Benchmarks: Z Soil - PC 2009 Manual

BENCHMARKS
Z Soil.PC 2009 manual
A. Truty Th. Zimmermann K. Podles

with contribution by A. Urba
nski, A. Wr
oblewski and Jean-Luc Sarf
Zace Services Ltd, Software engineering

P.O.Box 2, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
(T) +41 21 802 46 05
(F) +41 21 802 46 06
http://www.zace.com,
hotline: zsoil@zace.com
since 1982
WARNING
Z Soil.PC is regularly updated for minor changes. We recommend that you send us your e-mail, as Z Soil owner, so that we can inform
you of latest changes. Otherwise, consult our site regularly and download free upgrades to your version.
Latest updates to the manual are always included in the online help, so that slight differences with your printed manual will appear with
time; always refer to the online manual for latest version, in case of doubt.
Z Soil.PC 2009 manual:

1. Data preparation
2. Tutorials and benchmarks
3. Theory
ISBN 2-940009-08-2
c
Copyright 19852009
by Zace Services Ltd, Software engineering. All rights reserved.
Published by Elmepress International, Lausanne, Switzerland
END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR ZACEs Z SOIL.PC SOFTWARE

Read carefully this document, it is a legal agreement between you and Zace Services Ltd for the software product identified above. By
installing, copying, or otherwise using the software product identified above, you agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. If
you do not agree to the terms of this agreement, promptly return the unused software product to the place from which you obtained it
for full refund (less shipping).
ZACE SERVICES LTD OFFERS A 60 DAYS MONEYBACK GUARANTEE ON Z SOIL.PC
Z SOIL.PC (the Software) SOFTWARE PRODUCT LICENSE

The software Z Soil.PC is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties, as well as other intellectual property laws
and treaties. The Z Soil.PC software product is licensed, not sold.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE
A: Zace Services Ltd grants you, the customer, a non-exclusive license to use copies of Z Soil.PC. you may install copies of Z Soil.PC
on an unlimited number of computers, provided that you use only one copy at the time.
B: You may make an unlimited number of copies of documents accompanying Z Soil.PC, provided that such copies shall be used only
for internal purposes and are not republished or distributed to any third party.
2. COPYRIGHT All title and copyrights in and to the Software product (including but not limited to images, photographs, text, applets,
etc), the accompanying materials, and any copies of Z Soil.PC are owned by Zace Services Ltd. Z Soil.PC is protected by copyright
laws and international treaties provisions. Therefore, you must treat Z Soil.PC like any other copyrighted material except that you
may make copies of the software for backup or archival purposes or install the software as stipulated under 1.
3. OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, Disassembly. You may not reverse engineer,
decompile, or disassemble the Software
A: No separation of components. Z Soil.PC is licensed as a single product and neither the Softwares components, nor any upgrade
may be separated for use by more than one user at the time.
B: Rental. You may not rent or lease the software product.
C: Software transfer. You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this agreement, provided you do not retain any copies,
and the recepient agrees to all the terms of this agreement.
D: Termination. Without prejudice to any other rights, Zace Services Ltd may terminate this agreement if you fail to comply with the
conditions of this agreement. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the Software.
LIMITED WARRANTY
Zace Services Ltd. warrants that Z Soil.PC will a)perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying written material for a
period of 90 days from the date of receipt, and b) any hardware accompanying the product will be free from defects in materials and
workmanship under normal use and service for a period of one year, from the date of receipt.
CUSTOMER REMEDIES
Zace Services Ltd entire liability and your exclusive remedy shall be at Zaces option, either a)return of the price paid, or b) repair or
replacement of the software or hardware component which does not meet Zaces limited warranty, and which is returned to Zace Services
Ltd, with a copy of proof of payment of Z Soil.PC. This limited warranty is void if failure of the Software or hardware component has
resulted from accident, abuse, or misapplication. Any replacement of software or hardware will be warranted for the remainder of the
original warranty period or 30 days, whichever is longer.
NO OTHER WARRANTIES
TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ZACE SERVICES LTD DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT, AND ANY ACCOMPANYING HARDWARE.
NO LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES

TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL ZACE SERVICES LTD BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL
INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES
FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS, PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION, OR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY LOSS) ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT, EVEN IF ZACE SERVICES
LTD HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
HOTLINE
During the first year following purchase, hotline assistance will be provided by Zace Services Ltd, by fax or e-mail exclusively. This
service excludes all forms of consulting on actual projects. This hotline assistance can be renewed, for following years, at a cost of 10%
of current full package price.
THIS AGREEMENT IS GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF SWITZERLAND
Lausanne, 1.01.2009
Contents of Benchmarks
PREFACE
1 INTRODUCTION
2 ELEMENTARY BOUNDARY VALUE PROBLEMS
2.1
BOX-SHAPED MEDIUM, PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRY . . . . .
10
2.2
BOX-SHAPED MEDIUM, WITH WATER BOUNDARY CONDITIONS . . .
12
2.3
PLANE STRAIN BOX-SHAPED MEDIUM WITH OVERPRESSURE . . . .
14
3 SOIL MECHANICS BENCHMARKS

3.1
3.2
3.3
LOAD CARRYING AND SETTLEMENTS OF FOUNDATIONS . . . . . . .
16
3.1.1
SUPERFICIAL FOUNDATION (PLANE STRAIN) . . . . . . . . . .
17
3.1.2
EMBEDDED FOUNDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
3.1.3
AXISYMMETRIC SUPERFICIAL FOUNDATION
. . . . . . . . . .
23
STABILITY ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
3.2.1
SLOPES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
3.2.2
SEISMIC BEARING CAPACITY OF STRIP FOOTING ON SLOPES
29
3.2.3
SLOPE STABILITY IN PRESENCE OF SEEPAGE FLOW . . . . . .
32
PRESTRESS
3.3.1
3.4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SINGLE ANCHOR
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EXCAVATION AND CONSTRUCTION STAGES

3.4.1
3.5
15
34
35
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
EXCAVATION WITH PROGRESSIVE UNLOADING . . . . . . . . .
38
CONSOLIDATION PROBLEMS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
3.5.1
OEDOMETRIC TEST (TERZAGHI CONSOLIDATION)
. . . . . .
40
3.5.2
TERZAGHI CONSOLIDATION, TWO LAYERS MEDIUM . . . . . .
42
3.5.3
TERZAGHI CONSOLIDATION, TWO LAYERS WITH WATER TABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
3.5.4
TWODIMENSIONAL FOOTING SETTLEMENT . . . . . . . . . .
44
3.5.5
ELASTOPLASTIC COMPRESSION (COMP.INP) . . . . . . . . . .
45
December 3, 2008
Z Soilr -3D-2PHASE v.2009
QuickHelp Theory Benchmarks Tutorials

BMv
3.6
CREEP (CREEP1.INP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7
SWELLING
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47
OEDOMETER TEST UNDER FORCE CONTROL

(SWELL FCTRL.INP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
OEDOMETER UNLOADING-LOADING TEST UNDER FORCE CONTROL (SWELL UNLREL.INP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50
INFINITE MEDIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
3.8.1
A GAP IN INFINITE MEDIUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52
3.8.2
HALF-SPACE UNDER COMPRESSIVE LOAD (3D)
. . . . . . . .
53
3.8.3
CIRCULAR CAVITY UNDER THE PRESSURE
. . . . . . . . . . .
54
3.7.1
3.7.2
3.8
4 FLOW BENCHMARKS
57
4.1
RECTANGULAR DAM WITH TAILWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
4.2
RECTANGULAR DAM WITH TOEDRAIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59
4.3
MODELLING BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR TRANSIENT AND STEADY

STATE FLOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
5 HEAT PROBLEMS
5.1
63
TRANSIENT HEAT PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 STRUCTURAL BENCHMARKS
6.1
6.2
6.3
46
64
65
BEAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
66
6.1.1
ELASTO-PLASTIC FIXED-END BEAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
6.1.2
ELASTO-PLASTIC BEAM WITH SUPPORTS VARIABLE IN TIME
69
6.1.3
REINFORCED CONCRETE 2-SPAN BEAM . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
6.1.4
REINFORCED CONCRETE 2-FLOOR FRAME
. . . . . . . . . . .
73
6.1.5
TWISTED BEAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
6.1.6
RING
76
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AXISYMMETRIC SHELLS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
78
6.2.1
TUBE TO SPHERE CONNECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
79
6.2.2
CYLINDER SUBJECTED TO PRESSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
80
6.2.3
CIRCULAR ELASTO-PLASTIC PLATE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
SHELLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
82
6.3.1
SCORDELIS-LO ROOF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
83
6.3.2
TWISTED BEAM (SHELL MODEL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84
6.3.3
HEMISPHERE
85
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
concerns versions: ACADEMIC, PROFESSIONAL, EXPERT only
December 3, 2008

BMvi
6.4
6.3.4
SQUARE ELASTOPLASTIC PLATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
86
6.3.5
ELASTOPLASTIC CYLINDRICAL SHELL . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
87
MEMBRANES
6.4.1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
88
SOIL SLOPE REINFORCED BY MEMBRANES . . . . . . . . . . .
89
7 SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION BENCHMARKS
91
7.1
CYLINDRICAL CONTAINER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
92
7.2
DIAPHRAGM WALL
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
95
7.3
BURRIED PIPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
98
7.4
PILE 3D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
December 3, 2008

BMvii
December 3, 2008

BMviii
Contents of Data Preparation

Acknowledgments
iii
System requirements
Getting started
vii
PREFACE
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1
SIGN CONVENTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2
DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.1
UNIT WEIGHTS
1.2.2
ELASTICITY CONSTANTS
1.3
UNITS TABLE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 DATA PREPARATION AND POSTPROCESSING DESCRIPTION

2.1
2.2
FILES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
2.1.1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS
CONTROL
2.2.1
ANALYSIS & DRIVERS

2.2.1.1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
PROBLEM TYPE AND DRIVERS . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
2.2.1.1.1
SINGLE PHASE (DEFORMATION) ANALYSIS .
20
2.2.1.1.1.1
INITIAL STATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
2.2.1.1.1.2
TIME DEPENDENT
. . . . . . . . . . .
25
2.2.1.1.1.3
STABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
2.2.1.1.2
. . .
34
2.2.1.1.2.1
INITIAL STATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
2.2.1.1.2.2
TIME DEPENDENT
. . . . . . . . . . .
37
2.2.1.1.2.3
STABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
FLOW (STEADY STATE AND TRANSIENT) . .
44
2.2.1.1.3
DEFORMATION COUPLED WITH FLOW
2.2.1.1.3.1
December 3, 2008
INITIAL STATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BMix
46
2.2.1.1.3.2
2.2.1.1.4
. . . . . . . . . . .
47
HEAT TRANSFER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
49
2.2.1.1.4.1
INITIAL STATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
2.2.1.1.4.2
TIME DEPENDENT
. . . . . . . . . . .
52
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
54
2.2.1.1.5.1
INITIAL STATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
2.2.1.1.5.2
TIME DEPENDENT
. . . . . . . . . . .
57
. . . . . . . . . . . .
59
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63
2.2.1.2
ANALYSIS TYPES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
2.2.1.3
ASSOCIATED PREPROCESSED PROJECTS . . . . . . .
68
2.2.1.1.5
2.3
TIME DEPENDENT
HUMIDITY TRANSFER
2.2.1.1.6
TRANSIENT DYNAMICS
2.2.1.1.7
PUSHOVER
2.2.2
CONTROL
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
69
2.2.3
DYNAMICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
70
2.2.4
PUSHOVER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
2.2.5
CONTACT ALGORITHM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
2.2.6
LINEAR EQUATION SOLVERS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
2.2.7
UNITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
74
2.2.8
FINITE ELEMENTS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
78
2.2.9
RESULTS CONTENT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
ASSEMBLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84
2.3.1
85
PREPROCESSING
2.3.1.1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
USER INTERFACE, MAIN MENU AND BASIC TOOLS
86
. . . . . . . . . . . .
87
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
88
2.3.1.1.2.1
FILE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
89
2.3.1.1.2.2
EDIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
90
2.3.1.1.2.3
VIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
93
2.3.1.1.2.4
VISUALIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
95
2.3.1.1.2.5
CURSOR MODE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
97
2.3.1.1.2.6
SELECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
99
2.3.1.1.2.7
ELEMENT NODES SELECTIONS . . . . 105
2.3.1.1.2.8
TOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
2.3.1.1.2.9
SETTINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
2.3.1.1.2.10
LAYERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
2.3.1.1.1
Main preprocessor window
2.3.1.1.2
Popup menu
December 3, 2008

BMx
2.3.1.1.2.11
2.3.1.1.3
2.3.1.2
HELP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Toolbars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
MACRO-MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
2.3.1.2.1
POINT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
2.3.1.2.2
OBJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
2.3.1.2.3
2D mesh mapping
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
2.3.1.2.4
Extrusion direction
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
2.3.1.2.5
Subdomain
2.3.1.2.6
SEEPAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
2.3.1.2.7
CONVECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
2.3.1.2.8
INTERFACE
2.3.1.2.9
PRESSURE BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
2.3.1.2.10 TEMPERATURE BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

2.3.1.2.11 HUMIDITY BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
2.3.1.2.12 FLUID FLUX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
2.3.1.2.13 HEAT FLUX
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
2.3.1.2.14 HUMIDITY FLUX
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
2.3.1.2.15 SURFACE LOAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

2.3.1.2.16 PILE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
2.3.1.2.17 AUXILIARY PLANES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
2.3.1.2.18 POINT LOAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
2.3.1.3
FE MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
2.3.1.3.1
COMMON METHODS FOR ALL FE MODEL COMPONENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
2.3.1.3.2
NODE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
2.3.1.3.3
BEAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
2.3.1.3.4
ANCHOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
2.3.1.3.5
CONTINUUM 2D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
2.3.1.3.6
CONTINUUM 3D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
2.3.1.3.7
SHELL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
2.3.1.3.8
SHELL-ONE LAYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
2.3.1.3.9
MEMBRANE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
2.3.1.3.10 INFINITE ELEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291

2.3.1.3.11 INTERFACE (SMALL DEFORMATION) . . . . . 296
2.3.1.3.12 INTERFACE (LARGE DEFORMATION) . . . . . 305
December 3, 2008

BMxi
2.3.1.3.13 SEEPAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

2.3.1.3.14 CONVECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
2.3.1.3.15 SHELL HINGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
2.3.1.3.16 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
2.3.1.3.16.1
SOLID BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
2.3.1.3.16.2
TEMPERATURE BC . . . . . . . . . . . 328
2.3.1.3.16.3
HUMIDITY BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
2.3.1.3.16.4
PRESSURE BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
2.3.1.3.17 LOADS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340

2.3.1.3.17.1
BODY LOAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
2.3.1.3.17.2
NODAL LOAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
2.3.1.3.17.3
SURFACE LOAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
2.3.1.3.17.4
BEAM LOAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
2.3.1.3.18 ADDED MASSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354

2.3.1.3.18.1
NODAL ADDED MASSES . . . . . . . . 355
2.3.1.3.18.2
DISTRIBUTED ADDED MASSES . . . . 357
2.3.1.3.18.3
FILTERING OF ADDED MASSES . . . . 359
2.3.1.3.19 DISTRIBUTED FLUX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361

