BRINKGREVE
PlaxisAsia (Plaxis BV) Dr. Siew Wei LEE
Dr. Andy PICKLES
Prof. Pieter .A.VERMEER
PROF. Yasser EL. MOSSALLAMY
L A XI S P R O F E S S I O N A L v e r s i o n 8 . 5 - P L A XF L O W v e r s i o n 1 . 5 - D Y N A M I C S m o d u l e - 3 - D F O U N D A T I O N v e r s i o n 2 . 0 – 3 - D T U N N E L v e r s i o n 2 . 0 – 3 - D G E O T H E R M I E v e r s i o n 1 .
SEMINAR
1. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
2. GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS
G O C C SS
3. MODELLING OF SOIL‐STRUCTURE
INTERACTION PROBLEMS WITH PLAXIS
4. REAL CASE HISTORIES
5. CONCLUSIONS
Vietnam 2008 4
1. TUNNELLLING
2. EXCAVATION
3. FOUNDATIONS
4. LAND RECLAMATIONS
5. SLOPE (EMBANKMENT) STABILITY AND
REINFORCEMENT
1.GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
TUNNELLING
N E W A U S T R I A N T U N N E L L I NG
SHIELD TUNNELLING
Vietnam 2008 6
The design of sequential excavations depends on

the quality of the ground
The smaller the

excavated area the
smaller the settlements.
Vietnam 2008 7
Vietnam 2008 8
Vietnam 2008 9
Case study: Heinenoord tunnel near Rotterdam
Vietnam 2008 10
Vietnam 2008 11
Vietnam 2008 12
EXCAVATIONS
Vietnam 2008 13
Vietnam 2008 14
Vietnam 2008 15
Vietnam 2008 16
FOUNDATIONS
Vietnam 2008 17
PILED RAFTS FOUNDATIONS
Vietnam 2008 18
LAND RECLAMATION
Deformed mesh at completion of staged

reclamation (exaggerated scale)
Sandfill
W.T.
PVD Soft CLAY
Sandy SILT
Vietnam 2008 19
SEMINAR
G O C C SS
5. CONCLUSIONS
Vietnam 2008 20
2.GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS
2 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS
2.GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Vietnam 2008 22
Vietnam 2008 23
GEOMETRY SPACE
1. 2‐D Plane Strain Space
2. Axi‐symmetric space
3. 3‐D Space
45 m
30 m
45 m
8m
Vietnam 2008 24
AXI-SYMMETRY AND NON AXI-SYMMETRY
AX I - S YM M E T RY N O T AX I - S YM M E T RY
Vietnam 2008 25
SEMINAR
G O C C SS
5. CONCLUSIONS
Vietnam 2008 26
Plaxis Finite Element Codes
3.SOIL‐STRUCTURE INTERACTION
3 SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION
3.FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS WITH PLAXIS
“ R E A L I T Y O R V I RT U A L D R E A M ? ”
Vietnam 2008 28
F I N I T E E L E M E N T C O D E F O R S O I L A N D R O C K A N A LY S E S
Vietnam 2008 29
PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODES

Overview of current products:
CURRENT SUITE OF PROGRAMS + ADD‐ONS MODULES
Plaxis Version 8.6 Dynamics
Plaxis PlaxFlow Version 1.5 (VI Package)
Plaxis 3D Tunnel Version 2.2
Plaxis 3D Foundation Version 2.1
P L A X I S V 8 PLAXFLOW 3D TUNNEL 3D FOUNDATION
Vietnam 2008 30
PLAXIS PROGRAMS AND ANALYSIS TYPE

Analysis Type Product (Code)
2D Analysis Stress ‐Deformation Plaxis Professional Version 8.6
1.Stress –Deformation Combine Plaxis Professional Version 8.6 +
2.Dynamic Problems Dynamics module
11.Stress‐Deformation
Stress‐Deformation Combine Plaxis Professional Version 8.6 +
Version 8 6 +
2.Transient Flow PlaxFlow
Problems
3D Analysis Tunnels* Plaxis 3D Tunnel Version 2.4
Excavation
Slope
Reinforced Wall
Foundations* Plaxis 3D Foundation Version 2.1
Piled Foundations
Piled Raft Foundations
l d f d
Excavations
Vietnam 2008 31
PLAXIS DEVELOPMENT TIME-LINE

