A NONLINEAR FINITE ELEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE DESIGN OF

FLEXIBLE EARTH RETAINING WALLS

RELEASE 2014 June 2014

ADVANCED MODELLING
CeAS
C ENTR O D I ANALI SI STR UTTU RALE S. R . L.

viale Giustiniano 10
20129 Milano
www.ceas.it

PARATIEPLUS 2014

June 2014

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD............................................................................................................................................................... 4
1

ANCHORED RETAINING WALL IN BERLIN SAND ................................................................................. 5

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7

MULTI-ANCHORED WALL EXAMPLE ..................................................................................................... 13

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................. 5

SOIL PARAMETER SELECTION ......................................................................................................................... 6
PARATIE PLUS MODEL SETUP ............................................................................................................... 9
PARATIE PLUS RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 10
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................. 11
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................ 12
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 12

PARATIE-PLUS MODEL SETUP ............................................................................................................. 14

PARATIE-PLUS RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 15
FINITE ELEMENT SEEPAGE ANALYSIS VS. 1-D SEEPAGE SCHEME................................................................... 17
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................ 19
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 19

MODELLING CRITERIA FOR DEWATERING OPERATIONS ............................................................. 20

3.1
MODELLING A HYDRAULIC PLUG STABILIZED BY TENSION ELEMENTS ................................. 20
3.2
MODELLING A JETGROUTING PLUG .................................................................................................. 23
3.3
REVIEW OF EXAMPLE IN SECTION 2 .............................................................................................................. 25
3.4
A SHEETPILE COFFERDAM IN THE PO RIVER ................................................................................................. 26
3.4.1
Concrete plug design........................................................................................................................... 28
3.4.2
Sheetpile design ................................................................................................................................... 28
3.5
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 31

BBC AN EXCAVATION PROBLEM IN NC CLAY ................................................................................. 32

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7

UNDERSTANDING THE GAP OPTIONS IN PARATIE PLUS ................................................................. 41

5.1

SCOPE .......................................................................................................................................................... 32
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................ 32
APPROACHING THIS PROBLEM WITH PARATIE ............................................................................................ 32
RESULT DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................... 34
CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 39
ACKNOWLEDGMENT .................................................................................................................................... 39
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 40

A SIMPLE NON LINEAR GAP MODEL ............................................................................................................... 42

DEWATERING OPERATIONS BY WELL-POINTS .................................................................................. 44

6.1
6.2

COMMENTS .................................................................................................................................................. 46
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 47

SEISMIC ANALYSIS WITH PARATIE PLUS ............................................................................................. 48

ARCHING OPTION IN PARATIE PLUS ..................................................................................................... 50

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

PARATIEPLUS 2014

June 2014

Foreword
This report includes PARATIE PLUS analysis of some benchmark problems selected among experimental
or numerical studies of flexible retaining structures.
The scope of this report is to check the modelling capabilities of PARATIE PLUS and to discuss some
suggested approaches to practical problems, with respect to available structural and geotechnical
information.
In this respect, the presentation of each problem is limited to the discussion of the methods and
assumptions to be used, as well as the assessment of the obtained results with respect to the expected
behaviour. No precise indication to how use the program is included. It is therefore assumed that the
reader is familiar with the procedures included in PARATIE PLUS, as well as with the assumptions at the
base of the modelling approaches implemented in the program.

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

1 Anchored retaining wall in Berlin sand

In the development of the underground transportation system of the city of Berlin, some excavation pits
were completed using various retaining system technologies. In one pit in central Berlin, 20 m deep,
some instrumentation was installed in order to gather measurements of the retaining wall behaviour
during the construction stages. Based on such experimental results, some numerical studies have been
performed by various Authors using different numerical approaches. In what follows, we'll refer to the
numerical study by Nikolinakou et al. (2011)in which an advanced constitutive model (MIT-S1) for
granular soils was used within a 2D finite element model; from this reference we'll reproduce all the
necessary tables and figures, and some statements as well, in order to clearly present the problem. Some
aspect of this problem can be also analyzed with PARATIE PLUS.

1.1 Problem description

According to Nikolinakou et al. (2011), the soil is essentially a poorly graded sandy soil, which is almost
normally consolidated in the upper part and overconsolidated in deep layers. The local ground water table
is located 2 m below the ground surface.
The assumed stratigraphy can be summarized as follows
-

surficial layer S0,

S0 a NC loose sandy formation including (12 m thick) including a 4m thick fill

intermediate layer S1,

S1 an OC moderately dense sand , (12 m thick)

deep layer S2,

S2 OC medium dens sand

Given the high permeability of the surrounding sandy soils (i.e., in the range 10 10 m/s), underwater
excavation was considered the only practical construction method because dewatering would affect a
large area, have a significant environmental impact, produce significant settlements, and potentially cause
damage to historical buildings.
-3

-4

The excavation pit is supported by a 1.21.5 m thick, reinforced-concrete diaphragm wall that extends
around the perimeter of the site, measuring approximately 300 m long and 25 m wide. The wall panels
extend to depths ranging from 25 to 31 m, corresponding to toe embedments of 6.87.8 m below formation
level.
The wall is supported by a single row of prestressed tieback anchors located 23 m below the ground
surface with spacing ranging between 1.0 and 1.5 m. These are installed with dip angles ranging from 25
35 and 8 m fixed (i.e., grouted) anchor lengths into the deeper soil formations (free lengths range from
2640 m). Each tieback typically has eight or nine strands of a high-strength steel (i.e., grade 270 ksi)
tendon.
After installing the diaphragm wall and tieback anchors, excavation was performed underwater by using a
pontoon-mounted crane to an average final formation grade 20.2 m below the initial ground surface.
Before dewatering, the base of the excavation was sealed by a 1.5 m thick underwater concrete slab
supported by an array of tension piles.
The numerical finite element models by Nikolinakou et al. (2011) consider some instrumented cross
sections and are limited to the simulation of the construction stages up to the final underwater excavation
stage. No further construction stages including dewatering stage were analysed.
Among the available sections, wall MQ3 is considered, corresponding with the one whose experimental
behaviour was best reproduced by the numerical models.
Model data is briefly outlined in the following table and in Figure 1-1.

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

June 2014

PARATIEPLUS 2014

Excavation depth D

D=21.40 m

Wall height

H=28.70 m

Wall thickness

T=1.50 m

Tieback data

Free length 34.5 m

Foundation length 8 m
Spacing 1m
Dip angle = 35
No. of tendons 10
Area = 14.52 cm/m
Prestress 540 kN/m

Figure 1-1

1.2 Soil parameter selection

In order to define the soil parameters, including the special parameters required by the advanced
constitutive model MIT-S1 used by Nikolinakou et al. (2011), the following approach was used.
Several disturbed soil samples were collected at different depth by means of boreholes and a quite
extended set of lab tests was conducted on reconstructed samples, in order to characterize the soil in
terms of grading and critical state parameter such as critical state friction angle 'cs. It must be noted that
such campaign could not identify any soil cementation, even if such contribution was suspected to exist at
the site.
A summary of the selected physical property of Berlin sand are reported in the following table.

A critical state friction angle in triaxial compression equal to 31 was also determined, as well as an
estimate of peak friction angles at different initial densities (e0) and different confining pressures.
Initial in situ conditions such as void ratio values at different depths were assessed by means of Dynamic
Probing (DPH) Tests, performed in conjunction with the boreholes.
A correlation between DPH results (which is essentially a dynamic penetration test) and relative density
was used, following the recommended procedure by DIN 4094-3 standard, and the initial void ration was
back-figured, using the usual equation

Dr =

e max e0
with e max e min = e 0.20 according to lab tests.
e max e min

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

The estimated void ratio profile is shown in the next figure, in which the assumed average initial values
are also reported.

