Plaxis - 2D

Introduction to Plaxis 20
Plaxis bv
Program structure
1. PLAXIS Input
Definition of the problem (physical representation)
Definition of the building process:
Initial situation
Construction stages
2. PLAXIS Output
View results of
the entire model at a specific moment during construction
one specific point during the whole construction process (history)
- - -
~ essential for geotechnical professionals
Plaxis 20 Input
General toolbar
Mode switches
Selection explorer
Model explorer
I Drawing area I
Mode toolbar
- .........
Command line
Plaxis 20 Input Modes
Definition of soil stratigraphy Definition of structural

elements, loads
and boundary conditions
Creation of the FE mesh

- .,Definition of pressure Definition of construction stages
~
distribution
MESH WATER LEVELS STAGED CONSTRUCTION

- p ..
Model and Selection explorer

Model e.Kplorer
Attrbutdllbrlit:t
iiJ """"""'
Model Explorer :
- graphical overview of the complete model and the
objects that it contains.
Selection Explorer
- As Model explorer, but only for the current selection (f] t>~J Gc!ne"al:.!!:dSoiiPolygoo_ L
fil ..~ ~atedSoiPolygon_2
of objects - Cfj Bo<ehoies

i.l ,~ Borehole_l
9 ~ ""
For managing any objects created in the model: [.:_..! CIJ SOil_l
EiJ ~terial: SoftC~yHSS
shows number of materials, loads Cfj VW...Stroln_l
1J ~ Wa~Conditions_l
"' ~5<;1_2
Showing, hiding or deleting model items ~ 'fj P~tes
8 ~Plate_!
Renaming model items El Malerial: OiaplvagmWo!!M
Colour:
Changing properties of model items El ~ lntemces
ffi ~N~tivi!ln~llta!_l
(load values, water height, material sets, ... ) lE ct1 Positiveinrerm_l
a ~ Axed-end-.
lt;:' <{I RxedErldAndlor _ 1
8~~-'
f-1 Ma~ : Strut
Colour:
Command line
Commands
All actions using the mouse or the explorers are translated into
commands.
Direct input of commands possible using command line:
Session tab: commands executed in the current session
Model history tab: all the commands executed in the project
Help- Command reference for all available commands and syntax
11979> _phase Phase_2

M~ed Phase 3
01171> _setcurrentphase Phase_3
Phase_3 set as current phase
99n> _ set Phase_3.Identification "Second excavation"
~K
01173> _deactivate Soil_1_2 Phase_3
OK
11974> _phase Phase_3
Added Phase 4
I
"'
Command
0
Soil ode
- - - - - -
J'
-----""
Soil mode
Definition of subsoil
- Using boreholes
- Import of soil volumes
Bore holes ( 1!1!!1-)
- Soil layering + water table at specific location
- Multiple bore holes: interpolation of soil layers between bore holes
- Each soil layer is used in every borehole (but may have zero thickness).
Borehole 1 Borehole 2 Borehole 3 Borehole 4

~

""-I ,/ /
j 1
I I
Borehole definition
Soil layers tabsheet
- Thickness of all soil layers ..........
Water tabsheet t - .....
Initial water conditions per soil layer
Specific Head
Hydrostatic distribution,
Interpolate from adjacent layers
Dry
User-defined pore pressures
Initial conditions tabsheet
Specify OCR, POP, KOx and KOy for
the K 0 procedure f -~ - , r -.,...,. I:)UD-.18 ~ -"'--;
Materials Define the material

"' Open material sets data base window Constitutive model
Drained!Undrained
Material type Weight, permeability
[ , ,._,_ J Soil & interfaces Stiffness(es), strength
ProjectmatmlH
Plates
Geotextiles
Anchors
[Ok]
1)
New, Edit
Available materials in this project Define new material

- - - - - - - -
Plaxis Input- materials

Material data sets can be stored in a global database for use in other projects
Pro~ materials
Set.,. . ,,.
Global materials
.....
~_ ~-,_
"'""'"'""' [....
D Lesson 1 Sand
~ LezonJCiay
DL~5PI!at
8
~~=-
B
El
1'--+I'- -------rr-- Copy material sets between

project database and global database
C:'frogratrDat!lo'fl.,ms\20\SOi!Matmatdl
r S<i.4~ l .,..,.. 1
CLJ!
- .
--------=- - - --. - - - -- -----
Plaxis Input- assign materials
--------------------------~~~
0:1c1
o"~
1J :,\~<'!
[]e-H:-~,
o"~"~ rl
o "~
o ,.
... 0
Drag-and-drop to subsoil model or borehole to assign materials

~ essentlclllot' >JCOtechnlcalprol<ess ionals
Structures Mode
Defining structures
Points
- Generated by clicking the Create point button.
- Used for Point loads, Point prescribed displacements and Fixed-end
anchors.
Lines
- Generated by clicking the Create line button.
- Used to define Beams, Line loads, Line prescribed displacements, Node-to-
node anchors and Embedded beam rows
Polygons
PLAXIS nput
r:,;;- Select
Select multiple objects ~
Create point
Snapping options 5 Create paint load

Move objects ~ Create point displacement
Create point -------+ ""'il createfixed-endanrnor

'\. Create line "\. Create ~ne
lil Create soil p o l y g o n - - - - - - - - - - ~... Create line load
er.. t~ >Oi r..:~ ~~ Create line displacement

Create load
fOio'l CMlOUI ~:)JJ Create contraction
Create prescribed displacement
Create plate
t'. Create structure Create Qeogrid
Create hydraulic condition- + Createwell
"'0 Create connection

Create tunnel
*
Createdraln
/ createoroundwaterflowbc u ..,. 1>0111"'1 ....

m
'- Create embedded pile row
Create
..v.. Create node-to-flode anchor

Interface:
lj;ji
El Show materials
Default Boundary Conditions
Default boundary conditions are -I"'. I'"'
All displacements fixed for the

bottom surface of the soil contour
Perpendicular displacement fixed . _
for lateral surfaces of the soil

r_
contour
;.-1""~
~
u
I
I
-4 Default boundary conditions can be
overwritten by specifying Lt(l
.vI>~
r~-Ll_l
p~,-
.a ti '.-..J'
<,_,,..: I
<~ ~
~ <>I~ l t .-~ o n ....
1-: \l~<o t :
..~ ~M
. ,....,.~ r~r~l">
.~ ;
.. r t cl #: ~t 1r4 , ...,..~J '"' 1" 1 t ~ " ..-~ _d t
111)~ ;ptonr.~~-~
Prescribed displacement surfaces

on the soil contour
Structures
Generated by clicking the Structure [r ,.

_ __ .r
.{] . Fixed-end anchor
button
Can also be created by right-clicking on
~
...... l Plate
selected:
Jl .
0
Geogrid
points
0 '-
Embedded beam row
(fixed-end anchor)
w ~
lines -'l~ Interface
(plate, geogrid, interfaces, node-to- ........ Node-to-node anchor
node anchor or embedded beam row)
~I
Importing Geometry
Possibility to import from external
sources in different formats like Help
3D Studio files (*.305)
AutoCAD native (* .DWG)
Show materials ...
- Interchange (* .DXF) file format
Show dynamic multipliers ...
(j) . .. _L
Show flow functions ...
Design approaches ...
l
The Mesh Mode
L.
Mesh generation Plaxis 20

Global coarseness:
- Defines an average element size based on model dimensions
Local refinement (Coarseness factor) :
- Element size can be locally refined or coarsened
- Element size factor= (Coarseness factor) * (Global coarseness)
Color code
- Different calor in the Draw area
to represent refinement. refined
Green = refined, lighter= finer

Yellow= coarsened, lighter= more coarse
coarsened
The Water evels Mode
Water Levels
Borehole water levels
- Automatically generated from the water information in the boreholes
(Head, User-defined pore pressure ... )
Single borehole: horizontal water level that extends to the model
boundaries.
Multiple boreholes: non-horizontal water level possible
User water levels
- Manually created by the user
Global water level

- Default water level for all clusters
- Can be a Generated water level or a User water level
Water conditions in soil clusters
Water levels can be specified for each individual volume
Available options are:
- Global level (default)
- Custom level
- Head
.~...:!,
User-defined ..::-~
'": - '
Interpolate
- Dry -
,_,
,._
~
Changes can be made through

- Right-clicking the mouse
- The WaterConditions feature in the Selection explorer.
- - - - - ]_ - - - - - - - ~ -= - - - - -- - - - - - ~- _.j
The Staged Construct on Mode

y
X
~
~ ~
~ 1-
~
~
----- - - - - - - - -
Calculation types
Initial conditions
Initial pore pressures and initial stresses
Plastic calculation
General deformation analysis, perfectly drained or perfectly undrained
Consolidation
Time-dependent pore pressure dissipation .
Fully-coupled flow-deformation analysis
Time-dependent analysis including deformation, consolidation and transient flow
Dynamic analysis
Application of dynamics loads, for instance harmonic loads or earthquake loads.
Safety
Determination of the factor of safety at a certain stage in the construction process
Initial conditions
Generation of the initial situation before construction
Initial water conditions I initial pore pressures

Hydrostatic pore pressure distribution based on phreatic level(s)
Non-hydrostatic pore pressure distribution based on groundwater flow
calculation
Initial geometry configuration I initial stresses

Activate I deactivate soil and structural elements according to the initial
situations (e .g. embankments switched off)
Initial stress generation using to K0-procedure or Gravity loading
Construction phases
Changes that can be made in a construction phase
- Changes in groundwater levels
- Activating I deactivating soil
- Activating I deactivating structural elements
- Prestressing anchors
- Change materials for soils and/or structural elements
- Applying loads (static or dynamic)
- Applying prescribed displacements
- Applying volume strains
- Applying tunnel contractions
Calculation phase definition

Changes per phase by means of
Model explorer
Selection explorer
Directly in the Draw area
. _. .,.. ~
The Phase Explorer
For creating and editing the calculation phases
Insert phase Define phase settings

Add phase
I Calculation type indicator

~,~; KO procedure (initial phase)
Calculation status indicator - Initial phase [InitiaiPhase] :z: [5 1

~ gravity loading (initial phase)
0 to be calculated Phase_l [Phase_!] . . [9 ~

[;:=; plastic
Phase_2 [Phase_2] .. li1 1
' not to be calculated 'II,J,. dynamic
Phase_3 [Phase_3] -~
0 calculation successful _J Phase_4 [Phase_4] la [A} I
;~ consolidation
0 calculation failed oo- fully-coupled flow-deformation
ir:J safety
{
--- ---- -
- - ---
- - I
_j
- - - ._ - ___._ - l -' ~- - _ _, - - - - - -
Phase settings .. define

Calculation phase settings can be edited:
Calculation type, phase parameters, iterative procedure settings
JJii PhM4tt
":!~~~
m
__
__,, f.3 ~: boi r
ticme vaue
~ c-~~ s.1 ~ GelleAI
Phase_.ot
"""-'
Pha~e_4
""""-'
iY:Piasbc
Ph.!Jse_7 f] ~~ :; C!JS~constru:tion"'
f'h.ase_6 t:F4~ -~
ifi ~f ~-
Q """-'
!:M.,Iiql'>l:
Pore~calo..llal!ontype f!) Pn-eatlc
'""
Tmeinter.al O.OOOday
L05tstep
Desqlllpp'oadl (None)
~~INfII!Ct.Ln_
lg1QI'l!Ln:lr, behav!oos(A,B) D
D
~tsmailstr~
~trutev.siables D
t.p:lab!d~1 D
l..PM~waterll!flsure
~SILWl 0
14.ital:ior1wt-off D
Ca>itebonslress tG e f.-/ml
llmrtefbl O)lltrol paramr:tel'l
,.
". ~ ,, -="'1!----- - - . ~ - - ==-f--.-~~~-- - - . :---- - - -
. :-........:.'.:.. -------=.. - . -- -s.D )_. =-.L "11 .
I",,', ~
- -- .-:_ ~ess~nt~aifor geotechnicalprofessiona/s
' I .
I I . 11
I I- ~---.- - - I .. ~---.~.1=__.~
Phase settings - additional functionality

Start from phase:
Change order (sequence) of calculation phases
Reset displacements to zero:
resets all displacements at the start of the phase
Ignore undrained behaviour:
no generation of excess pore pressures in this calculation phase.
Time interval:
specify a construction time
(for dynamics, consolidation and time-dependent soil behaviour- creep)
www.plaxis.nl
Pl0xis bv Dclrtechpc~rk 53 Pla;.;i!l bv Asi<J 16 J<:~k~n Kilang Timor
Headquarter 2628 XJ Dclft Singapore- 1:05-08 Rcdhill Forum
Tel +31 (0)15 2517 720 Tlw Notherlands Tel -16S 6325 4i91 159300 Sing<1pore
Structura elements in PLAXIS

Plaxis B. V.
-
11
11

- - I
I ~~ - 1- -- --I
Structura elements in PLAXIS

Plates and shells I
Anchors
0
Geogrids (geotextiles)
Embedded beam rows (as of 20 2012)
Interfaces
0
wall strip footing tunnel
Structural elements in Plaxis
geotextile wall anchored wall cofferdam
r
strut ground anchor Pile foundations
- -
-
_I - ~
._
-
-
- --. ___:::_ - - ---- f :- --- --.

-- --=--- !
Plates I shells
3 or 5 noded line elements

(for 6-noded or 15-noded element mesh)
3 degrees of freedom per node
Plates have:
- Axial forces
- Shear forces
- Bending moments
- Hoop forces (axisymmetry)
Elastic or elastoplastic behaviour
For modelling walls, floors, tunnels

Plates I shells - material parameters
h 3 b
Flexural rigidity El=E-- (b=1 m)
12
Axial stiffness EA=Ehb (b=1 m)
Element thickness d= h=~12 El (control parameter!)

EA
-.. - ...
a .....
.
~
.
--
,..,
-- ..., b = 1 m in plane strain
b = 1 meter in axisymmetry
Plates I shells - elasto-plastic behaviour
- ...
"" ..... _j N
"""'
-..
_,..,. -. ... ~,
" .....
o,oJI
'""'
.....
-p
Mp = full plastic bending moment under uniform bending
Np =full plastic axial force under uniform compression/tension
----
Plates I shells - M-K diagrams (new in 2015)

PL.U1' Wul
A
-
-
r- _ _,I'---
M_echanlc:<O T~~to_
nllll--'-1---,---,-------.---. l .!. ~; , [' ! ++~
1'-1'!'-"-~-----1'-="=
""___jlc:.v..,.
==------'1'---' 1 I [l (m) I Mlll'f") I
Material set I OptjiJ 0.0100
:1 l ,OOOE3 too.o
Identtfkatton
J 2.000E-'J 150.0
Comments
4.000E-3 2.00,0
Colour - RGBo,o,zss
Material type
lS'otroplc
Endbeering
EA, kll/m 20.00E6
EA, kl~/m
El
m
ktVm/m 15.00
I ~[;;p:~:-JI
v(nu) 0.1500
MKdlilgram
RayleJgh I] 0.000
0.000
o om1 lliXI"J. o.QD om.c.
Rayleigh~
I
" ' - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - --" K Wml
llK I canCfl I
~--_I--- -~~- -~~Jl

Plates I shells -weight, in soil
real model
Below GPL
Ysou = Y sat
Above GPL
r =r
soil unsa/
wreal - r concrete dreal wmodel = r

d real + w plate
soil
wmodel . concrele - r s oil J. d real

= wreal => w plate = (y
Plates I shells- weight, excavation
real model
Below GPL
Ysoil = Ysal
-- Above GPL
r soil = runsat
1
Wreal = Y concrete dreal lVmodel = Y soil l dreal + W plate
1
wlllodel = wreal => w plate = (r concrete- 2 r soi). dreal
P ates I shells - boundary conditions
Free rotation
"'-..
p, G fl!
I ~~ ~ Fixed rotation 11
11
11
~
plate
11
11
y
-+<-
lb X
Rotation fixed at (partly) fixed boundaries - axis of symmetry

Rotation free at free boundaries
Plates I Shells- connections
Defines how the end of plate A (the custom part} is connected to plate B
= (the reference part)
Default: moment fixed
(no connection defined or disabled connection)
E E
-
0
In
:::s
0
.9
In
:::s
0 reference
custom
- - . --. r =- . , - ~ '""jl
--
- _j
Plates I Shells - connections

Procedure:
1. Select "Create connection" button (
2. Select custom part
~~ ~ Connections
3. Select reference part
El ~ Connectlon_l
Connection type: ii ~ CustomPart: Plate_2

li ~ ReferencePart: Plate_3
Fixed (no rotation) Rotation: Bastoplastic spring

Stiffness: 2000 kN m/m/rad
Free IMp I: '100 .0 kN m/m
Elastic spring (needs spring stiffness)

Elastoplastic spring (needs spring stiffness and max moment)
I
Anchors - fixed-end
To model supports, anchors and struts
- Elasto-plastic spring element
- One end fixed to point in the geometry,
other end is fully fixed for displacement
- Positioning at any angle
- Pre-stressing option
= _ :._.- UI,; __;.____._ : I :.. .- - - -;}

- - - - ~- ~w.. .....~~-._ - 'I
Anchors - node-to-node
To model anchors, columns, struts and rods
- Elasto-plastic spring element
- Connects two geometry points in the geometry
- No interaction with the mesh along the anchor rod
- Pre-stressing option

-- - - - --
Anchors - material properties

Axial stiffness, EA (for one anchor) [kN]
Spacing, L5 (out-of-plane distance between anchors) [m]
Maximum anchor force for compression and tension, IF max,compl and IF max,tensl [kN]
Residual anchor force for compression and tension, IFres,compl and IFres,tensl [kN]
Anchor-~trut
&
; Prop!fty
Hatertalsft:
"'' '""'
ldenDflcabon IN:!
("""""'~
-,_.......
(""'"' . RGBO,O,O
Ma~tVJ)e.
"""
EA ~I 2,000E6
5,000
Anchors - material properties

Residual strength (Piaxis 20 2012)
F
, ...t , , ....
I I
F max,tens
I ~'''"'
llknlilicabO!l
Comme-.ts
Coio'-< .RGBO,O,O
F
""""''type Elastoplasbc V.'llh r~sldu!l strer
EA 1-.N 2.000E6 Fres,comp

5.000
JF,.,ax.~l I<N 1000
IFmJ,<to-"'P I kN 800.0
F max,comp
IF~,!.~ I 50.00
I F ~C....I,oom 11 I 20.00
'
. 1 ...,.- 1 ~ 1 -._., 'f). . - 1 - r 1
.. I I
- . - I
I _, i. r ,)
.1111 - - ''
~
t . .
~ ~1 quowc:h(HC<liprol-'' '-sror!('l~
.' ..:_ 1J 1 _ 1
I - r' 1. - - .,,;sf!ntr"llor I
i ~. ~ . = ; ~ : .... : -- ~
1
"
l -- ---"! - ----1~-.i- _ _u _ - - ' ------ -
Anchors - pre-stressing
Defined in Staged construction phase

Both tension (grout anchor) or compression (strut) possible
B ~~ CS..Polnt_6
! Coarseness factor: 0.2500
B ~ RxedEndAnchor_1_1
lil Material: AnchorRod
Adjust prestress: v
F O<b"llen: O.OOOkN
Olrection x: 5.000 m
Dlrectiony: 0.000 m
Equivalent length: 5.000 m
Geogrids
3 or 5 noded line element
Elastic or elasto-plastic behaviour
No flexural rigidity (El), only axial stiffness (EA)
Only allows for tension, not for compression

Embedded beam row

3 or 5 noded line element
Interaction with soil through an interface allowing for skin friction
(linear skin resistance distribution)
End-bearing capacity through spring connection
Soil can "flow" in between piles
Connection point:
- Top or Bottom
- Rigid, Hinged or Free
Available from PLAXIS 20 2012
Embedded beam row - parameters

...........
-
- Wthl:lt
~-~
~l
~1
~fwooid
lWUilo
tn?J
l~:!-~!'f~ ____ j
Material data
CJ-:orr tll)il(ltl Pile shape
......
..
'
Rayleigh damping (dynamics)
"''
''"'
'""
Skin resistance
--
BM
"" Base resistance
Jl~~w.""'r-~
..... h-'hu~
Interface stiffness factors
l'tttiiUflo't'oef.sftcv I '
I - - - - - -.-.._ - -
Embedded beam row- parameters

Material data (stiffness E and material weighty)
Pile shape (circular or square, hollow or massive, user-defined)
Cross sectional data (area A, moment of inertia I)
Out-of-plane spacing
Skin resistance at top and bottom of the pile (Ttop,max and Tbottom, max)
Lateral resistance at top and bottom of the pile
Base resistance (F max)
Interface stiffness factors
- Determined by curve fitting on predefined load-displacement curves
- Default values obtained from the load-displacement curve for a pile
in Dutch soil conditions (bored pile in sand, submerged) according
to the national annex of Eurocode 7.
Grouted anchors
Combination of free length and bonded length
- Free length is modelled using a node-to-node anchors
(no interaction with surrounding soil)
- Bonded length is modelled using either a
Geotextile
- Full bonding with the soil
- No interface around grouted part
(interface may create unrealistic failure surface)
Embedded beam row (PLAXIS 20 2012 and higher)
- Allows for slip
- Allows for soil to move in between anchors (more realistic)
Interfaces - material properties

Soil-structure interaction
Wall friction
- Slip and gapping between soil and structure
- PLAXIS 20 2012:
Residual strength when reaching maximum shear strength
Gap closure
a a
No gap closure Consider gap closure
Interfaces - material properties

Soil material properties
- Taken from soil using reduction factor Rinter
Cinter = Rinter * Csoil
tan(<pinter) = Rinter * tan(<psoil)
liJinter = 0 for Rinter < 1
= liJsoil Rlnter = 1
at,inter = Rinter * at,soil
Ginter = (Rinter) 2 * Gsoil
- Residual reduction factor Rinter,res only affects strength,

not stiffness
- Individual material set for interface possible

nterfaces - reduction factor

Suggestions for Rinter:
- Interaction sand/steel = Rinter = 0.6 - 0. 7
- Interaction clay/steel = Rinter = 0.5
Interaction sand/concrete = Rinter = 1.0 - 0.8
- Interaction clay/concrete = Rinter = 1.0-0.7
- Interaction soil/geogrid =Rinter= 1.0
(interface may not be required)
Interaction soil/geotextile = Rinter= 0.9- 0.5 (foil, textile)
is a very arbitrary factor.