3D Found v2.0
3D Found v1.6
2D Version 9
9
3D Found v11
Dynamics
3D Tunnel
Version 6
Version 8
Version 4
Version 2
Version 5
Version 3
Version 7
Version 1
PlaxFlow
008
004
000
998
005
990
989
002
987
995
001
993
003
991
007
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
19
19
20
19
19
19
Vietnam 2008 32
PROGRAMS (CODES): 2D AND 3D
PLAXIS 2D PLAXIS 3D
Vietnam 2008 33
PLAXIS PROFESSIONAL v8.6
Vietnam 2008 34
PLAXIS V8
Excavations
Vietnam 2008
35
PLAXIS V8
Soil reinforcement
Vietnam 2008
36
PLAXIS V8
Tunnels
Vietnam 2008
37
PLAXIS PROFESSIONAL VERSION 8.5
MOVIE
1
Vietnam 2008 38
PLAXIS PLAXFLOW v1.5
Vietnam 2008 39
PLAXFLOW
Vietnam 2008 40
PLAXFLOW + PLAXIS 8
Deformations Ground waterheads
MOVIE
1
MOVIE
2
RAIN WATER INFILTRATION ON PARTIALLY SATURATED SLOPE
Vietnam 2008 41
DYNAMICS MODULE
Vietnam 2008 42
PLAXIS DYNAMICS MODULE
For vibrations and earthquake simulation
1. Single‐source vibrations
2. Earthquake analysis
3. Absorbing boundaries
S TRON G MOTION IN PUT FROM S MC
MOVIE
Vietnam 2008 43
PLAXIS 3D TUNNEL v2.2
Vietnam 2008 44
PLAXIS 3D TUNNEL
Vietnam 2008 45
PLAXIS 3D TUNNEL APPLICATIONS

MODELLING OF SHIELD TUNNELLING PROCESS
Vietnam 2008 46

SIMULATION OF SOIL‐STRUCTURE INTERACTION: EFFECT OF TUNNELLING ON STRUCTURE
MOVIE
Vietnam 2008 47

TWIN TUNNELS
Vietnam 2008 48
PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION v2.1
Vietnam 2008 49
PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION: PILES
Vietnam 2008 50
PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION: PILED FOUNDATIONS
Vietnam 2008 51
STRUCTURE ON SLOPE
Vietnam 2008 52
PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION: PIERS
Vietnam 2008 53
COMPLEX SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION MODEL
Vietnam 2008 54
MULTI-SUCTION BUCKETS (OFFSHORE)
Vietnam 2008 55
TANK ON PILED RAFT FOUNDATION
Vietnam 2008 56
COMPLEX SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION PROBLEMS
MOVIE E X C AVAT I O N S
MOVIE COFFERDAM
Vietnam 2008 57
DEVELOPMENTS
Vietnam 2008 58
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS – 3D FOUNDATION

Plaxis 3D Foundation Version 2
Embedded piles
Ground anchors
Phi‐c reduction
Simulation of soil tests
Small‐strain stiffness (HS‐small)
4
User‐defined soil models 13
5 15
101
Grouping of elements 14
New Output program
N O t t 11 102 10
6
1
7 12
2 10 9
3
8
Vietnam 2008 59
Vietnam 2008 60
QUAY WALLS
Vietnam 2008 61
ANCHORING OF QUAY WALLS
Vietnam 2008 62
MICROPILES
Vietnam 2008 63
1. Constitutive Soil Models
1. Linear Elastic
2. Linear Elastic Perfectly Plastic :
• Mohr‐Coulomb
3. Isotropic Hardening Models:
• Hardening Soil Model ( Failure Criterion, MC, Lade & Matsuoka‐
Nakai)
• Double Hardening
• Cam‐Clay Class of models (Soft‐soil & Soft soil creep)
SSome other elements that may be important:
th l t th t b i t t
• Anisotropy
• Small‐strain stiffness effects
• Cyclic effects
Vietnam 2008 64
SEMINAR
G O C C SS
5. CONCLUSIONS
Vietnam 2008 65
2‐D MODELLING OF EXCAVATIONS
3‐D MODELLING OF EXCAVATIONS
3‐D PILED RAFT FOUNDATIONS
4 REAL CASE HISTORIES
OVAL COFFERDAM
NICOLL HIGHWAY INVESTIGATION
EFFECT OF TENSION PILES
EFFECT OF PASSIVE PILES
APPLIED 1: EXCAVATION
APPLIED 1 EXCAVATION
Oval Cofferdam Structure Details