2.3.1.3.19.1
FLUID FLUX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
2.3.1.3.19.2
HEAT FLUX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
2.3.1.3.19.3
HUMIDITY FLUX . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
2.3.1.3.20 INITIAL CONDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367

2.3.1.3.20.1
INITIAL PRESSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
2.3.1.3.20.2
INITIAL TEMPERATURE
2.3.1.3.20.3
INITIAL HUMIDITY . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
2.3.1.3.20.4
INITIAL STRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
2.3.1.3.20.5
INITIAL STRAIN
2.3.1.3.20.6
INITIAL DISPLACEMENT/VELOCITY . . 375
. . . . . . . . 369
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
2.3.1.3.21 KINEMATIC CONSTRAINTS . . . . . . . . . . . 378

2.3.1.3.22 NODAL LINK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
2.3.1.3.23 MESH TYING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
2.3.2
2.3.1.4
PUSHOVER CONTROL NODE
2.3.1.5
BOREHOLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
MESH INFO
December 3, 2008
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391

BMxii
2.3.3
MATERIALS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392
2.3.3.1
MATERIAL DATA BASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
2.3.3.2
CONTINUUM / STRUCTURE TYPE . . . . . . . . . . . 394

2.3.3.2.1
BEAMS AND AXISYMMETRIC SHELLS . . . . . 395
2.3.3.2.1.1
BEAM MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396
2.3.3.2.1.2
AXISYMMETRIC SHELL MODEL . . . . 405
2.3.3.2.2
CONTACT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
2.3.3.2.3
PILE INTERFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
2.3.3.2.4
PILE FOOT INTERFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
2.3.3.2.5
CONTINUUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
2.3.3.2.5.1
ELASTIC
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420
2.3.3.2.5.2
UNIT WEIGHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
2.3.3.2.5.3
FLOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423
2.3.3.2.5.4
CREEP
2.3.3.2.5.5
INITIAL K0 STATE . . . . . . . . . . . . 428
2.3.3.2.5.6
HEAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430
2.3.3.2.5.7
HUMIDITY
2.3.3.2.5.8
LOCAL STABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . 433
2.3.3.2.5.9
CONTINUUM: ELASTIC . . . . . . . . . 434
2.3.3.2.5.10
CONTINUUM: AGING CONCRETE
2.3.3.2.5.11
CONTINUUM: CAP
2.3.3.2.5.12
CONTINUUM: MODIFIED CAM-CLAY
2.3.3.2.5.13
CONTINUUM: DRUCKERPRAGER . . . 442
2.3.3.2.5.14
CONTINUUM: DUNCANCHANG . . . . 444
2.3.3.2.5.15
CONTINUUM: HOEKBROWN (M-W)
2.3.3.2.5.16
CONTINUUM: MOHRCOULOMB (M-W)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
2.3.3.2.5.17
CONTINUUM: MULTILAMINATE . . . . 449
2.3.3.2.5.18
CONTINUUM: RANKINE (M-W)
2.3.3.2.5.19
CONTINUUM: MOHR-COULOMB . . . . 452
2.3.3.2.5.20
CONTINUUM: ECP-HUJEUX
2.3.3.2.5.21
CONTINUUM: HS-small
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432
. . . 435
. . . . . . . . . . . 437
. 440
. 445
. . . . 451
. . . . . . 454
. . . . . . . . . 457
2.3.3.2.6
CONTINUUM FOR STRUCTURES . . . . . . . . 460
2.3.3.2.7
HEAT CONVECTION
2.3.3.2.8
HUMIDITY CONVECTION
December 3, 2008
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
. . . . . . . . . . . 462

BMxiii
2.3.3.2.9
INFINITE MEDIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
2.3.3.2.10 MEMBRANES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464
2.3.3.2.10.1
FIBER MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465
2.3.3.2.10.2
PLANE STRESS MODELS . . . . . . . . 467
2.3.3.2.10.3
MEMBRANE - FABRIC MODELS
. . . . 469
2.3.3.2.11 SEEPAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471

2.3.3.2.12 MODEL FOR SHELLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472
2.3.3.2.13 TRUSS (ANCHOR) MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . 479
2.4
2.5
2.3.3.3
NON-STANDARD MATERIAL DATA . . . . . . . . . . . 482
2.3.3.4
MATERIAL DATA VALUES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484
2.3.4
EXISTENCE FUNCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487
2.3.5
LOAD FUNCTION
2.3.6
GRAVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492
2.3.7
SEISMIC INPUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490
ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
2.4.1
RESTART . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
2.4.2
BATCH PROCESSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498
2.5.1
POSTPROCESSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499
2.5.1.1
HOW DO I...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500
2.5.1.2
HOW TO USE MACRO
2.5.1.3
WORKING OUT RESULTS FROM PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS504
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
2.6
EXTRAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508
2.7
SYSTEM CONFIGURATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
2.8
HELP
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510
3 TROUBLESHOOTING
3.1
CALCULATION MODULE
511
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512
3.1.1
ERRORS AND WARNINGS HANDLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513
3.1.2
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
December 3, 2008
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519

BMxiv
Contents of Theoretical Manual

1 INTRODUCTION
25
1.1
NOTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
1.2
SOME IMPORTANT FORMULAE IN TENSOR ALGEBRA AND ANALYSIS
28
2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
37
2.1
SINGLE PHASE, SOLID MEDIUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
2.2
TWO-PHASE PARTIALLY SATURATED MEDIUM . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
2.3
TRANSIENT FLOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
2.4
HEAT TRANSFER
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5
HUMIDITY TRANSFER
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 MATERIAL MODELS
3.1
ELASTICITY
3.2
CONSOLIDATION
3.3
3.4
45
47
49
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.1
GENERALIZED DARCY LAW
3.2.2
FLUID MOTION
50
54
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57
3.3.1
SKETCH OF THE PLASTICITY APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
3.3.2
MOHRCOULOMB CRITERION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
3.3.3
DRUCKER-PRAGER CRITERION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
61
3.3.4
CAP MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
65
3.3.5
MOHR-COULOMB (M-W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
3.3.6
HOEKBROWN CRITERION (SMOOTH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76
3.3.7
CUT-OFF CONDITION AND TREATMENT OF THE APEX . . . .
77
3.3.8
MULTILAMINATE MODEL
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
78
3.3.9
MODIFIED CAM CLAY MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
82
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
86
PLASTICITY
CREEP
3.4.1
CREEP UNDER VARIABLE STRESS
December 3, 2008
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BMxv
87
3.4.2
CREEP PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION FROM EXPERIMENTS
91
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
93
3.5
SWELLING
3.6
AGING CONCRETE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
97
3.7
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
98
3.7.1
99
SAFETY FACTORS AND STRESS LEVELS . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 NUMERICAL IMPLEMENTATION
4.1
4.2
4.3
101
WEAK FORM AND MATRIX FORMS OF THE PROBLEM
. . . . . . . . 102
4.1.1
SINGLE PHASE MEDIUM, TIME INDEPENDENT LOADING . . . . 103
4.1.2
TWO-PHASE MEDIUM, RHEOLOGICAL BEHAVIOUR . . . . . . . 104
4.1.3
HEAT TRANSFER
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
ELEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.2.1
FINITE ELEMENTS FOR 2D/3D CONTINUUM PROBLEMS . . . . 110
4.2.2
NUMERICAL INTEGRATION
4.2.3
STRAINS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
4.2.4
STIFFNESS MATRIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.2.5
BODY FORCES AND DISTRIBUTED LOADS
4.2.6
INITIAL STRESSES, STRAINS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
. . . . . . . . . . . 114
INCOMPRESSIBLE AND DILATANT MEDIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

4.3.1
INCOMPRESSIBLE MEDIA : B-BAR STRAIN PROJECTION METHOD117
4.3.2
DILATANT MEDIA: ENHANCED ASSUMED STRAIN METHOD . . 119

4.3.2.1
INTRODUCTION TO ENHANCED ASSSUMED STRAIN

(EAS) APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
4.3.2.2
EXTENSION OF THE EAS METHOD TO NONLINEAR

ELASTOPLASTIC ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
4.3.2.3
REMARKS AND ASSESSMENT OF EAS ELEMENTS . . 125
4.4
FAR FIELD
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
4.5
OVERLAID MESHES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
4.6
ALGORITHMS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
4.6.1
FULL/MODIFIED NEWTON-RAPHSON ALGORITHM . . . . . . . 135
4.6.2
CONVERGENCE NORMS
4.6.3
INITIAL STATE ANALYSIS
4.6.4
STABILITY ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
4.6.5
ULTIMATE LOAD ANALYSIS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
4.6.6
CONSOLIDATION ANALYSIS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
December 3, 2008
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

BMxvi
4.7
4.6.7
CREEP ANALYSIS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
4.6.8
LOAD FUNCTION AND TIME STEPPING PROCEDURE
4.6.9
SIMULATION OF EXCAVATION AND CONSTRUCTION STAGES . 148
. . . . . 147
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
4.7.1
SHAPE FUNCTION DEFINITION AND REFERENCE ELEMENTS

FOR 2/3 D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
4.7.2
NUMERICAL INTEGRATION DATA FOR DIFFERENT ELEMENTS

IN 1/2/3D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
4.7.3
MULTISURFACE PLASTICITY CLOSEST POINT PROJECTION ALGORITHM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
4.7.4
SINGLE SURFACE PLASTICITY CLOSEST POINT PROJECTION

ALGORITHM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
5 STRUCTURES
5.1
TRUSSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
TRUSS ELEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

5.1.1.1
GENERAL IDEA OF TRUSS ELEMENT
5.1.1.2
GEOMETRY AND DOF OF TRUSS ELEMENTS . . . . . 164
5.1.1.3
INTERPOLATION OF THE DISPLACEMENTS AND STRAINS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
5.1.1.4
WEAK FORMULATION OF THE EQUILIBRIUM . . . . . 167
5.1.1.5
STIFFNESS MATRIX AND ELEMENT FORCE VECTOR
RING ELEMENT
5.1.4
. . . . . . . . . 162
168
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
5.1.2.1
GEOMETRY AND KINEMATICS OF A RING ELEMENT
5.1.2.2
WEAK FORMULATION OF THE EQUILIBRIUM . . . . . 171
5.1.2.3
STIFFNESS MATRIX AND ELEMENT FORCES . . . . . 172
ANCHORING OF TRUSS AND RING ELEMENTS

5.1.3.1
5.2
159
170
. . . . . . . . . 173
NUMERICAL REALIZATION OF ANCHORING . . . . . . 174
PRESTRESSING OF TRUSS AND RING ELEMENTS . . . . . . . 175
BEAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
5.2.1
GEOMETRY OF BEAM ELEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
5.2.2
KINEMATICS OF BEAM THEORY
5.2.3
WEAK FORMULATION OF THE EQUILIBRIUM . . . . . . . . . . 184
5.2.4
INTERPOLATION OF THE DISPLACEMENT FIELD . . . . . . . . 186
5.2.5
STRAIN REPRESENTATION
5.2.6
STIFFNESS MATRIX AND ELEMENT FORCES
December 3, 2008
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
. . . . . . . . . . 189

BMxvii
5.3
5.2.7
MASTER-CENTROID (OFFSET) TRANSFORMATION
. . . . . . 193
5.2.8
RELAXATION OF INTERNAL DOF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
5.2.9
BEAM ELEMENT RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
SHELLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
5.3.1
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF SHELL ANALYSIS
. . . . . . . . . . . 198
5.3.2
SETTING OF THE ELEMENT GEOMETRY
5.3.3
ELEMENT MAPPING AND COORDINATE SYSTEMS . . . . . . . 202
5.3.4
CROSSSECTION MODELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
5.3.5
DISPLACEMENT AND STRAIN FIELD WITHIN THE ELEMENT . 206
5.3.6
TREATMENT OF TRANSVERSAL SHEAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
5.3.7
WEAK FORMULATION OF EQUILIBRIUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
5.3.8
5.3.9
LOADS
. . . . . . . . . . . . 199
. . . . . . . . . . 211
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
5.3.10 SHELL ELEMENT RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

5.4
5.5
MEMBRANES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
5.4.1
ELEMENT GEOMETRY MAPPING AND COORDINATE SYSTEM
5.4.2
DISPLACEMENTS AND STRAINS FIELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
5.4.3
CONSTITUTIVE MODELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
5.4.4
WEAK FORMULATION OF EQUILIBRIUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
5.4.5
6.2
. . . . . . . . . . 222
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
5.5.1
MASTER-SLAVE (OFFSET) TRANSFORMATION
5.5.2
SETTING THE DIRECTION ON SURFACE ELEMENTS . . . . . . 226
5.5.3
SETTING OF THE LOCAL BASE ON A SURFACE ELEMENT
5.5.4
UNI-AXIAL ELASTO-PLASTIC MATERIAL MODEL
6 INTERFACE
6.1
216
. . . . . . . . . 224
. . 227
. . . . . . . . 228
229
CONTACT OF SOLIDS AND FLUID INTERFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

6.1.1
GENERAL OUTLOOK
6.1.2
DISPLACEMENTS AND STRAINS
6.1.3
CONSTITUTIVE MODEL
6.1.4
STIFFNESS MATRIX AND ELEMENT FORCE VECTOR . . . . . . 238
6.1.5
AUGMENTED LAGRANGIAN APPROACH
6.1.6
CONTRIBUTION TO CONTINUITY EQUATION . . . . . . . . . . 240
PILE CONTACT INTERFACE
December 3, 2008
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

BMxviii
6.3
6.2.1
GENERAL OUTLOOK
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
6.2.2
6.2.3
CONSTITUTIVE MODEL
6.2.4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
PILE FOOT CONTACT INTERFACE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
6.3.1
GENERAL OUTLOOK
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
6.3.2
6.3.3
CONSTITUTIVE MODEL
6.3.4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
7 GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS
251
7.1
TWO-PHASE MEDIUM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
7.2
EFFECTIVE STRESSES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
7.3
SOIL PLASTICITY
7.4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
7.3.1
DRUCKER-PRAGER VERSUS MOHR-COULOMB CRITERION . . . 255
7.3.2
CAP MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
7.3.3
DILATANCY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
INITIAL STATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

7.4.1
COEFFICIENT OF EARTH PRESSURE AT REST, K0
7.4.2
STATES OF PLASTIC EQUILIBRIUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

7.4.2.1
MOHR-COULOMB MATERIAL
7.4.2.2
DRUCKER-PRAGER MATERIAL
. . . . . . . 261
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
7.4.3
INFLUENCE OF POISSONS RATIO
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
7.4.4
COMPUTATION OF THE INITIAL STATE
7.4.5
INFLUENCE OF WATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
7.5
SOIL RHEOLOGY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
7.6
ALGORITHMIC STRATEGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

7.6.1
SEQUENCES OF ANALYSES
7.6.2
EXCAVATION, CONSTRUCTION ALGORITHM
December 3, 2008
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
. . . . . . . . . . 281

BMxix
December 3, 2008

BMxx
Contents of Tutorial
PREFACE
23
1 2D PROBLEMS
25
1.1
CUT STABILITY ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
1.2
HOW TO RUN AN AXISYMMETRIC PROBLEM WITH A DRIVEN EXTERNAL FORCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
1.3
HOW TO RUN A CONSOLIDATION PROBLEM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
1.4
HOW TO RUN SHEET-PILE WALL PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
1.5
HOW TO RUN A STEADY-STATE FLOW PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . .
41
1.6
HOW TO SIMULATE A TUNNEL IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT . . . .
44
1.7
HEAT TRANSFER FOLLOWED BY MECHANICAL ANALYSIS . . . . . . .
51
1.7.1
THERMAL ANALYSIS
55
1.7.2
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS (TUNNEL LINING MODELED WITH CONTINUUM ELEMENTS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
1.7.3
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS (TUNNEL LINING MODELED WITH BEAMS)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 3D PROBLEMS
61
2.1
CONCRETE BOX CONTAINER
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
62
2.2
DRAINING CONCRETE DAM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
2.3
REINFORCED SOIL ABUTMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
2.4
FOUNDATION RAFT STRENGTHENED BY PILES
78
December 3, 2008
. . . . . . . . . . . .