Rinter
Hence, this factor should never be critical for your project !
Interfaces
Try to omit stress oscillations at corners of stiff structures
II
I
I I
I-------JI .l
Inflexible
corner points,
\
{
may cause bad
stress resu Its
IDI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-,-------'-
' I
Flexible corner
points with
improved stress
results
Deformation and Stability of a Reinforced
Embankment
,- __ I -
Mode Construction
-
Problem Description
q =10 kPa
l l
E
L() ~
::::::: E
~
- X
OCl
E
lO
(")
25 rn
100 m
-- - - -
~ essent1al for geotechnical professionals
- - - - --
-
- - - - ~
-
_.... ~
I
... - - - - - -
-
- -
= -
... ...
L 11
,.__o; -
I _._j
Problem Description
10.75 m
Shotcrete wall t =0.2 m
12 m
EL 1 =-1.5 m
12 m
EL 2 =-3.5 m
12 m EL 3 = -5.5 m
EL =-7.5 m
Soil nails
inclination = 1 oo
~ pssent1allor geotedoruca/ profPss1onals
- - - - - - - - - - --- - - - -- -
Project Properties
Project properties ~
~ Model !
Type General
Model IPlane strain ~' c'! J Gravity 1.0 g (-Y d~I!Ction)
, Elements [ 1.5-Noded ,,,

,.r,~ Earth gravity /9.610 [ m/s1
'lW311!f
-10.00 I<Njm
Units
~lh [m
., Contour
x...., - -
-711.00 m
For~ [~!N. ' ~-----'----,~-'!! -
m
X,_ 30.00
lime [c~av .. J - Y
Ynm -30.00 m
- -
~l
Stress kN,IIn
Y....,. 15.00 m
Weight kN,IIn
IEl Set liS defmJt L ~eld:

JI _g.: 11 ~ I
. - - -11 - - - - - - - - _,___ - - - - ---- == -

;= =-=---= ~-~-==----~
Soil Mode: Borehole Definition

ll> ~lodi ly soil ~~yen ~ .I eu...o...~
--~ I ~ l;lcl I~ ]~~~ - )

K 71UIO
V
HHd -l15.110 So4 ~roo lri!ii~albi] Ac16@
"'V"'" ._
llo......_1
--
Head= -25 m /
# Motorial Top
tl layer2 10.00 -25.00
"""'
(dry soil condit io st
-...... Ytop =
I ""'10 m
ybot =-25 m
,,"'
u.-;:
.....
--
-
I El'l ll<t- 11 '") ~"'"" 11 Jtllpmfelo~l> ..
_u __ Jirl I
~- - ---- --- - - --
Soil Mode: Material "Layer 2"

~ 'lol>t<""'-1> 1
General ,t~& LJ
............
Mohr-Coulomb
--c.dorio
,.._ - - - - Drained
IUII221,1e, 11
Soil Mode: Material "Layer 2"

.
,_..~~~~~
Parameters I ' .& 0

,,._.. ...,,.._,).... t-
- -
~
.... .....
-----
~-
E'= 1000~ kPa
- ~
- ""' v' = 0.33

....
~"""'f'"
r.,
'
.........
'
...,_
' ..
.. --
-
a,.,_.
""
lf.if.&.:l
'""
uoo
. ...
-=
c' = 10 kR~
q>' = 300
--
,.
l ;j Sftlllldefaa~
lfi
r
!! ~'"' --- ......
~ <.. ...... '""
.....
~
t~
~
-- -
'"'
T~VW"M-vl'
I
'1
...
~CLJ~ I
-
~ essmltl,lllor 9eotechruc,JI pro/(;sslonals
Structures Mode: Embankment Layer

..
-....
-.........
.,.,..
it'll
~j
(-70, 15) (-10.75, 15)
.....
~
loJ Soil polygon
-.....
.,_,
-~
....!
~.. (-70, 10)
~, I
~ essenlldl for qe<Hf'chnJ G JI p roiiJSSJOildls
- - -. - : =- -=------=_ -- ~ ::= I - =-- - -- -

. .__
_ -== ____ __t_,___~---~ -~~--~~-- ~~~ .
Structures Mode : Material "Layer 1"

General Sol """""'- llfl - -
".._.,:"'" [. .
,Jl (~ ... 1:1
-J-~~ ~ --1
..... ..... ... 1
-
............
.............
...._.,..
CGbr
(t;,.. ,
_..,.._
....... --
RGBI61, 2215,m
Mohr-Coulomb
Drained
-
"""'"""
,...,.,......u..
r-
,_
l"" ..tv..,..l
~flllD
.......
.......
, ...
, ... - Yunsat = Y~at = 2b~ N.m-3
]
.......,..,...,
......
I
...JDO 1
0 000
- -
999.0
-
L..~.ll""'a-..1~
Structures Mode: Material "Layer 1"
Parameters
.... .....
-f! ....... I a=] ~
......
E' =25000 k a
- v' =0.33
>'(loo)
............
...
-.....
, .......
.,__,
5411
.....
........ - c' = 5 kPa
q>' = 35
- l
t'..-J
~
0.000
.,_,,
'.,."" uu
....._..
'
-
Slll:~dlf'aft--
- e,.

<.._
-'"
-'"
MOl
.....
.....
CJL!c::LJ~
-
-
-

- . ~
..:.16
Structures Mode: Line Load
till-
~-
--=-10 kPa~~
'-... ~.
I
-I
~ ,;ssent1al fo r 9eotech111ca/ p10ft?SSIPnals
Structures Mode: Shotcrete Wall
'
..
~~ ..
'I
..:I
''J
------- (0, 10)
.,_,
........ . u u, Plate +
.,._
..... ...:
.,_
.. ..._ ;: I Positive interface +
.,_ 0 Negative interface
--
Structure Mode: Shotcrete Properties

-
-
&
lj.tl.o dol ...

-----
Colour
............. -
R<II0,0,25S
0
/ EA 1 =EA2 =4 . DE6 kN/m
D
.., ,
"' oooa;
...,..,f.
ll.lEJ ~
------ El =13.33E3 k ~ . m /m 2
"" 0.2000
o.ooo --- V = 0.2

t>ul 0.2000 ~
.._u 0.000
..ylofd>p 0.000
I ,.,,_, -- - - - ..
' . - - '
-~ essental/01 9eotechnrca/ plofHssJonals
. I
- -- - --- --
- -- --- - - - ---- _----~-JI
Structure Mode: Excavation Levels
... r:
:1l 5 horizontal lines
..,_ I;~~ ""~~8: ~:~~ _I' r - - _d l 30, 8.5!

,..,_
' .......
1
"'-
~--
~l.h-
:
0

~
~

0, 4 .5
Q, 2.5 .
1
(0 I ~-I\..~
!
30 ,2)
30,
30,
30,
6.5
4.5
2.5
u-
n~<~ ~!!:: ..._:- i o
........
":;~L:':'t! "
... ~
~,._
..... !';::!! .
..- ~~
""
:"!.~-=--
Structure Mode: Soils Nails
.
-....
"""-
~-
. . .. (.;11 ''~2 .' 6.916)
.,_
~
(-11;82, 4 .916}
-.---
~-
11.!1--
(-1 c:. 82, 2 .916)
HJ.863, 1.437)
---
---
---
~--
- - - - - ~ - -_ ~ ~~
- -- - - - --
Structure Mode: Soils Nails Properties

..................,....
&
__
- ...
-......
-..
.......
.......

__ .
E- ..
IUII199,11Z,14l
210.<&
.., .....)
~
E = 210E!1 kPa
................ ......
........
.. D = 0.04 . , (* Deq)
--_,
\.W-J
"' 0 US/E-6
2.000
.....
0.000
Spacing J :>m
....._
--c~o-~
.,._ .....
.....
,._.,
-....
= Tbot 26.5 kN ( = rr.Deqqs)

"'"' < E - - - - T top
..... Fmax =0 (! o tip resistance)
"--re,~
' "'
~r~
Mesh Mode: Local Refinement
Coarseness factor = 0.5
.
-- .
(embankmenet layer)
~~~r
...
~-
-
.......
p~.,..
~~(r...._._K:o
f\l,l~tlllt
t~--
Mesh Mode: Generated Mesh (Medium)
- -
~ "? ',sf!nlt,ll For' ftH1ll e <ltn ic.J / p tn fusSJ o n,J/,
-.- -- ,.- I
Staged Construction: Initial Phase
---
Initial stresses
-:a . . -.. 1-
- ~ ""* ' ...... , .
... ~ -~,l--.J.t: .......l
Staged Construction: Phase 1
Construction of the embankement (Plastic Analysis)
::=:-~
, _
~
"t; ;=-.
.t---..
""'~ -
. ::a =.~
-~
~.,..
Activation of the embankement layer
-"
- (5-u..J - ... . _ - l
'I

Construction of the embankement (Plastic Analysis)
_
g~ --
9 ~-
_,
....
~
.-:ll
ntl
~ --
__, ;:;;
~~ L_IJ
("'!
tiJ
..,.
~.... __.
~~
......... ..
__
-~
,
$
~
~L~ Slt
[',; ~
l!J i%
~f Y,)\ I
I
~,,...
~CM
~tt.,.
l'ol~
,.. ..... ~-
~--
nM.....
~ ...
[..1
&IHrrHW:
LLJ,._,
..
s.d("'
ta
1.01:18 -
--_
D.Cdldi.V
............ ....... ,...,_._ r

DI:IV'ICPwdl
.,............... ...., [J
,................. El
............. lil
-
~- ...,._,.
IHM:tltitll~ 0
D
~M-.tff
- - 0
El
~*- 19U.~If~+n
~.....,~
First excavation level (Plastic Analysis)
Activatio of the first

segment shotcrete and
interface
....... ,
-.........
~
-~"-'"r
-
~"'
-:a-.... .... .,,
~~~,a,_,_
ll';llt-,..~.
~-~
Deactivation of the first so I cluster
Reset displacement to zero : Activated

Second excavation level (Plastic Analysis)
Activatio of the second

segment hotcrete and
interface '
. ............. ,
--
. t,.J;:.......
. ~ ' '""
.' 111_ ... . .
-~'-"' .....
+ .r..J ............... ~.
.. . . . .
Deactivation of the secon soil cluster
_.,:~-
-~ .....
'-- Wij:JJto1 - .....
- - .
- - - - -- ---- - -

Third excavation level (Plastic Analysis)
Activatio of the third

1
Activation o hotcrete and
..
--...._,..._
t.-s--
._...
a '"-"''"
~CJ:;.-.- ... .-~
-..--#-
"T ' ' ' ... ....,,, ' "'~ r' "'"
. -.. '" ... "'"-'--
-~"
.
_- ------ 'I

Fourth excavation level (Plastic Analysis)
of the fourth
segment hotcrete and
interface
I
. ...............
.1!!11~
~~
.. ..............
~~
';~ ......
~[]~"-"'~
.1- ........
"-~ ........ Deactivation o he fouctb oil cluster
- ~:::: :==., -.
Fifth excavation level (Plastic Analysis)
Activ tion of the fifth

segm nt shotcrete and
interf ce
-- - - - - -- - - - - - - -
~ essential to r 9 eOH'cl1n1t.JI p10 t E!S' iona/,

Phi-c reduction (Safety analysis)
___-
----
_..
:
; ---
Select Points for Curves
- ,_ ~ ~ ....11- ..,.. ~"""'" ~

lil Ill (\ 1\ + . ""!
A= (-1 0.75, 15.00)
'
. ..
~
... . -.....
-Mll.
'Ill .,..~~._
~~...,_
_ ...
~ __ :_ --~-- -.---. - -.-_=-- -_ ~-r~--
Results Post-Processing
(Mohr Coulomb Model)
: --~::":'""~~7~------==~~~
~
lrll~-~r.,~, . . . ~
- l . - .. ~!~.1~1:._-.~'11
HJ 11 -~- -
1
I '- essential for geotechnlcal professionals- =
If- - I 1 ... 1 - 11= 11 '!'f'l:: "'1~---,l . ~
0 ,. - -;-c-"";:'1-.:p:LU. .'::: u...c.. . -. --= -,.ji ._ ,. -:..... .l-1'--L..- ~,. -~
- - - - 1:1- _....., I - ~. - - I ~ - - - ,
Deformed Mesh After Phase 6

!
l)ri)noedatesh lul (scaledup5.00Hmes)

Maurun vaw s0,3156m (Berw!flt 14Uat tlodo! 2370)
Shotcrete Horizontal Displacement After

Phase 6
t~Aidi\.pi..M~~(""'"w""'~I.,_J
!oton,..-.,... ~ot~ ... (J'"Ior--,1llotl;..-oi4P/
)~Vrlil !'ill~ m~ l'.l!lllfflrH~I)
Shotcrete Bending Moment After Phase 6
__ _____ ,
-....ULIIl.ll)-u lll..,._lol-106}
- . .........,11 ....... - ... -1030)
,
I I_ - ...... . . . - - . - - r- I -- ---, -1-.,J .-- r ~-. :=r-:-=-- ;-~"]

~~--d--~~
Normal Forces in Soil Nails After Phase 6
............ (>mlodopiUI>SOIImoo)
MlibuDVU ll.O'S~(Bisl:eltZSetrtude ,11!17'0
........_...._.l.U...._, ..) ~ (Benenl12atNodt 11923)
~~ -.--- -~--_: :=~~ - .=-' ~ _ _..---- ~I -=- - - -- ---------~
I ' I ".
I ~ : - . essential for geotec:/!nic:a/ professionals '
' . :
Mobilized Skin Resistance Along Soil

Nails After Phase 6
5bl frkaoa T5lli.n (.aiM up 0.100 ttmn) Tracboa T NI (scaled up a.so times)
Maxm.n~ valul! 0.6982 {&m!::nt 45a t Node 12058)
-nb- o. ntJ ~"""""' :t$01Ho<lo iiJ'n)
Mlrm.mvak.!e <4.J76m -l (Bemetlt UatNodl!: ll925)
-.unvu -9.2SI ..,./rn/tn~ 15 allble l2058)
Most Critical Failure Mechanism (Phase 7)
L-------
..,._._ 1.,..~-.,11""""- 1
- v M......,--..
. . .
~ ""entid/ for tJ<~OIPchl"l rr:a/ p r oi<!SSIOikJis
Displacement vs I Mst curve (Phase 7)
FoS =1.28
Mobilized Skin Resistance at Failure
B:la~TJidD(M31eduplt.l.DOI:Irnes)
MbiJU!Iv._. L232.\:Hin,\nll!!lerna'lt1atNode 1:1!118)

thiUn--. 13.25 ~ G:1sae1t 9 81:Nade 119Qg)
Harde ng Soil ode I
I _ _ ~& - i
-1- ~~ --- -~- =----- l--~.....__._____11
Soil Mode : Material "Layer 1"

General Soil - Hardening soil - Layer 1
"""'"[ .....,....1-.wl......,i-lrn"" l
- ...
iProperty lkil \'U
"'"'' v,.---- Hardening soil

M RGB 13-4, 214, 162 - - - - Drained
,_ 20.00
20.00
- Yunsat = Ysat ~ 20 kN.m-
3
VoldmUo
... 0
0.>000
(\l)(lj
- 9%.(1
'""' "" I .,_,. d

a a E50ref =25000 kPa
Parameters ~
Jr..-ty
,._..., ,~............ lhiYii~l ......
1."11 ~ ...
Eaeief =25000 kPa

._
._
...
..... . ...
_,..
- 11
- .... .
~
...
"-- - - - - ---iL _Set to default

... - -....... values = Activated
- ,,.
t '..,
..
't..J
INIII,b
,
--
t...-.11!14..11 lt3
,_............ 1111' C:'J

Soa Haldelljng soil t.ev 2
General
-
. ....... model
,_.,..
[!DJ
............
.,......,
__j
RG8 161, 226, 232

-- _Harden ing soil
Drained
---
-'"'
lro: .........
"'"'
"'"' - Yunspt = Ysat = 0 kN.m
3
....
....
0
"""'"
CO<~
' ..
- m.o
Parameters
a e =10 MPa
E50 ref
Eaeief =10 MPa
... - - - --1-
~::
,

Eu/ef = 30 MPa
--
c,
11
m=O
-
...
<,
..... ....
..... ....,...
(J
-... '
- - - --!.._Set to default
-... values= Activated
- ,_...,
IJ "'-"
4"" .,.,..... O.r:dl

~~ I,IQI
., b.~
--
'--""... a!
,.......,. _.. ~~on
........ ~. ~
I - -- --- --
I I I
---- - -~-- -------------- _.!_- -- - I - _..........-...__- _____._
Results Post Processing

( ardening Soil Model)
I -- --- ---;; ~-~~--,.- -- -- - - - - - . - - - .1 - 1-.,,
. 11 . . ,,,
~ geoter.h~lcal profes~t~na/s .
1
1
._ essential for I
- .
. I ~
. ..
Deformed Mesh After Phase 6
Dtionnedmeslllul (suledup5.00ttmes)
Mll.lii'IUfl vl!b! O. llllm (&rre.tl-411 at Node 2J69)
~ essential for geotec:hnical professionals
Shotcrete Horizontal Displacement After

Phase 6
Total dlsplacemenl:!i ux (scaled up 2BO tHm:s)

r~XiT'!Um vale .. 0 .0'1326 m (8ement 1 at Node 896)
Mn!I!U1lval.Je 0. 0209:Zm {Element 12 at Node 4491)
Shotcrete Bending Moment After Phase 6
....line___... H {,,...led All 03:00 Unto)

.......... ... 19.J&IftM/ttt~9atMJdiD&O)
- n l & -U.7<1Hf>lo-Uot ..... 3M3)
- I - --= .)- - - - - 1 - d
'"
.
I
-
I
k ...
I
-- - --
I
- - -----
-
~------- -
---------
-
Normal Forces in Soil Nails After Phase 6
Ax~o~r.....c-WapDJI2SIIIImal
MamunVIb!: g7,70~
- v u 0.04330 111ft> -u-

Q:isnent 37atNodir: 12023)
11923)
Mobilized Skin Resistance Along Soil
Nails After Phase 6
Slda frktiM T . _ (salediiiPCUOO tlma) TractmD 1 ~ ('Sallied up1.50 timH)

MPnun M 0.5920 lcH,4Dftn (J!IImw 13atrtlde 11.924) Mmrun va. 1.000 ~t 12atNode JJ923}
~vU 13.2511H/nVm C!ena'!t 12at.Noc2 U92lJ foH!unvM2.1-tl*tO'J t,Bim!ntilatNade 11190)
~ essential tor 9eotechmcal professionals
- .
- - -' , - I - - - -- - -
Most Critical Failure Mechanism (Phase 7)
_ --~ ..
...........~
_ .. .....
..~
1 __ _
Mobilized Skin Resistance at Failure
51M frkHon TSkin (sailed up 0.100 lime&)

M.mn..m value 0.9'156 kN/mftn (Eien8lt-1at:Nod! 11891)
~valle 13.25kN,kn}m tBement9atNode 11909)
www.plaxis.nl
Plaxi<> bv Dc.>lfll2chp.~rk 53 PI axis b'l Asic1 16 Jalan Kilan9 Timor
fh1dquarter 2628 X.J Dollt Singapore #05-08 Redhill Forum
Tol t31 (0)15 2517 720 The Nutlwrloncls Tel '65 6325 4191 159308 Sin9opore
~ essentinllor geotechnical professionals
Excavations in P axis
(lecturer)
Plaxis B. V.
Content
Structural elements
-Walls
- Ground anchors
- Interfaces
Material behaviour
Modelling dry and wet excavation sequence
Walls -thin wall vs. thick wall

Thin wall
- Wall thickness << wall length
- No end-bearing, only friction
----> Plate element suffices
Thick wall
- Wall thickness significant
- End-bearing capacity needed
----> Use soil elements with material set representing wall material
~ In order to obtain structural forces a plate with fictitious properties may
be inserted
Walls - thick wall

Soil elements with material set representing wall material
Difficult to obtain structural forces from soil elements, therefore introduce
plate:
- No influence on deformation: low stiffness, no weight
- Located in on the neutral line (usually the middle)
- Tight bonding to the concrete elements: no interfaces d
Soil elements: Esoii=Ewall I = 1/ 12 *d 3 , d =wall thickness
Plate element: El= E50 ill I x, choose x large (e.g. 106 )
uplate = Usoil ----> Mwall = x*Mplate Qwall = x*Qplate
NOTE: Nwall = Nplate +cry.o , cry,o = "initial" vertical stress in soil elements
' - ~ - =--_ _:- __:_ --::: - ~ - - :: :: - :___- ~ - - - _-_-_ __=:_:__ I

Walls - support
Lagging
__ , ,--~... , ' :
I
I
/
' ' ....... __,. ~ /

I
- Use short additional section of plate

perpendicular to the wall
I
/ ,-- ~', ' I
- Create short section with increased stiffness I I
using multiple chains I

\ /
I '
' .... "' ;
Struts ' -~
- Full excavation: node-to-node anchor - ~-----1-
- Half (symmetric) excavation: fixed-end anchor

Anchors
- Grouted anchor: node-to-node anchor+
geotextile or embedded pile row for grout body
- Anchor with anchor plate: node-to-node
anchor + perpendicular plate element
Grouted anchors
Combination of free length and bonded length
- Free length is modelled using a node-to-node anchors
(no interaction with surrounding soil)
- Bonded length is modelled using either a
Geotextile
- Full bonding with the soil
- No interface around grouted part
(interface may create unrealistic failure surface)
Embedded pile row (Piaxis 20 2012 and higher)
- Allows for slip
- Allows for soil to move in between anchors (more realistic)
Grouted anchors
~------,:~h--------------------------~l
0!i0
~ Nede-to-node anchors
Geotextile
~~ 11
i: l1
0~ ~
: :'
::l :
11
0 j (!)
tr. 15
11
11
-- --
Grouted anchors - axial forces
Geotextile as grout body Embedded pile row as grout body
-.,.-
_- 1 ~
I /' '-.;,I
I
I I
I J
I I
N2N anchor force

I
I / I I N2N anchor force
/ I I I j -~
,
\
/ I / / / I / I / "-..... I
I
I
I
I
I II
I I
- - axial forces in geotextile axial forces in

/ .- -- embedded pile
row
I
Residual force on end node
Nrod <> N 9 rout due to shared node between anchor, geotextile and soil
Grouted anchors - use
Working load conditions only - no pullout
Pullout technically possible with embedded pile row,

but too many practical uncertainties:
- Size and shape of the grout body
- Degree of bonding between grout body and soil
If pullout force is known this can be used by limiting anchor rod force
Interfaces
Modelling soil-structure interaction
Slipping
Gapping
No need to extend interfaces below wall tip anymore (only for massive structures)
Interface properties (in material data set for soil & interfaces):
Rinter: interface strength reduction factor (compared to adjacent soil)
Rint,res: residual interface strength (new)
Gap closure (new)
'
Material behaviour
Unloading due to excavation
- Vertical unloading at excavation bottom
- Horizontal unloading behind wall
Primary loading due to pre-stressing
HS-small model is preferred
- Non-linear elastic unloading/reloading behaviour
- Shear plasticity due to horizontal unloading
- High far-field stiffness for better settlement trough prediction
Material behaviour: Stress paths

Construction phases: K . K
I 1st excavation acttve 0
a
11 Pre-stressing anchor V A, K=l
Ill Final excavation
Point A
PointA
'
\
\Point B K
passive
'
-...