Plan View Cross Section
32m
32m
24m
27m
Vietnam 2008 68
Oval Cofferdam Details

• Excavation for a pumping station
• Ground conditions: Fill, Clay, Alluvium, CDG, Rock
• Oval cofferdam size 24 m × 32 m (plan view)
• 27 m deep excavation in 6 stages
• DWall thickness 1.2 m
• Ring beams size 0.8 m × 1.8 m
• Original
Oi i ld design
i used
d 2D modelling
d lli
• Struts size 305 × 406 × 287 (necessary?)
• 3D modelling explores early struts removal
Vietnam 2008
69
Designer’s Original Analysis in 2D
• Model plane strain excavation

• No consideration of hoop force in ring
DWalls and ring beams
Vietnam 2008
70
3D Analysis
Plaxis 3D Foundation
Mesh size 200×170×40m
Vietnam 2008
71
Retaining System for Oval Cofferdam

Volume Deformation
Spring element (150x)
Pile with Shell
Vietnam 2008 72
Stress in Ring Beams & Force in Struts

Mean stress in ring beams Strut Forces
(kPa)
Layer 2D (kN) 3D (kN)
1st strut
str t 2064 1083
(52%)
2nd strut 4200 1577
(38%)
3rd strut 4552 1584
(35%)
4th strut 7856 1503
(19%)
5th strut 6784 2285
(34%)
6th strut 5848 2271
(39%)
Vietnam 2008 73
Comparison of 2D & 3D Deformations
Parameter 2D 3D
Max. ground settlement 31 mm 10 mm
Max. wall deflection 64 mm 25 mm
• Bottom-up construction on-going

• Field measurements close to 3D predictions
Vietnam 2008
74
Check for One Strut Failure

• BS8002:1994, Cl. 4.5.2.2.1 states
The design should also accommodate the possible failure of an
individual strut tie rod or anchor.
• CIRIA C580, Cl. 5.6.3, Accidental Load Case considers
… loss of a prop (partial support) to the wall, …
• Ensure failure of one strut would not lead to collapse
• Removal of one strut in 2D analysis
1. removes a whole row of struts into-the-plane
into the plane
2. does not consider redistribution of soil stresses and strut forces in
3D space
• Carry out 3D analysis using 3D Tunnel/Foundation
Vietnam 2008
75

Plaxis 3D Tunnel
Increase in adjacent strut forces due
to one strut removal
30m
One strut
removed
18% 47% 18%

5% 16% 17% 6%
One strut removed
• Strut vertical spacing 3m, horizontal spacing 4m
Vietnam 2008 76

Increase in wall horizontal Wall bending moment contours
deflection contours
Strut removed
(10mm increase)
45m
1400 kNm/m increase
32m
Vietnam 2008 77
Modelling of a Gap in Wall
Wall
Wall G
Gap panel
panel
Gap in wall
• Gap in wall for utility crossing

• Modelled by PLAXIS 3D Tunnel
Vietnam 2008 78
Modelling of a Gap in Wall

Wall deflection contours
Wall Wall
Grouted
slab 160mm deflection
Gap below final exc.
Panel 0.8m thk Panel 1.0m thk Panel 0.8m thk
Gap infilled by grout
• Panel filling gap as excavating
downward
Vietnam 2008 79
Idealisation of Individual Piles as Walls

Singapore
+103
DWall
+96
1.0mØ pile (6.5m c/c)