BM1
December 3, 2008

BM2
PREFACE
Document BENCHMARKS provides a set of examples where Z Soilr results are compared
with another available results.
More complicated examples explaining different aspects of building computational model,
related to practical problems may be found in TUTORIALS part.
The quickest approach to data preparation consists in loading an existing file, saving it under
a different name (option SAVE AS in FILES) and then modifying it.
For the theoretical background see THEORETICAL MANUAL.
INTRODUCTION
ELEMENTARY BOUNDARY VALUE PROBLEMS
SOIL MECHANICS BENCHMARKS
FLOW BENCHMARKS
HEAT BENCHMARKS
STRUCTURAL BENCHMARKS
SOIL-STRUCTUREINTERACTION BENCHMARKS
December 3, 2008

BM3
December 3, 2008

BM4
N Preface
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Z SOIL uses several yield criteria characterized by two parameters C, the cohesion, and
, the friction angle. Various size adjustments of the yield criterion are possible which are
discussed below and, more extensively, in the theoretical section.
DRUCKER-PRAGER CRITERION
Plane strain
The following size adjustment is adopted by default in the program:
k = C cos
a = sin /3.
This corresponds to matching the collapse loads of DruckerPrager and MohrCoulomb
criteria under planestrain conditions, assuming deviatoric plastic flow.
It is sometimes preferable to adopt a different matching obtained by assuming coincidence
of elastic domains and Poissons ratio t equal to 0.5 in the transverse direction, i.e.:
k = C cos
a = sin /3
t = 0.5.
This results in:
3 = ;
mean pressure
and
s3 = 0,
s3 transverse deviatoric stress
3 is then always the intermediate stress and the failure mechanism occurs in the plane
12 .
Axisymmetry
Axisymmetry corresponds to a threedimensional stress state. The default matching
adopted in the program corresponds the average calibration given by
6 3 C cos

k=
9 sin2
2 3 C sin

a =
9 sin2
December 3, 2008

BM5
N Preface
SMOOTH MOHR-COULOMB CRITERION
The smooth MohrCoulomb criterion also needs a size adjustment in principle. As a
particular case, when the friction angle tends to zero, the smooth MohrCoulomb criterion
transforms into von Mises criterion (identical to a DruckerPrager criterion at = 0).
This corresponds to:
p
2
J2 = k
3
Plane strain
For the plane strain failure adjustment see theoretical section.
Axisymmetry
No size adjustment
INITIAL STATE
Some soil mechanics problems are characterized by a stress state which lies on the yield
surface, i.e., on the limit of instability. It is therefore important to adopt appropriate
material data to avoid triggering instability by an inappropriate choice of data. This is
illustrated next.
Z Soilr offers a boxshaped medium by default. Under initial gravity loading, when tectonic stresses are present, care must be taken to apply a value of the coefficient of earth
pressure at rest K0 which is acceptable. This can easily be done with the help of Figure a)
In the figure DruckerPrager 1 corresponds to the hypothesis that the horizontal stresses
1 , 3 are equal. DruckerPrager 2 corresponds to 3 = 0.5 ( 1 + 2 ) .
a) MC & DP horizontal surface
December 3, 2008
b)Infinite slope inclined at angle

BM6
N Preface
c) DP1, inclined surface
d) MC & DP2, inclined surface
When no tectonic stresses are applied, a function () can be derived for each adjustment
of the yield criteria (see theoretical part), which corresponds to the onset of plastic behaviour. As a general rule, the first step of the analysis should always be elastic
in order to avoid overshooting the collapse load with the initial conditions. This
is illustrated later for several boundaryvalue problems.
December 3, 2008

BM7
N Preface
December 3, 2008

BM8
N Preface
Chapter 2
ELEMENTARY BOUNDARY VALUE
PROBLEMS
BOX-SHAPED MEDIUM :
PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRY
WITH WATER BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
WITH OVERPRESSURE
December 3, 2008

BM9
N Preface N N Elementary BVP

2.1
BOX-SHAPED MEDIUM, PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRY
The following derivation is valid for a dry medium or, in terms of effective stresses, for a
saturated medium. For many problems the soil half-space can be conveniently approximated
by a box shaped medium with smooth lateral boundaries.
Figure 2.1: Box-shaped medium

The particular stress-strain state which results can easily be derived, for plane strain and the
given lateral boundary conditions :
3 = 0 = 3 = ( 1 + 2 )
1 = 0 = 1 = ( 2 + 3 )
Therefore:
2 = K0 2
1
The elastic stress-strain fields corresponding to some frequently encountered loading cases,
for box-shaped medium with smooth lateral boundaries (1 = 3 = 0) are summarized below:
1 =
No.
APPLICATION OF:
deadweight downwards
YIELDS:
WHERE:
2 = h;
h;
1 = 3 =
1
h
2 2
2 = (1
);
E
1
BOXD1.INP
2 = 0;
1 = 3 =
02 ;
1
02
2 2
2 =
(1
);
E
1
BOXD2.INP
1 = 01 ;
2 = 3 = 0;
2 = 0;
BOXD3.INP
vertical initial stress 02
horizontal initial stress 01

01 = 0.5h
3
December 3, 2008

BM10
4
5
2 = h;
1 = 3 = K0 02
= K0 h;
2 = 0;
gravity field, 02 = h
01 = K0 02 ;
03 = K0 02 ;
gravity field, automatically
generated as the initial state
driver is activated in the program
and K0 is prescribed by the user
(in a direction which is confined).
, by default)
(NB: K0 =
1v
BOXD4.INP
BOXD5.INP
As already mentioned, it is important to start always from an elastic state when performing
either a load carrying capacity analysis or a stability analysis, this to avoid overshooting the
limit load with the initial state. To help prevent this, Fig. 2.2 shows the limit of elastic
behavior under gravity loading, which is the most common initial state. The elastic limit is
reported for two possible matchings of the Drucker-Prager criterion with the Mohr-Coulomb
criterion. When the data point (, ) lies above the curve corresponding to the selected
adjustment, behavior is elastic, otherwise it is plastic.
Figure 2.2: Influence of Poissons ratio
The first proposed adjustment corresponds to the matching of collapse loads under planestrain conditions and deviatoric flow (the programs default option). The second one, corresponds to the matching of the elastic domain with Poissons ratio equal to 0.5 in the
transverse direction (orthotropic matching). The first matching seems physically more sensible, while the second is more favorable. Direct use of a Mohr-Coulomb criterion yields a
result located in between.
December 3, 2008

BM11

2.2
BOX-SHAPED MEDIUM, WITH WATER BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Data Files BOXW*.INP
Figure 2.3: Box-shaped medium, with water table.
Appropriate water boundary conditions are applied on the top of the mesh. When necessary
(BOXW1), a distributed force, acting on the solid phase, is added. Note that a coupled
deformation and flow analysis is used here. The resulting effective stress state under gravity
loading can then be derived as, assuming = SAT .
Case A:
02 = 2 pF = hS F h+ + F hW = B hS
B hS
01 = 03 = 2 pF =
1
B = SAT F
Case B:
02 = 2 pF = hS + F hW = (hW + h ) + F hW
= hS ( F ) h
= B hS h
01 = 03 =
0
1 2
When the water table is the only applied load these expressions reduce to:
01 = 03 =
0
1 2
02 = F hS
These cases can be verified using data: BOXW*.INP. Results are listed in the following table.
December 3, 2008

BM12

SITUATION
1
DATA
h=6.0
F = 10
hW =8.0
SAT = 0
= 0.5
Altitude of stress point: h = 2.0
All data identical but:
hW = 6.0
All data identical but:
hW = 5.0
RESULTS
01 = 03 = 60
02 = 60
pF = 80
FILE
BOXW1.INP
= 03 = 60
= 60
= 60
= 03 = 50
= 50
= 50
BOXW2.INP
01
02
pF
01
02
pF
BOXW3.INP
Again, initial data for the nonlinear analysis must be carefully chosen to avoid plasticity at
the initial state, unless so desired. Figure 2.4 illustrates the elastic limit corresponding to
gravity loading; use effective stress and buoyant gravity B for the saturated case.
Figure 2.4: Influence of Poissons ratio, saturated medium (cohesionless soil)
Remark:
Pressure results in the above examples are given in the element centers. In order to obtain
them, set Store only at center under System ConfigurationResults
December 3, 2008

BM13

2.3
PLANE STRAIN BOX-SHAPED MEDIUM WITH OVERPRESSURE
Case A
Case B
Figure 2.5: Downstream flow
Total and effective stresses :

Case A
2 = ( h + hS )
pF = (h+ + hS + H + ) F
02 = 2 pF = B hS + F H +
F +
Case B
2 = ( h + hS )
pF = (h+ + hS H ) F
02 = 2 pF = B hS F H
F +
For case A and B:
0
1 2
03 = ( 01 + 02 )
01 =
N.B. : H + F = (H + /hS hS ) F = (i F ) hS = seepage force; this shows equivalence of the

seepage force with an overpressure.
In the program, overpressures are introduced through nodal values and computed at the
center of elements.
CASE
A
DATA
hS = 1; h+ = 0.40
H + = 0.50
F = 10 = 18
Ko = 0.5 ( = 0.333)
H = 0.50
RESULTS
FILE
01 = 03 = 1.5kP a
02 = 3.0kP a
pF = 19kP a
CASEA.INP
01 = 03 = 6.5kP a
02 = 13.0kP a
pF = 9kP a
CASEB.INP
Remark:
Pressure results in the above examples are given in the element centers. In order to obtain
them, set Store only at center under System ConfigurationResults
December 3, 2008

BM14
N Preface
Chapter 3
SOIL MECHANICS BENCHMARKS
LOAD CARRYING AND SETTLEMENTS OF FOUNDATIONS
STABILITY ANALYSIS
PRESTRESS
CREEP
SWELLING
INFINITE MEDIA
December 3, 2008

BM15
N Preface N N Soil Mechanics

3.1
LOAD CARRYING AND SETTLEMENTS OF FOUNDATIONS
SUPERFICIAL FOUNDATION (PLANE STRAIN)

EMBEDDED FOUNDATION
December 3, 2008

BM16
N Preface N N Soil Mechanics N N N Load carrying

3.1.1
SUPERFICIAL FOUNDATION (PLANE STRAIN)
This problem has been studied intensively by several authors. results for the rough and smooth
footing are shown in the figure. The smaller upper bound obtained using Prandtl and Hill
mechanism is reported from2 . Additional results from3 , 4 are superposed, along with results
from Z Soilr .
x = 1
Figure 3.1: Bearing capacity of surface footing for = 0 , 10 , 25 , 45
W.F. Chen, Limit analysis and soil plasticity, Elsevier (1975).

M. Matar and J.Salencon, Capacite portante des semelles filantes, Revue Francaise de Geotechnique,
No.9 (1979).
4
J. Salencon and M. Matar, Capacite portante des superficielles circulaires, Journal de Mechanique
Theorique et Applique, No.2 (1982).
3
December 3, 2008

BM17

Application 1: Input file FOOT.INP (plane strain)
The meaningful data is set in the following tables:
Material
1 soil
Model
Drucker-Prager
Data group
Elastic
Nonlinear
concrete
footing
Elastic
Elastic
Properties
E
C
Adjustment
E
Unit
[kN/m2 ]
[ ]
[ ]
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
Value
30000
0.38
20
0
1
Plane strain
25000000
0.2
With B=2m a theoretical solution of qu = 15.6 is obtained from J. Salencon & M. Matar
paper. Using Z Soilr , the solution converges at 15.7 but fails to converge at 15.8.
16.0
Figure 3.2: Mesh and geometry
Figure 3.3: Influence of distance to rigid

layer (B/h)
In the numerical analysis the theoretical (J. Salencon & M. Matar paper) ultimate load is
applied with a load multiplication factor varying between 0.5 to 1.5.
At low friction angles the numerical results show a safety factor F of about 1.2 w.r.t. the
solution of J. Salencon & M. Matar paper. At high friction angles (45 ) they undershoot the
analytical solution F = 0.7.
The results obtained for small footing on an infinite medium with a rather crude mesh are
reported in Fig. 1. In additon a study of influence of B/h was performed. Results are
compared to the ones (J. Salencon & M. Matar paper) in Fig. 3.2. The overshoot of the
analytical solution varies between 20% (B/h = 0) and 35% (B/h = 0.2).
December 3, 2008

BM18

3.1.2
EMBEDDED FOUNDATION
EMBEDDED FOUNDATION, DRY (PLANE STRAIN CASE)

A foundation embedded at a depth of 1.5 [m] is analyzed.
Figure 3.4: Embedded foundation

The bearing capacity expression following Terzaghi is:
qu = c Nc + q Nq +
B
N
2
where
p = qu B.
Application:

kN
kN
1 = 2 = 17
,
C
=
26
,
m3
m3
B = 2.00 [m] (foundation width),
h = 1.5 [m] (foundation depth).
= 28
Then:
a) using Terzaghis parameters:

kN
Nc = 34, Nq = 18, N = 14, qu = 1649
m2
b) using Meyerhofs parameters:

kN
Nc = 28, Nq = 18, N = 14, qu = 1425
.
m2
Matar and Salencon propose an alternative expression for the bearing capacity:

1 g + tan
0
0
qu = q + c (C0 + q tan )
B N + C0 tan + Nc
2 C0 + q tan
December 3, 2008

BM19

which takes the form for the constant cohesion C0 = C (g = 0) :

BN0
1
0
+ Nc .
qu = q + c (C0 + q tan )
2 C + q tan
Then:
c = 1.115,
N0
= 11,
Nc0
kN
= 34, qu = 1868
m2
Figure 3.5: Mesh geometry
Figure 3.6: Failure mechanism
December 3, 2008