Point B
~--------------------~--~
(J
h
- -
- - - - - - - - - - -
Material behaviour: Stress paths
!-----------------------
1
i'
!'
'
:
'
I
; Eur ' Eso
'
i
!'--------------------------
::: - - I f" ...... -

~ - ___ICI_ - -
Material behaviour
Mohr-Coulomb: unrealistic deformations
- Overestimation over bottom heave
- Often heave of soil behind the wall
- Occasionally excavation widens spontaneously (even without anchors!)
Hardening Soil model: qualitative realistic deformations

- Better bottom heave, but increases with model depth
- Settlement trough behind wall , but often too shallow and too wide
HS-small model: qualitative and quantitative realistic deformations

- Good bottom heave independent of model depth
- More realistic settlement trough behind the wall (narrower and deeper)
,1
I
~ -,;:: ~ - ~ = ; ; TJ ~ :~~~-= J

=.._! I l _.:. - -
~~ :es ~~.ntia'! ~or. ~eote~~nlca/ professionals

1
I :-:
1, ~
I ~
- -
Dewatering: submerged excavation

Excavate without changing water conditions (in stages or at once)
Apply stabilising weight at the bottom
Set excavated area dry
- Use "cluster dry" option or
- Use "cluster phreatic line"
Pore pressures outside excavated area remain unchanged
Dewatering: dry excavation

Undrained excavation
For every excavation phase do

- Excavate soil
- Set excavated area dry
Phreatic level outside the excavation remains unchanged
---+ Suitable for short-term excavations in low permeability soils

, . - --
' -
~ esset~tial for geotechnical professionals

Drained excavation
For every excavation phase do

- Excavate soil
- Define boundary conditions (heads)
- Perform groundwater flow analysis.
Phreatic level outside the excavation lowers
---+ Suitable for long-term excavations in high permeability soils
-
- - - - - '
Drained excavation
::..-::::::::=:::-_-::_:-:::::.-_-::-::::...-_: _~::::-_-~: p::::::;::::::::=::;::=;
~- ~. - - ~
"i .~ :~,,:;~;:.;; ~
Groundwater flow calculation . ...

' '
gives steady-state solution, ...... ___ _.. . .._

so for infinite time !
~ essentral for geotechnical professionals
- - - - - - - - - -
Dewatering
Z-shape phreatic level gives wrong results:
No equilibrium in horizontal water pressures :

Local peak stresses
Local peak strains
Non-physical horizontal displacements
Non-physical excess pore pressures
Possible incorrect water pressure acting on wall:

Geometry modelling and meshing
Ronald Brinkgreve
Plaxis bv I Delft University of Technology
Contents
Learning objectives
Plane strain, Axi-symmetry, 30
Model boundaries
General considerations
Excavations
Shallow foundations
Embankments
Tunnels
Meshing
Conclusions
References
- ...-- - -._l. ~~=--r-=
~~---
.,.... - = " -.. ~
..
- ~ . . ., -
---~ 1
- _,. L~
_ ......... - 1-r- 1-""'llii":'
I Jl!-E-1~ .-1
~
1.1 - 11 - :. .... \fj'_ ..
~r - , .- essential for gooter:hnir:al pr~fe~ional~ a .. J

I - J- I I
1
I

11'
I
t
= _,..
- .11 ...-
I - . - I I -, . 'llli._.
- - : - ------~-- =--= ~.. - ~ I _- -!..!-_.r-=-:
Learning objectives
To select an appropriate geometric model for a certain
situation
To define appropriate model boundaries
To generate a sufficiently accurate mesh
Plane strain
Considerations:
One dimension is relatively long
Similar geometry and stress or loading conditions in any cross
section ..L 'long' dimension
Consequences:
No strain ..L 'long' dimension (stress can change!)
No shear stress and arching ..L 'long' dimension
Model represents 1 length unit ..L 'long' dimension
r--y ----~
:
.'
'
.:'
'X
~ :
L - -.!
z
Plane strain
Examples:
Plane strain
NOT a plane-strain situation:
. ~' .~
So m
,,,.,'
Mflillifll!IIIIV:;~-
45 m,.,,''
. .
~ essential for geotechmcal professiOnals
Axi-symmetry
Considerations:
Geometry is circular
Similar geometry and stress or loading conditions in any cross
section that includes the central axis
Consequences:
Stress and strain _!_central axis are radial
Model represents 1 radian around central axis
Axi -symmetry
Examples:
w
.
' ,
.~:.. -
NOT possible with gravity!

-~----:- - - =-:-.~--..--~-=--:_---=-~--- - - - - -~
- ', .. 1-.
~ . . :- . ., ess~ntiol for geotechnical professionals .

. ~ ,,r

. '
'1
..
I -....-
.
Axi-symmetry
NOT an axi-symmetric situation:
Gravity!
3D models
Considerations:
Do I really need a 3D model?
If yes , but still I use a 20 model :
What are the consequences?
Would this give conservative or optimistic results?
How large is the error?
Consequences of moving to 30:

More difficult modelling and interpretation of results
Longer calculation times
Generally less accurate results (due to coarser meshes)
~ Nevertheless, 3D calculations are quite feasible

30 models
Oolormod mooh
(Step B)
3D models
Total Oltpl~ement tly

H.l;Unurn '/.)1~ 2&t33'10-l n {E~nlttlt L13~0 M: UOO.~ -411i-l}
lltmn1omVi!I\Je ~ 7S,I5'l0'J m {Eitn*"t-IN3 3t 11~ 116~1)
--- -- ~-":?~~~J ~~--- - . - --- ------;-~~~~- "
' -, "11"-- ; c-?t., .' .. -
J ..-....
~
-
:I - - ~
I .
I I I .. I. I
essential fo(9,~-f!!,_Oc:h'nic:l!l prpfesslonals

:I I ', 1_ , ,11. 1l "~-~ ..~f '
1 ~
~
-
~.-
_ =
...J _"
-
_
I
I 1 '
1

11L' I
I
---:
.... 1
.:._- I .. , _

3D models
Model boundaries
General considerations
- Type of analysis: Deformation, stability, dynamics, flow, ... .

- Type of behaviour: Drained or undrained.
- Is the situation (fully) symmetric? Can we model only half the problem?
- Boundaries should not influence results.
- Changes in stress and strain at boundaries should be low (except for
symmetry boundaries).
- What is the consequence of taking boundaries closer or further away?
Model boundaries
Stability analysis:
Mechanism must fit in model

Only plastic deformation is relevant
Stress state may not be disturbed by boundaries (arching!)
Model can generally be smaller than for deformation analysis
-
_ r - - - - 1 ~ ~
-
-:'" - -.- I I
Model boundaries
Deformation analysis:
Deformations may still occur at a large distance from the action,

especially for undrained analysis (preservation of volume!).
Both elastic and plastic displacements are of influence.
Model should generally be larger than for stability analysis
................. ' .. -.
...... ~ ........
.. - ........... ..
~
drained undrained
-=---- - - ---~-~~ I ~~~T-f~~. - . - -~~--~
~ 11 ~ .__ .
1
'::, 1 1 1 - 1
1
~ 1 1 &ssenrial for geotechnical pr~~siona/$' "i"
~ ~
- 1
1
. . L .- - -)1 'I 11. ' } 11
l'
1
liI -. _
1"1-
J
-'....J
1"0 fll
I
I
'
1 _ :
'
.::,
_ 1 _ ~ I I ,. I I
Model boundaries
Dynamic analysis:
Vibrations may occur at very large distance from the action .

Even very small displacements (vibrations) are of influence.
Even if measures are taken to avoid spurious reflections at
boundaries, it is better to take boundaries far away (considering
wave speed and duration of analysis).
Model should generally be larger than for deformation analysis
~ essential for geotechnica/ professionals
Model boundaries
, ~ .
[ ... _____ \:: ...... -/ ] Stability analysis
........ ', wt _,. ,--

' ........ ___ ...... .,. ....... Drained
deformation analysis
- __ ... . . ... ----.... .... .. ......

Undrained
deformation analysis
Dynamic analysis
- :-_ -_ - :::~ ~ . - _ ... ::.~~_=_:-~~:-~ -_ -~-
~ . .. ,:_ ~ssantlal f~;._-g~otach~icai.profe:;slonals

- ____ _____:. I - . ~ ~
Model boundaries- Shallow foundations

a w a
initial stress
distribution
a
limit
w depth
(0 .1 to 0.2)Aa accepted
Suggestions: Stability analysis: a22w

Deformation analysis: a23w
--w .-.- --- rl

~-=~1
Model boundaries -Shallow foundations
Take account of the following:
For deformation analysis:

When using Mohr-Coulomb, use different layers with increasing
stiffness; bottom layer with height w should have large small-
strain stiffness.
When using Hardening-Soil , use bottom layer with height w with
large small-strain stiffness for Eu;er_
Best results using HSsmall model.
For horizontal loading components: Increased width in loading
direction.
Model boundaries - Embankments
a w a
~--------------~~------~~~------------~
~t h
Similarity with shallow footings
Suggestions: Stability analysis: a;:::2w

Deformation analysis: a;:::3w
Model boundaries - Embankments

Embankments are considered to follow similar rules as shallow

foundations with the same base width w
For stability analysis, a can be smaller if mechanism is purely in
embankment itself
- - -
~ . essential for georechnical p rofessionals
- - - - -- I
I
Model boundaries - Excavations
a w a
Suggestions: Stability or structural analysis: a ; : : I and a ; : : 2d

Deformation analysis: a ; : : 1.5 I and a ; : : 3d
Use HSsmall or bottom layer with small-strain stiffness for Eu;er (height Y:z a)

1. Suggested model depth requires that large small-strain stiffness is

used below the excavation. HSsmall takes care of this .
2. When using Hardening-Soil, use bottom layer with height Y2 a with
large small-strain stiffness for Eu:e'.
3. Ignoring small-strain stiffness will result in unrealistic heave of
excavation bottom (and wall) and a too wide settlement trough
behind the wall.
4. For a < 3d significant settlements may be expected at the upper
model corners. This is even more pronounced for undrained
behaviour.
Considering the wall:
1. Unrealistic heave of excavation bottom gives unrealistic heave of

wall > use large stiffness below excavation
2. For a < 2d vertical model boundaries influence wall displacements
3. Model depth and width seem to have little influence on the wall
forces (bending moments)
Model boundaries -Tunnels

w w
.. .
.. ..
.....
..I
.. .
..
..
~
!.
: --- - ---tEf~- -or----------~--
..
.
''
' .. ' w N\M excavat?i
\......____0 __to.---/:
' ''
r------------ --- -a------------

'""""
_
-..a
-"""" ' J_o_../
-----------~lr --------- -
~a
Suggestions: Face stability: a ~ %.0 ; w ~ 20

Structural analysis: a ~ %.0 ; w ~ 20
Deformation analysis: a~0 ; w ~ 30
Use HSsmall or bottom layer with small-strain stiffness for Eu(et (height Y2 a)
- - '
. .
--
--- -
I-""'
~ e~sentia'l l~r geotec:lmlcal professionals
Model boundaries - Tunnels

1. Large unloading and small-strain stiffness below the tunnel

2. Suggested model depth requires that large small-strain stiffness is used
below the tunnel. HSsmall is preferred.
3. When using Hardening-Soil: use bottom layer with height Y:z a with a
large small-strain stiffness for Eu!e'.
4. Ignoring small-strain stiffness will result in unrealistic heave of tunnel; a
lower model depth should then be considered (but 2 or 3 is preferred).
5. Ignoring small-strain stiffness will generally result in a too wide
settlement trough above the tunnel, regardless the model width.
6. For w < 30 significant settlements may be expected at the upper model
corners. This is even more pronounced for undrained behaviour.
7. For deep tunnels the overburden may be modelled as load, provided
that at least a height w above the tunnel is included in the model.
Meshing - Element types

Two types of volume elements are available in PLAXIS 20:
stress point (a, s)
y-axis
x-axls
6-node triangle 15-node triangle
(quadratic interpolation) (4th order interpolation)

Only one element type is available in PLAXIS 30:
1)
1O-n ode tetrahedron (quadratic interpolation)

Which type of element in which situation?
6-node elements 15-node elements
o Plane strain analysis o Plane strain

o Axi-symmetry
Working load conditions (SLS) o Working load conditions (SLS)
Failure conditions (ULS)
o Phi-c reduction
o Updated Mesh analysis o Updated Mesh analysis
Note: 15-node elements sometimes fail in Updated Mesh analysis

due to high distortion
-.~
~~
..... ~ ... ~~ ::--11--
.....~7-;-~ .
---.'-" , . . _ -= ----
---=- .1-- ..
~1 ' , _- essfintl<ilor g.eotechnical professionals
- --
- ..I -
Meshing
General considerations:
Fine meshes required near loads and structures.

(also at tunnel faces; Ruse, 2003)
Coarser meshes may be used towards the model boundaries.
Better to use larger models with relatively large elements (coarse mesh)
near the boundary than to use smaller models.
Suggestion:
Use local element size factors to make meshes fine near loads and
structures and coarse at model boundaries (local element size factor may
be larger than 1.0!).
Meshing - Local refinement
Local refinement of geometric objects:

Volumes
Surfaces
Lines
Points
embankment excavation footing

: .: ,! :1: ' area of desired mesh retinement
Meshing- Local refinement
Use local refinement !
Conclusions
Conclusions:
Model size and boundaries depend, a.o. , on type of analysis and type of
behaviour (stability analysis, drained deformation undrained deformation,
dynamic analysis) .
Small-strain stiffness and relatively large models are needed to

accurately predict deformations.
Use local refinement to optimise your mesh (in particular in 30!)

: -
-
---;::~
-
I
essential for geolec:hnical professionals
References
Potts D.M., Zdravkovic L. (2001) . Finite element analysis in geotechnical engineering -
Application. Thomas Telford , London .
Mei~ner H. (2002) . Baugruben- Empfehlungen des Arbeitskreises 1.6 "Numerik in der

Geotechnik", Abschnitt 3, Geotechnik 25, 44-46.
Schweiger H.F. (2002). Musterlosung und Parameterstudie fOrdreifach verankerte Baugrube,

Geotechnik 25, 101-109.
Ruse N.M. (2003) . Raumliche Betrachtung der Standsicherheit der Ortsbrust beim
Tunnelvortrieb. PhD thesis. lnstitut fOr Geotechnik. Universitat Stuttgart.
Vermeer P.A., Wehnert M. (2005) . Beispiele von FE-Anwendungen- Man lemt nie aus. In:
FEM in der Geotechnik (ed. Grabe et. al.) . Technische Universitat Hamburg-Harburg .
Brinkgreve R.B.J, Bakker K.J., Bonnier P.G. (2006). The relevance of small-strain stiffness
in numerical simulation of excavation and tunnelling proj ects. In: NUMGE 2006 (ed .
Schweiger) . Taylor & Francis, London. 133-139.
' . --:::.- I 1.- I
~ I
.
I
~l essentf~l fo~_g_eotec~~n'rc:aJ p_rofe_ssiona_is ;
- - - - -
Initial Stresses in PLAX S
Problem of Defining Initial Conditions

Any project always requires the definition of initial
conditions (initial stresses, initial water pressures, ... )
Initial stresses represent the equilibrium state of the
ground and consist of:
- Soil weight
- Loading history
lt is essential to start the calculation of any project with
- a realistic initial effective stress field and pore pressure
- in equilibrium with the soil weight
r,__ --_~- _- - . "-____.. ~-~~~~"""-~-- .- ::--:- -:
~ I I '
: 1~ essential for geotachnical professionals
Problem of Defining Initial Conditions

In PLAXIS initial stress generation is usually handled in
the initial phase which is created automatically
- All soil elements are activated by default
- All structural elements and loads are deactivated by
default
Two possibilities for initial phase in PLAXIS
- K0 procedure
- Gravity loading
Initial phase might not be sufficient such that additional
phases are required
K 0 -Procedure in PLAXIS
Natural method for defining initial stress situation as it
is based on relevant soil state characteristics
- Coefficient of earth pressure at rest K0
- Over-consolidation parameters (OCR or POP)
Direct generation of initial stresses
- - I
~ essential for geotechnical professionals :

I
K0-Procedure in PLAXIS
Procedure followed for each stress point
- Calculate cryy based on sum of weights above stress point
- Calculate cr'YY by subtracting pore pressure
- Calculate cr'xx by multiplying with K0-value
- Calculate initial isotropic pre-consolidation stress if
applicable
- Depth d
a 'z,inl =dxysou-Pw
Pw - ------fa-.;,;, :;,-t<;.-;.;,;,--------------
K0 -Procedure in PLAXIS
Definition of preconsolidation stress
Preconsolidation is entered by the user through OCR or
POP relative to the initial vertical stress a
Yl'
- Initial horizontal stress Prestress

a' c Initial
CAP
Oxo'= Ka,Ncac'-(ac'- Oyo')vu/(1-vur)
POP
Default Ka,Nc = 1-sincp
Modified if MC criterion is violated
cr 'xo a ' XX
I - - " - ~ ..
~ . essential for geotechnical p rofessionals
Check KA < K 0 < KP. Stress points outside the MC
criterion are corrected and brought back on the MC
contour Kp
PLAXIS does not check whether generated stresses

are in equilibrium during a KO-procedure!
Note that equilibrium will always be checked and
tentatively solved in the next calculation phase!
--- __-__________-_ _~.!_=~~=-:::~ ~__ 11
Particular case of horizontal homogeneous layers and
horizontal water table
Initial phase Phase 1
~ Only situation for which equilibrium is ensured

8
Any other situation will introduce out-of-balance forces
that should be resolved by the calculation kernel
- Generating some "non-physical" displacement
- Affecting the previously generated initial stresses
I
1
'--~
I, ..
--- -
Additional or alternative steps are then required!

9
Gravity Loading
Finite element calculation considering weight loading
- Equilibrium is reached at the end of phase (if
convergence criteria are satisfied)
- "Non-physical displacement" are generated in most
cases and must be reset to zero in the next phase
(automatically selected in PLAXIS)
No direct control over the initial stress ratio
- Initial stress ratio is the result of a gravity loading
calculation
10
. - - : .. --_._- s..---~- ----=..---;-_-~
- - -- --=-- - - - - . . - - - -:
~ -- ~~ . essantialforgeotech~ic:Di professlonals.,.
" I
( - _I
Gravity Loading
Practical considerations on the use of gravity loading
- Mind 1D compression of an elastic soil column
aH,ini Vini
av,ini 1- Vini
- In many practical applications aH,inilav,;ni might be

different (initial shear stress, ... )
- One can obtain the desired value aH,inilav,;ni using a
specific material set with a different Poisson's ratio just
for gravity loading
Gravity oading
Practical considerations on the use of gravity loading
- For such type of calculation, Plaxis will automatically
select:
Ignore undrained behaviour
Reset displacement to zero in the next phase
- K0 value larger than 1 cannot be achieved!
- Over-consolidation for advanced models is not handled in
Gravity loading. This would require additional phases
- --
. -- -
-
-
.
~
~ essentfal for geotechnical profess7onal~ 'I
Over-Consolidation and Gravity Loading

Consecutive loading and unloading steps
- Different POP for different layers possible
Initial phase: Phase 1: Phase 2: Phase 3:

Gravity loading Loading (Ignore Unloading (Ignore Starting phase (Reset
undrained behaviour) undrained behaviour) displ. to zero)
- - I
- - - ---==--=----- - - --=--=- ~-~~ - - _ -___ ~ --- ==--------=--=~
Over-Consolidation and Gravity Loading

Consecutive increase and decrease of soil weight
through IMweight multiplier
- Only uniform OCR for entire model possible
I :~.1\Jic:;i_.>'flcj\i:.~~:t
I = I
U!...._~~~-

Gravity loading Loading (Ignore Unloading (Ignore Starting phase (Reset
undrained behaviour) undrained behaviour) displ. to zero)
. - - - - -- -- -
--- - - - - - --- - - - - - -
Use of Additional Phases

Reproducing the entire loading/construction history
- For complex initial situations it may be needed to use
several calculation phases to model the current situation
before starting the actual project.
Initial phase:
- Phase 1:
- Phase 2: Phase 3:
KG-procedure (Ignore undrained (Ignore undrained Starting phase
behaviour?) behaviour?) (Reset displ. to zero)
Check K0 , OCR !
~ essenttal for geotechnical professionals
..__ _ : I ==- _ = I =I = _ = - -- ~ ==-- - - _ = = = = ~
Use of Additiona hases

Reproducing entire loading/construction history
- Other example
l._
t
Project

KG-procedure (Ignore undrained (Ignore undrained Starting phase
behaviour?) behaviour?) (Reset displ. to zero)
Check K0 , OCR!
~ ..
.---- - -----~ -
-
'I
~-
~
'.'
~ essenti;i f~r geotechnica/ professionals
Use of Additiona Phases

Definition of 'dummy' phases
- No physical meaning
- Just defined for practical convenience
solve possible remaining out-of-balance
meet application conditions of the KO-procedure

Practical example of dummy phases:
- 1) Nil-step
Initial phase:
KG-procedure
-- Phase 1: Nil-step
(Ignore undrained behaviour)
-t
1
Phase 2: Starting phase
(Reset displacements to zero)
- 2) Dummy excavation Check K0 , OCR !
j
Initial phase:
KG-procedure
- Phase 2: Starting phase
(Reset displacements to zero)
t - ~ -' ' =-~ _ _ _=-. I = ~~ =-;- - - ~ =.-..-_ __.,;
.- - -- I -
~: ~ :.. -- - essentl~l'ior geo~~clmical professionals
- - - - -
-
- - - ---
.