+81
24m
8.5m
1.8mØ pile (13m c/c) 12.5m
DWall
• 22m deep top down exc. in soft clay +50

+45
• 1.0 and 1.8m Ø pile installed within
cofferdam
Vietnam 2008 80
3D Modelling of Individual Piles

PLAXIS 3D Foundation
Slab
DWall
+50m
DWall 1.0mØ pile (+50m)

1.8mØ pile (+45m)
1.8mØ
Models half geometry
Vietnam 2008
81
Comparison of Wall Deflection

2D 3D
105 105
100 100
95 95
90 90
85 85
80 80
mRL
mRL
75 75
70 70
2D predicts smaller
65 65
DWall deflections, as
60 60
soil is not allowed to
55 55
flow between piles
50 50
45 45
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
0.045
0.050
0.055
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
0.045
0.050
0.055
Wall horizontal disp. (m)

Wall horizontal disp. (m)
Diaphragm wall deflection
Vietnam 2008 82
Comparison of Tension Force in Piles

1.0m Ø pile at 6.5m c/c 1.8m Ø pile at 13m c/c
100 100
95 95
90 3D gives 90
85 3000 kN 85
2D gives
Level (mRL)
Level (mRL)
80 80
75 10000 kN 75 3D gives
70 70 1400 kN
65 65
60 60 2D gives
55 55 20000 kN
50 50
45 45
-5000
5000
10000
15000
20000
-5000
5000
10000
15000
20000
Compression/tension force in pile (kN) Compression/tension force in pile (kN)
• Tension force (+ve) in piles due to ground heave in cofferdam
Vietnam 2008 83
Notes on Individual Piles as Walls
• Widely spaced individual piles within cofferdam modelled as

continuous walls in 2D analysis would predict:
1 Smaller deflection of retaining wall.
1. wall Continuous wall does not allow
flow of soil between piles, i.e. wall too rigid.
2. Larger tension force in the continuous wall. Larger surface area of
wall for mobilisation of shaft resistance.
• Consequences might be:
1. under-design of retaining wall
2. unnecessary sleeving/coating of individual piles in cofferdam
• Discrepancy between 2D and 3D prediction increases with the
increase of individual piles spacing into-the-plane.
Vietnam 2008 84
Effect of Excavation on Piles

Macau
Vietnam 2008
85
Effect of Excavation on Piles
• Piles for supporting high-rise

• “Dido” pile external dia. 0.6 m, internal dia. 0.3 m
• Pile spacing 3 - 8 m, length ~ 45 m
• Ground conditions: fill, soft clay, stiff soil
• Excavation 3 - 4 m for construction of pile caps
• 3D analysis to investigate
1. effect of excavation on pile deflection
2. contribution of piles to FOS of excavation slope
Vietnam 2008
86
3D Analysis
Individual piles
65m
8m
• Individual piles modelled by
“plate” element
Vietnam 2008 87
Deformation of Excavation
Piles resist deformation
20x • Localised deformation around piles
Vietnam 2008 88
Deformation of Piles
200
C
180
B
160 A
Pile head deflection (mm)

140
Soft soil
120
100
Stiff soil
A 80
B 60
C
40
20
• Measured pile deflection: order 0
of 100 mm Exc to Exc to Exc to Back exc Back exc
+2.5 +1.3 +0.8 to +2.5 to +4.5
Vietnam 2008 89
Phi-c Reduction to Determine FOS

Remember to input moment capacity of piles Mp!
Plastic hinge
Vietnam 2008
90
FOS for Different Excavation Depths
2.40
2.20
2.00 piles
1.80
FOS
1.60
1.40
no piles
1.20
1.00
Exc to Exc to Exc to Back exc Back exc
+2.5 +1.3 +0.8 to +2.5 to +4.5
Vietnam 2008
91
1.EFFECT OF BARRET PILES ON ADJACENT INFRASTRUCTURE
2.PILED FOUNDATION ANALYSIS
3. CALIBRATION TEST: NUMERICAL AND CENTRIFUGE
APPLIED 2 FOUNDATIONS
APPLIED 2:FOUNDATIONS
Foundation System for a High-rise