BM20

1
Material
soil
Model
Drucker-Prager
Data group
Elastic
Properties
E
C
Adjustment
E
Density
Nonlinear
concrete
footing
Elastic
Elastic
Unit
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m3 ]
[ ]
[ ]
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
Value
10000
0.35
17
28
0
26
Plane strain
25000000
0.2
The q load simulates the 1.5 [m] soil layer while p load, applied to concrete
kN footing is increased
until collapse. The calculated bearing capacity is equal to: p = 1360 m
2 . Comparison with
the theoretical solution yields the following results:
p
(qu )theor
Terzaghi
Meyerhof
MatarSalencon
0.82
0.95
0.73
Note that this analysis is performed with an initial state followed by a driven load (input file:
EMFT.INP)
EMBEDDED FOUNDATION, DRY (AXISYMMETRIC CASE)
The same problem is solved for the axisymmetric
case (input file: EMFTA.INP). The
kN
ultimate load corresponds to: p = 2275 m2 which can be compared to the analytical
solutions:
p
(qu )theor
December 3, 2008
Terzaghi
MatarSalencon
1.02
0.94

BM21

EMBEDDED FOUNDATION, DRAINED WITH WATER BOUNDARY CONDITIONS (PLANE STRAIN CASE)
A foundation embedded at 1.5 [m] depth with a water table at the foundation level is analyzed.
Figure 3.7: Embedded foundation with water table
Solution
The bearing capacity factor of Terzaghi and of Meyerhof are the same
as for the dry case
kN
but the parameters of Matar & Salencon change, then: qu = 1423 m
2 .
Application
a) Terzaghi:

kN
qu = 1604
m2
b) Meyerhof:
kN
qu = 1408
m2
c) Matar & Salencon:

kN
(b = 1.1) , then qu = 1423
.
m2
Computation of the bearing capacity gives the following results (file: EMFTW.INP):

kN
.
p = 1180
m2
Compared to the theoretical solution, the following ratios result:
p
(qu )theor
December 3, 2008
Terzaghi
Meyerhof
MatarSalencon
0.74
0.84
0.83

BM22

3.1.3
File: FOOTA.INP
This problem is similar to the one discussed under Superficial foundation (plane strain),
except for the axisymmetric geometry. The influence of several parameters is analyzed here
and comparizons are made with results of other authors.
kN
, Poissons ratio = 0.38,
Fig. 3.2 shows the geometry.
Material
data
are
E
=
3000
m2

kN
cohesion C = 1.0 m2 and dilatancy = 0 (incompressible plastic flow). The value of the
friction angle is first varied between 20 and 45 and the corresponding bearing capacities
are illustrated in Fig. 3.9 for different yield surfaces: smooth MohrCoulomb, internal and
external DruckerPrager adjustments to MohrCoulomb. These numerical predictions are
compared with the analytical results given by three different methods. Two of these methods
are based on limit analysis, that is Terzaghis method adjusted by Vesic5 for circular footings
and the method developed by Salencon and Matar. The third analytical method is based on
the slipline method and was developed by Cox6 . All the results are presented in Fig. 3.9
for comparison. It can be seen that all the theoretical and numerical methods predict the
same increase of the ultimate bearing stress with increase of the friction angle. However, this
increase varies depending on the considered method and that variation is not only observed
for the numerical methods but also for the analytical ones illustrating the sensitivity of the
problem. From Fig. 3.9 it can be seen that the ultimate bearing stress is bounded by the
values obtained with the DruckerPrager material calibrated to the two extreme values. For a
friction angle greater than 36.8 no clear failure could be obtained with the external Drucker
Prager criterion as illustrated by the vertical asymptotic trend. It can also be observed that the
bearing stress predicted with the smooth MohrCoulomb condition and the one obtained with
the method developed by Salencon and Matar are in a very close agreement. Furthermore,
the agreement is improved for increasing friction angle. This is probably due to the fact that
the smooth MohrCoulomb condition approximates the original MohrCoulomb one (used by
Salencon and Matar) more closely for higher values of the friction angle as illustrated in Cox,
Eason & Hopkins paper.
P
1.5
R=1.0
Figure 3.8: Axisymmetric embedded foundation with water table

The analysis of the above results suggests that the calibration of the DruckerPrager surface
5
Vesic, Foundation Engineering Handbook, Chapter 3, Bearing capacity of Shallow Foundations (pp.121
147), Van Nostrand Reinhold (1975).
6
Cox, Eason & Hopkins, Axially symmetric plastic deformation in soils, Phil.Trans. of the Royal Soc. of
London, 254 (pp.145), (1961).
December 3, 2008

BM23

is best when using a mean value between the internal and external MohrCoulomb adjustment
such as
2 3 sin
a =
9 sin2
6 3 C cos
k=
9 sin2
Figure 3.9: Comparison of the computed ultimate bearing stresses

This calibration will lead to results which are closer to the ones obtained with the Mohr
Coulomb criterion, especially for axisymmetric computations. It can be noted that this calibration is characterized by a limiting friction angle 45 for which the load carrying capacity
tends to infinity. This adjustment covers most of the friction angles observed in soil. It is
therefore adopted as default adjustment for axisymmetry.
December 3, 2008

BM24

3.2
STABILITY ANALYSIS
SLOPES
SEISMIC BEARING CAPACITY OF STRIP FOOTING ON SLOPES
SLOPE STABILITY IN PRESENCE OF SEEPAGE FLOW
December 3, 2008

BM25
N Preface N N Soil Mechanics N N N Stability analysis

3.2.1
SLOPES
Analytical solution
a) Vertical cut
Let the theoretical safety factor be:
Fth =
given
Ns C
Hc
H
H
C
= 0.2 (CUT.INP) the following theoretical result:
H
Fth
0
0.77
10
0.92
20
1.1
30
1.34
40
1.66
b) Natural slope at 45
Several conventional approaches to slope stability are used and compared with results from
Z SOIL PC.
Z SOIL simulation
CUT.INP
Material
1 soil
Model
Drucker-Prager
Data group
Elastic
Density
Nonlinear
December 3, 2008
Properties
E
C
Adjustment
Unit
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m3 ]
[ ]
[ ]
[kN/m2 ]
Value
10000
0.40
20
30
0
26
Plane strain

BM26

NSLOPE.INP
Material
1 soil
Model
Drucker-Prager
Data group
Elastic
Density
Nonlinear
Properties
E
C
Adjustment
Unit
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m3 ]
[ ]
[ ]
[kN/m2 ]
Value
5000
0.30
24
30
0
27.36
Plane strain
Comparison of results of Z SOIL PC with conventional methods, and parametric study.
Figure 3.12: Results by Z Soil (last converged step, increments SF2 by 0.05SF )
December 3, 2008

BM27
Figure 3.13: Result comparison
tan
c
H
2
5
8
Nondim. length
between lat. bnd
0.75
1.00
1.25
Simplified
Bishop
1.17
1.83
2.48
25
2.3
2.4
2.4
Ord. Meth.
of slices
1.12
1.73
2.30
Friction
circle
1.14
1.78
2.36
Janbu
procedure
1.10
1.70
2.26
Total number of nodes used to discretize

55
91
136
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.4
2.4
2.3
December 3, 2008
Z SOIL
1.20
2.00
2.60
the soil medium
190
253
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.2

BM28

3.2.2
SEISMIC BEARING CAPACITY OF STRIP FOOTING ON

SLOPES
Figure 3.14: Problem geometry
The seismic bearing capacity of strip footings located on top of a slope is calculated and
compared to results obtained by Soubra and Reynolds7 using an approximate upper bound
approach.
The geometry of the problem is shown in Fig. 3.14 and B0 = 2 [m] , = 0. Material data are
as follows:
Material
1 soil
Model
Drucker-Prager
Data group
Elastic
Density
Nonlinear
concrete
footing
Elastic
Elastic
Properties
E
C
Adjustment
E
Unit
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m3 ]
[ ]
[ ]
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
Value
30000
0.30
20
30
0 / 30
80400
Plane strain
20000000
0.15
Loads include gravity with a horizontal component Kh and the footing loading with the
same horizontal component.
A.I. Soubra & F.Reynolds, Design charts for the seismic bearing capacity of strip footing slopes. In Slope
Stability in Seismic Areas, ... Editions (1992).
December 3, 2008

BM29

The corresponding data files are:
seismic
seismic
seismic
seismic
seismic
seismic
b00
b00
b15
b15
b30
b30
kh000
kh015
kh000
kh015
kh000
kh015
(
(
(
(
(
(
= 0 , Kh 0.00)
= 0 , Kh 0.15)
= 15 , Kh 0.00)
= 15 , Kh 0.15)
= 30 , Kh 0.00)
= 30 , Kh 0.15)
The following charts are taken from A.I. Soubra & F.Reynolds paper and completed with
results obtained with Z SOIL.
Figure 3.15: Seismic bearing capacity (1)
December 3, 2008

BM30
December 3, 2008

BM31

3.2.3
SLOPE STABILITY IN PRESENCE OF SEEPAGE FLOW
Figure 3.19: Earth slope with seepage flow

The problem is analyzed using the slip circle approach
Application
Given a slope of 34 , the flow boundary conditions and the following soil strength parameters

lb
lb
= 125 3 , C = 90 2 , = 32
ft
ft
The following safety factor is obtained: Fth = 1.27 (according Lambe & Whitman).
Z SOIL PC simulation
Data File: drain02.inp
One material set is used:
Material
1 soil
Model
Drucker-Prager
Data group
Elastic
Density
Nonlinear
Flow
December 3, 2008
Properties
E
C
Adjustment
kx = ky
KF
Sr
Unit
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m3 ]
[kN/m3 ]
[ ]
[ ]
[kN/m2 ]
[m/day]
[kN/m2 ]
[1/m]
Value
100457
0.30
23.52
10
30
0
4.78
Plane strain
1
1038
0
2

BM32

A coupled deformation flow analysis is performed: first, an initial state is done, followed by
a safety analysis. The failure occurs for F between 1.25 1.30.
Figure 3.21: Total pore pressure (steady state calculated from the water B.C.)
Figure 3.22: Stability failure circle for SF = 1.3
December 3, 2008

BM33

3.3
PRESTRESS
SINGLE ANCHOR
December 3, 2008

BM34
N Preface N N Soil Mechanics N N N Prestress

3.3.1
SINGLE ANCHOR
File: TA1.INP
Geometry and data:
Analysis type: Plane strain
Figure 3.23: Prestressed anchor, geometry

Material data:
Material
1 concrete
Model
Elastic
Data group
Elastic
Elastic
Elastic
steel
anchor
Properties
E
Area
Unit
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
[m2 ]
Value
20000000
0.0
200000000
0.0
0.0005
Problem description:
This test illustrates the application of prestress when stiffness of the anchor is taken into
account. The analysis is performed over 4 time steps. At time t = 1 prescribed prestressing
stress is applied, as indicated by the corresponding LOADING FUNCTION (Fig. 3.24).
As long as the corresponding EXISTENCE FUNCTION (fig 3.24) is on ( t 2) no
injection takes place and and prestress is monitored to stay at its nominal value. When
the EXISTENCE FUNCTION value is set to 0, prestress is no more monitored, injected
behavior is assumed (t > 2) and steel deforms with concrete. A compression load of 100
is applied at time t = 3
Results:
The solution of this problem is expressed by the following set of equations.
oa Fa + oc Fc = 0
a Fa + c Fc = q Fc
a
c
=
Ea
Ec
December 3, 2008

BM35
N Preface N N Soil Mechanics N N N Prestress
Figure 3.24: Load functions and existence function for prestress
where:
a is the assumed prestress value,
Fa is the steel cross section,

oc is the stress in concrete after prestressing,
Fc is the concrete cross section.
Starting from t=2 the prestress is not controlled anymore and additional vertical compressive load q applied to the top concrete surface induces additional stress/strain state change
both in anchor and concrete. The second equation expresses force balance and the third
one expresses strain increment compatibility.
t
1
2
3
a
[kN/m2 ]
20000
20000
19047
Na = a Fa
[kN]
10
10
9.52
December 3, 2008
c
[kN/m2 ]
-100
-100
-195.2
Nc = c Fc
[kN]
-10
-10
-19.52
N = Na + Nc
[kN]
0
0
-10

BM36

3.4
EXCAVATION WITH PROGRESSIVE UNLOADING
December 3, 2008

BM37
N Preface N N Soil Mechanics N N N Excavation

3.4.1
EXCAVATION WITH PROGRESSIVE UNLOADING
Consider the following excavation in an elastic medium, with associated unloading function.
Gravity generates a uniform stress state (UNL1.INP) which is maintained after excavation
until t = 2, due to the unloading function Unloading starts decreasing. At the time t = 4
the redistribution of stresses due to excavation has ended. The solution reached corresponds
to the one obtained with a direct computation of excavated state (UNL2.INP).
Figure 3.25: Excavation and unloading functions
December 3, 2008

BM38

3.5
OEDOMETRIC TEST
TWO LAYERS MEDIUM
TWO LAYERS WITH WATER TABLE
TWODIMENSIONAL FOOTING SETTLEMENT
ELASTOPLASTIC COMPRESSION
December 3, 2008

BM39
N Preface N N Soil Mechanics N N N Consolidation

3.5.1
OEDOMETRIC TEST (TERZAGHI CONSOLIDATION)
This problem illustrates the performance of the numerical model in the case of uniaxial
consolidation. The analytical solution for excess pore pressure, given by Terzaghi, is taken
from8 .
Oedometric test Input files: CNS1DPS.INP (plain strain), CNS1DAXS.INP (axisymmetry)
Figure 3.26: Problem statement (left); Solution (right)
Analytical solution has form as below:

M z
pF (z, t) X 2
=
sin
exp M 2 Tv
q
M
H
m=0
(2m + 1)
2
Cv t
Tv =
;
H2
M=

Cv =
Eoed k
F

(= 1) .
Numerical solution
Critical time step9
tcrit

h2
1
c =
6
Cv
(here = 1, c = 41 , tcrit = 0.0039 [d], h = 0.125 m (element size adjacent to the edge
where pressure boundary condition is prescribed) and assumed initial time step t = 0.025 [d].
Both the analytical and the numerical solution are illustrated in the Fig. 3.26 for Tv = (104 )
to 1)
8
Bowles, Physical and Geotechnical Properties of Soil, Mc GrawHill (1979)

P. Vermeer, A. Verruijt, An accuracy condition for consolidation
Int.J.Num.Anal.meth.Geomech., 5 (pp.114)
9
December 3, 2008
by
finite
elements,

BM40

Material
1 soil
Model
Elastic
Data group
Elastic
Flow
December 3, 2008
Properties
E
kx0
ky0
KF
Unit
[kN/m2 ]
[m/day]
[m/day]
[kN/m2 ]
Value
100
0.0
0.1
0.1
1038

BM41

3.5.2
TERZAGHI CONSOLIDATION, TWO LAYERS MEDIUM
This problem is similar to the single layer problem. The computed solution is compared to a
finite difference solution10 .
Remark:
At both top and bottom surface the appropriate pressure boundary conditions are assumed
to allow drainage through those surfaces.
Window 3-1: Input file: TWOLAY.INP
Excess pore pressure (a difference between pressure at given time instance and pressure at
the initial state) results of both numerical solutions are compared in the figure below.
Consolidation of a two layer medium

Window 3-1
Material
1 soil
Model
Elastic
Data group
Elastic
Flow
soil
Elastic
Elastic
Flow
Properties
E
kx0
ky 0
KF
E
kx0
ky 0
KF
Unit
[MN/m2 ]
[m/day]
[m/day]
[kN/m2 ]
[MN/m2 ]
[m/day]
[m/day]
[kN/m2 ]
Value
16.36
0.0
0.095
0.095
1038
73.63
0.0
0.19
0.19
1038
10
G. Sanglerat, G. Olivari & B. Cambon, Practical problems in soil mechanics and foundation engineering,
Elsevier (1984).
December 3, 2008