Practical considerations
- KG-procedure or gravity loading may not suffice
- Initial stress definition may require several phases to set
up the right initial stress field
- Consider Ignore undrained behaviour
- Reset displacement to zero when initial stress state is
reached
I .--; -. - _!_ -- --
r. .:: _....&. -
Conclusions and Recommendations

Important to start any project with a realistic initial
stress state (effective stress, pore pressure,
preconsolidation stress) with equilibrium conditions
satisfied
KG-procedure or gravity loading may not be
sufficient
Some particular situations might require the
definition of multiple phases for proper initial stress
definition
. '
Conclusions and Recommendations

Always good to check correctness of effective initial
stress ratio by defining relevant horizontal cross-
section through model in Plaxis Output
Stresses (kPa)
100 200 300 400
- HM.tOJliCJI err. stresses

- Vertical eff. stresses
Horizontal total stresses
- . -. Vertical total stresses
www.plaxis.nl
Pldxis bv Delftechp;,tk 53 PI axis bv Asi<:1 16 Jal.3n KiL:mg limor
Hcudquarter 2628 XJ Of!lft Singapore #05-08 Redhill Forum
To! -+31 (0115 2517 720 Tho N<ethorl<111ds Tel +65 6325 4191 159306 Singapore
- -. - ~ -- =- -- ~---~~ -~ . - - . '~--.!-'":. 'I
1
1 I - I ~4 - 1 , "r - .1~_-lll 11
I~ l. I :;~ 1 1 I::", I' T ., I_! .'1-"'.,
1 :.. - I - _-
1
{ essent/af for 99016Chnica/ P,f0(9SSi0~~~:.- :.(
I , L. I"- I - ' ',
- -- I - -~ ~
Modelling groundwater in PLAXIS

Plaxis bv
Contents
Pore pressures
- Generation
- Definition
- Steady-state
- Groundwater flow calculations
o Steady-state groundwater flow
o Fully coupled flow-deformation analysis
- Summary of stress definitions in PLAXIS

~ - ~sentlai i~~ geol~gmi~a/ professionals
- - - - -
I
I - - - - - -- - - - - - - ----- - -
Pore Pressures - Generation

User-defined distribution
- Based on hydrostatic distribution from defined water levels
- Takes only water weight into account
- Aquifers possible
- Simple, horizontal water levels - no flow
Groundwater flow analyses
- Definition of material flow behaviour (permeability, unsaturated
zone, void ratio)
- Definition of Flow BC (closed, fixed head, seepage, .. )
- could be either
steady-state analysis (i.e. only solution at t=oo)
transient analysis (with also possible time-dependent BC)
Pore Pressures - Definitions

Steady-state pore pressures
- Due to water levels
- Result of either hydrostatic distribution or flow calculation
Excess pore pressures
- Due to undrained behaviour (restrained volume change)
- Possibly generated during the calculation by PLAXIS
(Undrained A or B)
Active pore pressures
- Steady-state + Excess pore pressures
Pore Pressures - Hydro-Mechanical
Coupling
Semi-coupled
- Steady state pore pressure defined in first instance (User-defined
distribution or flow analysis) followed by a stress analysis with possible
excess pore pressure generation (Undrained A orB drainage type or
consolidation analysis)
- Active pore pressures =Steady-state + Excess pore pressures
- Applicable to Plastic-Dynamic-Safety-Consolidation analyses
Fully-coupled
- Fully coupled flow-deformation analysis type only
- No partition of pore pressure between excess pore pressure and steady
pore pressure: Only active pressure is being considered
. . -
- ~-
. ~ -___ -- - ---- - ------
Water levels
Borehole water levels
- Automatically generated from the water information in the
bore holes
(Head, User-defined pore pressure ... )
- Single borehole: horizontal water level that extends to the
model boundaries.
- Multiple boreholes: non-horizontal water level possible
User water levels
- Manually created by the user
~- ---~~~-.----~~
~
. 11 ~-;.,, ,I',
.1 1 1 -1; . _._.~to_,_ .~
t"' .... I __::J 1 I 11 1 L. 1 , - _, .
- . - . . 1 -, essential fo~ g:orec:lln_ica./ profess[on~!:~ _:~
- -

- ,.- "
~
- ..
'
-
I 11
.1 i
I
- . - - - --- _,_ - - - - = -~ -~
Steady-state pore pressure generation

Phreatic
Pore pressure based on distance below water level and water

weight
Assumed hydrostatic distribution
Should only be used for horizontal water levels
Different soil layers can have different water levels
Default behavior
P =h * Yw

Phreatic
Global water level
- Physical water level
- Causes external water pressures if outside the geometry.
Custom water level
- Water level for one or more clusters
- Used for instance for confined aquifers.
Cluster dry
- Sets cluster as dry, hence resets pore pressures to zero
Interpolate
- Vertically interpolate pore pressures between adjacent clusters
or lines
- Simplification for groundwater flow through low permeable layer
Steady-State Pore Pressure Generation
Phreatic: Default behavior
Global water level - - - - - Borehole water/eve/
Cluster 1 User waterlevels

User WL 1
UserWL2
li UserWL3
Cluster 3
- --- ---- -----J~-~- - -~----- ---

~-~~~--~==-==:::::;::
I - -- - - -
Steady-State Pore Pressure Generation

Phreatic: Possible Changes
Global water level Borehole water/eve/
User waterlevels
UserWL1
UserWL2
UserWL3
Cluster3 1:1:

...
~.._____~,
I - . - .: .-
,.-...u"'- . .1 ~ - .. ,
essential for geotechnic~l professionaii" ...
-- -:- .....___. . ~ . - 1. -
-fl'" .- ..---- .... ~-
L.._ .:_' . .: - : -- . ;,;..

I
I _____I
I
Steady-State Pore Press ure Generation

Phreatic: Possible changes
Global water level Borehole water/eve/

t t
>K
l- Cluster 1 --+-- Custom water level
L___::::;;~::::::=...._ Cluster 2
'
x
---- User waterlevels
User WL 1
UserWL2
UserWL3
I
Cluster 3 ---~.;.
i' .......;;.... Custom water level

Phreatic
External water load!
.'
------~~n---------~ \ 1umu1ml@@Jmmummmm \
. .
'
.
Global water level
'.
Interpolate Layer 2
Custom water level Layer3 Global water level
1-
~ .- .... --~~~y::~r--- . -~-----:::..
,~ --- .. - .L!-- , 1.r . .. . r
]! ~ se~tial for g_~otachnica/ professioniJ/s
,:._. ; -~ -- . -.. ,:-..:...... ~~ V-~. r.- ':.: - .,._,,
~ 1
_ 1
I
L_ r. 11
- . - - ...
--- - ------

Wet excavation
Excavate without changing water

conditions (in stages or at once)
Apply stabilising weight at the bottom
Set excavated area dry
Use "cluster dry" option or
Use "cluster phreatic line"
Pore pressures outside excavated
area remain unchanged

Phreatic
Incorrect use of phreatic levels

Should be solved using groundwater
flow calculation
I ::__~ ~--~~ - ~ -~ --=~- . .. _' ~; ~- ~-:
~ esst~ntlslfcr gef?tec/mlc1/ ~~~fess(ona/5

-- - - -
-

Steady-state flow
Calculation based on:

- Boundary conditions:
Prescribed groundwater head
Closed flow boundaries (bottom, axis of symmetry)
Wells and drains
Interface elements (on=impermeable, off=permeable)
Inflow I outflow (flux)
- Hydraulic properties (a.o. permeabilities)
Phreatic level in the soil is calculated for t=aa
Phreatic level tool can be used to generate head boundary conditions
Groundwater flow calculations

Hydraulic properties:
(Saturated) permeabilities
Soil Water Characteristic Curve (Retention curve)
- Degree of Saturation vs. Suction \
\
- Relative permeability vs. Suction \
\
\
Based on Mualem- Van Genuchten model \
c: ', clay
0
B ''
:J
VI sand ',
' \
\
I
I
I
0 1
degree of saturation
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Soil classification
Based on particle size distribution
Provides parameters for retention curve models
Available in PLAXIS ("data sets")

Hypres (Hydraulic Properties of European Soils)
USOA (US Department of Agriculture)
Staring (Dutch soil classification system)
User-defined

Resulting curves
classification - l.lnlt Value

11 : JG;alhl .- .- . .
[m] : : : 1
model for retention curve --..---""' ~.2 ---r -r---[-[-j

""""'
Subsoil I Topsoil -
V'i!ln Genuchten
::: ::::T~::::::r::r:::;::
---rr-
<
Subs<>l I I I I
-~J -;- -- --~ -- ---l

soi I type within classification -it---;~;====;. . ~.':"Med~""~Fne
:__....-;;;,-, 0.0 --- -- -;-- - - ; -- - }- -
19.0-) O.G:IO I 0.001 0.0 1 0.1
IU[J
particle size distribution .... 74,()]
% 7,0G9 11
[m] I I I
Parlllmeten
Set to defaUl vak.Jes 0

~-' . ....;.... -; .... : ---t---r
Permeabilities
kJ!
ky
m/day
m/day
O,OOJ
O.OOJ ::: ::::::r:::::r::::r:r::r

...
ljiWI'"IIat 10.00E3
O,SOOJ
-2.3
0,0
o.o
-----~--- --~-----~- --- .
0.2
j
0.4
j
o.G
j
--1---1---r --j--- r -~- r- ~--y
o.a
:
i
1.0
l.OOOE15
s,[J
[ .~~<> ] I 1!1< I[ (Wcl 11

f - - - - - - - -,
1-=--= =- ====--- _ _ _ .... a.- ---- -
- - -- ---
~ essential/or 9eorec/111/Ca/ prot'>Sion,11s

Special conditions: Drains and Wells
Drains:
- Specified head
Vacuum drains:
- Specified head (allows for under-pressure)
Wells:
- Infiltration or Extraction
- Specified discharge
- Minimum pressure head below which well is inactive
Groundwater fl ow calc ulations

I -c----;--------=-=-=-=--~ T=-.-=- -.. ..;- - - - --.~ ~
'- ~ .' =- . J - - . - ...1:

.. . essenrial for geotechnica/ professionais
. . ' fl
I I ' .1
.. - -------=-- -= ~ = ~ = --~ . ,.
. ~--~~~---=-~-~---- - ----
Fully Coupled Flow-Deformation analysis
Only type of calculation for transient groundwater flow assessment
(except flow only mode)
Calculation based on:
Time-dependent boundary conditions:
Changing prescribed water levels
Closed flow boundaries (bottom, axis of symmetry)
Wells and drains
Interface elements (on=impermeable, off=permeable)
Inflow I outflow
Undrained behaviour
Hydraulic properties
~ essenrial for geotechn ica/ professionals
Fully coupled flow-deformation analysis

Time-dependency
Row function~
--~--~
- Head Function ~fi..rn:tionsl~~~~l_
- Discharge Function 1.~ -

I !==:::D---~ Signal L~
Amplihl~
Functions: Phi5se _j
Harmonic Penod 365.0 day
~L
Linear
E ,
2 ~
~ . -~
. ..
-. ,-, :;!.. ,i. -1
Table ~
i 0 "'"'"i""""" : .......... ~-- ..;.....:.. """i

Selection explorer (Phase_~ -
~ ' ..
. : ..
:
. ;- :.
B Ctl WaterSegment_3
l -!- ,, __ . . . ; .. - _.... . '!.
Time dependency: Time dependent 0 100 200 300 400 600 1lOI) 700
EJ Head function: HeadFunction_l Time (doy) J
Signal: Harmonic
~-
-;=::=--....:;
Ql( I
Amplitude: 2.000
Period: 36 5, 0 day
1 Phase: 0.000
Fully coupled flow-deformation analysis
Example where Fully coupled flow-deformation analysis is required:

Rapid draw down of reservoir level
Change of pore pressures in time
t=O t=t1 t=t2 t=oo

(short) (medium) (long) (steady-state)
Change of pore pressures in time
t=O t=t1
(initial) (short)
t=t2 t=oo
(medium) (steady-state)
Unsaturated soils
ClpiUary fringe
Saturated soli
Posldve
pore-water --;:::--olt----------::-r
pressures
Fredlund & Rahardjo, 1993

0
Unsaturated soils
traditional modelling reality
dry unsaturated
Pw s Pw s
Unsaturated soil:
pore suction instead of pore pressure
degree of saturation < 100%
Unsaturated soils- Suction
Total suction is defined by:
S, = S+Jr s: matric suction

1t. osmotic suction
In most practical applications, osmotic suction does not exist, therefore:
SI = S
Matric suction is a suction due to soil matrix (adsorption and capillarity

due to soil matrix) which causes water flow in unsaturated area.
Unsaturated soils- Suction
S = Pa- Pw
Pa: pore air pressure Pw
Pw: pore water pressure
In most practical applications,

pore air pressure is constant and
small enough to be neglected.
Therefore matric suction is
negative of water pore pressure:
S=-pw
Unsaturated soils - Pore pressures
unsaturated
(Soil) Saturation Effective Pwater Pactive

Saturation
Pacuve = S ett Pwater

Example
2m
Plate loading
1 3m
Drained
- Ignore suction (degree of saturation = 0%)
- Suction
Coarse material (e.g. sand)
Fine material (e.g. clay)
Undrained
- Ignore suction (degree of saturation= 100%)
- Suction
Coarse material (e.g. sand)
Fine material (e.g. clay)
Coarse material: Staring- Coarse Sand (05), Subsoil

Fine material: Staring- Heavy Clay (012), Subsoil
Example
A*
Drained
os 012 os 012
No suction No suction Suction Suction
. -. -
~ . essential for geotec~nical professionals
A*
Undrained
os 012 os 012
No suction No suction Suction Suction
Example
+
Bearing capacity
DRAINED UNDRAINED
Ignore suction Ignore suction
- Coarse material (05) 236 kPa - Coarse material (05) 21 kN/m
- Fine material (012) 240 kPa - Fine material (012) 21 kNim
Suction Suction
- Coarse material (05) 243 kPa - Coarse material (05) 92 kN/m
- Fine material (012) 457 kPa - Fine material (012) 122 kNim
Excavation and dewatering
EXCAVATION AND DEWATERING
Computational Geotechnics 1
2 Computational Geotechnics
INTRODUCTION
This example involves the dry construction of an excavation. The excavation is supported
by concrete diaphragm walls. The walls are tied back by pre-stressed grout anchors. The
HSsmall model is used to model the soil behaviour. Special attention is focused on the output,
which provides us insight in the soil behaviour and its interaction with structural elements. lt
is noted that the dry excavation involves a groundwater flow calculation to generate the water
pressure distribution.
The excavation is 20 m wide and 10 m deep. 15 m long concrete diaphragm walls of 0.35
m thickness are used to retain the surrounding soil. Two rows of ground anchors are used
at each wall to support the walls. The upper anchor has a total length of 14.5 m and an
inclination of 33.7 (2:3). The lower anchor is 10 m long and is installed at an angle of 45.
The excavation is symmetric so only one half of the problem needs to be modelled.
20m
Figure 1: Excavation supported by tie back walls
The relevant part of the soil consists of three distinct layers. From the ground surface to a
depth of 3 m there is a fill of relatively loose fine sandy soil. Underneath the fill, down to a
minimum depth of 15 m, there is a more or less homogeneous layer consisting of dense well
graded sand. This layer is particular suitable for the installation of the ground anchors. In the
initial situation there is a horizontal phreatic level at 3 m below the ground surface, (i.e. at the
base of the fill layer) Below the sand layer there is a loam layer which extends to large depth.
INPUT
Project properties
Start a new project in Plaxis. The symmetric problem can be modelled with a geometry model
of 60 m width and 40 m depth. Hence, set the model Contour to Xmin = Om, Xmax = 60m,
Ymin = -40m and Ymax = Om. Keep all other settings to their defaults.
Soil mode
Define a single borehole taking into account the following soil layers :
1. A fill layer of 3 m thick
2. A sand layer of 14 m thick
3. A loam layer of 23 m thick
Make sure the Head of the borehole is set to -3 m.

For the material properties, use the data given in table 1.
Table 1: Soil and interface properties

I Parameter I Symbol I Fill I Sand Loam Unit
Material model Material model HSsmall HSsmall HSsmall
Drainage type Drainage type Drained Drained Drained
Unsaturated soil weight 'Yunsat 16.0 17.0 17.0 kN/m"'
Saturated soil weight "!sat 20.0 20.0 19.0 kN/ m 3
Reference secant stiffness ET~f 20.5. 10 3
38.5. 103 20.0. 103 kN/m 2
50
from triaxial test
Ere~ 20.5. 103 35.0. 103 20.0. 103
Reference tangent oed kNjm 2
stiffness from oedometer
test
Reference Erej 61.5 10::s 115.5. lO::s 60.0 103 kN/ m:z.
UT
unloading/reloading
stiffness
Power for m 0.5 0.5 0.7 -
stress-dependent stiffness
I
Cohesion ere] 1.0 1.0 8.0 kN/ m:z.
Friction angle lP' 30.0 34.0 29.0 0
Dilatancy angle 1/J 0.0 4.0 0.0 0
4
Threshold shear strain "/0.7 1.0 . 10 1.0 . 10 -4 1.5. 10 4 -
Reference small-strain G~ef 180.0. 10 3
350.0. 103 180.0. 103 kNjm 2
shear modulus
Advanced parameters Default Default Default
Horizontal permeability kx 1.0 0.5 0.01 m / day
Vertical permeability ky 1.0 0.5 0.01 m/day
Interface strength Rinter 0.65 0.7 Rigid -
reduction factor
Coefficient for initial Ko Automatic Automatic Automatic -
horizontal stress
Structures mode
The proposed geometry model is given in figure 2, all sizes and coordinates are given in
meters.
A ground anchor can be modelled by a combination of a node-to-node anchor and a embedded
pile row (purple line). The embedded pile row simulates the grout body (bonded length)
whereas the node-to-node anchor simulates the anchor rod (free length). The diaphragm
wall is modelled as a plate. The interfaces around the plate are used to model soil-structure
interaction effects.
10
3
4
(19, -9)
3
(22, -11)
(17, -14)
......---17
(10, -18)
(14,-11)
......---40
Figure 2: Geometry model of building pit
The properties of the concrete diaphragm wall are entered in a material set of the plate type.
The concrete has a Young's modulus of 35 GPa and the wall is 0.35 m thick. The properties
are listed in table 2.
Table 2: Properties of the diaphrag m wall

I Parameter I Symbol I Diaphragm wall I Unit
Material type Material type Elastic
Isotropic - Yes
End bearing - Yes
Axial stiffness EA 1 ,EA2 1.2 . 107 kNjm
Flexural stiffness EI 1.2. 105 kNjm 2 jm
Weight w 8.3 kNjmjm
Poisson's ratio V 0.15 -
For the properties of the ground anchors, two material data sets are needed: One of the
anchor type (anchor rod) and one of the embedded pile row (grout body). The anchor data
set contains the properties of the anchor rod and the embedded pile row data set contains the
properties of the grout body. The data are listed in tables 3 and 4.
Table 3: Properties of the anchor rod

I Parameter I Symbol I Anchor rod I Unit I
Material type Material type Elastic
Axial stiffness EA 2.5. 105 kN
Spacing Ls 2.5 m
Table 4: Property of the grout body (embedded pile row)

I Parameter [ Symbol I Grout body Unit
Modulus of elasticity E 2.1*10 8 kN/m 2
Material weight 'Y 58 kNjm 3
Pile type Pile type Predefined -
Predefined pile type Predefined pile type Massive circular pile -
Diameter Diameter 0.036 m
Spacing Lspacing 2.5 m
Skin resistance I'top,max 1 Tbot,max 1000 kN/m
Base resistance Fmax 0 kN
Interface stiffness factor Default values -
Mesh mode
Click the Mesh generation button and in the Mesh option window that appears, set the Element
distriibution to Fine. This should give a mesh as shown in figure 3.
Figure 3: Generated finite element mesh
Water conditions I Staged construction mode

The calculation consists of the initial phase and six phases.
In the first phase the wall is constructed.
In the second phase the first 3 m of the excavation are constructed without connection
of anchors to the wall. At this depth the excavation remains dry.
In the third phase the first anchor is installed and prestressed.
The fourth phase involves further excavation to a depth of 7 m, including the de-watering
of the excavation. This involves a groundwater flow analysis to calculate the new pore
water pressure distribution, which is a part of the definition of the third calculation phase.
In the fifth phase the second anchor is installed and prestressed.
The sixth phase is a further excavation (and de-watering) to the final depth of 10 m.
The calculation is done using a so-called semi-coupled analysis. This means that the groundwater
flow field is generated first and used as input to the deformation analysis. In other words, the
groundwater flow will have an effect on the deformations in the soil, but the deformations
in the soil will not change the flow field. This assumption is reasonable if the flow field
will not be disturbed by excess pore pressures resulting from undrained behaviour or by
significant changes in permeability due to large deformations. In this excavation problem
indeed permeabilities are high and undrained behaviour should be of little or no importance.
All calculation phases are defined as Plastic calculations of the Staged construction type
and standard settings for all other parameters. The instructions given below are limited to a
description of how the phases are defined within the Staged construction mode.
Initial phase
In Staged construction mode make sure that all soil is activated and all structural elements
are deactivated.
The initial phreatic line follows from the Head information specified in the borehole, and
should be located at y = -3m. That is, on the separation of the fill and sand layer.
Phase 1 : Construction of the diaphragm wall
Construction of the diaphragm wall takes 5 days. Therefore, fill in a Time interval of 5
days in the General section of the Phases window.
In Staged construction mode activate the wall as well as the interfaces along the wall.
Phase 2: First excavation stage

In the Phases window do:
- In the General section, set the Timer interval to 7 days

- In the Deformation control parameters section select the option Reset displacements
to zero as we're not interested in the displacements caused by the installation of the
wall.
In Staged construction mode
- deactivate the first excavation part.
Phase 3: Prestress first anchor

Prestressing the first row of anchors will take 1 day, hence in the Phases window enter a 1
day construction time for this phase.
In Stage construction mode
- activate the upper embedded pile row representing the grout body of the first anchor.
- select the upper node-to-node anchor so that it appears in the Selection explorer.
- In the Selection explorer now activate the anchor and also select the option Adjust
prestress. Set a prestress force of 300 kN.
Phase 4: Second excavation stage and dewatering

The second excavation stage includes dewatering and will take 10 days. Dewatering will be
simulated using a steady-state groundwater flow analysis.
In the Phases window
- in the General section, set the Time interval to 10 days

- also in the General section, set the Pore pressure calculation type to Steady-state
groundwater flow.
- deactivate the second excavation part.
In Water conditions mode
- No water flow can occur through a axis of symmetry. Therefore the axis of symmetry
must be a closed flow boundary. To do so, do for all lines on the left boundary and
for the bottom boundary:
* Right-click the line.

* From the menu that pops up, select the option Activate.
* In the Selection explorer set the Behaviour to Closed. The boundary is now
drawn as a thick black line to indicate it's an active closed boundary.
- The groundwater head boundary conditions needed for the groundwater flow analysis
can be applied in a simple manner by using the global water level:
-
* Select the Create water level button ( = )
* Draw a water level from (x y) = (-1 -7) to (20 -7), (30 -3) and finally to (61 -3)
* Right click the water level that was just created and from the popup menu select
Make global to make sure the new water level is the global water level in this
calculation phase.
Phase 5: Prestress second anchor

Prestressing the second row of anchors will take 1 day, hence in the Phases window enter a
Time interval of 1 day.
In Stage construction mode
- activate the lower embedded pile row representing the grout body of the second
anchor.
- select the lower node-to-node anchor so that it appears in the Selection explorer.
- In the Selection explorer now activate the node-to-node anchor and also select the
option Adjust prestress. Enter a 500 kN prestress force.
Phase 6: Third excavation stage and dewatering

The third excavation stage includes dewatering and will take 7 days. Dewatering will be
simulated using a steady-state groundwater flow analysis.
In the Phases window
- in the General section, set the Time interval to 7 days

- also in the General section, set the Pore pressure calculation type to Steady-state
groundwater flow.
- deactivate the third excavation stage.