S0
e0 0.6
Dr < 20%

S1
e0 0.5
Dr 50%

S2
e0 0.42
Dr > 80%

Figure 1-2: void ratio profiles in Berlin sands

According to such investigation, the following additional soil parameters were proposed. Assumed unit
weights according to the estimated void ratios are also included.
Layer

Peak friction angle

At rest coefficient

dry weight

saturated weight

'p

K0

kN/m

kN/m

S0

31

0.5

16.5

20

S1

34

17.1

20.5

S2

37.5

18.3

21.5

It should be remarked that such characterization is closely related to the features of the constitutive soil
model adopted in the cited reference, a model which incorporates several aspects that are usually not
considered in ordinary soil models normally used in engineering analyses in the practice.
Despite this observation, in the assessment of the resistance parameters considered in the simplified
PARATIE PLUS soil model, we'll us the parameter above as well.
Therefore, as for the assessment of the active and passive thrust coefficients, we'll consider the peak
friction angles above, and wall to soil friction angle = 0.7 'p. Passive coefficients will be computed

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

June 2014

PARATIEPLUS 2014

according to Lancellotta (2007), including a null seismic acceleration. It must be reminded that in a
PARATIE PLUS analysis, as well as in an analysis by means of any other non linear spring method, the
selection of appropriate (realistic) thrust coefficients KA and KP represents a very important aspect, which
is even more important than the determination of appropriate friction angles.
The selection of elastic properties of the soil in Nikolinakou et al. (2011) is performed in the light of the key
features of their soil model which requires the characterization of soil deformation at very small strains, in
terms of the small strain shear modulus Gmax. Then, their constitutive model is so conceived to adapt the
soil stiffness, so as to model the observed non linear stress-strain behaviour of actual soils.
In the very simplified PARATIE PLUS model, however, a realistic secant modulus with respect to the
expected soil deformations must be defined. The assessment of PARATIE PLUS muduli is briefly outlined
in the following.
The Gmax profiles considered by Nikolinakou et al. (2011) are reported in Figure 1-3(see the cited paper for
more details). In the same figure, an alternative distribution is also included, which will be used in
PARATIE PLUS, according to the following equation

G max

'
= 140 h
pa

0.5

[MPa ]

With 'h = lateral stress and pa = atmospheric pressure (98 kPa). This kind of correlation is quite in
agreement with usual experimental findings in similar soils. However, it should be noted that such fitting is
likely to be an overestimate of actual values, at least in the shallow layers (see discussion in the cited
reference)

Figure 1-3: Gmax profiles for Berlin sand

Now, the secant modulus to be used in an approximate static analysis can be estimated applying a
reduction factor to Gmax. While in general an iterative procedure should be used, in this case, a quite rough
estimate is adopted, following the recommendations normally considered in the practice: a reduction
factor for Gmax in the range 0.20.3 is deemed as appropriate in this case.
So, assuming an average Poisson ratio equal to 0.25, we assume

'
E 0.2 2.50 140 h
pa

0.5

'
= 70 h
pa

0.5

[MPa ]

We consider this as an unloading-reloading elastic modulus, so, assuming Eur/Evc 2, we use

'
E vc 35 h
pa

0.5

[MPa ]

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

In PARATIE PLUS, such values are used to determine, at each stage, the stiffness of the non-linear
springs, by dividing Evc or Eur by an appropriate length representing the assumed width of the soil which is
affected by wall deformation, at either side of the wall. Such length is automatically computed by
PARATIE PLUS according to Becci & Nova (1987).

1.3 PARATIE PLUS MODEL SETUP

The model in PARATIE PLUS is defined as usual. As for thrust coefficients, see Figure 1-4. As for K0
values, the following usual equation is used:

K 0 = K 0NC OCR where K 0NC = 0.5 and OCR is set equal to 2 for layers S1 and S2.

Figure 1-4: PARATIE PLUS MODEL SHOWING KA / KP values

The construction sequence is modelled as usual, including the following stages
1. initial at rest conditions
2. 2 m free excavation down to the tieback level
3. tieback tensioning
4. progressive excavation down to final depth (-21.40)
Note that the water table is not lowered inside the excavation. Therefore the water pressure at opposite
faces of the wall are balanced and the only effect of the water is represented by the reduction of both
driving and resisting soil pressures due to the buoyancy force.
The mesh density is set equal to 0.20m, therefore considering a double array of non linear springs at 20
cm spacing.

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

PARATIEPLUS 2014

June 2014

1.4 PARATIE PLUS RESULTS

Relevant results are depicted in the following plots.

Figure 1-5: results at anchor installation (lateral displacements, bending moments and anchor forces)
forces)

Figure 1-6: results at final excavation stage (lateral displacements, bending moments and anchor
forces)
At final excavation stage, the maximum inward movement of the wall is about 20 mm. The ground anchor
force displays a 3.7% increase with respect to initial preload. This observation shows that the ground
anchor system was very well tuned. Maximum sagging moment is around 2300 kNm/m, thus requiring a
bending reinforcement As equal to more or less 0.50.6% of the gross wall area (on the external face,
neglecting any long term issue such as cracking control).

10

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

Figure 1-7: lateral effective stresses at final excavation stage and thrust summary
In Figure 1-7, we recognize that active lateral conditions at driving side are reached along almost all the
wall height. The active pressures computed by PARATIE PLUS do not account, in this case, for any
arching effects.
The passive resistance at the toe is sufficient to ensure safe conditions, as the ratio of the available
passive thrust to the calculated thrust is 1970/935 = 2.1, which is usually acceptable for temporary
situations like this.

1.5 Discussion
In order to compare the obtained results with the experimental and predicted ones, in Figure 1-8 we
superimpose PARATIE PLUS results on to the results presented by Nikolinakou et al. (2011).

Figure 1-8: comparison with

with experimental and numerical results by Nikolinakou et al. (2011
(2011)
2011)
The good agreement with measures and with predicted results by Nikolinakou et al. (2011) is highlighted.

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

11

PARATIEPLUS 2014

June 2014

Of course, the results available by a 2D finite element analysis with an appropriate constitutive model for
soils are much more complete: for example the settlements at the ground level and the heave inside the
excavation cannot be directly captured by a PARATIE PLUS analysis. Moreover, a general failure
mechanism, like the one in Figure 1-9 cannot be investigated.

Figure 1-9: general bulkhead stability

However, in spite of the simplicity of the soil-structure scheme considered by PARATIE PLUS, in this case
the main results relevant for the design are computed quite well.
One merit of the non linear spring method, which may be considered in particular in the early phases of a
retaining structure design, is the simplicity in defining the problem geometry, as well as the definition of
soil parameters. Results assessment is also very straightforward, all the more because the available
results are essentially the same as those obtained by traditional limit equilibrium methods being used by
geotechnical engineers for many decades.
We also note that, in the light of actual Limit State approach, like the one proposed by Eurocode 7, the
possibility to define the soil resistance in terms of limit thrust coefficients rather than c' or ' may
sometimes facilitate the analysis according to those design approaches (like EC7 DA2) in which the safety
factors are applied to soil resistances rather to soil parameter. The use of advanced numerical methods
within the Ultimate Limit States method in geotechnical engineering is still an open issue: therefore, until
as a consensus about the appropriate method to be used in numerical analysis is not reached, the role of
very simple engineering methods like PARATIE PLUS is still worthwhile.