BM42

3.5.3
TERZAGHI CONSOLIDATION, TWO LAYERS WITH WATER TABLE
The computed solution is compared with an analytical solution by R. Holtz & W. Kovacs11 ;
alternatively the same formula as presented in 3.5.1 can be used.
Window 3-2: Input file: HOLTZ.INP
Consolidation of a two layers medium with water table; geometry (left) and computed vs.
analytical results (right)
Window 3-2
Material
1 soil
Model
Elastic
Data group
Elastic
Flow
soil
Elastic
Elastic
Flow
11
Properties
E
kx0
ky0
KF
E
kx0
ky0
KF
Unit
[kN/m2 ]
[m/day]
[m/day]
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
[m/day]
[m/day]
[kN/m2 ]
Value
563
0.35
0.017
0.017
1038
5000
0.3
106
106
1038
R. Holtz, W. Kovacs, An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, PrenticeHall, New Jersey, (1981)
December 3, 2008

BM43

3.5.4
TWODIMENSIONAL FOOTING SETTLEMENT
This plane strain consolidation problem is compared with Schiffmanns analytical solution12
Window 3-3: Footing settlement SCHIFF.INP
The computed results for the vertical and horizontal excess pore pressure distribution is
compared with Schiffmanns solution.
Distribution of excess pore water pressure; vertical distribution of pw /p at axis (left);

horizontal distribution of pw /p at depth z/a = 0 (right)
Window 3-3
Material
1 soil
Model
Elastic
Data group
Elastic
Flow
Properties
E
kx0
ky 0
KF
Unit
[MN/m2 ]
[m/day]
[m/day]
[kN/m2 ]
Value
100
0.0
0.1
0.1
100
12
R.L. Schiffmann, A.T. Chen, J.C. Jordan, An analysis of consolidation theories, J. of the Soil Mech. and
Found. Div., Vol.95 (1969).
December 3, 2008

BM44

3.5.5
ELASTOPLASTIC COMPRESSION (COMP.INP)
A column of soil subjected to elastoplastic compression is analyzed. The geometry of the

structure and the initial state of stress are specified in the figure below. the following material
data are assumed for calculation:
sin
= 0.167, M = 3 3, a = 0.866
= 30 , a =
3
E = 2820, = 0.4, C = any, e0 = 1
Eoed =
E (1 )
= 6043, = 0.383, VM = 40 [kPa] (from oedometer)
(1 + ) (1 2)
Figure 3.27: Geometry and load of the structure

Settlement calculation
elastic
plastic
40 0
h
Eoed

h
dp =
ln
1 + e0
40
de =
where h is the layer thickness.

The following results are obtained for consecutive layers
Layer
1
2
3
h
1
1
1
de
8.3 104
1.8 103
2.8 103
dp
0.144
0.130
0.115
Z SOIL
C=0
C=2
C = 10
dtot
0.396
0.396
0.396
while the hand calculation gives dtot = 0.396.

The cap model is needed for this analysis, the initial cap size defined by pc = 34.15 [kPa] is
computed followng the procedure outlined in the manual. The settlement calculation can be
done by hand, layer by layer, ignoring the sand and the results match satisfactorily with the
numerical simulation and appeared to be insensitive to the value of the cohesion C.
December 3, 2008

BM45

3.6
CREEP (CREEP1.INP)
A simple symmetric creep test under variable load is performed. Numerical results are compared with the analytical solution.
Analytical solution

d = 1.0
1
+ A tm
E
1
2.0
+ A (t 2000)m
E
Figure 3.28: Time history diagram: displacement in y direction
Material
1 soil
Model
Elastic
Data group
Elastic
Creep
December 3, 2008
Properties
E
Curve type
AV
BV
EXFV
AD
BD
EXFD
a
b
Unit
[MN/m2 ]
Value
120
0.30
power
0.001
0.3
0.0
0.001
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0

BM46

3.7
SWELLING
13

OEDOMETER UNLOADING-LOADING TEST UNDER FORCE CONTROL
13
December 3, 2008

BM47
N Preface N N Soil Mechanics N N N Swelling

3.7.1

(SWELL FCTRL.INP)
An oedometric test under force control is considered here. The vertical pressure p=1 kN/m2 ,
scaled by the load time function starting from value LT F (t = 0) = 500, is applied to the
top boundary.
Material data set:

E=50000 [kN/m2 ], = 0.2, os =400 [kPa], cs =50 [kPa], = 0.03, B = 75d, s = 5,
1
E = 5.555 104 [kN/m2 ]
Eoed =
(1 + )(1 2)
The constant time step has been used t = to = 1 d.
The asymptotic analytical solutions at time t=200 d, 400 d, 600 d are:
500 300
300
y (t = 200) =
0.03 ln(
) = 1.22 102
4
5.555 10
400
500 200
200
y (t = 400) =
0.03
ln(
) = 2.62 102
4
5.555 10
400
500 150
150
y (t = 600) =
0.03 ln(
) = 3.57 102
4
5.555 10
400
The numerical solution
y (t = 200) = 1.22 102 ,
y (t = 400) = 2.63 102 ,
y (t = 600) = 3.60 102
The evolution of the vertical strain y (t) , relation y y and x (t) are shown in following
figures.
December 3, 2008

BM48
December 3, 2008

BM49

3.7.2
OEDOMETER UNLOADING-LOADING TEST UNDER FORCE

CONTROL (SWELL UNLREL.INP)
An oedometric unloading-reloading test under force control is considered here. The aim of this
trest is to show that swelling may be stopped during reloading process. The vertical pressure
p=1 kN/m2 , scaled by the load time function starting from value LT F (t = 0) = 500, is
applied to the top boundary.
Material data is Material data set:

E=50000 [kN/m2 ], = 0.2, os =400 [kPa], cs =50 [kPa], = 0.03, B = 75d, s = 5
1
Eoed =
E = 5.555 104 kN/m2
(1 + )(1 2)
The constant time step has been used t = to = 1 d.
The asymptotic analytical solutions:
300
500 300
0.03 ln(
) = 1.22 102
y (t = 200) =
4
5.555 10
400
500 200
200
y (t = 400) =
0.03 ln(
) = 2.62 102
4
5.555 10
400
400
200
= 2.26 102
y (t = 600) = 2.62 102
5.555 104
The numerical solution:
y (t = 200) = 1.22 102 , y (t = 400) = 2.63 102 , y (t = 600) = 2.27 102
The evolution of the vertical strain y (t) is shown in figure below:
December 3, 2008

BM50
N Preface N N Structural
3.8
INFINITE MEDIA

A GAP IN INFINITE MEDIUM(PS)
CIRCULAR CAVITY UNDER THE PRESSURE (AXS)
December 3, 2008

BM51
N Preface N N Soil Mechanics N N N Infinite media

3.8.1
A GAP IN INFINITE MEDIUM
Data File: GAPINFINITE-PS.INP

Problem description for plane strain model:
The problem of a gap of length c = 2.5m embedded in the elastic infinite medium and
loaded by an internal pressure p0 = 1kN/m2 is considered here. The closed form solution for
horizontal displacements of gap boundary is as follows
ux (0, y) =

2(1 2 )
p 0 c2 y 2
E
for | y | c
The solution is obtained by considering only one quarter of the model due to symmetry of
the problem.
Geometry and discretization:
The numerical model including infinite elements with similarity center at (0,0) is shown in
Fig. 3.29
Po=1kN/m2
Figure 3.29: Gap in infinite medium
Figure 3.30: Distribution of horizontal displacements of a gap
Material:
Linear elastic, with Young modulus E = 1.0 and Poisson ratio v = 0.2
Results comparison
The comparison of computed horizontal displacements versus analytical solution is shown in
Fig.3.30
December 3, 2008

BM52

3.8.2
Data File: INFELE3D.INP

Reference: Nowacki W. Theory of elasticity. Ed. PWN Warsaw 1970.
Elastic half-space is loaded with uniformly distributed load py = 1.0 [kN/m2 ] within rectangular area ba = 4.8 m4.8 m. Due to quarter symmetry of the problem only one quarter is
considered and on the two planes of symmetry appropriate kinematic boundary conditions are
applied. The mesh of 6 6 6 brick elements filling cubical domain 7.2 m 7.2 m 7.2 m.
The solution obtained with aid of infinite elements is compared with closed form solution for
this classical problem of elasticity theory.
The model is shown in Figure 3.31 (INFELE3D.INP)
Figure 3.31: Infinite half-space. Model outlook
Material: Linear elastic, with Young modulus E = 1.0e5 [kPa] and Poisson ratio = 0.3
Result comparison
The comparison concerns vertical displacements in the middle of the loaded area (p. A) and
at its corner (p. B)
Theoretical values are evaluated according to the formula:
1 v2
2
1 + 1 + 2
a
uyA = 2uyB =
qb ( ln
+ ln( + 1 + 2 )) with = = 1
E
b
point:
A
B
Infinite medium
-4.899e-5
-2.443e-5
Theory
-4.902e-5
-2.451e-5
December 3, 2008

BM53

3.8.3
CIRCULAR CAVITY UNDER THE PRESSURE
Data File: INFINITECIRCLE-PS.INP

Problem description for plane strain model:
Elastic space (plane strain condition) with circular cavity (radius R = 1) is loaded with
uniformly distributed pressure p = 1.0. This classical problem of elasticity theory is solved in
closed form giving radial displacement on the boundary as:
ur =
1 + v pR2
E
r
The solution is performed with use on infinite elements exclusively by taking only one quarter
of the model due to symmetry of the problem.
The numerical model consisting of 16 infinite elements with similarity centre at (0,0) is shown
in Fig. 3.32
p=1kN/m2
Figure 3.32: Circular cavity
Material: Linear elastic, with: Young modulus E = 1.0 and Poisson ratio v = 0.3
Result comparison
uexact
uzsoil
1.3
1.299
December 3, 2008

BM54

Data File: INFINITECIRCLE-AXS.INP
Problem description for axisymmetric model:
The same problem is analyzed here using an axisymmetric model which consists of a single
infinite element.
The numerical model consisting of 1 infinite element created as an infinite layer with Direction
vector (1.0,0.0) and length 1m is shown in Fig. 3.33
p=1kN/m2
Figure 3.33: Circular cavity-axisymmetric model
Result comparison
uexact
uzsoil
1.3
1.3
December 3, 2008

BM55
December 3, 2008

BM56
N Preface
Chapter 4
FLOW BENCHMARKS
RECTANGULAR DAM WITH TAILWATER
RECTANGULAR DAM WITH TOEDRAIN
MODELLING BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
December 3, 2008

BM57
N Preface N N Flow
4.1
RECTANGULAR DAM WITH TAILWATER
Data File: SSF02.INP
Figure 4.1: Problem illustration
Material
1 soil
Model
Elastic
Data group
Unit weights
Flow
Properties
F
kx0
ky0
Sr
Unit
[kN/m3 ]
[m/day]
[m/day]
[1/m]
Value
10
1
1
0
0
2
The illustrated case is analyzed with a flow only option. A steadystate driver is used here.
Water boundary conditions are applied where necessary, while a seepage surface is present or
the right side of the dam.
The free surface solution is comparable with the solution of reference S.J. Lacy & J.H.
Prevost, Flow through porous media: A procedure for locating the free water surface, Int.J.
for Num. and Anal. meth. in Geomechanics, Vol.11, pp.585601 (1987).
Figure 4.2: Pore pressure distribution
December 3, 2008

BM58
N Preface N N Flow
4.2
RECTANGULAR DAM WITH TOEDRAIN
Data File: SSF01.INP
Figure 4.3: Problem illustration
Material
1 soil
Model
Elastic
Data group
Unit weights
Flow
Properties
F
kx0
ky0
Sr
Unit
[kN/m3 ]
[m/day]
[m/day]
[1/m]
Value
10
1
1
0
0
2
A steadystate driver is activated under a flow only analysis of water boundary conditions is
applied on the left part of the dam, while the drain is modelised by seepage surface elements.
The free surface solution is again comparable with Lacys (S.J. Lacy & J.H. Prevost, Flow
through porous media: A procedure for locating the free water surface, Int.J. for Num. and
Anal. meth. in Geomechanics, Vol.11, pp.585601 (1987)).
Figure 4.4: Pore pressure distribution
December 3, 2008

BM59
N Preface N N Flow
4.3
MODELLING BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR TRANSIENT

AND STEADY STATE FLOW
Example: filling and drawdown

Data File: filldrawdown2d.*
The transient flow problem is considered here. First the initial state is generated through the
initial state driver (it is equivalent to the steady state solution at time t = 0) and then the
transient flow driver is activated. This example illustrates on how to model the effect of the
filling and the drawdown with the aid of the total head type of the boundary condition applied
to the seepage surface which is generated on both left and right contour of the domain. It
has to be emphasized here that the total head b.c. should be, in most cases applied
to the seepage surface. The reason is that if some node, with which the total head
b.c. is associated, is above free water surface then it will get automatically zero
pressure b.c.
The total head is defined as below:
h=
pF
+y
F
Figure 4.5: Filling and drawdown. Example outlook
The total head H(t) evolution in time is governed by the load time function as given below:
H0 = 1 [m]
t = 0, H (0) = 5
t = 10, H (20) = 20
f (t) =
t = 20, H (5) = 5
This evolution of the free water surface is shown for t = 0, t = 10.6, t = 15.7 and t = 20.0
in corresponding figures below.
December 3, 2008

BM60
N Preface N N Flow
Material
1 soil
Model
Elastic
Data group
Unit weights
Flow
Density
Properties
F
kx0
ky0
Sr
KF
eo
F
Unit
[kN/m3 ]
[m/day]
[m/day]
[1/m]
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m3 ]
t=0.0
t=10.6
t=15.7
t=20.0
Value
10
0.01
0.01
0
0
2
1038
0.4
10
Figure 4.6: Pore pressure distribution in time
December 3, 2008

BM61
N Preface N N Flow
December 3, 2008

BM62
N Preface N N Heat transfer
Chapter 5
HEAT PROBLEMS
TRANSIENT HEAT PROBLEM
December 3, 2008

BM63
N Preface N NHeat problems

5.1
TRANSIENT HEAT PROBLEM
Data file: heatTR01.inp

The transient heat problem is analyzed here. The geometry, boundary conditions and the
initial condition are illustared in Fig. 5.1.
Figure 5.1: One-dimensional

transient heat problem
Figure 5.2: Temperature profiles
The analytical solution has the form:

T (y, t) =
X
n=0
4To
/c 2 (2n + 1)2
(2n + 1)y
exp(
t)
sin(
)
(2n + 1)
L2
L
Due to symmetry of the problem (with respect to axis y=L/2) the half-scheme is considered
here. Material parameters are listed in table below.
Material
1 concrete
bar
Model
Heat transfer
Data group
Heat
Properties
Unit
[kN/m2 /C]
Value
8.64
3000
Both the analytical and the numerical solutions are given in Fig. 5.2 for time instances
t = 2000, 4000, 6000, 8000, 10000 [h].
December 3, 2008