In Water conditions mode.
- Check that both the axis of symmetry and the bottom of the model are closed
boundaries.
- Draw a new general phreatic level from (x y) = ( -1 -1 0) to (20 -1 0), (30 -3) and (61
-3).
- Right-click the newly generated water level and make it the global level.
Phase 7: Safety analysis

Finally, create a Safety phase following phase 6 in order to determine the factor of safety for
the final excavation stage.
The safety analysis needs more than the default 100 additional calculation steps in order to
reach failure and therefore the number of additional steps must be increased:
Open the Phases window
In the section Numerical control parameters deactivate the option Use default iter parameters
and set Max steps to 200.
Nodes for load displacement curves

Select some nodes for load displacement curves, for instance the top of the wall at (x y) =
(1 0 0) and the middle of the excavation bottom at final depth at (x y) = (0 -1 0).
Now start the calculation.
ALTERNATIVE: TRANSIENT
GROUNDWATER FLOW
As an alternative calculation a fully coupled analysis will be performed. This analysis couples
transient groundwater flow, consolidation and deformations implying that the groundwater flow
field, the development and dissipation of pore pressures and the deformation are all calculated
simultaneously and all influence each other. This type of analysis should be performed if the
flow field is expected to be varying in time (transient flow) or when significant changes in
permeability due to large deformations are likely to occur. In this excavation problem the main
reason to use this analysis is to take into account that the flow field will not reach a steady-
state during excavations and so a transient flow analysis is required. The addidional effects
of coupling the flow field with undrained behaviour will probably be small as this project deals
with high permeabilities. Note that a fully coupled analysis requires that the calculation type is
Fully coupled flow-deformation.
lt is possible to re-use the project made for the calculation using the method of steady-state
analysis:
Save the project under a different name
Change the calculation phases according to the description below.
Initial phase
No changes have to be made
Phase 1: Construction of the diaphragm wall

In the Phases window in the General section, change the calculation type to Consolidation.
Phase 2: First excavation stage

Phase 3: Prestress first anchor

Phase 4: Second excavation stage and dewatering

In the Phases window in the General section, change the calculation type to
Phase 5: Prestress second anchor

Phase 6: Third excavation stage and dewatering

Phase 7: Safety analysis

No changes have to be made
Select all phases for calculation and start the calculation
OUTPUT
Figure 4 gives the total displacements for the final phase for both the calculation with steady-
state groundwater flow and the transient groundwater flow.
The excavation using steady-state flow gives a maximum displacements of about 20 mm while
excavation using transient flow gives a maximum displacement of about 18 mm. Note that the
colours of the graphs are both scaled of 0 to 22 mm in 11 intervals.
Figure 4: Total displacements for the semi coupled analysis (left) and the fully coupled analyis
(right)
Figure 5 shows the vertical displacements for the final phase for both calculations. For the
displacements behind the wall the excavation using steady-state analysis clearly gives more
vertical displacements over a slightly larger distance from the excavation than the excavation
with transient flow.
Figure 5: Vertical displacements for the semi coupled analysis (left) and the fully coupled
analyis (right)
The extreme bending moments are about- i 55 kNm/m and 75 kNm/m for the excavation using
semi-coupled analysis while the extremen bending moments for the excavation using fully
coupled analysisare about -145 kNm/m and 95 kNm/m. Hence, the transient flow calculation
leads to a slightly smaller field bending moment, but a slightly higher foot bending moment
than the steady-state flow.
+ +
Figure 6: Bending moments in the wall for the semi coupled analysis (left) and the fully coupe Id
analyis (right)
Figure 7 shows the horizontal displacements of the top of the wall as a function of
construction time for both the excavation using semi-coupled and fully-coupled analysis .

,,
........ I I
I Horz wall displacements
1:-::.=~
1-
., \r-_
...' T
....
....
I ' ~
'-~
I
I
I
t
I
'
.... I
I
.
'
l
. ..
Tlms[dey]
Figure 7: Horizontal wall displacements for the excavation
Finally, looking at the factor of safety for the final situation (see figure 8) it can be seen that the
fully coupled analysis gives a marginally larger factor of safety than the semi coupled analysis .
- ~ -~
11.Sllenglh roduetJon.I
' - ~=:::.=
'
'
I
' Displacement [m]
. ~ .
Figure 8: Strength reduction curve for the determination of the factor of safety
Mohr-Coulomb model and soil stiffness
Objectives:
To indicate features of soil behaviour

To formulate Hooke's law of isotropic linear elasticity
To formulate the Mohr-Coulomb criterion in a plasticity framework
To identify the parameters in the LEPP Mohr-Coulomb model
To give suggestions on the selection of parameters
To indicate the possibilities and limitations of the MC model
f u oelft CiTG, Geo-englneerlng, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 1
Typical results from soil lab tests

Triaxial test (axial loading)
strength
,-f:l
tf
T U Delft CiTG, Geo-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 2
!!!!!!!!!!!
Oedometer test (one-dimensional compression)
Pre-consolidation stress
primary loading
unloading
~

Oedometer test (constant load; secondary compression)
time
creep
~
Typical results for soil stiffness
Stiffness at different levels of strain
~- - ~ Retaining walls
...!...
!l J.---t----+1 Foundations
0
!!l Very I 1+----1 ~Tunnels
"3
"0 small !
...~ I Small strains t Conventional soii testing
strains
~ j Larger strains
0 '---- -1---- -----,.-----....----l---.-------.-+ Shear strain Ys [-I
fo"" 10-s 10.. 10~ 10-2 10-1
Dynamic method$
1~--------,.1~----~~------------.r~ -------~
Local gauges
Modulus reduction curve after Benz (2007)
f uoelft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://gee.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 5
Features of soil behaviour
Elasticity (reversible deformation; limited) > stiffness

Plasticity (irreversible deformation) > stiffness, strength
Failure (ultimate limit state or critical state) > strength
Presence and role of pore water
Undrained behaviour and consolidation
Stress dependency of stiffness
Strain dependency stiffness
Time dependent behaviour (creep, relaxation)
Compaction en dilatancy
Memory of pre-consolidation pressure
Anisotropy (directional strength and/or stiffness)
f uoelft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://gee.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 6

Concepts of soil modelling
Relationship between stresses (stress rates)

and strains (strain rates)
Elasticity (reversible deformations) da=f(dE)
Example: Hooke's law
Plasticity (irreversible deformations) da=f(de,a,h)
o Perfect plasticity, strain hardening, strain softening
Yielding, yield function, plastic potential, hardening/softening rule
Example: Mohr-Coulomb yielding
Time dependent behaviour (time dependent deformations)
o Biot's (coupled) consolidation dcr=f(dE,cr,~
o Creep, stress relaxation
Visco elasticity, visco plasticity
~
T U Oelft CiTG, Geo-englneering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 7
Types of stress-strain behaviour
Linear-elastic Non-linear elastic Elastoplastic

a a a
"'------- E E
Lin. elast. perfectly-plast. EP strain-hardening EP strain-softening

a a a
Hooke's law
V V 0 0 0
U:xx
(J.Y.Y rl:v 1- V
1-
V
V
0
0
0
0
0
0
lixx
&.Y.Y
E V 8 zz
Uzz
Uxy
-
(I+ v)(l-2v)l 0
0
0
0
0
0
_i _
2
0
1--' 0
l__ V
0
0
'Yxy
Uyz 2 'Yyz
Uzx 0 0 0 0 0 l_- V
2 I 'Yzx
Inverse:
&XX 1 -v -V 0 0 0 lJxx
&.Y.Y -v 1 -v 0 0 0 (J.Y.Y
&zz 1 -v -v 1 0 0 0 Uzz
=
'Yxy E 0 0 0 2+2v 0 0 (Jxy
'Yyz 0 0 0 0 2+2v 0 Uyz

'Yzx 0 0 0 0 0 2+2v Uzx
~
TU Delft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://gee.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 9
Hooke's law
In principal stress I strain components:
0"1 ]
0"2 =
E [1- V
V V
1-V
V ] [ &1 ]
V &2
[ (1 + v )(1- 2v) _
0"3 V V 1 V &3
In isotropic and deviatoric stress I strain components:
[:] = [ ~ 3~][::]
f u oelft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://gee.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 10

Model parameters in Hooke's law:
Two parameters:
IL ~,,I 1d
- Young's modulus E
- Poisson's ratio v
<
Meaning (axial compr.):
E
E =do-l
de1
d&3
v=--
d&I
If
T U.Oelft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 11
Alternative parameters in Hooke's law:

Shear modulus:
G = _d_a----'xy"- E
dyxy 2(1 + v)
Bulk modulus:
K = dp = E dEv
d&v 3(1-2v) 1/ ~'"'"~'"'"' ~
Oedometer modulus:
E _ da1 _ E(l- v)
oed- d&l - (1+ v)(l-2v)
If
T U Delft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 12
Stress definitions
In general, soil cannot sustain tension, only compression
PLAXIS adopts the general mechanics definition of stress and strain:
Tension/extension is positive; Pressure/compression is negative
cr fjljjj
yy
In general, soil deformation is based on stress changes in the

grain skeleton (effective stresses)
According to Terzaghi's principle: a' = a- Pw
.fuoelft CiTG, Geo-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 13
Hooke's law for effective stress rates

The modeling of non-linear soil behaviour requires a relationship
between effective stress rates {da') and strain rates (de)
da 'xx l-v' v' v' 0 0 0 de_rx

da' )')' v' l-v' v' 0 0 0 deYY
da 'z= E' v' v' l - v' 0 0 0 de=z
= 0 0 0 .l-v' 0 0
da 'xy (1 + v ')(1- 2v ') 2 dyxy
da 'y= 0 0 0 0 .l-v
2
' 0 dyyz
da'zx 0 0 0 0 0 .l-v'
2 dyzx
Symbolic: da' De de
-
de (ner1 da'
.fuoelft CiTG, Geo-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 14

Plasticity
Basic principle of elasto-plasticity:
-
elj.. -e ..e +elj..p
lj
(total strains)
(strain rates)
Elastic strain rates:
If
T U Delft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://gee.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 15
Plasticity
Basic principle of elasto-plasticity:
e I).. -- e I)--e +eI)..p (total strains)
de lj.. =de~lj +de?.lj (strain rates)
Plastic strain rates:
de?. =dA Bg
u a, (jij
dA- = scalar; magnitude of plastic strains
dg/da = vector; direction of plastic strains
g = plastic potential function
~
When do plastic strains occur?
Determination based on yield function f= f(a',E)
If f<O Pure elastic behaviour

If f=O and df<O Unloading from a plastic state ( = elastic behaviour)
If f=O and df=O Elastoplastic behaviour
~
When do plastic strains occur?

Yield function f is (a.o.) a function of the stress state
~ f=O can be represented as a border in the
stress space (yield contour) f=O
Within the yield contour: f< 0 f>O

On the yield contour: f= 0
Outside the yield contour: f> 0 (impossible stress state)
Condition: Yield contour must be convex
If
.
The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion

Origin: F
T
cr'n 1
't
Coulomb: T ~A+ F tan<p t ~ c'- cr'n tan<p'
f uoelft CiTG, Geoenglneering, http://geo.citg.tudeltt.nl MC model and soil stiffness 19

In general:
The condition t ~ c'- cr'n tan<p' must hold for arbitrary angle e
f uoelft CiTG, Geoengineering, http://geo.citg.tudeltt.nl MC model and soil stiffness 20

MC criterion:
-s* sin<p t*~ c cos<p - s* sin<p
-crl -crn
-s*
-fu oelft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://gee.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 21

MC criterion: t*~c' cos<p' - s* sin<p'
t* = 1h(cr'3 - cr\)
s* = 1f2(cr'3+cr'1)
l((J'' ) < c' cos m' - l((J'' +(J'' )sin m'

2 3 -(J'' ] - 't' 2 3 l 't'
- (J'' < ___ ;,___ _ 1+ sin rp' (J',

2c' cos ,rp'
- 1- sin rp ' 1- sin rp ' 3
Note: Compression is negative and cr' 1 ~ cr'2 ~ cr'3

~
!!!!!!!
Visualisation of the M-C failure criterion
2c'cosrp'
a= ------=--
1-sinrp'
b :::: 1+ sin rp '

1-sin rp'
~
Full Mohr-Coulomb criterion
l(a'
2 3 -a' 2) -< c'cosm'-
'!'
l(a'
2 3 +a' 2 )sin '!'
m'
l(a'
2 2 -a' 3)- < c'cosm'
'!'
-l(a'
2 2 +a' 3 )sin '!'
m'
l(a'
2 3 -a')<
) - c'cosm' '!' -l(a'
2 3 +a' 1 )sin '!'
m'
l(a'
2 1 -a' 3
)-< c'cosm'
'!'
-l(a'
2 1+a' 3 )sin '!'
m'
l(a'
2 2 - a')<
1 - c'cosm'
'!'
- l(a'
2 2 +a' 1 )sin '!'
m'
l(a'
2 I -a' 2) -< c'cosm'
'!'
-l(a'
2 1+a' 2 )sin '!'
m'
.fu oelft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://gee.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 24

Reformulation into yield functions
l(a'
2 3 -a')<
1 - c'cosm'
't'
-l(a'
2 3 +a' 1 )sin 't'
m'
f 2b -l(a'
- 2 3 -a' 1 )+l(a'
2 3 +a' 1 )sin m'-c'cosm' 't' 't'
f uoelft CiTG, Geo-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudeltt.nl MC model and soil stiffness 25
Reformulation into yield functions
.( -l(a'
J la - 2 3 -a' 2 )+ l(a'
2 3 +a' 2 )sin 't'
m'-c'cosm'
't'
J.(1b -l(a'
- 2 2 -a' 3 )+l(a'
2 2 +a' 3 )sin 't'
m'-c'cosm'
't'
f 2a -l(a'
- 2 I -a' 3 )+l(a'
2 1+a' 3 )sin 't'
m'-c'cosm'
't'
f 2b -l(a'
- 2 3 -a' I )+l(a'
2 3 +a'1 )sin m'-c'cosm' 't' 't'
f 3a -l(a'
- 2 2 -a' 1 )+l(a'
2 2 +a' 1 )sin m'-c'cosm' 't' 't'
cr 3 f 3b -l(a'
- 2 I -a' 2 )+l(a'
2 1+a' 2 )sinm'-c'cosm' 't' 't'
Parameters: Effective cohesion (c') and effective friction angle (<p')
f uoelft CiTG, Geo-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudeltt.nl MC model and soil stiffness 26

.
Plastic potentials of the M-C model

g 1a = 1- (a '3-a '2) + 1-(a '3+a '2)sin lj/- c' cos lj/
gib 1- (a '2-a '3) + 1- (a '2+a '3)sin lj/- c' cos lj/
=
g 2a = 1-(a \ -a' 3)+ 1-(a '.+a 'Jsin lj/- c' cos lj/
_ 1(
g3b - 2 a 1-a 2 + 1(
I
2 a 1+a 2 s1n lf/- c cos lJI
I ) I I ) ' I
Dilatancy angle If/ instead of friction angle ffJ
Motivation based on simple shear test

f u Delft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 27
Failure in a simple
shear test:
d&p =dA
xx
a'g = dA_,
aa' XX
(a' XX -
4t*
a' XII +l Sifl 11/
2
..,.,
J= 0
d& P
w
=d'/L1 ag
aa' w
= d1(a'J'I'-a'x.r + 2I s1n
/L
4t*
.
lj/ = J d'1/L s1n
. lJI
dy~ =dA aag'

'Y
= dA.,(a''YJ =
t*
d), COSij/
a .\11
dsJn' d& ~ 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1--" = - -
" = tanlj/1 - - - - - -
dy ~I dy~~~ 28
Failure in a simple shear test:
filED 1 Yxy
cffiB ~
dilatancy
Eyy~~~~
-\ji- Yxy
f u oelft CiTG, Geo-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 29
The LEPP Mohr-Coulomb model
Linear-elastic perfectly-plastic stress-strain relationship
- Elasticity: Hooke's law

- Plasticity: Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
The LEPP mode/ with Mohr-Coulomb failure contour is in PLAXIS

called the Mohr-Coulomb model
For this model: Plasticity = Failure

This does NOT apply to all models!!!
~
The LEPP Mohr-Coulomb model
Model parameters:
-Young's modulus (stiffness) E

- Poisson's ratio v
-Cohesion c
- Friction angle <p
- Dilatancy angle \1'
Model parameters must be determined such that

real soil behaviour is approximated in the best possible way
~
T U Oelft CiTG, Geo-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 31
Parameter determination
Parameter determination from:
Laboratory tests (triaxial test (CD, CU), oedometer test or CRS,

simple shear test, ... )
Field tests (SPT, CPT, pressure meter (Menard, CPM, SBP),
dilatometer, ... )
Correlations with qc, PI, RD and other index parameters
Rules-of-thumb, norms, charts, tables
Engineering judgement
~
- --
- -
-
-
---
- ..__ -
- -- - -- -_l j
-- -
MC approximation of a CD triax. test
I
cr'3 = confining pressure
i E'50
I
I
2c 'cos tjJ '- 2a '3 sin tjJ'

1- sint/J'
1- sin w
f u oelft CiTG, Geo-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 33
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MC approximation of a compr. test
,'
,
E~j./"/
,-'
E = (1 + V )(1- 2 V) E
oed (l- v)
~
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
Stiffness parameter - suggestions
Order of magnitude for f5 0 :

- Sand: E,o = [150 .. 500~ u;
pref r r pref
Loose Dense
- Clay: or
JP = plasticity index
.JfuDelft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 35

Order of magnitude Eoed (sand):
E oed
p rej
= [150 .. 500]~ u; pref
1 1
Loose Dense
(correlation)
E _ da1 _ (1-v)E ~ E = (1 + v )(1- 2 v) E

oed- dc
1
- (1+vX1-2v) (1- v) oed
This E-value applies to primary compression

;f
TU Delft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 36
Order of magnitude Eoed (clay):
(correlation)
P ref 1----~ Eoed

(correlation)
E _ da1 _ (1- v )E ~ E = (1 + V )(1 - 2V) E

oed de1 (l+vXI-2v) (1- v) oed
This E-value applies to primary compression

~

Secant oedometer stiffness:
f u oelft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://gee.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 38

fcrmaat, Venneer &. Vcrgeer (198S)
soo
0 Portsmounlh clay
Boetoo clay
250 + Baokok clay !from foou
[] MaiDC Of'PIIk day m4 lAid (2)
Agsclay
c + 6 Alchal'aleya clay
G 100

Oesteldam
75
cu
so
25
10
10 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 lOO
plasticity iDdex IJ,%
~
T U Delft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 39

1600 ~--
uch ignani
1400
1200
1000
Eu_
cu 800
600
400
200
0
1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910
~
T U Delft < overconsolidation ratio 40
Possibilities and limitations of the
LEPP Mohr-Coulomb model
Possibilities and advantages
Simple and clear model

First order approach of soil behaviour in
general
Suitable for many practical applications cr 1
Limited number and clear parameters
Good representation of failure behaviour
(drained)
Dilatancy can be included
f u Oelft CiTG, Geo-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 41
Possibilities and limitations of the

LEPP Mohr-Coulomb model
Limitations and disadvantages
Isotropic and homogeneous behaviour

Until failure linear elastic behaviour
No stress/stress-path/strain-dependent stiffness
No distinction between primary loading and
unloading or reloading
Dilatancy continues for ever (no critical state)
Be careful with undrained behaviour
No time-dependency (creep)
f u Delft CiTG, Geo-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl MC model and soil stiffness 42

Overview of Soil Models, Parameters,
Possibilities & Limitations
Ronald Brinkgreve
Plaxis bv
Content
Overview of soil models, parameters, possibilities & limitations
in PLAXIS 30
- Mohr-Coulomb model
- Hardening Soil model (HS + HSsmall)
- Soft Soil model
- Soft Soil Creep model
- Hoek-Brown model
Standard soil tests with different models
Which model in which situation?
Overview of model features
Overview of soil models in PLAXIS 30
Soil Mohr-Coulomb - Sand 'i
-JJ ( A Cl ~
Gener.ol l&::-~s lflow """"""ll:r !(,;""~ ) lniUol}_
Vlllue
PrCIIOrt)'
Hllteriiii.UI
Urll
.
Identification Sand
Material model l"""<o~Aomb l

Drainage type
..._._Ut to I
0 0
CoiOU' ~sol
I HSsmol I
Conrnon1s Soft sol
Sofhaltn:~:P
.lOO~ rode<-defircd
7. . - kNftn J I.
kN/mJ
ill. .
r ...
+
20.00
-
I fioxt l! OK IC tra~_j
Mohr-Coulomb model
Linear-elastic perfectly-plastic behaviour
Hooke's law:
dO'xx 1-v V V 0 0 0 de=

dO'yy V 1-v V 0 0 0 deYY
dO'zz E V V I-v 0 0 0 de=z
dO'xy (1 + v)(l- 2v) 0 0 0 .!._v 0 0 dyX)'
2
dO'yz 0 0 0 0 .l._v 0 dyyz

2
dO'z.< 0 0 0 0 0 .l.-v
2 dy=x
Mohr-Coulomb model
Linear-elastic perfectly-plastic behaviour
Yield function:
Plastic potential function:
Mohr-Coulomb model
Parameters:
E Young's modulus
V Poisson's ratio
c Cohesion
q> Friction angle
4J Dilatancy angle
Mohr-Coulomb mode
Possibilities:
First order approach of soil behaviour in general
(Drained) failure behaviour quite well described
Limitations:
Linear elastic behaviour until failure (no strain- or stress- or stress path-
dependent stiffness behaviour)
Be careful with efffective strength in undrained behaviour
Hardening Soil model

Characteristics:
Stress-dependent stiffness behaviour according to
a power law
Hyperbolic stress-strain relationship in axial /
compression
Plastic shear strain by mobilising friction (shear hardening)
Plastic volumetric strain by primary compression (compaction hardening)
Elastic unloading I reloading
Failure behaviour according to the Mohr-Coulomb criterion
Small-strain stiffness (HSsmall model only)
essential for geotechnical professionals

Shear hardening:
Elastoplastic formulation of hyperbolic q-c: 1 relationship

Elastic
q q I
I
I
'
I
MC failure line
L----------------- y
q
Hardening Soil model MC failure lin
Compaction hardening:
Elastoplastic formulation of
p- c:v relationship in
primary compression aP
Pc P,
0'"1
-
~ <> s ,p nt f,,{ l o<' f.lti nTPc' /lrl il !J/ [liOI">SI(Ifl<lis