Singapore
• High-rise above an existing
(12m) tunnel
Tunnel • Barrettes straddle tunnel
• Barrettes 1.5m thick, 100
m deep
• Tunnel settlement criteria
High-rise footprint 15 mm
• Ground conditions: 35 m
soft clay underlain by stiff
soil
• 2D & 3D analyses to
optimise barrette geometries
Vietnam 2008
93
Geometry of Existing Tunnel
Bored pile
• Supported by three row of bored piles

1.2 - 1.5m Ø @ 4 - 8 m c/c
• Bored piles ~60 m long
• Tunnel
T l width
idth 12 m, h
height
i ht 6 m,
floor/wall thickness 1 m
• Tunnel 5 m below ground surface
Vietnam 2008 94
2D Analysis
High-rise loading tunnel
Barrette
Vietnam 2008
95
Limitations of 2D Analysis
• Line load applied on barrettes is uniform into-the-plane
• In real situation
1 line
1. li lload
d iis applied
li d within
ithi th
the b
building
ildi area
2. barrette section further away from building boundary helps
shed load through skin friction
• Existing bored piles supporting the tunnel are modelled as
“wall” into-the-plane
• Changes of axial force in existing piles may not be reliably
predicted
• Cannot give settlement profile of the tunnel into-the-plane (for
structural calculation of tunnel deflection/distortion)
Vietnam 2008
96
3D Analysis
Plaxis 3D Foundation - half problem modelled
Pile-soil area
60m Line load on
barrette
Symmetry
plane
Tunnel
152m
160m
Vietnam 2008
97
Structural Items in 3D Analysis

Volume element: barrettes, Tunnel Line load on
transfer beams & piles barrette
“Floor” element: tunnel roof and
floor slab
“Wall” element: tunnel walls
Piles Transfer beam
Interface element: on barrettes,
transfer beams, wall & piles
Barrette
(100 m)
Building load
(equivalent raft foundation)
Vietnam 2008 98
3D Analysis Results
Settlement of tunnel
Settlement Deformation
500x roof
floor
Settlement of tunnel
walls
Vietnam 2008 99
3D Analysis Results
Increase of Axial Force in Longitudinal Settlement Profile of
Tunnel Piles Tunnel
95 Distance in longitudinal direction of tunnel (m)
West pile 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
90
Middle pile
85 East pile West side
80 East side
Elevation (+mRL)
75
70
Settlement (m)
65
60 Soft soil
55
50
Stiff soil
45
40
35
Increase of axial force in pile (kN)
Vietnam 2008 100
Summary of Barrette Foundation Analysis
• 3D analyses predict smaller tunnel settlement than 2D,

reduction by 3 - 5 times
• 3D analyses model better
1. stress bulb of building load
2. load shedding through skin friction in barrettes
3. increase of axial force in tunnel piles
4. longitudinal settlement profile of tunnel
Vietnam 2008 101
Vietnam 2008 102
Vietnam 2008 103
Vietnam 2008 104
Vietnam 2008 105
Vietnam 2008 106
1.SETTLEMENT OF STRUCTURE DUE TO CONSOLIDATING GROUND & THE
EFFECT OF NEGATIVE SKIN FRICTION
2.EFFECT OF EMBANKMENT ON SERVICE PIPE
APPLIED 3:DEFORMATION
APPLIED 3 DEFORMATION
ANALYSIS
Settlement at a Depot Site
Taiwan
Plan view area 280m×130m
• Two-storey depot supported by 0.5m Ø driven piles in alternating layers of clay

and sand,
sand with pile toes founded in sand
• Consolidation settlement occurring due to placement of 2-3m surface fill onto
near surface clay layer
• Concern for negative skin friction induced on pile groups
Vietnam 2008 108
SETTLEMENT AT A DEPOT SITE

Point load
1.25m
2.5m
+21.5 mRL
FILL
+19.5 mRL
Model ¼ pile group
Upper CLAY
+10 mRL
SAND
37m
PLAXIS 3D Foundation
+0 mRL 16m
Lower CLAY
-10 mRL 0.5m dia. pile