BM64
N Preface
Chapter 6
STRUCTURAL BENCHMARKS
BEAMS
AXISYMMETRIC SHELLS
SHELLS
MEMBRANES
December 3, 2008

BM65
6.1
BEAMS
ELASTO-PLASTIC FIXED-END BEAM

ELASTO-PLASTIC BEAM WITH SUPPORTS VARIABLE IN TIME
REINFORCED CONCRETE 2-SPAN BEAM
TWISTED BEAM
RING
December 3, 2008

BM66
N Preface N N Structural N N N Beams

6.1.1
ELASTO-PLASTIC FIXED-END BEAM
Data file: EPLBEAMF.INP

Elastoplastic, fixed-end beam loaded with concentrated force at the midspan. Flexibility
based formulation is used. Beam geometry, BC, load as well as results such as M,Q graphs ,
deflections are shown in Fig. 6.1
Uy
Figure 6.1: Elasto-plastic beam. Data and results
Crosssection data: I-shaped section, layered approach.
Figure 6.2: Cross sectional data [m]
Material data: (Uniaxial elastoplastic model)

E = 2.1 108 [kPa], = 0.3, fy = 3.0 105 [kPa]
December 3, 2008

BM67

Results:
2.0
, P = P0 = 100kN
1.2
1.0
0.01
0.02
0.03 |UY|[m]
Figure 6.3: Load-displacement graph
Item:
Elastic limit moment
Plastic limit moment
Disp. at el .limit load
December 3, 2008
Unit:
kNm
kNm
m
Z SOIL:
77.2
90.7
2.06e-2
exact:
78.31
93.0
2.01e-2

BM68

6.1.2
ELASTO-PLASTIC BEAM WITH SUPPORTS VARIABLE

IN TIME
Data file: VARBEAMBC.INP, VARBEAMH.INP

Problem dsecription:
Elasto-plastic beam under uniform load. Support conditions are variabe in time, i.e. at time
0 < t 1, the beam is clamped at both end, then, for time 1 < t 2, under constant
load, rotation constrains are removed and central support is applied (to already deformed
structure). Removal of rotational constrains is performed by:
applying existence function (0 < t 1 active) to RZ rotation BC (file VARBEAMBC.INP)
keeping RZ constraint permanently active in BC, but releasing it at the element level by
means of hinges (file VARBEAMH.INP) also controlled by existence function (t > 1
active)
Both way give identical results.
Figure 6.4: Beam geometry, load, supports in 2 time steps. Deformation patterns
Cross-section data: uniform rectangular, b = h = 1.0

Material data: (uniaxial elastoplastic model)
E = 10000, = 0.3, ft = fc = 10000
December 3, 2008

BM69

Results:
Figure 6.5: graphs at t = 1.0 (clamped 1-span beam, uniform load)
Figure 6.6: graphs at t = 2.0 (free-supported 2-span beam, load as for t = 1.0)
max. moment [kNm]
December 3, 2008
Z SOIL
2439 ( at int.point)
exact
2500

BM70

6.1.3
REINFORCED CONCRETE 2-SPAN BEAM
Data file: RCBEAM.INP

Reference: Michanovic A., Marovic P., Dvornik J.: Nonlinear calculus of reinforced concrete
structures ,ed. DHGK, Zagreb, 1993
Elastoplastic (reinforced concrete section), 2-span beam loaded with uniform load. Beam
geometry, BC, load as well as results such as M,Q graphs, are shown in Fig. 6.7
q=40.0kN/m
S1
S2
S2
8.0
S1
S2
10.0
Figure 6.7: Reinforced concrete beam. Geometry, BC, load and M/Q graphs at ultimate load
Crosssection data
2 reinforced concrete sections, layered approach
S1:
S2:
Figure 6.8: Cross section data
December 3, 2008

BM71

Material data:
concrete(uni-axial elasto-plastic):
E = 39000 [MPa], G = 16250 [MPa], fc = 40.0 [MPa], ft = 0.0 [MPa]
reinforcement (uniaxial elastoplastic)
E = 210000 [MPa], fy = 300 [MPa]
Results:
Item:
Ultimate load factor
Unit:
-
Z SOIL:
2.60
Ref [MIH]:
2.60
Figure 6.9: Load-displacement graph. Displacement uy at the mid-point of the right span)
December 3, 2008

BM72

6.1.4
Data file: RCFRAME.INP

Reference:
Michanovic A., Marovic P., Dvornik J.: Nonlinear calculus of reinforced concrete structures
,ed. DHGK, Zagreb, 1993
Elasto-plastic (reinforced concrete section), 3-flor,1- span frame loaded with uniform vertical
and horizontal (wind forces) load. Frame geometry, BC and loads are shown in Fig. 6.10
Figure 6.10: RC-frame. Geometry and loads
Crosssection data:
3 reinforced concrete sections, layered approach.
Figure 6.11: Cross-section data
December 3, 2008

BM73

Material data:
concrete (uni-axial elasto-plastic)
E = 39000 [MPa], G = 162504 [MPa], fc = 40.0 [MPa], ft = 0.0 [MPa]
reinforcement (uniaxial elastoplastic)
E = 210000 [MPa], fy = 300.0 [MPa]
Results:
Item:
Ultimate load factor
Unit:
-
Z SOIL:
1.70
Ref [MIH]:
1.65
Figure 6.12: Load-displacement graph
Mz
Figure 6.13: Mz , N graphs
December 3, 2008

BM74

6.1.5
TWISTED BEAM
Data files: TWISTED BEAM Y.INP, TWISTED BEAM Z.INP

Reference:
Batoz J-L., Dhat G., Modelisation des structures par elements finis, ed. Hermes , 1993, Vol3
, page 458.
Cantilever twisted beam, loaded with concentrated forces at the free end, after (BATOZ,1993
), modelled with beam elements .The test is designed to check the performance of the
twisted beam elements submitted to shear and bending deformation. Y / Z in the file name
correspond to the direction of loading force in 2 cases of loads.
Figure 6.14: Geometry of twisted beam (beam model).
Crosssection data (Elastic model, integral approach):

Area: A = 1.1 0.32 = 0.352,
inertia: Ix = 0.00981221, Iy = 0.00300375, Iz = 0.0354933
shear correction factors: y = z = 0.83333
Material data (linear elastic beam):
E = 29 106 , = 0.0
Results comparison:
File:
... Y
... Z
VAREF
0.00175
-0.00172
December 3, 2008
VAZ SOIL
0.001647
-0.001515
WAREF
-0.00179
0.00542
WAZ SOIL
-0.001515
0.005534

BM75

6.1.6
RING
Data file: RINGBEAM.INP

Elastic ring supported at 4, two-directionally hinged supports, loaded with out-of plane uniform linear load. Geometry, BC, load are shown in Fig. 6.15
Figure 6.15: Out of plane loaded ring. Geometry and load
Crosssection data (Elastic model, integral approach):

area A = 0.1, inertia Ix = Iy = Iy = 0.001
Material data (Linear elastic):
E = 100000 [kPa], = 0.3
December 3, 2008

BM76

Results:
Figure 6.16: Torsional moment (Mx )
Figure 6.17: Torsional moment (Mz )
Results comparison:
Item:
Mx =
Mzmax =
Mzmin =
Formula:
qR2 (tan() ) with = arccos( n sin n )
qR2 (1 + n / sin n )
0.215 qR2
December 3, 2008
Exact value:
= 0.03312
= 0.110
= 0.215
Z SOIL
0.03292
0.110
0.214

BM77
6.2
AXISYMMETRIC SHELLS
TUBE TO SPHERE CONNECTION

CYLINDER SUBJECTED TO PRESSURE
December 3, 2008

BM78
N Preface N N Structural N N N Axisymmetric shells

6.2.1
TUBE TO SPHERE CONNECTION
Data file: TUBULURE.INP

Reference:
Batoz J-L., Dhat G., Modelisation des structures par elements finis, ed. Hermes, 1993, Vol3,
page 207
Axisymmetric shell (cylindrical +spherical) submitted to vertical load (total P=1kN) as shown
in Fig 6.18
Figure 6.18: M, N, Q graphs
Crosssection data:
Constant thickness h = 6 [mm]
Material data (Linear axisymmetric shell):
E = 210 [kN/mm2 ], = 0.3
Results comparison:
Disp. VA [mm]
Disp. UB [mm]
Disp. VB [mm]
Rot. fB [-]
Z SOIL
-1.3703E-2
-1.031E-3
-1.340E-2
-2.7810E-5
December 3, 2008
Reference
-1.362E-2
-1.013E-3
-1.332E-2
-2.486E-5

BM79

6.2.2
CYLINDER SUBJECTED TO PRESSURE
Data file: CYLINDER.INP

Reference:
Batoz J-L., Dhat G., Modelisation des structures par elements finis, ed. Hermes, 1993, Vol3,
page 163.
Cylindrical shell, clamped at the top, loaded by internal pressure. Geometry, load BC. and
deformation of the shell are given in Figure 6.19
Figure 6.19: meridian deformation and bending moment graph

Crosssection data:
Constant thickness h = 0.025 [m]
Material data (Linear axisymmetric shell):
E = 2 1011 [Pa], = 0.3
Results comparison:
Uxc [m]
Z SOIL
0.4985E-7
Exact
0.4989E-7
December 3, 2008

BM80

6.2.3
Data file: CIRCPLATE.INP

Elastoplastic (HuberMisès) clamped circular plate under uniform load. The data as well as
results (moments at the ultimate state) are shown in the Fig. 6.20
Figure 6.20: BC, load [kN/m2 ]. Graphs of radial Mr and circumferential Mo bending moments.
Cross section:
Uniform thickness h = 1.0, layered approach nlayer = 10
Material data Elastoplastic (bi-axial stress state, HuberMises criterion):
E = 2.1 108 [kPa], = 0.3, fy = 4000000 [kPa],
Results:
ultimate moment:
fy h2
Mult =
= 400000 1/4 = 100000 kNm/m
4
p
Mult = Mr2 + Mo2 Mr Mo
max load qmax
December 3, 2008
Z SOIL
12200
exact
12 Mult /r2 =12000

BM81
6.3
SHELLS
TWISTED BEAM (SHELL MODEL)

SQUARE ELASTOPLASTIC PLATE
SCORDELIS-LO ROOF
HEMISPHERE
ELASTOPLASTIC CYLINDRICAL SHELL
December 3, 2008

BM82
N Preface N N Structural N N N Shells

6.3.1
SCORDELIS-LO ROOF
Data file: SCOROOF.INP

Reference:
Batoz J-L., Dhat G., Modelisation des structures par elements finis, ed Hermes, 1993, Vol3,
page 446.
Cylindrical shell roof. Geometry, FE mesh, boundary conditions (for 1/4 of the shell due to
dual symmetry) are shown in Fig. 6.21
Figure 6.21: Geometry and boundary conditions

Load:
Uniform vertical load pz = 6250 [Pa]
Material (linear elastic with):
E = 3 1010 [Pa], = 0.0
Results:
Comparison with reference BATOZ,
1993, .i.e. exact solution:
WB
WC
Z SOIL
0.03604
0.005391
reference
0.0361
0.00541
Figure 6.22: Membrane forces in Y direction
December 3, 2008

BM83

6.3.2
TWISTED BEAM (SHELL MODEL)
Data files: TWISTED SHELL*.INP

Reference:
page 458.
Cantilever twisted beam, loaded with concentrated forces at the free end, after (BATOZ,1993
), modeled with shell elements .The test is designed to check the performance of the nonplanar
elements submitted to shear and torsional deformation. 4 Files correspond to 2 cases of
thickness and 2 cases of loads as specified in the table:
Force: Fy = 1 (vertical)
Force: Fz = 1 (horizontal)
thickness: h = 0.32
*** 32 Y.INP
*** 32 Z.INP
thickness h = 0.0032
*** 0032 Y.INP
*** 0032 Z.INP
The geometry, FE mesh (12x4 SXQ4 elements), load and boundary conditions are shown in
Fig. 6.23
Figure 6.23: Twisted shell, geometry and other data.

Material data (linear elastic shell):
E = 29 106 [MPa], = 0.0
Results comparison:
File:
...32 Y
...32 Z
...0032 Y
...0032 Z
December 3, 2008
VAREF
0.00175
-0.00172
1296
-1878
VAZ SOIL
0.00161
-0.00175
1258
-1836
WAREF
-0.00179
0.00542
-1878
5316
WAZ SOIL
-0.00175
0.00535
-1836
5142

BM84

6.3.3
HEMISPHERE
Data files: HEMISPHERE 1L.INP, HEMISPHERE 2L.INP

Reference:
page 462.
Hemispherical shell loaded with 2 concentrated forces. Both types of shell elements (i.e.
shell 1 node layer) and shell (two node layers ) are used in files HEMISPHERE 1L.INP
and HEMISPHERE 2L.INP, respectively. Geometry and FE mesh (only the quoter if the
shell is analysed due to the symmetry) are shown in Fig. 6.24:
Figure 6.24: Hemispherical shell. Geometry [m] and other data
Material data (Linear elastic shell):

E = 6.825 107 , = 0.3
Results comparison (Displacement uAx [m]):
reference
0.094
Z SOIL - 1 node layer

0.09278
December 3, 2008
Z SOIL - 2 node layer

0.09288

BM85

6.3.4
SQUARE ELASTOPLASTIC PLATE
Data file: EPSQPLT.INP

Reference:
Hinton E., Owen D.R.J, Finite Element Software For Plates and Shells, Pineridge Press Ltd.,
Swansea UK 1984, vol 2 page 317
Elasto-plastic clamped square plate under uniformly distributed load
Material elasto-plastic Huber-Misès (planes stress in each layer), isotropic, no softening/hardening:
E = 30000 [MPa], = 0.3, fy = 30.0 [MPa]
span L = 6.0[m], thickness h = 0.2[m]
66 SXQ4 shell elements (1 node layer) on the 1/4 of the plate as shown in the Fig. 6.25
Results comparison
Figure 6.25: Elasto-plastic plate. Geometry and

other data
Figure 6.26: Load versus vertical displacement at the plate centre graph.
Crosssectional discretization:
10 equal layers
Load:
surface load up to p = gh = 2.5 0.2 = 0.5 [MN/m2 ]
December 3, 2008

BM86

6.3.5
ELASTOPLASTIC CYLINDRICAL SHELL
Data file: EPCYLSHE.INP

Reference:
Hinton E., Owen D.R.J, Finite Element Software For Plates and Shells, Pineridge Press Ltd.,
Swansea UK 1984, vol 2, page 319
Cylindrical shell roof with 2 free edges supported by diaphragm, under self weight p/m2
Results comparison
Figure 6.27: Elasto-plastic cylidrical shell roof.