1.6 Conclusion
Conclusion
A PARATIE PLUS model of a very well documented real benchmark, for which an advanced finite element
simulation is also available, is presented. Limited to the case considered in this example, PARATIE PLUS
results are very close to the published ones, based on an estimate of soil parameters conducted
according to usual methods normally considered in the practice.
In the scientific study from which such example is retrieved, some other similar cases are presented and
discussed. PARATIE PLUS Users are encouraged to attempt a PARATIE PLUS model also for those
other examples. That paper can be obtained in https://cee.mit.edu/whittle

1.7 References
Becci, B. & Nova,R. (1987). "Un metodo di calcolo automatico per il progetto di paratie, Rivista Italiana di
Geotecnica",1,33-47 (in Italian)
Lancellotta R., (2007) Lower-bound approach for seismic passive earth resistance, Gotechnique, Vol.
57, No. 3, pp. 319-321
Nikolinakou, M.A., Whittle, A.J., Savidis S., & Schran, U. (2011) Prediction and interpretation of the
performance of a deep excavation in Berlin sand, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 137(11), 1047-1061.

12

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

2 MULTIMULTI-ANCHORED WALL EXAMPLE

The multi-anchored retaining wall described by Schweiger (2002) is considered in Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1: Real wall benchmark (adapted after Schweiger (2002))

It represents a real problem of a deep excavation in Berlin for which several measurements are available.
Such case was selected by Schweiger (2002) as a benchmark for numerical predictions by several
competitors. In the cited reference, the results from such competitions are presented and discussed.
This problem is also frequently presented as an example problem by some of the most widely used
numerical tools, such as FLAC (Itasca (2011) and PLAXIS (Brinkgreve et al. (2010)).
In order to perform a quite deep excavation in Berlin sand, with the presence of a very shallow water table,
the following construction procedure was adopted.
A 2 m thick hydraulic barrier at the wall toe was put in place: such barrier may correspond with a jetgrouting plug which provides a quite impervious layer to limit the seepage flow inside excavation.
The water table inside excavation is lowered to final excavation
The excavation is then performed with progressive installation of intermediate ground anchors as shown
in Figure 2-1, until the final excavation is reached.
In this model, beyond the prediction capabilities of the selected numerical approach, a relevant aspect is
represented by the way how dewatering operations are modelled. Such aspect will be also addressed in
the following.

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

13

June 2014

PARATIEPLUS 2014

2.1 PARATIEPARATIE-PLUS MODEL SETUP

The soil properties assigned to PARATIE are the following, in close agreement with the cited references.

E vc (kPa ) 15000 z[m] z 20m

E vc (kPa ) 50000 z[m] z > 20m
E UR E vc = 1.5

= 35

= 0.7

At rest coefficient as well as KA and KP values are automatically computed by PARATIE PLUS according
to the usual methods.
Ground anchors are modelled as linear springs whose stiffness is given by the axial stiffness (EA) of the
steel stem divided by the deformable length, set equal to the free length plus 50% of the grouted length.
In PARATIE PLUS, the hydraulic barrier is modelled by simply assigning a reduced permeability to that
zone: we assume kplug knat/100. Once the plug is prescribed, water pressures at both sides of the walls
are determined based on usual 1-D seepage scheme, which is the routinely adopted procedure by
PARATIE PLUS. It should be noted that in this case no other soil parameter is modified in this case, even
if normally some increase stiffness and resistance is also assigned.
In Figure 2-2 the PARATIE PLUS model layout at final excavation stage is shown: the soil zone where a
modified permeability is assigned is highlighted by a dashed hatch.

Figure 2-2: Real wall benchmark - PARATIE PLUS model

14

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

2.2 PARATIEPARATIE-PLUS RESULTS

In the following figures main results at final excavation stage are summarized.

Figure 2-3: PARATIE PLUS model - deformed shape and bending moments

Figure 2-4: PARATIE PLUS model

model - lateral and water pressures
In Figure 2-5, bending moments are compared with the values reported in the cited reference. Both
absolute values and overall pattern are fairly in agreement, on the safe side.
Computed and measured deformed shapes are also compared (as explained in Schweiger (2002),
numerical results should be adjusted by adding a 10 mm lateral uniform movement): numerical model

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

15

PARATIEPLUS 2014

June 2014

reproduces quite well the observed behaviour, unless in the top part where some reduced anchor stiffness
is highlighted by the measures.
This effect is probably related to a limited upper anchor length whose foundation is disturbed by wall
movements: such aspect may be highlighted just by a continuum model (Itasca (2011)). In this respect,
FLAC results reported in Itasca (2011) and reproduced in Figure 2-6 confirm this observation. In situations
like the present one, the intrinsic limitations of the non-linear spring approach become quite evident.

Figure 2-5: Comparison with reference results

Figure 2-6: FLAC results (final stage) (after Itasca (2011))

16

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

2.3 Finite element seepage analysis vs. 1-D seepage scheme

By means of the 2-D seepage feature offered by PARATIE PLUS, the usual 1-D seepage scheme can be
compared with more advanced continuum solution. The following two assumptions are considered.

Figure 2-7: PARATIE PLUS SEEPAGE MODELS

In both model hydrostatic conditions (with up-hill phreatic level) are prescribe on the left boundary,
whereas no-flow conditions are prescribed at the base and along left boundary, in order to model
symmetrical flow conditions. A fixed water table is also applied along horizontal surface inside excavation.
In the upper model, the water table at the up-hill (driving side) is free to move, thus producing an
unconfined model. In the lower model, a fixed water table is assigned: therefore such model is a confined
seepage problem.
The finite element mesh is automatically created by PARATIE PLUS matching geometry and boundary
conditions. The steady state seepage condition is then obtained by XFINEST, for both cases.
Finally the predicted pore pressures for each case are used by the non-linear spring solver, rather than
ordinary 1-D seepage pressures.
The predicted pressures are summarized in Figure 2-8. Very similar values are computed by all the
approaches, including the very simple 1-D scheme.
On the driving side, some water table lowering determined by the unconfined 2D mode is clearly
highlighted, as also shown in Figure 2-9. In this figure excess pore pressure iso-curves (red lines) and
total pressure iso-curves (blue lines) are also depicted. The effect of the very small permeability in the soil
plug is quite clear. In Figure 2-10 flow vectors and the finite element mesh for the unconfined model are
shown: it is important to remark that such mesh is seamlessly built by the program when running the
seepage analysis.

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

17

June 2014

PARATIEPLUS 2014

water pressures on wall

u [kPa]
-300

-200

-100

100

200

300
0

-5

-10

Z [m]

-15

-20

-25

-30

-35

FEM seepage free table driving side

FEM seepage fixed table
PARATIE 1D solution

Figure 2-8: COMPARISON AMONG VARIOUS SEEPAGE SOLUTIONS

Figure 2-9: UNCONFINED SEEPAGE SOLUTIONS - excess and total pressure isoiso-curves

18

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

Figure 2-10:
10: UNCONFINED SEEPAGE SOLUTIONS - flow vectors and finite element mesh

2.4 Conclusion
A PARATIE PLUS model of a real anchored bulkhead is presented. PARATIE PLUS results are fairly in
agreement with both field measures and some other numerical predictions. The most important
discrepancies with published data have been addressed and clearly explained.
The usual 1-D seepage model in PARATIE-PLUS is compared with more advanced 2-D seepage models.
In this case, the obtained results are essentially the same using all the modelling schemes included in
PARATIE PLUS. Limited to examples like current one, the 1-D seepage scheme can be used for practical
design purposes.

2.5 References
Brinkgreve, R.B.J., Engin E., Engin H.K., (2010). Validation of empirical formulas to derive model
parameters for sands. Proc. Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering NUMGE2010,
Trondheim, Norway, June 2-4 , pp. 137142.
Itasca Consulting Group, (2011). Installation of a Triple-Anchored Excavation Wall in Sand, FLAC version
7.0, Example Applications Manual, section 17.
Schweiger, H. F. (2002). Results from numerical benchmark exercises in geotechnics, Proc. 5th European
Conf. Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Presses Ponts et chaussees, Paris, 2002, pp
305314.