Small-strain stiffness:
G/G0 [-]
1.0 +-- --=-.. . .
0.8
0.6 Strain-dependent stiffness

Hysteresis
0.4
Energy dissipation
0.2
Damping
0.0 +-r-rl"'nmr'-r-1'TT'mrq-""',...,....,.,.f--r-rTTTT11'f"""T"T'TT,.,;r:~"""'~
10'3 10'2 10'1 10 101 1~ lo' Yho.7 [-]
- --- I - - - -- - 1
- ~--- ~- --------=--- - - - - --~--~---~---- ---=- ~

Parameters:
Esoref Secant stiffness from triaxial test at reference pressure
EoeJef Tangent stiffness from oedometer test at pref
Eufef Reference stiffness in unloading I reloading
G0 ref Reference shear stiffness at small strains (HSsmall)
Yo.? Shear strain at which G has reduced to 70% (HSsmall)
m Rate of stress dependency in stiffness behaviour
pref Reference pressure (100 kPa)
Vur Poisson's ratio in unloading I reloading
c' Effective cohesion
Effective friction angle
Dilatancy angle
Failure ratio q, lq 8 like in Duncan-Chang model (0.9)
Stress ratio cr'jcr'w in 1D primary compression
. - n
I
~ e .,;ent i;d for <J>'OI<~t' lriii(:JI.[llniP>.SI~ma/~ ';

Possibilities:
Better non-linear formulation of soil behaviour in general
Distinction between primary loading and unload./reloading
Memory of pre-consolidation stress
Different stiffness in different stress paths
Well suited for unloading situations with simultaneous deviatoric loading
(excavations)
Strain-dependent stiffness (hysteresis, damping) (HSsmall only)
Limitations:
No peak strength and softening
No secondary compression (Creep); No anisotropy
E50 I Eoed > 2 difficult to input
Soft Soil model

Characteristics:
Based on Cam-Clay theory
Logarithmic stress-strain relationship
(stiffness linearly dependent on p')
Plastic strain in primary compression (compaction hardening)
M based on K0nc in 1D compression instead of on <p'
Soft Soil model
threshold ellipse
p'
~-+------------------------~Pp
c cot<p
Soft Soil model

Parameters:
'A* Modified compression index
K* Modified swelling index
vur Poisson's ratio for unloading I reloading /
<p' Effective friction angle
\jJ Dilatancy angle
K0nc Horiz./vertical stress ratio in normally consolidated
1 D compression (determines M)
I
- - - - - ----- ---
Soft Soil model

Possibilities:
Reasonable model for primary loading of normally
consolidated clay and soft soils
Failure behaviour better than (modified) Cam-Clay
/
Limitations:
Less suitable for over-consolidated clay and in certain unloading stress
paths; not suitable for sand
No time-dependent behaviour (secondary compression)
Soft Soil Creep model

Characteristics:
Apparently comparable behaviour with Soft Soil model:
- Logarithmic stress-strain relationship
- Memory of preloading (pre-consolidation stress)
- Irreversible volume strain upon primary loading
- Failure behaviour according to the Mohr-Coulomb criterion
Time-dependent deformations (secondary compression)
Irreversible strains by means of visco-plasticity (creep strain) instead of
plasticity
- - - - - _- - - ---=--- -~ - - ~ ,I

d In(-d)
A+B
NC-/ire
-e
- - - - - - ----
isotropic stress p =-(01 + 02 +o3 ) /3

Parameters:
'A* Modified compression index
K* Modified swelling index
~L* Modified creep index
vur Poisson's ratio for unloading I reloading
<p' Effective friction angle
\il Dilatancy angle
1D compression (determines M)

Possibilities:
Reasonable model for primary loading of normally consolidated clay
and soft soils
Time-dependent behaviour (secondary compression; creep)
Limitations:
'Side role' of over-consolidation ratio OCR
Influence of K0nc_parameter (M)
No softening
Hoek-Brown model
Hoek-Brown failure criterion (2002):
m = m ex (
GSJ -lOO)
b I p 28-14D
CJci = Intact uniaxial compressive
strength
GS/ = Geological Strength Index
GS/ - 100) mi = Intact rock parameter

s=exp ( -9---3D
- 0 = Disturbance Factor
~ essentral for ~wotechmcal profess1onals
Hoek-Brown model
-cr ' 1
Uni-axial compressive strength :
Tensile strength :
sa-.
(Y =--
Cl
I
mb
-.. . 1. . . . . -
c -cr ' 3
Hoek-Brown model
Parameters:
crc; Intact uniaxial co~pressive strength

GSI Geological Strength Index
m; Intact rock parameter
0 Disturbance factor
Hoek-Brown model
Possibilities:
Continuum approach of rock strength
Applicable to intact or weathered rock
Limitations:
Only applicable to rock
No anisotropy
Not applicable to stratified rock > use Jointed Rock model
- - -- _ _::_
-----
-- --- - --

Model 1 (Mohr-Coulomb) Model 2 (Hardening-Soil) Model 3 (Soft Soil)
E = 20000 kN/m 2 E = 20000 kN/m 2
50 ).. _ * = 0.012
V= 0.3 Eoed = 20000 kN/m 2 K* = 0.0024
c = 0 kN/m 2 Eur = 60000 kN/m 2 V= 0.2
<p = 30 m= 1.0 c = 0 kN/m 2
~J = oo pref = 100 kN/m 2 <p = 30
V = 0.2 \V= oo
c = 0 kN/m 2 Konc = 0.5
<p = 30
\V= oo
Konc = 0.5

Standard drained triaxial test at cr 3 = 100 kPa
E1DS E1Ev
.' .. '
:- .. .. . ........ : - . ..
1&1 .. . '
,.. . ' .
-0.001
.
~ --
' . :
.. .
: - - - J
..
~~4 ~-. .- , . 4 ~ -r
. '
I
.. I
'
<
.0.002 . ...................... ........ ....
'
.
.. .................. .....:.............. ,:. ..
. ' '.
150 .. .. ............
..'t
. ............... ........... ..
.
'-

_. .0.003
...
'E
z
-'
120
. . T...... r. -r . .
' .'' ..'
!........ r u .o.ccs
{ ..
..
..............
.'
.....
.. ..
'
~- ...
~ ..... i""" '"j" '""''"f""' ""'i"'"""'t" :::::

&0 .... -- ~ - i t : --- .. :... .0.008
: : : : - Model 1 (MC) :
lO ......... ; .......... i.......... f ... -~ - TrtaxHS.vlt :
.0.009
:
.' :
.. ..
: - Trtax SS.vlt
..i -0.01 . . . . .
0~---+----,_--~--~-r~--+----+~
0 -0.01 -0 02 -0.03 -0 04 -0.05 -0.06 0 -0.01 -0.02 -O.Ol -0.04 -0.05 -0.06
Undrained triaxial test at cr 3 = 100 kPa
E1DS E1Pw
' i
:::: _ r :::r.::::::::r:-- ....r:_:::_:: r::::::::r:: . ::. r -SO ...........................

' ' , .. .
y-r- [ i 1 i AO
?
~ -f.-v ---i--: .........
811 - .j .......... ~--
t :
-i-----i-l
: : : ::;-
= :. :, :, :, :, :, ~ : : : : : :
z: -30 .. . ::--~: .. ---.~. ---: ..........:.----::
bf"' 60- . . &6;::-:----:--------:-- c
' f I 0 I I J: 0 o o I
~ ~ ~ ~ ! :
.. --;----! ---- 1-- - --r
; o Q_ : I : t
40 ..... !--.. ---;-- . . . - . :----------:---------- :----------:--- -~-r
~ : ~ - Modetl (MC) 1.! ~

20 ........
j
"j"........
;
T........r: = ~~=~~:~if. -10-
:
... : .......... . .......... -:-.......
, i -
= Modell (MC)
~~:~~:~
0 0~~--~----~----~----~--~----~~
0 ~.01 -0.02 -0.03 ~-~ -O.OS ~.00 0 ~. 01 ~.02 -0.03 -0.04 -D.OS ~.118

Undrained triaxial test at cr 3 = 100 kPa
PO Mohr
I I I I o I I
'110 - Modell(MC) j .......:...... : .....: .... j .....~ ....... ; ...

- - TriHxiJ HS.vlt ! ! ! : ; ;
- Triaxl.J SS.vlt : : :
' - -- - - - - - - - - ' :
100 .. .... :- .... : .. ;Tr .. --:---- :.....
I 0 0
:
>
:
I

I

I /
:-=.;.-:
' .!'
o
.
I I I I I I I , I I
60 - - -- --~- . : - .i .......l.......i - - - ---~- - --- -.;~-:~ ___ _;____ ..;.. .

: : : : : : _, . : : :
: : : : : /: : :
eo~ - --1 ----~~-----:-- ; : -!- ~- -i -- ~- - ..
40
:
I
" ~ . ..
:
I
}
0
--!- - 0
'
L0L-- O
:

' :
20
0 ~
0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -60 -90 -100 -20 -40 ~ -60 -100 -120 -140 -160 -180
p' [kN/m] a' [kN/m]
--:-- .,- I ' ,. - _.. - - I

Oedometer test with unloading
Custom SxxSyy
0 - ~=-~---r---,----~--~---r---,!~--~
..sou ~ ......... ;. -. : .... -~ -... , . . - Modell (MC)
.. ..' ..'
... i--:t -700 .. ,. .......
-
-
Oedom HS.vlt
Oedom SS.vlt
-0.02 a oa ~: 0 0 4 O : 0
.000
i
-C.Ol
-500 '
- Model 1 (MC) : ~ -400 - -- : ..

- Oedom HS.vtt !
- Oedom ss.vtt ; -300-
.. ---:- ---~- ! -~
.. ..
'
200
i --1'- ...... - ~.- --- i. --
-007 .... ; ......
. .. . ..
---~ ~ -
. -1C:O __.
' .
: -~
-4.0& ---1"--i-----~ - :
'
o+-~---+~~--~
100 200 300 400 500 &00 700 BOO 0 - 100 -200 ~CO -400
o' 1 [kN}m] a'"" [kN/m]

Direct Simple Shear test at crxx =cryy =100 kPa
TxyGxy Mohr
. .
100
. ..
... ~ .........:...
.
: /
~...... 4 .. -i ....... ;... _ -~------i--- --~ -- ~-- --~ .. BO i- ; ~- 1"'
: ! : : : . : : . .~.. :
: i : ; :
-+--++-----;-- . .. ..
. . . . --: .....:. :
t-- +--. 60 - .-. -:- ....... -- . "' !
: ~
i : :
-~------- ~.....
. 'E
-.
... ... .. . ..
0 I 0 I 0 z
0 0 I o
~
' ' ..... . - ....... :-.
r~rr1 r -- t ----~---r--- ~-- .. 40 --~
10
.
:
~--
. I :
. i"' . . j-- j -;---- -!

: I
0+---r-~~~---T~-r--;---;---+---r-~~
:
:
.
:
i. =
~~r~~:~r)
'
20
/
:
-~- ~
_...;
: .; ,
.:..-.
!"
0 0,01 0.02 0 03 0 04 0.05 0 00 0.07 0.00 0.09 0.1 -20 -ID -80 -100 -1l0 -HO
'lxy a' [kN/m 2 ]


Direct Simple Shear test at axx = =100 kPa
ayy
PO Mahr
. .... ---- .... .
--- ...............
120
- Modell (MC)
.
~ ,...
-~ 100 -
-
Modell (MC)
055 H5.vft
'i'
- 055 H5.vft .
.; ...-; .. +
"' - 055 55.vft I
! /
.. --1 .. ; ;f ......
10 0 - 055 55.vft
sa --""---~--.._ -- -i.~ --------~
80 ..:............. . ..............
; ; l : I
-~ ..,
~"
1' ' I I t .
:,..-
......... ... ; 0
ea -- ~ :--- -- :- - -- -- -~ - t - -- : ..,_ - - ~ ---- t - ---

. . .
. -- ..
i ,/ ~
. ,./.. - ...
'E
.! .: .: : ., : ' :
<T
. ........
4-
/ l : -- ~ ... ... ...
,~ ; 1 !
.,.,:. ~~ - ~ ;:-r .
t
40
:,..-
I ; .; : . l l , j .
20 - .. ----:--- -/ -~ - ... -. ~----. } - ... ---: . -- ~-- .... - !.- ---~ ..... ~-~. ~
20. .--------r---, ., . . . --:- --
.r: , . ~
:
~
:
: !
:
~ I
/
.... :
: .
/ 0 .... ......... - ~
:---
0~--+---r---r---r-~~~~~--~--~~-+~
o
-1 -20 -3D -40 o-60 -70 ~o -100 .so ..eo -20 -40 -60 -100 -120 -14D
p' [krl/m] a' [kN/m]

Considering different types of soils
Model Concrete Rock Gravel Sand SIH OCclay NC ciSV Pe(org)
Linear Elaslic model c c
Mlhr.Coubmb model A 8 c c c c c c
Hardening Sdl model B B B B B
HS small model A A A A B
Soft Soil c ... ep model A' N
Soft Sdl model A' A'
Jointed Rod< model A"
Mldilied Cam-Clay model B 8
NGI-ADP model A' A'
Hook- Br<Ym model A"
A: The best staroard rrodel in PLAXIS for this application

B: Reasmable modelling
C : Firs! order (crude) approximation
: Soft Soil Creep model In casetlmedeperoenl behaviour Is Important; NGIADP rrodel for st-ort -term analysis, incase only urorained strength is known
" : JdnEd Rock model in case of anisol'q>y and sl'alificaUm: Hook-Broon model for rock In general
Coll81derlng different types of appUclllo118 (coll&lder aloo type of aoUI)
-I FoundatiOn Excavltlon lllnnel Eillbrimenl Slope Dam Olflflora Other
Unear Elaslo model c
Mohr-Coulomb model c c c c c c c c
Hardening SoiiiTDdal B B B B B 8 B B
HSemal model A A A A A A A A
Soft Sol C19ep model B B B A A B B B
Soft Sol model B B B A A B B B
.l:*lBd Rod< model B B B B B B B B
Modlled Cam-Clay model B B B B B B B B
NGIADP model B B B A A B A B
Hoak BrOMl modol B B B B B B B B
A : The best stan:lard modolln PLAXIS tor this application

B: Reasonable ITDda llng
C: Fhtorder (crude) aR)<O.lllmalcn
.
Which model 1n which situation?
Coll&ldertng different types of loading and aolla (oonalder oloo type oleoll~
Model Pllm-v Unloading/ She., I Devlollc Undralned Cyclic Compre..lon Exlllnslon
compralon Reloading loading loading +Shear +Shear
lilear Elaslo model c c
MohrCo~omb model c B c c c c
Hardening SoP model A B B B c A A
HS small model A A A B B A A
SQit Sdl Creep model A B B B c A B
Salt Soli model A B B B c A B
Jolrted Rook ITDdal B B B B B
Modified Cem-C~ modal B B B B c B B
NO I-ADP model B B B A c B B
Hoek.flrown model B B B B B
A :The best otendard model In PLAXIS forfi'js applcatlon

B : Reasonable modelllrg
C : Rrst crder (crude) epp-aclmatlon
- -
!------=--~- --- - ---=--- -_- ~

- -
-----= --- - - - -
----L _ __.- ___ ,[
Overview of model features

Feature: Elas- Failure Harde- Softe- Ani so- De-struc- Small- Cyclic Lique- Creep Unsatu-
Model ticity ning ning tropy tu ration strain st. loadng faction rated
Hooke's law
"
Mohr-Coulomb
"v "
Jointed Rock
Hoek-Brown
"v "
Modified Cam-Clay
Soft Soil """ "
"" " "
Soft Soil Creep
" " " "
" " "
"v "" " "
S-Ciay1S *
"
Barcelona Basic *
Hardening Soil "v "
"" " """
I
Hssmall 'I
" "
" " "
UBCSAND *
Hypoplasticity
" " "
(-J) (-J)
* User-defined soil models
www.plaxis.nl
Pln:w;is Lv Du!ftechpark 53 Pliixis b" Asi<l 16 Jalan Kihng Tirnm
Heildquurter 2628 XJ Dclft Singapore #05 08 Redhill Forum
Tel +31 !0)15 2:,17 no The Nell101 hnds rei >65 6325 4191 159308 Singapore
Characteristics:
Stress-dependent stiffness behaviour according to a power law

Hyperbolic stress-strain relationship in axial compression
Plastic strain by mobilising friction (shear hardening)
Plastic strain by primary compression ( compaction hardening)
Small-strain stiffness (HSsmall model only)
.fuoelft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 1

Hyperbolic stress-strain relationship in (tri)axialloading:
(Duncan-Chang model)
0 = initial stiffness Et
quit= asymptotic value of q (related to strength)
R, ='failure ratio' (standard value 0.9)
Shear hardening in the HS model
Flow rule:
. .
. Sln~m- Sln~cv
Sln'lfm = . .
q 1- Slll~m Sln~cv
. sin~'-sin'l'
stn ~cv = - ---=--- ----'---
1- sin~ sin 'I'
~
TU Delft CITG, Geo-englneering, http://geo.citg.tudeltt.nl Hardening Soil model 7
Shear hardening in the HS model

Flow rule:
. .
. Sln~m -Sln~cv
Sln'lf171 = . .
q MC failure line 1-stn~mstn~cv
\lfm>O . sin~'- sinrp

m ', ,-- q>cv Sln~cv =
.,m\ , / 1- sin ~'sinrp
,--,---\ \If m<O (in principle)
,, "
/
-- 'I I
, "" ,,' '.
I
Note:
I
.
'
\If m < 0 is not taken
into account
.fu oelft CITG, Geo-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl Harden ing Soil model 8

Compaction hardening in the HS model
q MC failure lin
Yield function (associated):
2
I' q 2 2
J cap = - 2 + P -Pc
a
H::.~~in~ ru;: ( Pc )I-m ap

v 1-m p ref
Pc p'
a is determined by J<onc
~ is determined by Eoed
r.;;:]
E
oed
= Eref [ c cot tp'-a'l
oed reif
Jm
~ ccottp'-p 6v
/'uDelft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://gee.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 9
Compaction and Shear hardening

in the HS model
Cone
f u oelft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://gee.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 10

in the HS model
Cap + Hardening point

' '
/ '
'
/ '
Cap point
Hardening/
point//
'
_-'///
''
~,' ~
,,'"
Tension cut-off point
~
T U Delft CiTG, Geo-englneering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 11

in the HS model
Relevance of Compaction hardening:

Plastic compaction in primary loading
Distinction between primary loading and unloading/reloading
Relevance of Shear Hardeninq.

Decreasing stiffness (increasing plastic shear strains) in deviatoric
stress paths (principal stress differences, shearing)
~
T U Delft CiTG, Geo-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 12
Small-strain stiffness in the HS model
(HSsmall)
Strain(path)-dependent elastic overlay model:
G/G0 [-] s _ __.::...

Go _ _
G =
1.0 +---- -o;;;;;;:::::-..... 1 + 0.385 r I r0 .7
0.8
0.6
0.4
G starts again at G0
0.2
after full strain reversal
0.0 -1--r-.,...,...,...,-r-r-........,.,'lr""l""........,.,,;.......,...........,.,.,..--,-~~~~
toJ wl to' 1011 to' 10l 103 YIYo.7 [-]
f u oelft OTG, Gee-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudeift.ni Hardening Soil model 13

(HSsmall)
't
..
,.,./.. -- ... -.......... Cyclic loading
. Gt ------- :'
leads to Hysteresis
Go ./
.
''
);l. Energy dissipation
-'Ye :
--~ ~r---~~~--~~-~~ y ~Damping
...
/ +ye
..
,./Go
~
TU Delft CiTG, Gee-enginee ring, http://geo.citg.tudelft.ni Hardening Soil model 14
(HSsmall)
(Excel sheet)
G:
30000
I
-
Yp.7
-+
I .. - ..................................................... ..
o.
3
o.2s ... ................ ............ _ ..........................

I
....................................... ..
2
25000 - ~-- ~ -
I
........ .. .... ... . .. ... .. ........... . ........ . .. _ _____ ,_.... , ... . .
0.2 ................................. ..... ......... . .............. . , - ~ -
1 o1 ------------------ ......................... ....................... .................... .