Geometry [m] and other data
Figure 6.28: Load density versus free

edge mid-point (A) deflection graph
Material Elasto-plastic Huber-Misès (plane stress in each layer), isotropic, no softening/hardening:

E = 21000 [MPa], = 0, fy = 4.1 [MPa]
Load:
uniform surface load up to py = 0.003 [MN/m2 ]
Geometry and FE mesh (as shown in the Fig. 6.27
length :L = 7.60[m], radius: R = 7.60[m], angle: = 40 , thickness :h = 0.076[m]
8x8 SXQ4 elements (one node layer) for the 1/4 of the shell due to symmetry
Crosssectional discretization:
10 equal layers
December 3, 2008

BM87
6.4
MEMBRANES
SOIL SLOPE REINFORCED BY MEMBRANES
December 3, 2008

BM88
N Preface N N Structural N N N Membranes

6.4.1
SOIL SLOPE REINFORCED BY MEMBRANES
Data file: RFSSLOPE.INP

Reference:
Sawicki A., Lesniewska D., Reinforced Soils. Theory and applications., ed PWN Warsaw
1993
The slope (10[m] height, 60 inclination), made of soil treated here as elasto-plastic (DruckerPrager) continuum, with reinforcement modeled as membrane elements, is loaded by gravity
and vertical uniform load. The ultimate value of top load is investigated (analysis type:
plane strain ). First initial state analysis is performed taking into account soil gravity load,
then time dependent driven load analysis with increasing value of the load applied at the top
of the slope is carried out until the divergence. The base load is p = 1000[kPa]. Load time
function linearly varying from 0 at time 0 to 1 at time 1, is used to control loading process.
Load incrementation result from setting of parameters in Control / Analysis & Drivers such
us Start=0, End=1, Increment=0.1.
Numerical model is shown in the Fig. 6.29
10 m
p=1000kPa*LTF(t)
LTF
1
30o
membrane-fibers
21 layers a 0.5m
Figure 6.29: Reinforced soil slope. Geometry and reinforcement distribution
December 3, 2008

BM89
N Preface N N Structural N N N Membranes

Material data
Material
1 soil
Model
Drucker-Prager
Data group
Elastic
Unit weights
Nonlinear
membrane
fiber
Elastic
Elastic
Nonlinear
Geometry
Properties
E
c
Adjustment
E
ft
fc
A
Unit
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m3 ]
[ ]
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
[m2/m]
Value
100000
0.3
17
34
0
Plane strain
1000000
12
0
0.005
Load:
gravity (applied at time t = 0)
surface load up to p = 1000[kPa]
Results
At load factor Ltf = 0.8 divergence is observed with the failure surface shown at Fig. 6.30.
Methods of
characteristics
Figure 6.30: Failure surfaces estimated by

Z SOIL and from the reference
Figure 6.31: Tensile forces in membrane elements
The last converged state is noted at load factor Ltf = 0.72 compared with 0.71 obtained
from the method of characteristics (perfectly plastic-rigid model) in reference. The forces
appearing in membrane elements at the ultimate load are shown in Fig. 6.31
December 3, 2008

BM90
N Preface
Chapter 7
SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION
BENCHMARKS
CYLINDRICAL CONTAINER
DIAPHRAGM WALL
BURRIED PIPE
PILE 3D
December 3, 2008

BM91
N Preface N N Soil-structure interaction

7.1
CYLINDRICAL CONTAINER
Data file: CYLCON.INP

Reference:
P.M. Lewinski, Nonlinear analysis of axisymmetric rc structures and their interaction with
subsoil, ed. Polytechnic of Warsaw (1996).
Axisymmetric structural system consists of:
cylindrical reinforced concrete shell fixed in the foundation, free at the top R = 15.15[m]
g = 0.30[m], h = 10.0[m]
rc ring foundation 0.8 2.0[m]
subconcrete ring 0.7 2.8[m]
frictional interface between ring foundation and subconrete
homogeneous soil
Loads:
dead weight (initial state)
pressure of the contained water on both shell and underlying soil (driven load)
Figure 7.1: General outlook
Material data
December 3, 2008

BM92

1
Material
subsoil
Model
Drucker-Prager
Data group
Elastic
Nonlinear
subconcrete
Hoek-Brown
Elastic
Nonlinear
ring
Hoek-Brown
Elastic
Nonlinear
interface
10
shell
concrete
Nonlinear
contact
Hoek-Brown
Elastic
Nonlinear
shell
reinforc.
Elastic
Nonlinear
Properties
E
ft
fc
E
ft
fc
c
ft
fc
E
ft
fc
Unit
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
[ ]
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
[ ]
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
Value
140000
0.20
20
20
147000
0.19
1000
10000
223000
0.19
1750
14500
200
30
30000000
0.19
1400
20000
210000000
0.19
41000
41000
Figure 7.2: Shell crosssection data
Figure 7.3: Load instrumentation technique
December 3, 2008

BM93

Results
BeginExpansion
Figure 7.4: Longitudinal bending moment and circumferential force graph
max.long.moment [kNm/m]
max.circ.force [kN/m]
December 3, 2008
Z SOIL
15.54
1060.6
Reference
14.78
1010.0

BM94

7.2
DIAPHRAGM WALL
Data file: DIAPHW.INP

Plane strain analysis, deformation+flow, events sequence:
Figure 7.5: FE model before excavation
Figure 7.6: FE model after excavation
December 3, 2008

BM95

Material data
Id
Sand
100.0
0.31
Cohesion/ Friction
Tensile
angle/
str.
Comp.
strength
c[kPa]
f [ ]
ft [kPa]
fc [kPa]
0
45
gravel (D
P)
Silt (DP)
50.0
0.31
35
0.45
20.0
1.0
103
143.0
0.31
45
0.45
19.0
1.0
103
20.0
0.31
45
0.45
19.0
1.0
103
30000
24.0
4000
40000
Material
Fine
grained
sand (DP)
Dry fine
7
4
grained
sand (DP)
Concrete
8
5
6
Young
modulus
Poissons
ratio
E[kPa]
[]
H.S.Steel
220000
Anchor
10.3[cm2 /m]
Earth
pressure
Unit
weight
Kox =
Koz
0.45
[kNm3 ] k[m/s]
22.0
1.0
103
Darcy
coeff.
Loads:
Dead weight
Prestress, P = 625 [kN/m]
Results comparison:1
Item
B.moment in the wall at anchorage point [kNm/m]
(time = 3.0)
Effective pressure [kNm/m2 ] at
anchorage point
(time = 4.0)
*Effective pressure [kNm/m2 ]
lower part, right side:
(time = 4.0)
left side:
Z SOIL
837
Ref1 , measured
600700
Ref1 , analysis
851
30
20100
40
100
140200
55
169
120200
80
B. Felix, R. Frank, M.Kutniak, F.E.M. calculation of a diaphragm wall influence of the initial pressures
and the contact law, Proc. of Int. Symp. on Num. Meth. in Geomech. Zurich 1982, Ed. A.A. Balkena,
Rotterdam (1982).
December 3, 2008

BM96

After 1st excavation & anchor prestressing (time=3.0)
100 kPa
After final excavation (time=4.0)

100 kPa
Water profiles
M, Q graphs
Deformation patterns
December 3, 2008

BM97

7.3
BURRIED PIPE
Data file: CATONA.INP

p=1.0
Figure 7.7: of the structure
The geometry of the problem, load and boundary conditions are shown in figure 7.7. Due to
the double symmetry of the problem only the quadrant has been discretized.
The material properties for soil, steel pipe and interface are as follows2 :
Material
soil
Model
Elastic
Data group
Elastic
pipe
Elastic
Elastic
interface
Nonlinear
Properties
E
Unit
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
[ ]]
Value
1000
0.33
335410
0.33
0 /14.036 /89
Lining radius and thickness are r = 0.84m t = 0.0375659m respectively.

The normal and shear contact stress distribution is shown in Fig. 7.8. All these results are in
a good agreement with theoretical solution.
Kisu Lee, An efficient solution method for frictional contact problems, Comp.& Struct., pp.111, (1989).
December 3, 2008

BM98
Figure 7.8: normal stresses
December 3, 2008

BM99

7.4
PILE 3D
Data file: PILE-3D.INP
F(t)
4m
PILE
4m
10m
20m
Figure 7.9: FE model
The geometry of the problem, load and boundary conditions are shown in figure 7.9. This pile
bearing capacity problem is modeled with aid of beam elements embedded in the 3D continuum including both pile interface and the interface between foot of the pile and continuum.
In this test we assume that the medium is elastic, pile interface is purely adhesive and pile
foot interface compressive bearing capacity is limited by qc value. All material properties are
summarized in the table below:
Material
clay
Model
Elastic
Data group
Elastic
Density
Initial state Ko
December 3, 2008
Properties
E
D
F
eo
Kox
Koz
Unit
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m3 ]
[kN/m3 ]
[-]
[-]
Value
80000
0.3
18
10
0.0
0.6
0.6

BM100

2
Pile
Beams
Elastic
Pile interface
Pile interface
Density
Geometry
Non-linear
Pile foot int.
Pile foot int.
Non-linear
Diameter
C
qt
qc
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m3 ]
[m]
[ ]
[ ]
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
[kN/m2 ]
20000000
0.2
0
0.8
0
0
14
0.0
2500
The force-settlement diagram is shown in the figure below. It indicates the limit force equal
to 1600 kN. The analytical solution for a 10m long pile is as follows: F = Fs + Fc =
D2
0.82
D L c+
qc = 3.14 0.8 10 14 + 3.14
2500 = 351.9 + 1256.6 = 1608.5kN
4
4
Settlement [m]
Fully mobilized
pile interface
Fully mobilized pile foot

bearing capacity
Force [kN]
350 kN
1600 kN
Figure 7.10: Force-settlement diagram
December 3, 2008

BM101
Index
3D
analysis and drivers, DP: 16, DP: 67
3D analysis
beams, TM: 179, TM: 184, TM: 187,
TM: 189, TM: 196
continuum finite elements, TM: 109,
110
EAS, TM: 119
elastic model, TM: 51
membranes, TM: 214, TM: 217, TM:
222
numerical integration, TM: 111, TM:
151
shells, TM: 204
trusses, TM: 163, TM: 166
Analysis
batch processing, DP: 496
restart computation, DP: 495
run computation, DP: 494
run computation without writing *.dat,
DP: 507
Auxiliary planes, DP: 226
Axisymmetry
analysis and drivers, DP: 16, TU: 29,
DP: 67
beams (shells), TM: 177, TM: 184, TM:
187, TM: 189, TM: 196
110
EAS, TM: 119121, TM: 123
foot benchmark, BM: 21, BM: 23
222
151
trusses and rings, TM: 162, TM: 166,
TM: 170
Beams, TU: 37, TM: 176
December 3, 2008
analytical solution benchmarks, BM: 66,

67, BM: 69, BM: 75, 76
axisymmetric shell benchmarks, BM: 79
81
create/outline/update/delete elements,
DP: 248
create/outline/update/delete subdomain
2D, TU: 44, DP: 146
create/outline/update/delete subdomain
3D, DP: 146
hinges, TM: 194
orientation 2D, TU: 44, TM: 177
orientation 3D, TM: 177
reinforced concrete benchmarks, BM:
71, BM: 73
subdomain 2D parameters, DP: 165
subdomain 3D parameters, DP: 165
Bearing capacity, DP: 2729
foot benchmark, BM: 16
Boundary conditions
for humidity, DP: 201, DP: 332
for humidity on macro-elements, DP:
201
for pore pressure, DP: 194, DP: 333
for pore pressure on macro-elements,
DP: 194
for solid phase, DP: 320
for temperature, DP: 198, DP: 327
for temperature on macro-elements, DP:
198
Consolidation, TU: 33
algorithm, TM: 144
analytical solution benchmarks, BM: 38
geotechnical aspects, TM: 252
material model, TM: 54
numerical implementation, TM: 104
overconsolidation ratio, TM: 261
problem statement, TM: 39
Construction algorithm
analysis and drivers, DP: 16, TM: 281
Contact

BM102

macromodel, TU: 37, TU: 61, TU: 71,
TU: 77
Continuum 2D elements, DP: 263
Continuum 2D macromodel
Automatic mesh generation, DP: 180,
181
Mesh morphing, DP: 182
Semi-automatic mesh generation, DP:
176, 177
Subdomain generation, DP: 145, 146
Virtual mesh, DP: 175178
Continuum 3D elements, DP: 268
Continuum 3D macromodel
Mesh morphing, DP: 183
Semi-automatic mesh generation, DP:
178, 179
Subdomain generation, DP: 147150,
DP: 152, DP: 154, DP: 156
Virtual mesh, DP: 178, 179
Convection 2D macromodel
Subdomain generation, DP: 187
Convection 3D macromodel
Convection elements, DP: 312
Convergence, TM: 136
Creep
analytical solution benchmark, BM: 45
standard properties, DP: 425
swelling properties, TM: 93, DP: 425
Dynamics
added masses, DP: 353
consistent mass matrix, DP: 70
control parameters, DP: 70
HHT scheme, DP: 70
lumped mass matrix, DP: 70
mass filtering, DP: 71
Newmark scheme, DP: 70
Reylaigh damping, DP: 70
Seismic input, DP: 493
Elasticity
constants, DP: 7
material properties, DP: 419
Elasto-plastic 1D
model, TM: 228, DP: 478
Excavation/Stage construction
algorithm, TM: 281
benchmark, BM: 95
December 3, 2008
existence function, TM: 281

show steps in preprocessor, TU: 44, TU:
61, TU: 71, TU: 77, DP: 94
unloading function, TM: 281
unloading function benchmark, BM: 36
Existence functions, TM: 281, DP: 486
FE model preprocessing
common methods to copy elements/nodes,
DP: 235
common methods to delete elements/nodes,
DP: 235
common methods to move elements/nodes,
DP: 235
common methods to outline elements/nodes,
DP: 235
common methods to rotate elements/nodes,
DP: 235
Finite elements
selection strategy, DP: 78, DP: 80
stabilization of pressure oscillations, DP:
80
volumetric locking, DP: 79
Flow
analysis, DP: 16, TU: 41, DP: 44, TU:
67
benchmarks, BM: 57
fluid head boundary condition, TU: 41,
TU: 67
flux boundary condition, DP: 45, DP:
204
initial conditions, DP: 45
initial state driver, DP: 44, DP: 46,
TU: 67
material data, TU: 41, DP: 44, TM:
5456, TU: 67, DP: 422
pressure boundary condition, TU: 41,
DP: 45, DP: 194
steady state driver, TU: 41, DP: 44,
DP: 47
time dependent drivers, DP: 47
transient driver, DP: 44, DP: 48
Fluxes on elements
fluid, DP: 361
heat, DP: 364
humidity, DP: 365
Fluxes on macromodel
fluid, DP: 204
heat, DP: 207