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

19

June 2014

PARATIEPLUS 2014

3 Modelling criteria for dewatering operations

One of the most challenging aspects in underwater excavations is represented by dewatering operations,
which normally implies a careful assessment of many issues related to technological, practical and
economical aspects which in general are far beyond the scope of this discussion.
In this respect, here we just consider some modelling criteria which allow a reasonable simulation of
dewatering operations by means of PARATIE PLUS.

3.1 MODELLING A HYDRAULIC PLUG STABILIZED BY TENSION ELEMENTS

We consider the example problem section 1. As already mentioned, final excavation depth was reached
by underwater dredging operation, thus allowing water inside excavation. Before dewatering, the base of
the excavation was sealed by a 1.5 m thick underwater concrete slab supported by an array of tension
piles, represented by a system of H-piles installed by a vibratory driver and grouted to ensure a good
connection with the surrounding sand. Afterwards, the water inside excavation was progressively pumped
out, along with the construction of internal structures. Realistic pit completion stages are outlined in Figure
3-1.

Figure 3-1: dewatering operations in M1 pit

Stage (A) corresponds with final excavation stage modeled in section 1. Stage (B) corresponds with
tension piles and foundation slab construction, during which additional wall deformations were observed
(see Nikolinakou et al. (2011)) most likely due to causes that cannot be directly modelled in a PARATIE
PLUS analysis. Stages (C) and (D) represent some possible although no exact information about
dewatering operations and final construction stages are available in the cited reference.
It must be noted that during all dewatering operations, negligible seepage is assumed in the surrounding
soil. Therefore water pressure under the bottom slab is governed by the original phreatic level (2 m under
below ground surface).
Taking the bottom slab elevation at -21.40 m, water pressures at the bottom slab are easily determined to
be equal to

u=(21.40-2)10 = 194 kPa

In most severe conditions, the net uplift force per unit area qnet to be resisted by tension piles is equal to u
minus the slab total weight:
qnet= u - c t = 194 - 251.50 = 156.5 kPa

20

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

By means of PARATIE PLUS, such procedure may be reproduced as follows: we restart analysis
discussed in example 1.
STAGE B
The bottom slab is activated by adding an elastic spring element, whose stiffness (per unit running
excavation out-of-plane length) is given by

Kslab = Ect/(0.5B )
in which Ec is the Young modulus of the concrete, t = slab thickness and B is the excavation
breadth (~ 23 m): thus
Kslab = 3010 1.5 / (0.523) = ~3.910 kN / m / m
6

It should be noted that, if no other change is prescribed to the model, no modifications to previous
stage are expected
STAGE C
A cover slab (1 m equivalent thick slab is assumed) at top elevation is activated, by means of an
elastic spring element whose stiffness is given by
Ktop = 3010 1 / (0.523) = ~2.610 kN / m / m
6

It is also assumed that water level inside excavation is lowered down to EL. -12.50 m, but such
lowering must not modify the hydraulic conditions in the surrounding soil. To do this, the following
three operations must be done
1. the water table and the excavation side must be kept to the original level (-2 m) but the
lining option must be activated;
2. the stabilizing pressures of remaining water inside excavation below El. -12.50 (8.9 m
water height) must be applied as external lateral loadings to the retaining wall;
3. the bottom of the excavation must be stabilized by a surcharge accounting for the weight
of the bottom slab, the weight of the water inside excavation and the reaction of the
tension piles. Note that the sum of such contribution must correspond with u= 194 kPa)
determined above. Therefore the average uplift force to be resisted by piles, in this phase,
is given by
qnet= 194 - 251.50 - 10(7.4) = 194-37.5-74 = 82.5 kPa
However, to PARATIE PLUS, a surcharge q = 194 kPa must be applied at the bottom of
excavation.
We finally assume that the existing ground anchor is still active at this stage.
STAGE D
An intermediate slab (1 m equivalent thick slab is assumed) at EL -12 m is activated, by adding an
elastic support with the same stiffness as for the top support.
Now the water inside excavation is completely removed. To model this, just the stabilizing water
pressures inside excavation at previous stage are removed as well. Therefore both the lining
option and the surcharge q = 194 kPa at the excavation line must be preserved.
The existing ground anchor is still active at this stage.

STAGE E
The ground anchor is finally removed, thus assuming very long term conditions.

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

21

PARATIEPLUS 2014

June 2014

Relevant results for long term stage E are included in the following plot. We note that the water pressures
in soil elements always depend on the original phreatic level, at both side of the wall.

Figure 3-2: final results for M1 pit modelling

We cannot compare our results with measured or computed results by others, since no information is
currently available, on our best knowledge.
This problem is just proposed to highlight some quite advanced concepts in PARATIE PLUS such as the
lining option feature.
However, just some very qualitative comments can be done as well. For example, we note that the
bending moment increase at STAGE C is very dramatic, whereas the beneficial effects of the intermediate
support activated at stage D is very minor. Therefore, based on our results, such construction sequence is
apparently poorly optimized and it probably does not correspond with actual design.
Input data for this example are included as final stages in the EXAMPLE discussed in section 1.

22

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

3.2 MODELLING A JETGROUTING PLUG

In many Countries, jet-grouting technology is used to seal the bottom of excavations, so as to ensure dry
working conditions inside excavated area without heavy pumping systems.
Whilst such technology is usually considered quite expensive as compared with water table lowering by
means of well points or similar devices, it is often the most recommended and even the only feasible
solution for underwater excavations. For example, in urban areas, relevant water table lowering in the soil
adjacent to the excavation may induce uneven settlement to the nearby facilities, due to an increase of
vertical effective stress in soil. This shortcoming may also be increased if excessive water flows are
induced, which may remove some fine soil faction thus increasing the natural void ratio. Moreover, in
some circumstances, the expected flow to be pumped is so large that it may be difficult to be managed by
the available draining systems. These issues are quite extensively discussed in the technical literature, in
the light of both design and forensic point of view.
The idea of a soil plug, within a retaining wall perimeter is to provide the following beneficial effects:
1. provide a quite impervious barrier which is capable to reduce as possible the in-flow water to be
removed
2. to minimize the seepage in the surrounding soil
3. to increase both the stiffness and the resistance of the soil at the wall toe , thus increasing the
stability of the retaining walls
Depending on the provided plug properties, each of the aspects above may prevail or, on the contrary, be
less important, with respect to the other ones.
The job for the designers of the retaining wall is normally limited to the definition of the most appropriate
plug geometry, with respect to the aspects above, and to the assessment of the effects on the wall design.
Most of the technical aspects related, for example, to the selection of the most appropriate jet-grouting
technology are left to the final design stage which is usually complemented by the assistance of specialist
advisors as well as by Contractor's officers. Therefore we'll limit our discussion just to design aspects,
considering some typical jet-grouting parameters applicable to some frequently encountered sandy soil
conditions. A typical soil plug layout is shown in the next figure.
impervious
retaining wall

Hexc

natural saturated soil

HP

Hs

Hw

sat

jet-grouting plug - plug

natural saturated soil

Figure 3-3: typical jetjet-grouting plug

The improved soil mass is usually bounded by a retaining wall system that must be as impervious as
possible: steel sheetpiles or contiguous bulkheads are currently used. Plug geometry is mainly dictated by
the assumed water table elevation. Preliminary plug arrangement is normally defined by neglecting the
beneficial effects of friction at the plug edges. Therefore, simple equilibrium conditions for a unit area soil
column above plug bottom elevation (point A) are considered. We must meet the following condition:

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

23

June 2014

PARATIEPLUS 2014

w Hw

sat H S + plug H P
Fs

where Fs is a safety factory normally ranging between 1.10 and 1.30. According to Eurocode 7, part 1, this
condition may be formally rewritten within the Ultimate Limit State method, by checking the compliance of
the plug with respect to the UPL (uplift) limit state. Including the Italian partial safety factors (see Italian
NADs, issued on March, 2013), the condition above is formally rewritten as:

(1.1) w H w 0.90 ( sat HS + plug H P )

in which the factor 1.1 multiplying the left-hand term represents the partial safety factor for unfavorable
destabilizing permanent actions (water pressure in this case), whereas the factor 0.9 on right-hand term is
the partial safety factor for stabilizing permanent actions (plug and soil weight).
Beyond the definition of overall or partial safety factors, a most important aspect to carefully consider is
the definition of a realistic value for the soil plug unit weight P. Such value should be carefully selected
according to the preliminary tests which should be normally foreseen in actual projects. As for a very
preliminary assessment, a value equal to about sat in the natural soil may be assumed.
According to such criteria, the depth HP of the jet-grout columns depends on the thickness HS of
unimproved natural soil just below excavation level. In some circumstances, HS is set to zero, since the
jet-grouting columns start just below the dredge line. In this case the jet-grouting plug also offers a very
relevant contribution to retaining wall stability. However no ballasting contribution by natural soil is
considered and the thickness of the plug may be quite large. Assuming that P sat, and that for sandy
soils, sat 2w Eurocode Design equation above, taking HS=0, becomes

H P 1.23 H exc
in which Hexc is the water table elevation with respect to the dredge line level (or top plug elevation) (see
Figure 3-4, left). In many practical cases, it may be more effective to start jet-grouting columns fairly below
the dredge line. In this case, a relevant reduction in jet-grouting volume is obtained. However, some
shortcomings arise as well, as summarized in Figure 3-4, right.
impervious
retaining wall

impervious
retaining wall

internal support

wall deformation

HP

HP

natural soil

Hs

Hexc

wall deformation

Hexc

internal support

jet-grouting plug

jet-grouting plug

Pro
Good contribution to wall
stability
Can be used as subfoundation for long-term
conditions, if possible

contra

Pro

Uneconomical

Cost-effective

May require unexpected

works (top regularization, etc.)

Top demolition not required

contra
Minor contribution to wall toe
stability
Limited visual control
Unuseful for long term
conditions
Extra drilling required
Long walls may be required

Figure 3-4: typical jetjet-grouting plug arrangements

In both cases, the amount of water flowing inside excavation area highly depends on the quality of the jetgrouting plug, which must be realized so as to ensure a safe overlapping between adjacent columns. The

24

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

interface at the wall toe must also be realized with much care. However, some residual water inflow must
be considered as well, and an appropriate pumping system must be provided accordingly.
When the total hydrualic head is very high, both aforementioned solutions may be unfeasible. In such
cases, a different strategy must be considered, as in the real case discussed in section 1.

3.3

Review of Example in section 2

The hydraulic barrier shown in Figure 2-1 (pertaining to a real excavation in Berlin) has been most likely
designed in accordance to the design criteria in Figure 3-4, right. For such case we have:

H w = (32 3) = 29 m
HS = (30 16.80) = 13.20 m
HP = 2 m
sat plug 2 w
therefore

(1.1) w H w = 319 kPa

0.90 ( sat HS + plug H P ) = 273.6 kPa

Simplified Eurocode requirement is apparently not fulfilled. By further inspection of actual values, we
should observe what follows.
If we assume that the head loss is just dissipated along the soil plug, the water pressure at the plug
bottom face (point A in Figure 3-3) is
uA = (32-3)10 = 290 kPa
With the dredge line al EL -16.80, the total weight of the soil column above point A is
v,A (32-16.80)20 = 304 kPa > 290 kPa
A safety factor equal to about 1.05 is guaranteed.
Now consider the seepage reduction provided by simplified or more precise seepage analysis discussed
in section 2.3. By inspection of PARATIE PLUS results as outlined also in Figure 2-8, highest value for uA
is 272 kPa. Therefore a safety factor equal to about 1.11 is obtained, in accordance with traditional criteria
used prior to Eurocodes.
According to Eurocode 7 (Italian NAD), we have
0.90 v,A = 273 kPa

(design resistance)

1.1 uA= 299 kPa

(driving action)

Even in this case, Eurocode requirement is not met. However, if a higher value for hydraulic plug were
considered, according to actual data, a different conclusion may be reached.
Moreover, due to the very deep position of the soil plug, a quite low contribution to wall deformation can
be given by such plug: in this respect, the plug was most likely neglected in wall stability calculation.
In the PARATIE PLUS model, accordingly, the plug was simulated by simply setting the plug permeability
to 1/100 the natural permeability of the surrounding soil. Note that for such analysis it is only important to
reasonably define the relative values among different permeability zones. No soil stiffness of cohesion
improvement was defined at all.

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

25

June 2014

PARATIEPLUS 2014

3.4

A Sheetpile cofferdam in the Po River

In the construction of the High Speed Railway Viaduct crossing the Po River near Piacenza (Italy), large
diameter bored piles are adopted for pier foundation system (Nova & Becci (2008))
Due to stringent hydraulic requirements, including severe provisions for scour prevention, the foundation
of most piers had to be placed at a quite low elevation with respect to the riverbed level. In order to allow
pier construction, deep excavations have been necessary, dealing with very severe water conditions.

Figure 3-5: Viadotto Po

The construction for piers 7 and 8 required the following complex sequence.

STAGE A
Steel casings were driven down to around 15 m
below the riverbed, corresponding with the position
of foundation piles.
A lateral steel structure was fabricated just below
the top of such steel piles, in order to provide a
template for sheetpile installation and a lateral
supporting system.

STAGE B
AZ36 sheetpiles were driven all around the
foundation area.

26

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

STAGE C
A steel-concrete deck was fabricated at the top, so
as to create a working area well above the river.
Such offshore temporary islands were connected
to the land by means of temporary walkways.

STAGE D
Foundation Piles (28 2 m dia. drilled shafts) have
been put in place operating on that working deck.
Once all the piles have been completed, some load
tests have been conducted, using the O-Cell
technology.

STAGE E
About 4 m of the soil inside the working area was
dredged and a massive unreinforced concrete plug
was poured underwater. Then the water inside the
cofferdam was pumped off.

STAGE F
An additional collar was welded to each steel
casing to improve long term bond between piles
and concrete plug. An addition 50 cm concrete
layer was then cast in place.

STAGE G
Temporary steel casings projecting above have
been cut off and the concrete pile tops were
regularized.
Now the construction of foundation reinforcement
could start.
STAGE H
At bridge completion, sheetpiles have been
removed.

Most severe conditions for sheetpiles are represented by STAGE E, just before concrete pouring, as well
as quite long term conditions after STAGE F until bridge completion. Since STAGE E was considered

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

27

June 2014

PARATIEPLUS 2014

quite temporary, less severe water conditions where selected, corresponding with average water level.
For subsequent stages, a more severe condition was assumed.
Two main design aspects will be discussed, namely:

the design of the concrete plug

the modelling of the retaining wall system by PARATIE PLUS.