10000 -- - - - -- -~ ...... . ......... . ...... ... . ......... . . .
0
000001 00001 0001 00001 0001 001
Cyclcll..arstt*'
f uoelft CITG, Geoenglneering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 15

(HSsmall)
Relevance of small-strain stiffness:

Very stiff behaviour at very small strains (vibrations)
Reduction of stiffness with increasing strain; restart after load reversal
Hysteresis in cyclic loading:
Energy dissipation
Damping
Also relevant for applications like:
Excavations (settlement trough behind retaining wall)
Tunnels (settlement trough above tunnel)
Hardening Soil model 16

Parameters of the HS(small) model
Parameters:
Secant stiffness from triaxial test at reference pressure
Esoret
Eoe?' Tangent stiffness from oedometer test at fP'
Eu!et Reference stiffness in unloading I reloading
G0ret Reference shear stiffness at small strains (HSsmall only)
Yo. 7 Shear strain at which G has reduced to 70/o (HSsmall only)
fP' Reference pressure (100 kPa)
v ur Poisson's ratio in unloading I reloading
c Cohesion
cp' Friction angle
\Jf Dilatancy angle
R, Failure ratio q,l qa like in Duncan-Chang model (0. 9)
Kanc Stress ratio cr'xJcr'w in lD primary compression
f u Delft CiTG, Geo-engineerlng, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 17
Parameters of the HS model

Parameters:
q
I
I a3=pref I
quit --------~------------------- ------
,'El ref
(<p, c) , so qrRfquzt
E urref
Triaxial test Oedometer test
-fu oelft CiTG, Geo-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 18

ea
a_ 105
~
0
c HOCK After Janbu (1963)
0 t> MORAINE
..... o SAND::>:::~
.tl
11 104
+ SILT
CLAY= Janbu :
"'C
r:::::
ea
J!J.
'(5
(/J
I
103
102 -
sandy gravel E,., ~ E~:0 { p:J
(.)
z.....
.e 10 - more general:
(i
a_
N01wegian
--~~
E = per .( a' + a Jm
~ 1 ~c=la~~s~------+~~--~~ oed oed p a
ref +
~ with a = c' cot<p,
w 0.1 1---.-----...---..--,---t---.--...- -, ----.----i
[%]
~
T U Delft CfTG, Gee-engineering, http://gee.cltg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 19
For normally consolidated clays (m=l):
Eref ~ _!_ Eref

oed 2 50 Order of magnitude (very rough)
Eref ~ 50000 kPa

oed ] Correlation with JP for fP'= 100 kPa
p
Eref ~ 500 kPa

oed _ O l Correlation by Vermeer
WL
Eref
oed
= prefj;( Relationship with Soft Soil model
~
T U Delft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://gee.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 20
For sands (~0.5):
Order of magnitude by Schanz
Correlation by Lengkeek
Erefd
oe
~ RD 60MPa
for !fe'= 100 kPa
f u oelft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://gee.cltg.tudelft.ni Hardening Soil model 21
For sands (~0.5):
80
'
-~
60
g;_ef
.;o
40 __ .c.ao
-cl_ Ere/
,.,
[MPa) A Toyoura Sand
20 *Karlsruhe Sand
<lHostun Sand
0
0 20 40 60 80
E~ [MPa]
Schanz (1998)
~
TU Delft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://gee.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 22
Eun Go and Yo.7
Eref
ur
= (3 f 0 5) E~'llf
50
Eref
Gref = (2 5 to 1O)Gref where Gref = ur
0 ur
U/' 2(1 + VU/')
Yo. 7 = (1 to 2) 1 o-4
f uoelft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://gee.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 23

10
~t
01
u
J
- 01
"'
01
OCR! 1-l!ij
0~~
0~ OQOI 0001 ODt
~ 'r, 1%1
10
CYCLIC SHEAR STRAIN,
ll
15
30
50
Vucevic & Dobry, 1991

_ _..D=
~~--~--~~--~--~~--~
00 0.001 DOl 0.1
CYCLIC StiEAR STRAIN, 7,1%1
W
Ill
1uoelft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 24

Initial conditions for the HS model
Initial pre-consolidation stress Pc based on (Jc:
Over-Consolidation Ratio: Pre-Overburden Pressure:

OCR= (Jc /fJ'yy 0 POP= (Jc-(J~o
f'f
Initial stresses:
a'w0 follows from soil weight

Prestress and pore pressure
cr'
POP
0' ' yy0
cr' o
XX cr'xx
f u oelft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http:// gee.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil mode l 26

.
Initial stresses:
-- ', '
-
,'
Output:
' 'fl..
P'o, qo\
'OCR'=OCR ISO
. =Pc
peq
\
\
''
P c,O p
~
TU Delft CITG, Geo-englneerlng, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 27
Comparison HS model and MC model

Stress-strain development in different stress paths:
Hardening-Soil model: Mohr-Coulomb model:

E..so ref 2SOOO kPa
E 2SOOO kPa
Eoe?' 2SOOO kPa
E ref 7SOOO kPa V 0.30
ur
/fef 100 kPa c I
0.1 kPa
m o.s <p 3S 0
0.2 \1' so
Vur
c 0.1 kPa
<p' 3S 0
\1' so
R, 0.9
J<onc 0.426
f u oelft CiTG, Geo-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 28
Isotropic compression test:
Custom
1-Mci
~
000
800
700
N'
. 500
~
"c.
400
v
fff
T U Oelft CiTG, Geoengineerlng, http://geo.cltg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 29

Drained triaxial test at cr3 =100 kPa
EtDS
1-Mci
~
M
\)
'
-0.02 -0_03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 -0.07 -0.08

EI
~
T U Delft CiTG, Geo-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 30
Drained triaxial test at cr3 = 100 kPa :
~

Undrained triaxial test at cr3 = 100 kPa
E1DS
~
Drained I undrained triaxial test at cr3 = 100 kPa
E1DS
- MC(u)
- HS(u).vtt
- MC.'wit
- HS.'wit
i
'o"'
200

100
-0.02 -0.03 -0.().4 -0.05 -0.08 -0.08

Bt
f u oelft CfTG, Gee-engineering, http://gee.citg.tudeift.ni Hardening Soil model 33

Drained I undrained triaxial test at cr3 =100 kPa
PQ
500
- MC(u)
- HS(u).vlt
- MC.vit
400- -HS.vit
300
::;-'
~
~
er 200
100
0
0 -100 '
-200
p' [kN/m 2]
~
TU Oelft CITG, Gee-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudeift.ni Hardening Soil model 34
One-dimensional compression test (oedometer):
OJstom
1-Mci
~
-fu oelft CITG, Geo-englneerlng, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 35

8381
FMCl
One-dimensional ~
compression test
(oedometer):
....
a' 3 [kN/m ' ]
~
TU Delft CITG, Geo-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 36
One-dimensional compression test (oedometer):
Stress state after unloading
( u Oelft CfTG, Geo-englneering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 37
Possibilities and advantages compared to Mohr-Coulomb:
Better non-linear formulation of soil behaviour in general (both soft

soils and harder types of soil)
Distinction between primary loading and unloading I reloading
Memory of preconsolidation stress
Different stiffnesses for different stress paths based on standard tests
Well suited for unloading situations with simultaneous deviatoric
loading (excavations)
Large stiffness at small strain levels (vibrations) (HSsmall only)
~
T U Delft CiTG, Geo-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudeltt.nl Hardening Soil model 38
Limitations and disadvantages:
No peak strength and softening (immediate residual strength)

No secondary compression (Creep)
No anisotropy
E50 I Eoed > 2 difficult to input
/ uDelft CITG, Geoenglneerlng, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 39

Soft soil (NC-clayl Hard soils (OC-
peat) clay sand gravel)
I I
Primary load. Soft Soil (Crp)l HS I HSsmall

(surcharge) HS I HSsmall
Unloading+ HS I HSsmall HS I HSsmall
deviatoric load
(excavation)
Deviatoric Soft Soil (Crp)l HS I HSsmall
loading HS I HSsmall
Secundary Soft Soil Creep nla
compression
/ uDelft CiTG, Geoengineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 40

Examples of parameter selection
ESTIMATING INPUT PARAMETERS, HS MODEL

Triaxial test results, Shaoli (2004)
Dense Hokksund sand at 40 kPa, n = 35.9% (initial)- 39.6% (end of test)
~ISO
......
Ul
!::lOO
Cl)
.!::!
>
..
~50
ref -
E 50 -

50
Pref +a
~ 0 ..................._._._.~L....L.L-'+-'--'---'-'+-'-'1...1...1...j O''x +a
2
Axial strain rkJ
=20000kPa IOOkPa =32MPa
40kPa
If
T U Delft CfTG, Geo-englneerlng, http://geo.cltg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 41

Triaxial test results, Shaoli (2004)
Dense 40
Axial strain [%]
1- sin If' _ 5 _
12
2sinlf' - 4.2-
sin '1/ = 0.29
If'= 17
~
T U Delft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 42

Oedometer test dense Hokksund sand, n = 39% , (Moen, 1975)
Test data
Loading:
ref
Eoed -_ Eaed
Test data
ref _ E Pa'+a
Eoed - w tl
a 1'+a
1,4 = 850kPa IOOkPa =S)MPa

0 200 400 600 600 1000 1200 0.008 400kPa
Vertlcel offootlvo stress [kPJ
= 850kPa ~100 = ZlSMPa

t
Unloading: - - r~f 0'3+a E ur
re! "" p"'+a
E,roecl - E,r - E,r - ,- ,...., E uroed
Pa +a a 3 '+a 0.0028 200
f u oelft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudeltt.nl Hardening Soil model 43
I
i
.i HS Material parameters for dense Hokksund sand from
~ t fitting PLAXIS results to experimental data:
J
'
=35 MPa (estimated 32 MPa)
E50 ref
,..._ Eoeief =45 MPa (estimated 53 MPa)
y=O Eu/ef = 180 MPa (estimated 215 MPa)
Pw=O m=0.6
~ c = 1 kPa

Cl)
40
c 20
0
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00
Axial strain [%]
~
TU Delft CiTG, Geo-englneerlng, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 45
Triaxial test results and PLAXIS simulation,

=
Dense Hokksund sand at 40 kPa, n 35.9% (initial)- 39.6% (end of test)
Axial strain [%]

-4 ~--------------------------.
-3,5
~ -3
.5 -2,5
.s
Ill
-2 - from PLAXIS 40
- - oense40
CJ -1,5
:s
Cl) -1
E -0,5 0
:I
0 0
>
0,5
~
T U Delft CiTG, Gee-engineering, http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 46
Oedometer test and PlAXIS simulation dense Hokksund sand, n = 39% ,

(Tore Ingar Moen, 1975)
0
~ Test data
.... -0,2
~
~ -0,4 "--...... ..._ - Piaxis
..
'i! -0 6 11
-"'.r---........._,
11)
"iii -0,8
u
'
~
'-- - ..__
:e
~
-1
-1,2
- ~
-1,4
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Vertical effective stress [kPa]
f uoelft CITG, Geo-engineerlng, http://geo.cltg.tudelft.nl Hardening Soil model 47

Undrained A I B I C:
Different ways to model undrained behaviour in PLAXIS
Ronald Brinkgreve
Plaxis bv
I j 1, !,',1' I
Content
- Learning objectives
- Introduction
- Undrained behaviour of real soils
- Undrained behaviour in PLAXIS
Undrained A
Undrained B
Undrained C
- Possibilities & limitations
- Conclusions
Learning objectives
- To recognize when undrained behaviour is applicable
- To apply different methods of undrained behaviour (A/8/C)
- To understand the possibilities and limitations of the methods
n _- - - - - -- - f
- IL- - - - --
Introduction
Drained behaviour: Pore water can flow freely through the soil
High permeability
Low loading rate
Long-term behaviour
Undrained behaviour: Pore water is trapped in the soil

Low permeability
High loading rate
Short-term behaviour
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Introduction
Evaluation based on hydrodynamic period T:
k Permeability
k .Eoed t Eoed Oedometer modulus
T= Yw Unit weight of water
YwD2 D Drainage length
t Construction time
u Degree of consolidation
T < 104 (U < 1%) Undrained conditions

T>2 (U > 99%) Drained conditions
Intermediate values: Consolidation analysis
-
~-
I - I .. ... I I . I
I l.!.. ...J:.......... - - - - - - -
I 1
__. - I~~
1
I I
..
I
~
rJ I .... _,.
......
-...L..- I -1
....-::.:::::.~
J
Introduction
A. Verruijt (201 0), Soil mechanics
0
1-
- -r~
-......_
b::....
.......,
""
u 0.5
1\.
-
""" I\
\
. \
\ I\
-
1
0.001 0.01 0.1
' "--
1 10
T= Cvf/h 2
Undrained behaviour of real soils
Effects of undrained behaviour:
Increased soil stiffness (G =, E >, K >>)
No volume change
Water carries change in isotropic stress
- Excess pore pressure
- Decrease of effective stress(?)
- Liquefaction(?)
Soil skeleton carries increase of deviatoric stress
Undrained shear strength -::t:- drained shear strength
r ....~~ r i~- ' .:: , - - - - - - - - , . -
Undrained behaviour of real soi s

Triaxial test results for normally consolidated clay:
\00
200
z
~ so
00
r-...
0')
"C
Cl) S JQ IS 20 !S
......
.5 Axial strain (pc:r t.a::nl)
~ 0 5 10 15 20 25
"C Axial strain (per cent)
- lOO
I.:E ..
'e
z
~
3
<I
0 5 10 15 20
I
25 10 U' 20 2S
Axial strain (per cent) Axial strain (per ~en I)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Triaxial test results for over-consolidated clay:
100
100
o1 = 34.5
kN m - 2 Failun:
Overconsolidation ratio RI' = 24
F
'E 50
z
-"
-.;:
00
1'-
"'C
"'C
0 10 20
Q) 0 10 15 20 25 30 ~
Q) c: Axial strain (per cent)
c: Axial strain (per cent) RP = 24 >.
n; ~ ..0
..... -4 "'C (/)
"'C c: c:
-2
:::::1
~
'E 0 Overconsolidation ratio RP = 24 llJ
"
1l ;z
:;; ~ -25 o6
~ 0
"
<I
c:
0
-50 (/)
2
c:
0 10 20 0 10 15 20 25 30 ;g
Axial strain (per cent) Axial strain (per cent) <(

NCclay
Stress paths (a)
t ~ ~ u positive
in undrained A'
triaxial tests
s, s'
t = %lo1- cr31 OCclay

~ u negative
(b)
s =%lo1 + cr31 AH
_, A'
s~ s
I~ - _-. -- I - I - : ~-..~" I - .~
I ~ I,
1
1~ essential for fJ~ otechnical professionals
Undrained behaviour in PLAXIS

Undrained A:
Effective stress approach > distinction between o' and Pw
Effective stiffness (E ', v')
Effective strength (c', <p')
Undrained 8:
Effective stress approach > distinction between o' and Pw
Effective stiffness (E ', v')
Undrained strength (su) (<p =0)
Allows for increase of strength with depth (su,inc)

Undrained C:
Total stress approach (pw= 0 and o' = a)
Undrained stiffness (Eu, vu)
Undrained strength (su) (
j', ( ~ IOl 1,
-
I
General Parameters r Flow parameuu I Interfaces I Initial I - --
----===c-==-:c1llldr""'-
Not~ that in Consolidation and Flow calculations, the
follows from lhe permeability, lhe following
J Property Unit Value ~~~ to Pla!ltic calculations only,
Material m - Drained
Drained"' long-term malttlal beh.svlour in"''*"
Identification <NoName> 1 6ffness l!tld ~englh OR defined in term of effective
ptoperli6.
I Material model Mohr-<:oulomb
Drainage ~;pe
Colour
~~ Undralned W
RGB 238, 219, 114
I I UndrainedA
Undnli'>ed or short-term material behaviour in which
stil!'ni!5< and otrenglh are defined In terms of effective
praperljj!s, A WQ<! boAi ~tiffu.s>;; for water is
eutomatbly ~ to make lhe soil as a whole
Comments nc<lmpreo<ible, and (exces~) pore press<res are
11' calaA.>Ied, even obove lhe pt,rcollc<lrlaa!.
General properties
.,,.,.., kN/m 1 o.ooo
:;
l!n'ffuess
UndrainedB
lklclr1Jned 0< short-term material behaviour in which
ll doll-led in terms of effective properties and
!strenglh Is defn<d as undrained shear strenglh. A
b-Q<! bul< s~ffness folwater ll automalbKy applied to
r.., kN/m 1 0.000
moke lhe sol a< ~ whole ~esoille, and (ex<ess)
- pore prcs><~eo ..-e col<ufated, oven above 11-oe.plnatic
8 AdvilDCled
...-race.
Void ratio
UndralnedC
Undr..n.d or short-term material behaviour in which
\1 !
Dllatancy aJt-<>ff r , arm,., and 1reng61 ..-.<~..fined 1n terrM of ....a-ained
0.5000 proper~. Excess pore pressures are not explidl:ty
e Wt
c.elcUolb:l, but are induded in lhe effective stresses.
li
,,, e m'" 0.000
1;1 e.,.. 99'3,0

. lfon-potVUs
ft\alerlal behaviour in which pore pressures cannot
OCQI',
11 11 cancel
Soil - Mohr-Co ulo mb - MC
Undrained A
parameters
2500 for MC model
0.3000
Alternatives
G kN/m 2 96 1.5
Eoed kN/m 2 3365
strenoth
[;J
Velocities
kN/m 2 5,000
25.00
0.000
m/s Ci.OOO
m{o 0.000
t:!ext I! Q.K 11 Cancel

Soil - Mohr-Coulomb - MC
Soil - Mohr-Co ulomb - MC
-?1 (~ ~ IDl I.
,_Jl ( a IDl I, '
jE_eneral li PM<~met. nFlow IW811leler$ t!!!!ifa<il Initial L -
GeneraiJ! Par..metercJI Fiow~MII!~ln~ I
~
-- -
Proper!\' . - Unit Value
f Property Unit Value t=l Advanced
stiffness Set to default values
I D
E' kN{m 2 Stiffness
ill
v' (nu)
Alternatives
ilj1lr E'lr< kN{m 2/m 500.0
II G kNjml
v,.,
strengtl!
m 0.000
Eoed kN{m 2 5 u,trc kN{m 2/m 3.000

-
I
Sb'en!,lth m 0.000
Y.oi
sli,rd
.
kNjm 2
I Tenolon rut-off 0
"" (ph0
'If (psi) . ,,
Ten..1es~ti
Undralned behaviour
kN{m 2 0. 000
"I
Velodtieo Undrained behaviour Standard
I
v, m/s Skempton-!1 0.9703
I VP mfs
~
I
"" 0.1951) lll
Kw..o~ln kNjm2 93. 75E3
~
I Next
11 Q!{
11 cancel
I
I;, > ' '
----------------------- -

~~
( "& IL!J I
(i~ IDl ,, ' ~ Parameters LAow_ 1WOI1"'ter I Interfaces_l lnltial j
j General jj Porneter~ JjFlow ;wamo:ter j interfacet --;
I Properl'f Unit Value
Property Unit Value
'= Advana!d '
stllfness Set to default values 0
~
kN/m 2 Stiffness
)
Eu,-tnC kN/m 2/m 575,0
Alternatives
,,
Y.o~ m 0.000
G kN{m 2 Strengtl!
I Eoed,u kN{m 2
-- su,n: kN/m 2/m 3.000
Slrerlgth
- Y,ef m 0,000
5 u,,ef
.
kN/m 1 Ten$lon rut-off 0
!I
""(phi)
'If CP<O . Ten~le strengt11
Undrained behaviour
kN{m 1 0.000
1
~I
' I Veloc:itl6
v, m/s
I\ Undrl!ined behaviour Standard
Skempton-11 Q,l)ijl)
I
I VP m/s Vu 0.-1950
K,,,..ln kN{m 2 0.000 I

- I
--='
I ttext 11 QK I[ Cancel J
In case of undrained effective stress analysis (undrained A or B)
PLAXIS automatically adds a bulk stiffness for water (K~n):
where
Note: resulting K./n
V 3v'+ B(l-2v
= __ __;__ _;,_') is not a realistic bulk
vu= 0.495 or stiffness for pure water
u 3-B(l-2v')
Skeq>ton-6 0.9783
B = Skempton B-parameter ,.
" kN{mz 937. SE3

Stress path and strength according to Undrained A
~ Su is a result of the calculation (depending on soil model)
Mohr-Coulomb
s, s'
lr.-- -- - - -,- - - ----- -
I
1~
~
essential for geotechnical professionals

Stress path and strength according to Undrained A
"" Su is a result of the calculation (depending on soil model)
Advanced models
s, s'

Stress path and strength according to Undrained B
~ Su is an input value
Pw
-
ESP/SP
.L..-- - - - - -....IL-- - - - - - -------7
., s, s'
Undrained behaviour in PLAX S

Stress path and strength according to Undrained C
'Y Su is an input value
Possibilities & limitations

Overview of possibilities for different models:
Model Undrained A Undrained B Undrained C
Linear Elastic model -.J - -.J
Mohr-Coulomb model -.J -.J -.J
Hardening Soil model -.J -.J -

HSsmall model -.J -.J .
Soft Soil model -.J . .
Soft Soil Creep model -.J . .
Jointed Rock model . . .
Modified Cam-Clay model -.J . .
NGI-ADP model . -.J -.J
Hoek-Brown model . . .
User-defined soil models -.J . .
Possibilities & limitations
Limitations:
Be careful with the MC model using Undrained A
Even with advanced models:
when using Undrained A, check resulting stress state
against known shear strength profile
Consolidation after plastic calculation with Undrained B
materials should not be done; if done anyway, update Su
Consolidation after plastic calculation with Undrained C
materials does not make sense at all (no pore pressures)
Profl!<l Georn~ M.. h
La i123Ji i., l" ~ I '"I I

Cartesian totol stresses
Principal effective stresses m Effective principal stresses

Principal totol stresses m .,.1
State par~meleni m G'
2
m
G'
Pore pressures 3
Groundwoter flow m (u'l+u'l)/2
11111 Principal stress directions

Plastic points Ctrl+6
Fixedend anchor> m p'
Node to node anchoB mq
X
Conclusions
Undrained behaviour is a difficult issue!