BM103

humidity, DP: 210
Gravity, DP: 491
body load components, DP: 491
direction, DP: 491
Heat
analysis, DP: 16, DP: 49, TU: 51
analytical solution benchmark, BM: 61
flux boundary conditions, TM: 45, DP:
50, DP: 207
initial conditions, TM: 45, DP: 50, 51,
TU: 51
initial state driver, DP: 49, DP: 51,
TU: 51
material properties, TM: 45, TU: 51,
DP: 429
steady state driver, DP: 49, DP: 52
temperature boundary conditions, TM:
45, DP: 50, DP: 198
thermal strains, TU: 51, DP: 68
time dependent drivers, DP: 49, DP:
52
transient driver, DP: 49, TU: 51, DP:
53
Hinges
in beam elements, DP: 254
in shell elements, DP: 316
Humidity
analysis, DP: 16, DP: 54
flux boundary conditions, TM: 47, DP:
55, DP: 210
humidity boundary conditions, TM: 47,
DP: 55, DP: 201
hygral strains, DP: 54, DP: 68
initial conditions, TM: 47, DP: 55, 56
initial state driver, DP: 54, DP: 56
material properties, TM: 47, DP: 54,
DP: 431
steady state driver, DP: 57
time dependent drivers, DP: 54, DP:
57
transient driver, DP: 58
Infinite elements, TM: 126, DP: 290
Initial condition
December 3, 2008
for displacements, DP: 374

for humidity, DP: 369, 370
for pore pressure, DP: 367
for solid velocities, DP: 374
for temperature, DP: 368
Initial state
algorithm, TM: 139
earth pressure at rest (Ko), TM: 261,
TM: 263
geotechnical aspects, TM: 260
Initial state Ko
Interface 2D
Material data groups, TM: 230, TM:
241, TM: 246
Material models, TM: 230, TM: 241,
TM: 246
Interface 2D macromodel
Interface 3D
Material data groups, TM: 230, TM:
241, TM: 246
Material models, TM: 230, TM: 241,
TM: 246
Interface 3D macromodel
Interface elements, TM: 230, TM: 241, TM:
246, DP: 295
Interface elements for large deformations,
DP: 304
Kinematic constraints, DP: 377
Large deformations
analysis and drivers, DP: 16
Linear equation solvers, DP: 73
skyline, DP: 73
sparse, DP: 73
Load time functions, DP: 489
Loads
body, DP: 340
on beam elements, DP: 351
on element surfaces, DP: 344
on nodes, DP: 342
on subdomain boundaries, DP: 213
Macromodeling
2D mesh mapping, DP: 139
Bore holes, DP: 385
Extrusion direction, DP: 142

BM104

Fluid flux, DP: 204
Heat flux, DP: 207
Humidity BC, DP: 201
Humidity flux, DP: 210
Objects, DP: 129
Piles, TU: 77, DP: 221
Point, DP: 127
Point loads, DP: 231
Pressure BC, DP: 194
Subdomain, DP: 143
Subdomain parameters, DP: 164
Surface load, DP: 213
Temperature BC, DP: 198
Virtual to real mesh conversion, DP:
183
Macromodeling objects
Arc, DP: 132
Circle, DP: 133
common methods, DP: 130
Delete methods, DP: 138
DXF import, DP: 137
Line, DP: 131
Line(s) on edge(s), DP: 133
Outline methods, DP: 138
Point, DP: 131
Split by plane, DP: 137
Surface intersection, DP: 134, DP: 184
Surface on Q4 skeleton, DP: 134
Surface on T3 skeleton, DP: 134
Update methods, DP: 139
Main Z Soil menu
Analysis options, DP: 494
Assembly options, DP: 83
Control options, DP: 14, 15
Control:analysis and drivers, DP: 16
Extras, DP: 507
File options, DP: 11
Help, DP: 509
Postpro, DP: 497
System configuration, DP: v, DP: 508
toolbars, DP: 10
Materials
creep properties group, TM: 86, DP:
425
data groups, DP: 419
databases, DP: 393
elastic properties group, DP: 419
flow properties group, TM: 54, DP:
422
December 3, 2008
handling, DP: 392

heat properties group, DP: 429
humidity properties group, DP: 431
initial Ko properties group, DP: 427
local stability properties group, DP: 432
models, TM: 49, DP: 393
properties varying in space, DP: 481
properties varying in time, DP: 481
unit weight properties group, DP: 420
Materials for axisymmetric shell elements
linear elastic model, DP: 404, DP: 406
nonlinear (layered) model, DP: 404, DP:
406
Materials for beam elements, DP: 394
fiber model, TM: 228
linear elastic model, TU: 37, DP: 395,
DP: 399
nonlinear (layered) model, DP: 395, DP:
400, DP: 402
Materials for contact elements, DP: 408
frictional contact model, DP: 409
Materials for continuum elements, TM: 49,
DP: 418
Aging concrete model, TM: 97, DP:
434
Cap model, TM: 65, DP: 436
Drucker-Prager model, TU: 29, TM:
61, DP: 442
Duncan Chang model, DP: 443
ECP Hujeux model, DP: 453
Hoek-Brown(M-W) model, TM: 76, DP:
444
HS-small model, DP: 456
Linear elastic model, TM: 50, DP: 433
Modified Cam Clay model, TM: 82,
DP: 439
Mohr-Coulomb (M-W) model, TM: 72,
DP: 446
Mohr-Coulomb model, TU: 25, TU: 33,
TM: 60, DP: 451
Multilaminate model, TM: 78, DP: 448
Rankine(M-W) model, DP: 450
Materials for continuum elements for structures, DP: 460
Materials for heat convection elements
convection model, DP: 460
Materials for humidity convection elements
convection model, DP: 461
Materials for infinite elements

BM105

Linear elastic model, DP: 462
Materials for membrane elements, TM: 219,
DP: 463
Anisotropic elasto-plastic model, TM:
219, DP: 468
Fiber elasto-plastic model, TM: 219,
DP: 464
Isotropic elasto-plastic model, TM: 219,
DP: 468
Plane stress elastic model, TM: 219,
DP: 467
Plane stress Hoek-Brown model, TM:
219, DP: 467
Plane stress Huber-Mises model, TM:
219, DP: 467
Plane stress Rankine model, TM: 219,
DP: 467
Materials for pile foot interface elements,
TU: 77, DP: 415
Materials for pile interface elements, TU:
77, DP: 412
frictional contact model, DP: 413, DP:
416
Materials for seepage elements, DP: 470
Materials for shell elements, TM: 204, DP:
471
Aging concrete model, TM: 204
Fiber model, TM: 204
Linear elastic model, DP: 473
Nonlinear (layered) model, TM: 204,
DP: 473475
Orthotropic elastic model, DP: 477, 478
Membrane 2D
Thickness, TM: 221
Membrane 2D macromodel
Membrane 3D macromodel
Subdomain generation, TU: 71, DP:
162
Membranes, TU: 71, TM: 214, DP: 285
reinforced soil benchmark, BM: 89
Mesh tying, DP: 382
Nodal link, DP: 379
Node, DP: 243
Nonlinear solvers, DP: 69
Overlaid meshes
generation, DP: 110
December 3, 2008
Plane strain
analysis and drivers, DP: 16, DP: 67
beams, TM: 177, TM: 184, TM: 187,
TM: 189, TM: 195
box-shaped medium benchmarks, BM:
9
110
EAS, TM: 119, TM: 123
222
151
trusses, TM: 162, TM: 166
Postprocessing
how do I...., DP: 499
using macros, DP: 501
Preferences, DP: 107
Preprocessing
FE model, DP: 85, DP: 234
Macromodelling, DP: 85, DP: 126
Main menu, DP: 86
User interface, DP: 85
Preprocessor
construction lines, DP: 108, 109
copy by rotation selected objects, DP:
92
copy by symmetry, DP: 92
copy by translation selected objects, DP:
92
grid, DP: 109
import geometrical model, DP: 89
move selected objects, DP: 91
rotate selected objects, DP: 91
selection by plate, DP: 104
selection inside box, DP: 103
selection lists, DP: 100
selection of finite elements, DP: 101
selection of nodes, DP: 102
selection with oriented plane, DP: 103
show distance, DP: 106
show node coordinates, DP: 106
show vector, DP: 106
show volume of continuum element, DP:
106
snap options, DP: 109
visibility setup, DP: 96

BM106

Preprocessor menu
Cursor mode, DP: 96
Edit, DP: 89
Element nodes selection, DP: 104
Files, DP: 88
Help, DP: 111
Layers, DP: 109
Selections, DP: 98
Settings, DP: 106
Tools, DP: 106
View, DP: 92
Visualization, DP: 94
Preprocessor toolbars
2D mesh refinement, DP: 123
3D mesh refinement, DP: 124
3D view, DP: 116
camera position, DP: 116
construction lines, DP: 114
edges selection, DP: 118
edit component, DP: 122
edit selected components, DP: 115
faces selection, DP: 117
grid, DP: 114
hide selected components, DP: 114
mesh refinement, DP: 122
selection lists, DP: 119
selection modes, DP: 126
snap to options, DP: 114
special selections methods, DP: 125
split elements, DP: 124
standard selection cursor, DP: 121
toolbars, DP: 113
tools, DP: 120
view 3D/2D scene, DP: 121
visibility, DP: 115
visualizalization of materials, existence
and unloading functions, DP: 126
working plane in 3D, DP: 116
zoom in/out, DP: 115
Problem statement, TM: 37
heat, TM: 45
humidity, TM: 47
single phase, TM: 38
two phase, TM: 39
Pushover
control parameters, DP: 71
results, DP: 498
Pushover control node, DP: 384
December 3, 2008
Restart
control, DP: 69
Results
content, DP: 81
for beam elements, DP: 82, TM: 195
for continuum elements, DP: 82
for shell/membrane elements, DP: 82,
TM: 213
nodal solid accelerations, DP: 83
nodal solid velocities, DP: 83
residuals at nodes, DP: 83
standard nodal results, DP: 83
storage frequency, DP: 69
Seepage 2D macromodel
Seepage 3D macromodel
Subdomain generation, TU: 67, DP:
184
Seepage elements, DP: 308
Shell 1L
Thickness, TU: 61, TU: 77, TM: 200
Shell 1L macromodel
Extrusion, TU: 61, TU: 77
Virtual mesh, TU: 61, TU: 77, DP: 179
Shell elements, TM: 197, DP: 274
benchmarks, BM: 8387
Shell elements with one layer of nodes, TU:
61, TU: 77, DP: 280
Single phase
driven load driver, DP: 25, TU: 29
effective stress analysis, DP: 20
initial state driver, DP: 21
stability driver, TU: 25, TU: 71
total stress analysis, DP: 20, DP: 24,
DP: 33
Stability, TU: 25, DP: 30
algorithm, TM: 141
analysis, DP: 32, 33
driver, TU: 25, DP: 3033
local material setting, DP: 31, DP: 432
slope benchmark, BM: 24
Strains
imposed, DP: 372

BM107

thermal, DP: 49
Stress
sign convention, DP: 3
Structures
beams, TM: 177
direction on surface, TM: 226
local base, TM: 227
membranes, TM: 222
offset, TM: 224
shells, TM: 197
trusses, TM: 161
Subdomain
Excavation front, DP: 167
Project subdomain on surface, DP: 184
Swelling
material properties, TM: 93, DP: 425
Truss 2D macromodel
Truss 3D macromodel
Truss elements, TM: 162, DP: 255
prestress benchmark, BM: 34
Two phase
box-shaped medium benchmarks, BM:
11, BM: 13
consolidation driver, DP: 38
driven load driver, DP: 37
initial state driver, DP: 35
slope stability benchmark, BM: 32
stability driver, DP: 40, 41
Unit weight
definitions, DP: 6
in single phase problems, DP: 20, DP:
24
in two phase problems, DP: 41
Units, DP: 74
basic, DP: 7, DP: 76
compound, DP: 77
conversion, DP: 75
setting basic units, DP: 74
December 3, 2008

BM108

Benchmarks: Z Soil - PC 2009 Manual

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

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

Benchmarks: Z Soil - PC 2009 Manual

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

BENCHMARKS

Z Soil.PC 2009 manual

A. Truty Th. Zimmermann K. Podles

Zace Services Ltd, Software engineering

Z Soil.PC 2009 manual:

END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR ZACEs Z SOIL.PC SOFTWARE

Z SOIL.PC (the Software) SOFTWARE PRODUCT LICENSE

NO LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES

2 ELEMENTARY BOUNDARY VALUE PROBLEMS

BOX-SHAPED MEDIUM, PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRY . . . . .

BOX-SHAPED MEDIUM, WITH WATER BOUNDARY CONDITIONS . . .

PLANE STRAIN BOX-SHAPED MEDIUM WITH OVERPRESSURE . . . .

3 SOIL MECHANICS BENCHMARKS

LOAD CARRYING AND SETTLEMENTS OF FOUNDATIONS . . . . . . .

SUPERFICIAL FOUNDATION (PLANE STRAIN) . . . . . . . . . .

AXISYMMETRIC SUPERFICIAL FOUNDATION

SEISMIC BEARING CAPACITY OF STRIP FOOTING ON SLOPES

SLOPE STABILITY IN PRESENCE OF SEEPAGE FLOW . . . . . .

EXCAVATION AND CONSTRUCTION STAGES

EXCAVATION WITH PROGRESSIVE UNLOADING . . . . . . . . .

OEDOMETRIC TEST (TERZAGHI CONSOLIDATION)

TERZAGHI CONSOLIDATION, TWO LAYERS MEDIUM . . . . . .

TERZAGHI CONSOLIDATION, TWO LAYERS WITH WATER TABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TWODIMENSIONAL FOOTING SETTLEMENT . . . . . . . . . .

ELASTOPLASTIC COMPRESSION (COMP.INP) . . . . . . . . . .

QuickHelp Theory Benchmarks Tutorials

OEDOMETER TEST UNDER FORCE CONTROL

OEDOMETER UNLOADING-LOADING TEST UNDER FORCE CONTROL (SWELL UNLREL.INP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A GAP IN INFINITE MEDIUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

HALF-SPACE UNDER COMPRESSIVE LOAD (3D)

CIRCULAR CAVITY UNDER THE PRESSURE

RECTANGULAR DAM WITH TAILWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RECTANGULAR DAM WITH TOEDRAIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MODELLING BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR TRANSIENT AND STEADY

TRANSIENT HEAT PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ELASTO-PLASTIC FIXED-END BEAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ELASTO-PLASTIC BEAM WITH SUPPORTS VARIABLE IN TIME

REINFORCED CONCRETE 2-SPAN BEAM . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REINFORCED CONCRETE 2-FLOOR FRAME

TUBE TO SPHERE CONNECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CYLINDER SUBJECTED TO PRESSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CIRCULAR ELASTO-PLASTIC PLATE

TWISTED BEAM (SHELL MODEL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

concerns versions: ACADEMIC, PROFESSIONAL, EXPERT only

QuickHelp Theory Benchmarks Tutorials

SQUARE ELASTOPLASTIC PLATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ELASTOPLASTIC CYLINDRICAL SHELL . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SOIL SLOPE REINFORCED BY MEMBRANES . . . . . . . . . . .

7 SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION BENCHMARKS

QuickHelp Theory Benchmarks Tutorials

QuickHelp Theory Benchmarks Tutorials

Contents of Data Preparation

2 DATA PREPARATION AND POSTPROCESSING DESCRIPTION

ANALYSIS & DRIVERS

PROBLEM TYPE AND DRIVERS . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SINGLE PHASE (DEFORMATION) ANALYSIS .

FLOW (STEADY STATE AND TRANSIENT) . .

DEFORMATION COUPLED WITH FLOW

QuickHelp Theory Benchmarks Tutorials

ASSOCIATED PREPROCESSED PROJECTS . . . . . . .

LINEAR EQUATION SOLVERS

USER INTERFACE, MAIN MENU AND BASIC TOOLS

ELEMENT NODES SELECTIONS . . . . 105