3.4.1 Concrete plug design

The following design data were considered in concrete plug design
Maximum Water level

: +51.00 m

Bottom foundation elevation

: +37.00 m

Concrete plug thickness

:4m

Internal cofferdam area

: A=855 m

Unit concrete weight

: 23 kN/m

Uplift action at plug base

: U = 855 [51-(37-4)] 10 = 153.9 MN

Concrete plug weight

: W = 855 4 23 = 78.66 MN

The weight of the plug is not sufficient to balance U, thefore some load must be resisted by existing piles
Overall action to be resisted by piles

: U-W=75.24
75.24 MN

Since 28 piles per pier are provided, each pile must ensure a tensile resistance equal to about
: N = 75.24 / 28 = 2.69 MN per pile
Such resistance is easily provided by the shaft resistance of the drilled piles. Of course the resistance of
the connection between each pile and the surrounding concrete pluge has been also addressed.
As for geotechnical check of the tension piles, the tension N has been amplified by an appropriate
coefficient, however, not much greater than unity, as the uncertainties are limited the unit weight of the
plug.
In the calculation of sheet piling the effect of the tension piles has been included by assigning, at the
bottom of the excavation, fictitious surcharge qs at least equal to:
qs = (U-W) / A = (75.24 MN) / 855 m = 88 kPa

3.4.2 Sheetpile
Sheetpile design
The aforementioned staging sequence can be easily modelled with PARATIE PLUS.
The soil at the site, at relevant depths for sheetpile design, is silty sand, for which the following constant
properties can be assumed:
d= 17 kPa

sat= 20 kPa

Evc=7.75 MPa

c'=0

=31

= /3

Eur = 1.5 Evc

k=1 (dummy perm. value)

The following calculation stages are considered.

28

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

Figure 3-6 : Po River cofferdam - PARATIE PLUS analysis

analysis stages

In stage 1, just the sheetpile (AZ36) is installed.

In stage 2, the upper support is added, as an elastic support, with a stiffness k=21 MN / m per running wall
width (based on actual steel framing geometry)
In stage 3, dredging down to plug bottom is performed.
In stage 4, the plug is activated. This aspect is modelled by simply modifying some soil properties at the
left side between el. 33 and 37. It should be noted that a layer must exist between such
elevations. In this case, three layers are prescribed, with same initial properties, the first one
above the plug, the intermediate one correspondiong with the plug and the third one below the
plug. The following properties are assigned to the plug
Cohesion c'=1000 kPa (initially c'=0)
Permeabilty = 5 of natural soil value (k plug = 0.005)
soil stiffness multiplier = 300
In stage 5, dewatering inside working area is modelled, corresponding with maximum expected water
level. A hydrodinamic pressure qw=3.8 kPa is also applied, corresponding with a stream velocity
of 2.75 m/s.
At the plug top, a stabilizing surcharge modelling the stabilizing load qs as discussed in previous
section is applied. Since no modification to unit soil weight can be prescribed, a slightly modified
value must be recalculated based on a plug weight equal to the natural soil weight, thus requiring
a surcharge equal to 100 kPa (rather than 88 kPa, as determined in section 3.4.1)
Moreover, the dewatering is modelled by means of two different approaches allowed in PARATIE
PLUS:
Approach 1: the water table inside the cofferdam is simply set equal to the plug top level.
Approach 2: the water table inside the cofferdam is kept constant to the river stream elevation (el
51.0) but the lining option is activated.
In the first case, seepage conditions are activated but, thanks to the much lower permability in the
plug, most of the head loss is dissipated along the flow path inside the plug: so in the surrounding
soil, head losses are negligible.
In the second case, no seepage is activated (because the hydraulic head between the two wall
faces is the same). However in the calculation of the total vertical stress inside the excavation, no
water above excavation level is assumed.
In the following plots, some PARATIE PLUS results for both calculation approaches are shown. We note
that very similar results are obtained. The main difference rests in the pore pressures in the plug zone,
which, in approach 2, are still determined by the stream water table, whereas in approach 1 drop down to

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

29

PARATIEPLUS 2014

June 2014

zero at the plug top elevation. It's worth observing that the effective vertical stress below the plug is 0 in
both cases.

Figure 3-7 : Po River cofferdam - main results - approach

approach 1

Figure 3-8 : Po River cofferdam - main results - approach 2

Maximum unfactored bending moment is about 986 kNm /m, which was deemed compatible with the
assumed sheetpile shape and a S355 material.
It's remarked that some other design aspects should be addressed, including an assessment of minimum
embedment depth for stability. Such check can be easily performed by means of the automatic cutting
procedure offered by PARATIE PLUS.

30

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

It's finally recommended to make some other experiments so as to get familiar with the seepage features
in PARATIE PLUS: for example a 2D seepage analysis for both approaches is suggested. In both cases,
fixed excess pore pressures must be imposed at both top boundaries as well as on the left side
(representing the riverbed), whereas symmetry conditions must be given along the right vertical side. In
next figure 2D analysis for approach 1 is anticipated.

Boundary conditions

Computed total pressures

2D mesh and flow vectors

Figure 3-9 : Po River cofferdam - 2D seepage analysis - approach 1

3.5 References
Nova. R, Becci B., 2008, Experimental and Numerical Assessment of Osterberg Load Tests on Large
Bored Piles in Sand, 33rd Annual 11th International Deep Foundations Institute Conference
Proceedings, New York, NY, Oct 15-17, pp 225-233.

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

31

PARATIEPLUS 2014

June 2014

4 BBC AN EXCAVATION PROBLEM IN NC CLAY

4.1

Scope

Prediction capabilities of the clay model in PARATIE-PLUS in untrained soil modelling are assessed

4.2 Problem description

A braced excavation problem in a clay layer is studied: such problem is derived by a numerical study by
Whittle & Hashash (1994) which concerns the simulation of a progressive excavation of a 90cm thick
concrete wall, 40m long, with supports an excavation depth equal to 22.5m.

Figure 4-1: A BRACED WALL IN "BOSTON BLUE CLAY" (Whittle & Hashash (1994))
The construction sequence comprises the following steps: 1) soil is initially excavated to a depth, hu=2.5m
with no internal bracing; 2) the wall is then propped at the surface; 3) subsequent excavation proceeds in
2.5m increments with crosslot supports installed at the current grade level (total excavation depth, H).
The analyses assume that there is minimal migration of pore water throughout the excavation process and
hence, the soil is subject to undrained shearing. Initial pore pressures are hydrostatic with the
groundwater table located at a depth, dw=2.5m (typical of conditions in Boston) and full capillarity in the
overlying clay. The clay is saturated and exhibits normalized engineering properties which are typical of
Boston Blue Clay (BBC). A deep layer of K0-normally consolidated clay (OCR=1) with in situ lateral earth
NC
pressures, K0 ='h0/'v0=0.53 is assumed.
Remaining soil parameters are discussed in the cited reference as well as, for example, in a study by
Maiorano & Aversa (1997) based on the same problem.
In these studies, two-dimensional finite element models and complex critical state constitutive laws are
adopted, like MCC (Modified Cam Clay) and MITMIT-E3:
E3 we note that such model need very different soil
parameters as respect to PARATIE data that will be derived from the previous by some approximations.

4.3

Approaching
Approaching this problem with PARATIE

As usual, an initial at rest recovery step is followed by progressive excavation phases in which rigid struts
are progressively activated which prohibit further wall deformations at each application level.

32

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

A very crude soil modelling is of course in used, with respect to the complex critical state models in the
cited studies: in PARATIE just a critical state (cv) and a peak friction angle, some thrust parameters ad
elastic moduli are needed.
As for cv, values between 26 and 32.5 will be adopted, whereas the peak angle will be computed based
on then suggested correlation included in the PARATIE PLUS reference manual.
Active and passive thrust coefficients are computed assuming a perfect wall adhesion to soil, according to
the cited reference (/=1).
As for elastic moduli, a relation in the form EVC=RVC(v/pa) is assumed, which is suitable for NC clay,
taking EUR/EVC=constant.
To estimate RVC, from Figure 4-2 the Gsec/ v ratio can be derived, depending on the shear strain level ,
which can be anticipated based on Figure 4-3.

Figure 4-2:Secant shear

Whittle & Hashash (1994))

modulus

(after

Figure 4-3:shear strain distribution at the end of

excavation (after Whittle & Hashash (1994))

Corresponding with =12%, Gsec/ v ranges between 1030: therefore RVC values between 2000 and
6000 kPa will be adopted.
Since OCR=1, the analysis can directly start in undrained conditions because PARATIE PLUS assumed
drained initial conditions anyway.