Lower SAND
-15 mRL
15m 15m
Toe +5.5 mRL
10
Vietnam 2008 9
Excess pwp contours

• Modelling sequences
1. Initial equilibrium
2. 2-3 m Fill placement (epwp)
Clay
3. Install pile cap and piles
4. Apply building load 600 kN to ¼ of
pile cap (epwp)
5. Consolidation (dissipation of epwp)
Clay
Dissipation of epwp
Vietnam 2008 110
Consolidation settlement
130mm
100mm
Pile toe
Vietnam 2008 111
SETTLEMENT AT A DEPOT SITE
Time (Day)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0.000
F 29
F-29 F 30
F-30 F 31
F-31 F 32
F-32
-0.020
Hand calc.
-0.040
Settlement (m)
-0.060
-0.080
PLAXIS (kclay=1×10-8 m/s)
-0.100
-0.120
-0.140
6/5/04 25/4/06
-0.160
11
Vietnam 2008 2
Axial force down the corner pile (kN)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
22
NSF: Negative skin friction
20
18 Bldg. load
metre Reduced Level
16
NSF
14
12
10
m
8
Bldg. load +
6
consolidation
4
Vietnam 2008 113
8. Lateral Movement of Buried Service Pipe
Service pipe Australia

Embankment
15m Service pipe
Cone
Cone
Vietnam 2008 114
Lateral Movement of Buried Service Pipe

• 10 m high embankments and 18 m high cone to be
built adjacent to an existing service pipe
• Service
S i pipei 0
0.4
4 m Ø and
d buried
b i d1md
deep
• Loading from embankments and cone may deform the
pipe laterally
• Ground conditions: fill, soft clay, stiff clay, residual soil
• 3D analysis to predict the deformation magnitude and
profile of the pipe
Vietnam 2008 115
3D Analysis
Plaxis 3D Foundation
Embankment load
Alignment of buried pipe

35m
Cone load
Vietnam 2008
116
3D Analysis Results
Deformation at Depth 1 m Below Ground Surface (50x)
Deformed Pipe
Pipe modelled by “beam” element
Vietnam 2008
117
3D Analysis Results
Lateral movement of pipe (m)
• A simple 3D loading scenario
-0.030
-0.025
-0.020
-0.015
-0.010
-0.005
0.000
0.005
modelled by 3DF
0 • Model the soil-structure
20 i t
interaction
ti effect
ff t
40
Emb. • Give pipe deflection, shear
force & bending moment in 3D
Longitudinal distance (m)_
60
80
100
Cone
120
140
160
180
200
Vietnam 2008
118
SEMINAR
G O C C SS
5. CONCLUSIONS
Vietnam 2008 119
General Notes for FE Analysis
• Soil input parameters and modelling techniques continually
refined as more field data is available
• A series of sensitivity analyses are necessary to cover
possible field scenarios
• Use of numerical modelling in practice requires:
1. A good knowledge of soil mechanics and finite
element/difference principles
2. An understanding of the programme/model limitations
3. Careful checking of numerical results by competent
engineers
Vietnam 2008 120
References
Breth, H. and Chambosse, G. (1975). Settlement behaviour of buildings above subway tunnels in Frankfurt clay. Proc. Conf.
Settlement of Structures, Cambridge, April 1974, London: Pentech Press, 329 ‐ 336.
Boscardin, M. D. and Cording, E. J. (1989). Building response to excavation‐induced settlement, ASCE, J. Geotech. Engrg., 115(2),
22 ‐28.
CIRIA (2003). Embedded retaining walls ‐ guidance for economic design. Construction Industry Research and Information
Association, Report C580.
Davies, R. V. and Henkel, D. J. (1980). Geotechnical problems associated with the construction of Charter Station, Hong Kong.
Proc. of the Conf. on Mass Transportation in Asia, Hong Kong, paper J3, 31 p.
Dickin, E. A. and Nazir, R. (1999). Moment‐carrying capacity of short pile foundations in cohesionless soil. J. Geotech. & Geoenv.
Engrg. ASCE, 125(1), 1‐10.
Franzius, J. N., Potts, D. M. and Burland, J. B. (2006). The response of surface structures to tunnel construction. Geotechnical
Engineering, Proc. of ICE, 159(1), 3‐17.
Morton, K., Leonard, M. S. M. and Carter, R. W. (1980). Building settlements and ground movements associated with
construction of two stations of the modified initial system of the Mass Transit Railway, Hong Kong. Proc. of 2nd Int. Conf. on
Ground Movements and Structures, Cardiff, UK, 708‐802; 946‐947, Discussion (published under the title Ground Movement
and Structures, Geddes, J. D., eds., Pentech, London, 1981).
Morton, K., Cater, R. W. and Linney, L. (1980). Observed settlements of buildings adjacent to stations constructed for the
modified initial system of the Mass Transit Railway, Hong Kong. Proc. of 6th Southeast Asian Conf. on Soil Engineering,
Taipei, 415‐429.
Prasad, Y. V. S. N. and Narasimha Rao, S. (1994). Experimental studies on foundations of compliant structures – I. under static
loading. Ocean Engineering, 21(1), 1‐13.
PLAXIS (2002). Users forum – beam to pile properties. PLAXIS Bulletin, June, 2002, p.22,
http://www.plaxis.com/upload/bulletins/12%20PLAXIS%20Bulletin.pdf.
Vietnam 2008 121
Thank you
Vietnam 2008 122