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

33

PARATIEPLUS 2014

4.4

June 2014

Result discussion

Results by Whittle & Hashash (1994, as shown in the next figures, highlight some differences among
different constitutive model predictions.

Figure 4-4: wall deformation at different excavation depths (after Whittle & Hashash (1994))

Figure 4-5: Maximum Wall Deflection

Deflection and Bending moment with the excavation progress (after Whittle
& Hashash (1994))

In the following, PARATIE PLUS results will be compared with the MIT-E3 ones, which will be assumed as
the exact solution.
The investigated parameter assumptions within reasonable ranges as discussed above are summarized
in the following table.

34

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

EUR/EVC=5
cv

Rvc=3000
kPa

EUR/EVC=3.75

Rvc=4000
kPa

26

Rvc=3000
kPa

Rvc=4000
kPa

EUR/EVC=3
Rvc=3000
kPa

Rvc=4000
kPa

C1

27

C2

C3

C5

28

C6

29
30

C4

32.5

C7

In the next figures, wall deformed shapes computed by PARATIE PLUS at different excavation stages are
compared with Whittle & Hashash MIT-E3 results.
MIT-E3 vs PARATIE
'cv=26 Evc = 40 'v Eur /E vc=5
-200

-150

-100

-50

0
0

PARATIE - EXCV -10

PARATIE - EXCV -15

PARATIE - EXCV -20

PARATIE - EXCV. -22.5

MIT-E3 Excv -10

MIT-E3 - Excv -15

MIT-E3 - Excv -20

MIT-E3 - Excv -22.5

-5
-10
-15
10

-20

depth z [m]

-25
-30
-35
-40
H=

22.5

20

15

-45

lateral deflection [mm]

Figure 4-6:C1 case deformation comparison

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

35

June 2014

PARATIEPLUS 2014

MIT-E3 vs PARATIE
'cv=27 Evc = 30 'v E ur /Evc=5

-200

-150

-100

-50

PARATIE - EXCV -10

PARATIE - EXCV -15

PARATIE - EXCV -20

PARATIE - EXCV. -22.5

MIT-E3 Excv -10

MIT-E3 - Excv -15

MIT-E3 - Excv -20

MIT-E3 - Excv -22.5

0
0
-5
-10

depth z [m]

10

H=

22.5

20

-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45

15

lateral deflection [mm]

Figure 4-7:C2 case deformation comparison

MIT-E3 vs PARATIE
'cv=27 Evc = 40 'v E ur /Evc=5

-200

-150

-100

-50

PARATIE - EXCV -10

PARATIE - EXCV -15

PARATIE - EXCV -20

PARATIE - EXCV. -22.5

MIT-E3 Excv -10

MIT-E3 - Excv -15

MIT-E3 - Excv -20

MIT-E3 - Excv -22.5

0
0
-5
-10

depth z [m]

10

H=

22.5

20

15

-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45

lateral deflection [mm]

Figure
Figure 4-8: C3 case deformation comparison

36

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

MIT-E3 vs PARATIE
'cv=30 Evc = 30 'v E ur /Evc=5

-200

-150

-100

-50

PARATIE - EXCV -10

PARATIE - EXCV -15

PARATIE - EXCV -20

PARATIE - EXCV. -22.5

MIT-E3 Excv -10

MIT-E3 - Excv -15

MIT-E3 - Excv -20

MIT-E3 - Excv -22.5

0
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30

depth z [m]

10

H=

22.5

20

-35
-40
-45

15

lateral deflection [mm]

Figure 4-9: C4 case deformation comparison
MIT-E3 vs PARATIE
'cv=27 Evc = 40 'v Eur /E vc=3.75
-200

-150

-100

-50

0
0

PARATIE - EXCV -10

PARATIE - EXCV -15

PARATIE - EXCV -20

PARATIE - EXCV. -22.5

MIT-E3 Excv -10

MIT-E3 - Excv -15

MIT-E3 - Excv -20

MIT-E3 - Excv -22.5

-5
-10
-15

depth z [m]

10

-20
-25
-30
-35
-40

H=

22.5

20

15

-45

lateral deflection [mm]

Figure 4-10:
10: - C5 case
case deformation comparison

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

37

June 2014

PARATIEPLUS 2014

MIT-E3 vs PARATIE
'cv=28 Evc = 40 'v E ur /Evc=3

-200

-150

-100

-50

PARATIE - EXCV -10

PARATIE - EXCV -15

PARATIE - EXCV -20

PARATIE - EXCV. -22.5

MIT-E3 Excv -10

MIT-E3 - Excv -15

MIT-E3 - Excv -20

MIT-E3 - Excv -22.5

depth z [m]

10

H=

22.5

20

0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45

15

lateral deflection [mm]

Figure 4-11:
11: C6 case deformation comparison

MIT-E3 vs PARATIE
'cv=32.5 Evc = 40 'v Eur /Evc=3

-200

-150

-100

-50

PARATIE - EXCV -10

PARATIE - EXCV -15

PARATIE - EXCV -20

PARATIE - EXCV. -22.5

MIT-E3 Excv -10

MIT-E3 - Excv -15

MIT-E3 - Excv -20

MIT-E3 - Excv -22.5

0
0
-5

depth z [m]

10

H=

22.5

20

15

-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45

lateral deflection [mm]

Figure 4-12:
12: C7 case deformation comparison
We can note what follows:

38

In intermediate steps, (H=10 and 15m), the exact solution is reproduced with best agreement by
C2 and C4 parameters; C6 and C7 choices are also good.

At excavation depth H=20m, C3 solution is the best one;

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

The solution at H=22.5m is somehow similar to the exact one only in C6 and C7 cases, whereas
for other parameter assumptions, the predicted solution is very different.

at final excavation stage, a solution somehow similar to the exact one may be obtained provided
EUR/EVC 3

In summary, C6 and C7 solutions show the best agreement with the reference ones. As far as elastic
behaviour prevails (until H<15m), the Eur modulus plays an important role: in C6 solution, such parameter
is set equal to 120(v) which therefore seems to be the best estimate choice.
In Figure 4-13, maximum bending moments by PARATIE PLUS are compared with the exact ones in
Figure 4-5. PARATIE PLUS predictions are in very good agreement with the exact ones, at least down to
excavation depth H=20m. At H=22.5, PARATIE PLUS predictions agree with reference one, limited to
cases C6 and C7, as already observed for deformations.

MIT-E3 vs PARATIE

Max. Bending moment

[MNm/m]

2,0
MIT-E3
Whittle&Hashash (1994)
PARATIE C1

1,5

PARATIE C2
PARATIE C3

1,0

PARATIE C4
PARATIE C5

0,5

PARATIE C6
PARATIE C7

0,0

12

16

20

24

Excavation depth [m]

Figure 4-13:
13: PARATIE PLUS - MITMIT-E3 comparison: max wall bending moments vs. excavation depth

4.5 Conclusions
In this example, the computed results by the undrained clay model included in PARATIE PLUS are in
agreement with the solutions obtained by much more complex numerical models.
In intermediate analysis steps, predicted wall deformations by PARATIE PLUS are very near to those
shown in the cited reference, adopting consistent compressibility parameters with the ones used in the
comparison studies.
Near to wall failure conditions, PARATIE PLUS solution highly depends on selected Eur/Evc ratio. This is in
agreement with the assumption that such ratio governs the stress path slope toward passive (or active)
limit state, as shown in the Reference Manual.

4.6 Acknowledgment
Acknowledgment
We would like to acknowledge Professor Andrew Whittle and Professor Youssef Hashash for their kind
and valuable information about their work on which this example is taken. Dr. Alessandro Flora is also
acknowledged.