Lecture 1

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Lecture 1

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

finite element for soil and rock analyses 15‐JUNE‐2007

1 The Plaxis Approach‐ Geotechnics, Deep

4 Notes on usage of Plaxis Codes on the modelling of

THE PLAXIS APPROACH

William W.L. CHEANG Ir. Erwin BEERNINK

The design of sequential excavations depends on

The smaller the

Case study: Heinenoord tunnel near Rotterdam

Deformed mesh at completion of staged

AXI-SYMMETRY AND NON AXI-SYMMETRY

PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODES

P L A X I S V 8 PLAXFLOW 3D TUNNEL 3D FOUNDATION

PLAXIS PROGRAMS AND ANALYSIS TYPE

PLAXIS DEVELOPMENT TIME-LINE

PROGRAMS (CODES): 2D AND 3D

PLAXIS PROFESSIONAL VERSION 8.5

PLAXIS DYNAMICS MODULE

S TRON G MOTION IN PUT FROM S MC

PLAXIS 3D TUNNEL APPLICATIONS

PLAXIS 3D TUNNEL APPLICATIONS

PLAXIS 3D TUNNEL APPLICATIONS

PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION: PILES

PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION: PILED FOUNDATIONS

PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION: PIERS

COMPLEX SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION MODEL

MULTI-SUCTION BUCKETS (OFFSHORE)

TANK ON PILED RAFT FOUNDATION

COMPLEX SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION PROBLEMS

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS – 3D FOUNDATION

ANCHORING OF QUAY WALLS

Oval Cofferdam Structure Details

Oval Cofferdam Details

Designer’s Original Analysis in 2D

• Model plane strain excavation

Mesh size 200×170×40m

Retaining System for Oval Cofferdam

Pile with Shell

Stress in Ring Beams & Force in Struts

Comparison of 2D & 3D Deformations

Max. ground settlement 31 mm 10 mm

Max. wall deflection 64 mm 25 mm

• Bottom-up construction on-going

Check for One Strut Failure

Check for One Strut Failure

18% 47% 18%

Check for One Strut Failure

1400 kNm/m increase

Modelling of a Gap in Wall

• Gap in wall for utility crossing

Modelling of a Gap in Wall

Idealisation of Individual Piles as Walls

1.0mØ pile (6.5m c/c)

1.8mØ pile (13m c/c) 12.5m

• 22m deep top down exc. in soft clay +50

3D Modelling of Individual Piles

DWall 1.0mØ pile (+50m)

Models half geometry

Comparison of Wall Deflection

Wall horizontal disp. (m)

Diaphragm wall deflection

Comparison of Tension Force in Piles

• Tension force (+ve) in piles due to ground heave in cofferdam

Notes on Individual Piles as Walls

• Widely spaced individual piles within cofferdam modelled as