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

39

PARATIEPLUS 2014

June 2014

4.7 References
Whittle, A.J. & Hashash, Y.M.A (1994) Soil modeling and prediction of deep excavation behavior, Proc.
Intl. Symp. on Pre-Failure Deformation Characteristics of Geo-Materials (IS-Hokkaido), pp. 589-594
Maiorano, R.M.S, Aversa S., (1997) Modellazione numerica di uno scavo in argille normalmente
consolidate: una variazione sul tema, Atti convegno Il modello geotecnico del sottosuolo nella
progettazione delle opere di sostegno e degli scavi, Perugia, pp. 297-311

40

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

5 Understanding the gap options in PARATIE PLUS

When structural elements are connected to slave nodes (S), they share same lateral displacements of the
nodes to which they are linked (master nodes, (M)). However the rotations of the slave nodes are
independent from the rotation of their masters. We can assume that a slave node is connected to its
master by means of a very small (zero lenght) truss element, as roughly depicted in the scheme here left.
If beam elements are connected to slave nodes, no bending moment is transferred to eventual beam
elements connected to the master nodes: just shear forces.
In other words, slave and master nodes are two different kinematic entities (two
nodes) that essentially share the same position, and the same node number.
(M)

(M)

(S)

(S)

If the NONLINEAR GAP option is not activated, they share also the same lateral
displacement.
If the NONLINEAR GAP option is activated, they share the lateral displacement
only if they are in contact, i.e. if the master node pushes the slave and viceversa
If the force between them is a tensile force, such pair of nodes miss their bond
and behave as separate entities.
PARATIE PLUS automatically determines such conditions, by means of the
numerical procedures explained in the Theory Manual.
The aim of such feature is to simply model two adjacent walls interacting if they
are in touch. A very simple model is now discussed to get familiar with this
feature.

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

41

June 2014

PARATIEPLUS 2014

5.1 A simple non linear gap model

Consider the simple cantilevers in next figure. The lower beam is connected to master nodes, whereas the
upper beam is connected to slave nodes. Both beams are fully restrained (both displacement and rotation)
at their ends.

EJ

B'

L1

B'
P

yA

X
A

L2

yB
B

NON-LINEAR
GAP INTERFACE
EJ

Figure 5-1: a simple model with non linear gap option

Along the overlapping segment A-B, non-linear interfaces exist. The two beams actually are in contact (no
gap exists between them, even if in the pictorial representation they are separated).
A lateral load P is applied at the top of the master cantilever at point A.
We want to compute lateral displacement of points A and B.
When the lower cantilever is pushed toward the other, the two beams interact at point A, through an
unknown contact force X. Due to the expected elastic behaviour of the upper cantilever, between A and B
the deformed shape is a straight line. Therefore the only contact zone is point A.
X is determined by equating the deflection of both beams, at point A. We have

y A , master =

(P X ) L3
3EJ

= y A , slave =

X L31
3EJ

==>

X=

P L3
L3 + L31

Therefore

y B = y A + A L 2 where A =

X L21
2EJ

Assume
a rectangular concrete section with H=600 mm for both beams:
EJ=539280 kNm/m
P=10 kN/m
L=15 m

42

L1=7 m L2=5.50 m

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

We obtain
X= 0.90775 P = 9.0775 kN/m
yA=1.9245 mm

A=0.0041 rad

yB=4.1927 mm

The GAP example, stage 1 reproduces such case.

In Stage 2, P is reverted. In this case the two cantilevers cannot interact. The lateral deflection of point A
of the lower cantilever is simply computed setting X=0.
Therefore
yA= -20.86 mm
PARATIE PLUS results agree with the expected results.
It should be observed what follows:
1. Boundary conditions must be given by applying very stiff lateral and rotational spring elements.
Doing so, boundary conditions can be assigned to slave nodes too.
2. Several equilibrium iterations are required in both stages, even if only elastic materials are
included (no soil elements are active in this analysis: this is accomplished by excavating down to
the lowest model level).
3. In setting the PARATIE PLUS model up, no special operation is required to assign non-linear
gaps between the elements. Such gaps are automatically included whenever at least one element
connected to slave nodes is prescribed. To activate the non-linear option, however, the GAP flag
must be selected in the Analysis options.

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

43

June 2014

PARATIEPLUS 2014

6 Dewatering operations by wellwell-points

A very long excavation, 16 m wide, is considered, as shown in the next figure

Figure 6-1: Underwater excavat

excavation
vation problem
A pumping system inside excavation has to be designed, in order to ensure a water table lowering, inside
excavation, about 1 m below dredge line.
-4

As for design purposes, a uniform sand is assumed, with a coefficient of permeability k=110 m/s. The
design chart in Figure 6-2 is used.

Figure 6-2: (after Lancellotta (1997)): design chart for dewatering

We have
2b = 16 m

d=8 m

D=10 m

h=8 m

therefore
b/D=0.8

0.8

d/D=1

So the expected discharge flow per running meter is

q = k h 5.810-4 m/s per running m
-4

We assume two wellpoints (w.p.) lines at each side of the excavation, as shown in the next figure. At each
w.p. one half of the total flow q is assigned.

44

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

Figure 6-3: Well point layout

Now the following assumptions are investigated:

ASSUMPTION A: The water table out of the trench is kept constant to el. -1
ASSUMPTION B: The water table out of the trench is free to move
In both cases, hydrostatic pressures at far vertical edges are prescribed.
-4

According to the estimate above, at each w.p. an outflow q/2 equal to 310-4 m/s is assigned.

The model is extended by 40 m at each sided as well as below ground level. The results are shown in the
next plots.

Assumption A

-4

Figure 6-4: ASSUMPTION A - results for q/2 = 3x10-4 m/s

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

45

PARATIEPLUS 2014

June 2014

Assumption B

-4

Figure 6-5: ASSUMPTION B - results for q/2 = 3x10-4 m/s

Results according to ASSUMPTION A are satifactory, because the phreatic line inside excavation is
realistic and fairly below the dredge line.
ASSUMPTION B results show that the assigned flow is excessive, since the water table in the
surrounding soil can move and no flow can enter the system through such boundary, in contrast with
ASSMPTION A. So the requested flow to be discharged is a little bit less than in ASSUMPTION A.
Let try applyng about 90% of the dicharge flow above. We obtain the following results, which are
satisfactory.

-4

-4
Figure 6-6: ASSUMPTION B - results for q/2 = 2.7x10
2.7x10 m/s

6.1 Comments
In this example, just steady state seepage analysis aspects are considered. No retaining wall behaviour is
investigated. In this respect the seepage analysis has been assigned as the first and only analysis stage.
This simple example aims at showing that a realistic seepage analysis set up requires a trial and error
procedure to reasonably match expected results: several hydraulic boundary conditions shold be
assessed, as well as different solution strategies; the assigned discharge flow at well points must also be
tuned iteratively.

46

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

Once acceptable results are obtained, seepage analysis pressures can be coupled with ordinary
PARATIE analysis of the retaining wall.
Limited to this example, we believe that the predicted discharge flow according to ASSUMPTION B is
more realistic, but the results given by ASSUMPTION A are more conservative, as far as w.p. design is
considered. The water pressures on the walls are quite the same for both approaches.
Finally it is worth noting that the results obtained by the seepage analysis may be slighlty unsymmetric
even if the model is symmetric. This is due to the fact that a slightly unsymmetric finite element mesh may
be automatically generated by PARATIE PLUS.

6.2 References
Lancellotta R. (1987) Geotecnica, 1st ed., Zanichelli, Bologna

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

47

PARATIEPLUS 2014

June 2014

7 Seismic analysis with PARATIE PLUS

48

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

Advanced Modelling

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.

49

PARATIEPLUS 2014

June 2014

8 Arching option in PARATIE PLUS

50

Ce.A.S. s.r.l.