Undrained A is generally preferred in PLAXIS, but check
pore pressures and resulting stress state against known
shear strength profile
Undrained B can be used to impose the right shear strength
if pore pressures and ESP are not right
Undrained C is the 'classical' total stress approach of
undrained behaviour, and should not be used in PLAXIS
1,',1, I ,lo- r ,; l ,,! 1 '-' , ,

0 1
www.plaxis.nl
Pla.o:is bv De!ftechpark 53 Plnxi.s bv Asl-'l 16 J;Jit~n Kililng Timor
Heodquc"'rter 2628 XJ Delft Singilpotto- UOS-08 Redhill Forum
Tol +31 (0)15 2517 720 Tho Nothorlonds Tol +65 6325 4191 15930A Singoporo
~ essential for geotechnica/ professionals
Determination of Model Parameters for

Practical Applications
Ronald Brinkgreve
Plaxis bv
Content
Starting point: Geotechnical SI report
- Borehole data
- Lab test data
From soil data to (soil 'properties' to) model parameters

- Interpretation of test data
- Correlations, Charts & Tables
- Meaning of model parameters
- Conditions in the real application
I - ---.--- ---- - - --- -- - -------.
I - -
' - _ -_ _ -_r ~ - - - - -_-__ _ _ _ _-_ L__-_-- ------- --------~
Starting point: Geotechnical SI report

Geotechnical SI report:
Borehole data, bore log
Field test data (CPT, SPT, PMT, DMT, ... )
Lab test data:
Classification tests, index properties
Compression tests
Triaxial tests
DSS test
LOG OF BORING
RoponNo.:
1 OrlantliiOn~
V.-tloal
Bore log:
Ground level
Ground water depth
Various soil/ rock data,
plotted as a function of depth :
Soil description
Soil classification
SPT N-values
93 64 58
);;.> Used for geometric modelling j-lli-IL_L_...._..__ ____L_L___..J.L...!L____r------.-J' - - - ' - -1
and engineering judgement

'
...--.. , .L
~nuT~ ~ H-
' - ,_ I
. - .. =t
+ ~
T T
Geotech. SI report: '" 0
..
~ .i
~ r
r ~
i
Field test data:
-t
i
h
t h:-;-... ~ H -
CPT(u) .. ',> t r tl_- H-
.,..
;.r .
SPT ; 1 '
PMT - -
f:- 1-r: r
DMT ~ J
+T + - .. -!
Vane I ., _7 -;..,
+-
Seismic
i
.!.
.. - . '~
.J- +
+-
H
!t
i
... I .I.-
[t j_ -
f+ -1" - H
':Yntl!lm; .ni ~11M 'Wr.\ .... ~,.~...,."" ' . A l).l
I~ ~.-.. DOl-O I
.... ~ 4 01 -XOJ l~ 'V1WU1
Geotechnical SI report:
Field test data: (quantities are plotted as a function of depth)
CPT(u) qc, fs, R,, Pw Su, E5o' Or' <p ' k
SPT N, N6o Su' E5o
PMT (p,E) for different depths Su, G50 , Gur OCR, K0
DMT p, lo, Su, Ko, Eo y, OCR, K 0 , Or, Eoed
Vane M Su
Seismic V8 , Vp Go, Eoed,O

Geotech. SI report:
Lab test data: w:~.h\&1. 5TRE.S9, ,. rSO FT
Index tests
Compression tests
- Oedometer
- CRS
Triaxial tests (drained, undr.)
DSS test
Bender elements
Resonant column
Permeameter
Geotechnical 5 report:
Lab test data: (quantities are valid for applied stress level)
Index tests LL , PL , lP , e0 , Dr, d50 Su <p', Eoed' k

Compression Cc' Cs 'Ca,mv,Cv,Eoeia), Eoed,ur
(cr1, E1{t)), (cr1, e{t)), Pc
(Oedometer, CRS) m ,OCR, K0 , k
Triaxial (lcr1-cr31, E1) ' (Ev, E1) or (Pw E1) SuI c', <p', \If, Eso Eur V, m
(CID,CIU, UU)
DSS -r,y Su , c', <p', \If, G 50 ,G 0

Bender elem.,
Vs, VP, G(y) Go, EoedO, Yo7
Resonant col.
Permeameter Q(t) k
- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
From soil data to ( ... ) model parameters

Soil data:
4 Measured quantities, interpreted quantities
4 Soil 'properties', intermediate parameters
4 Model parameters
Issues to deal with:

- Interpretation of test data
- Correlations, Charts & Tables
- Meaning of model parameters
- Conditions in the real application
~ essenttal for geotechnical professionals
Interpretation of test data - Field tests

Layers F,(%) <lt(MPa) f8 (kPa) u2 (kPa) CPW
CPT: 0
0 l
j ' ' 0 ~ !0 ,, 'lO l'6 0
I ..
60 100
I
160 0
I
100 IIW 1\110 ~te<IPI'ofN
0
Robertson (1990) Slnd

& 5
qt = qc- u2(1- Atip) Silly clay
Sand 10
F, -R
r- f-
_fsjqt
Silly day
15
Sclnd
120 20
2~
F Silly day 25
30 30
35 ~5
- - -
- - - -
nterpretation of test data - Field tests

CPT:
Robertson (1990)
qt = qc- u2(1- Atip) le = ..} (3.47 -log(Q)) 2 + (1.22 + log(F)) 2
Fr = Rr = fs/qt
qt- O"vo 0.00-1.31 Gravelly Sand to Sand -20.9

Q= I
0" vo 1.31 -2.05 Clean Sand to Silty Sand -20.0
F= fs 2.05-2.60 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt -18.8

qt- O"vo
2.60-2.95 Clayey Silt -15.7
qt- O"vo
Su = Nk = 10-20 2.95-3.60 Silty Clay to Clay -15.7
Nk
3.60-10.0 Organic Soils -11.2

SPT:
Blow count N
0-4 Very loose 0.00-0.15
N60 = 0.6N 4-10 Loose 0.15-0.35
10-30 Medium 0.35-0.65
cn = ...J/101.3 kPa/a'vo (::;; 2)

30-50 Dense 0.65-0.85
50-100 Very dense 0.85-1.00
Su = 12 N 60 ( lp ) -0.25 [kPa] (Strout, 1974)
a~:o)) o.
34
tan(qJ) = (N 1( 12.2 + 20.3 (Schmertmann, 1975)

. - -
I
__ _ ____ __ I 1
lnterpretatio of test data - Field tests

PMT: Data logged In real lime Average displacement vs Total Pressure
Baguelin (1978) uoo

PL
.. I
End of lqadlng
/
:
:
1,2:00
:
1,100
.. .. .... .: ..
uoo .
..
Q.
~
900
~00
,~" Reload/unload ." :
cycle
.....!..
...:

700
PL = limiting cavity pressure $
cr hO = in-situ horizontal stress ~ Approximat. start
"'
500
/ of cavity expl anslon
(iterative) ... ... I ,
.
400
... . .
. ......
300
.... .,.. .. ...

200
LONDON CLAY
100 -; -. - ~.
23.7 mBML
2
Radial Dloplacemont (mm)

MATERIAL CONSTRAINED z UNDRAINED z HORIZONTAL
DMT: z
(m) INDEX
l
(m) MODULUS 1m1 SHEAR STRENGTH 1m1 STRESS INDEX
Marchetti (1980) 0'1 .5 1 5 10 00 10 20 00 40 80 00 2 4 6 8
SANO
4 4 4 4
Direct interpre- 8 8 8 8
tation via DMT 12 12 12 12
control device 16 16 16 16
20 20 20 20
24 24 24 24
28 28 28 28
32 32 32 32
36 360 36 36
10 20 o 40 80 o 2 4 6 8
M (MPa) Cu (kPa) Kd
- --- -- ------ --
I - :-
Interpretation of test data - Lab tests

Oedometer test:
NOTE: Accurate performance of lab tests is critical to obtain good results!

logt
1.25 ~natural
Ill ~reconstituted
.2 1
~
11)0.75
~
0
> 0.5
Primary Secondary
Eor9
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Vertical effective stress a'v (kPa)
Inter retation of test data - Lab tests

CID triaxial tests:
El 0. - - - - - - . - - - r - --
+1(1
e
:,;
u
~ s
All sar11p1r.s t!onsc ~
10
e, 061,D,~IOO"'
I o
0
I
10 15
___ j_
20 ~~ 30
_j_ _
.lb I,Q
1, '--------'-- ....._____.___
0 ~ 10 15
....1.
20 25 30 3(; 40
AXilll t-VCtin, < (%1
A!(latslrain,t (%)
Correlations
Correlations with plasticity index for clays (lp in %):
Skempton: Sufa'v = 0.11 + 0.0037 Ip
Mitchell & Gardner: sin(lfJcv) = 0.8- 0.094ln( Ip) (OCR<2)
Kulhawy&Mayne:
Termaat et al.: Gso/Su = 5000/lp
Y0.7 = y0.7 ref + 5 10- Ip (OCR)

6 03
Stokoe:
- -- - - - -- - - - - -
-=-- - - - - -= - - - - - -- - - - - -- ---
Correlations
Correlations with relative density for sands (Dr as absolute value):
Lengkeek: (E 50 ref in MPa)
See spreadsheet on first estimate of HSsmall parameters for quartz sand

(Brinkgreve et al., 201 0)
TABLE 56
Equations for stl'tSSstraln modulus E, by several test methods
Io:, in kPa for SPT and units of q, for CPT; divide kPa by SO lo obtain ksf. Tile N values should be
estimated as N,. and not N,. . Refer also to Tables 2-7 and 2-8.
SoU SPT CPT
Correlations Sand (nonnally f:, = 500(N + 15) E, = (2 to 4)q.
consolidated) = BOOO}q,
= 7000./N
Other correlations for = 6000N
E., = J.2(3D; + 2)q,
tE, = (15000 to 22000) InN = (1 + fi;)q,
stiffness: E,
Sand (satumtcd) E., = 250(N + 15) E, = Fqc
e = 1.0 I'= 3.S
Bowles (1997): e = 0.6 I' = 7.0
Sands, all (nonn. 'lE, = (2600 1o 2900)N
consol.)
Sand (overconsolidatcd) tE, = 40000 + 1050N E, = (6 lo 30)q,
f:.oj0CR) - f:,,K !OCR
Sand: Eacd = [1.. 3] qc Gravelly sand E., = 1200(N + 6)
600(N + 6) N :s 15
= 600(N + 6) + 2000 N > IS
Clay: Eaed = [3 .. 6] qc Clayey sand E., = 320(N + I5) E, (3 lo 6)q,
Silts, sandy silt, or E, = 300(N + 6) E, = (1 to 2)q,
cloyey silt
If q, < 2SOO kPa use 'E; = 25qc
2500 < q, < 5000 use E;=4q, + SOOO
where
E' 'ned mod I E,(l - 1-') = _!_
, = constm1 u us = (I + IJ.){l ZIJ.) m.
Soft clay or clayey sill E, = (3 IO 8)q,
Correlations
Other correlations for
stiffness:
200
Ohya et al. (1982):
100
o.c
...... 50
1-
:::z
a..
w
20
Accurate?
Clay
10
All uvia l Diluv ia t
Tokyo 0
...
Nogoyo 0
5 B Osoko
0
D
Sokai<le "'
Q

2 20 200
SPT N Value
- ---
lj
-
-=
-- .
-~~----
--
---=---
- --
=--=~--
-
__..--
Validity and accuracy of correlations
~ 1 .4 .---.--.--.---,--,---.--~--.----.--,
Example: Cc Cur A
1.2

0
[J

<>
l :..
6.
a::"'I l.O : ~
-o e NA
0
0 e NA
0.8
-o
c::
0
0 .6
uo Mod ified corn c loy
Accurate?
0
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Plasticity Index, PI {%)
Validity and accuracy of corre ations

fennaat, Vermeer & Vergeer (1985)
Example: 500
G
250 su " 0
0

+
PMtsmO<Jnlb c!.y
Bosruu clay
&nkol:cl~y
Cl Mllinc or ..We cl..y
A ji.S cloy
c + A i\ tchn(ftlnyn oluy
lOO Outm1om
Gso/Su = 5000/ lp
75

50
Accurate?
25
10
0 10 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 lOO
plasticity index 'P%

General charts and tables
Duncan & Buchignani (1976):
1600
1400
-1
1200
I
1000
Eu
cu 800
600
400
200
0
1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910
overconso1idation ratio
General charts and tables- NE 6740 Table 1

~=~d Bl]mongoel
~~~~.~~-
y ,,. Qc 1 C', c', CJ(1 + "') c" ' c. 111 .,, Ew:;
. . ,, c' ...
kNtm' kNtm ' MPa H 11 (] MP a Graden kPa kPa
anno .
~~~'.9
Z'Nak Sllttg 17 19 15 500 0.0046 0 0.0015 45 3:1,5 0
16 :10 25 1000
' 0.0023 0 0.0008 75 35,0 0 n.v I
lvost 19 20 l21 n 30 1200 1400 -. Io.oo19 o.oo1e 0 I o.ooos o.ooo5 !!0 10~ 37,!) 40. 0 0
l~:..g
!t@orkSIItlg 18 20 10 400 0,0058 0 0,0019 30 30,0 0
0,0013 0
vast
19 21
2.0 21 122 2.2.5
15
25
600
1000 1500 .' 0.0038
IQ,o.Q.2~ o.uo"
0
0 I 0 ClOOB 0.0005
45
75 !10
32.5
35.0 40.0 0
n v.t
,Zand schoon
"os
Ma119
17
18
19
20
5
15
200
BOO
~ 0.0115
0,0038
0
0
0 0038
0,0013
15
45
30.0
32,5
0
0 nv1
v 19 20 21 22 25 1000 1500 0.0023 0.0015 0 0.0008 0,0005 75 110 35,0 40,0 0
lzwok sUUo. l<lollo 1B 19 20 21 12 4.50 650 _.. 0.0051 Jl.00~5 0 0.0017 0.0012 35 50 27 .032.6 ~ n.v.
'"""' illhg kloilg 18 19 20 21 8 200 400 ; )_0115 0.0058 0 0.0038 0 0019 15 30 25.0 30.1 0 n v.l
Le9m zwok zondlg Slop 19 19 1 25 650 0.0920 0.0037 0.0307 2 27.5 30 0 0 50
~'::,9 ~:~;;9 ~::~-

20 20 45 0.0170 3 ~7,5 32 5 1 100
~;~~
2
lz
119
2.2 2! 22 3 70 100 2500 0. 0230 0.0009 0.0 110 0. 0077
,
5 7 27 .~ 35.0 2.5 3.8 200 300
~-
20 19 20 2 45 70 ' 1300 2000 l 051 0 0329 ,0020 0. )13 O~. Q j70 O.OpO. 5 I Z ',S ~M 0 1_ ~- JDll
Klei echoon Slop 14 14 0,5 7 eo 0,3286 0,0131 0.1095 1 17.6 0 25
~~=~g 17 17 1.0 15 160 0,1533 0,0061 0.0511 2 17.5 5 50

1 19_ _29 19 .20 2..0. 26 30 320 500 0.0920 0.0767 0.0037_ 0 ODE o, o3QL o,o_211. _4_ 10_ _1].5__25,9_ n_ _15_ . 1QO . _ZQ.Q.
;<.vak <ondiQ Slap 15 15 0.7 10 110 0,2300 0,00i2 0,0767 1.5 2.2,5 0 40
eo
~1=~',Q 18 18 15 20 240 0,1150 0 ,0046 0.0383 3 22.5 5
l2o 21 20 21 2..5 30 !0 ~00 600 0.0767 0.6460 ~.! O,eOI& o.om o. o 1 &~ 5 10 22 5 27 5 13 15 120 170
.tork zandlg 18 20 18 20 1.0 ~ NO 320 '1680 1.0920-0.016-1 o:im1 o.ooo1 0.0307 . O.OOSS 2 5 27.5 ~ 32.5 0 1 o to
I ~~ ~~ ~:~ ~; I~ ~~ ~:= ~:~~ 16 ~:~~~ ~:~ ~~:~ ~ ~ ~~
orgonich Slop
i
Mollg 16 16 60 0 15 0 g,;m 0,0, 11 20 30
1veon nlt!V ...ftt!UI SlaP tO 12 IQ 12 0. ~ 7.~ 20 30 IASOO 0.3D.S7 ~~~ o.oi~ 0 , tm 0. 1022 a.:! 0.5 15.0 2. 10 20
01~~ \<>Oib~~ M!lg !l ' \.~ o~2 .Q. o.~ o. !~ o,o7&7 , o,s t,o _ ~,o
01 0.2~
. 1a 1.._a 10 30 o.o116 30
2,5 5
, -- - - -- - - -- - ~- ~fi
I,
I
. ~
~
.
. , -
esse ntia' for 9 aotach~rca, proiessionels . .
. -
11
-I
I . I - I
- - '. "iii..-
~ - -=-- -- - -- = - -
General charts and tables- BS 8004:1986
Table 6 - Undrained (immediate) shear streng'th of cohesive soils

Consistency Undrained (immediate) shear strength
In accordance ~Videly used Field indications
withBS i'i930
kNim 2 kgf/cm2
tonflfil
Very stiff Very stiff Brittle or very tough Greater than 150 Greater than l.f:i
or hard
Stiff Stiff Cannot be moulded in the 100 to 150 1.0 to 1.5
fingers
Film to stiff 75 to 100 0. 75 to 1.0
Fi1m Film Can be moulded in the fingers by 50 to 75 0.5 to 0. 75
strong pressure
Soft to firm 40 to 50 0.4 to 0.5
Soft Soft Easily moulded in the fmgers 20 to 40 0.2 to 0.4
Very soft Very soft E:ll..-udes between the fingers L ess than 20 Less than 0.2
when squeezed in the fist
General remark on correlations, charts

and tables
Be aware:
Correlations may be a crude approximation based on several different
types of soil
NOT directly based on SI data from the application site
Low to medium accuracy
Use with caution !
~ essent1al for 9fwtechnica/ professionals
Meaning of model parameters

Mohr-Coulomb model:
E Young's modulus
V Poisson's ratio
c Cohesion
Friction angle
Dilatancy angle
//
E depends on stress level, stress path, strain level. ..
v depends on stress path (loading, unloading)
Which <p? (<ppeak <pcv <presidual)

Hardening Soil (small) model:
Esoref Secant stiffness from drained triaxial test (CID) at reference pressure pref
EoeJef Tangent stiffness from oedometer test at pref

Eu(ef Reference stiffness in unloading I reloading from CID test
G0ref Reference shear stiffness at small strains (HSsmall)
Yo? Shear strain at which G has reduced to 72.2% (HSsmall)
pref Reference pressure (1 00 kPa)
Poisson's ratio in unloading I reloading
Effective cohesion
Effective friction angle
Dilatancy angle
Failure ratio q,lq 8 like in Duncan-Chang model (0.9)
Stress ratio a'x)a'yy in 1D primary compression /
I ., - --- -- --~-;.----,- - - - -
-- . - -
' ~ 1 es~~nti~'/ ~.e_otech~-~-~a_l

for professionals :
--=-- - -- - I

Soft Soil (Creep) model:
A.* Modified compression index (from Cc)
K* Modified swelling index (from C5 )
(~-t* Modified creep index) (from Cu)
vur Poisson's ratio for unloading I reloading
(p' Effective friction angle
\jJ Dilatancy angle
1D compression (determines M)
~ essenttal for geotechnical pt ofess10nals

Hoek-Brown model:
crc; Intact uniaxial compressive strength
GSI Geological Strength Index
m; Intact rock parameter
0 Disturbance factor
See lecture on Hoek-Brown model

PLAXIS Soil Test facility:
Simulation of different lab tests under different conditions

Can conveniently be used to:
- Evaluate the meaning and influence of model parameters
- Evaluate the performance of material data sets
- Optimise model parameters against real lab test data
Conditions in the real application

Before determining model parameters, evaluate conditions in the
application:
Which (confining) stress level (cr 3 )?

Which stress path (compression, dev. loading, unloading, reloading)?
Which strain level (small-strains, 'engineering' strains)?
~ Use preferably soil data based on tests with similar stress levels,
stress paths, strain levels as in the application
Conclusions
Parameter determination is challenging and a crucial step in the
modelling process
Strength I stiffness of sands depends (a.o.) on relative density (0,)
Strength I stiffness of clays depends (a.o.) on plasticity index (/p)
Model parameters are NOT the same as soil properties
Be careful with general correlations, charts and tables
Use preferably soil data based on tests with similar stress levels,
stress paths, strain levels as in the application
Convince client of the importance of high-quality site investigation
and lab testing
The PLAXIS Soil Test facility can help with parameter determination
- - - --
- - - - - - -
References
Baguelin F., Jezequel J.F., Shields D. H. (1978). The pressuremeter and foundation engineering Trans Tech Publications.
Bowles J.E. (1997). Foundation analysis and design- 5th edition. McGraw-Hill.
Brinkgreve R.B.J., EnginE., Engin H.K. (2010). Validation of empirical formulas to derive model parameters for sands. In:
T. Benz & S. Nordal (eds.) Numerical Models in Geotechnical Engineering. CRC press, 137-142.
British Standard (1986). Code of practice for foundations. BSI, UK.
Duncan J.M., Buchignani A.L. (1976). An engineering manual for settlement studies. Univ. of California, Berkeley, Dept. of
Civil Engineering.
Kulhawy F., Maine P. (1990). Manual on estimating soil properties for foundation design. EPRI EL-6800 Final Report.
Lengkeek H.J. (2003) . Estimation of sand stiffness parameters from cone resistance. Plaxis Bulletin No 13, 15-19.
Marchetti S. (1980). In situ tests by flat dilatometer. J. of the Geotechnical Eng . Div., ASCE, Vol. 106, No. GT3, 299-321 .
Mitchell J.. Gardner W (1975). In situ measurement of volume change characteristics. Proc. In situ measurements of soil
properties, ASCE, Vol. 2, 279-345.
Normcommissie 351 006 "Geotechniek" (2006) NEN 6740 Geotechnics- TGB 1990- Basic requirements and loads.
Robertson P.K. (1990). Soil classification using the cone penetration test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 27(1), 151-158.
Schmertmann (1975). Measurement of in situ shear strength. Proc. Conf. on In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties. Vol.
2, ASCE, New York .
Strout M .A. (1974). The standard penetration test in sensitive clays and soft rocks. Proc. Eur. Seminar on Penetration
Testing, Stockholm, Vol. 2:2, 366-375.
Termaat R.J., Vermeer P.A .. Vergeer (1985). Failure by large plastic deformations. Proc. X!lh lnt. Conf. on Soil Mech . and
Found. Eng., Balkema, 2045-4048.
Undrained excavation using Method A & B
UNDRAINED EXCAVATION
USING METHOD A & B
INTRODUCTION
In this exercise an undrained excavation in soft clay is simulated. The excavation is made using a
diaphragm wall that is supported by struts. The subsoil consists of 20 m of soft clay underlain by a 20
m stiff layer. The soft clay will be modelled using both the simple Mohr-Coulomb model as well as an
advanced model.. The excavation is simulated in 3 different ways. First using the Mohr-Coulomb model
with effective strength parameters (Method A), then using the Mohr-Coulomb model with undrained
strength parameters (c = Cu, 'P = 0) (Method B) and finally using the advanced HSsmall model with
effective parameters (Method A). The stiffness parameters used are the effective stiffness parameters,
as PLAXIS takes care of the increased stiffness due to undrained behaviour with the Undrained material
behaviour setting. The aim of the exercise is to illustrate the differences in safety predicted by Method
A and Method B analysis.
Main goal of the analysis
Compare Method A (undrained analysis with effective strength parameters) with Method B (undrained
analysis with total strength parameters) in terms of displacements, bending moments in the wall and
factors of safety after each calculation stage.
MATERIAL PARAMETERS
For the Soft Clay triaxial test data (CUC tests) is available for cell pressures of both 100 kPa and
200 kPa. From these tests both effective and total strength parameters can be derived. As there is
limited data on stiffness available, the Mohr Coulomb model (MC) is used to model the behaviour of
the different soil layers.
300 ~---------------------------------------,
250
eo\\~"'~
200 Clfo'o~.-
. ~JJ!-q.;...=_2....;;
1 c"'-=-17_2_,_1______________________. . .~
,rlo~>
0 ' ..
.- p
0 50 100 150 200 250
Figure 1 : Triaxial test results on the Soft Clay
100
For the triaxial test at cell pressure of 100 kPa a stiffness of E;J= = 5000 kPa has been found and
200
for the triaxial test at cell pressure of 200 kPa a stiffness of E;J= = 7500 kPa has been found .
Effective strength (Method A) with Mohr-Coulomb

(The wrong approach in this case)
From the triaxial test results given in figure 1 the missing material set data given in table 1 have to be
determined.
Table 1 : Soil material set parameters for Method A using Mohr-Coulomb model
I Parameter I Symbol I Soft Clay (Method A) I Stiff layer Units
Material model Model Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb
Type of behaviour Type Undrained A Undrained A
- -3-
Soil weight 'Yunsat ''Ysat 16.0 20.0 kN/m
Permeabilities kx,ky 0.0 0.0 m/d
Young's modulus E' 5,000 200,000 kN/m 2
Poisson's ratio v' 0.2 0.2 -
Cohesion I
cref 10 kNjm 2
Friction angle 'P' 35 0
Dilatancy angle 1/J 0.0 0
Advanced parameters :
Young's modulus increment E'incr 0 kN/m:t./m
Cohesion increment c~nc 0 kN/m 2 jm
Reference level Yref 0 m
Interface strength reduction Rinter 0.67 0.67 -
Coefficient for initial lateral stresses Ko Automatic Automatic -
The determination of the parameters can also be found in Appendix A at the end of this exercise.
Undrained strength (Method B) with Mohr-Coulomb

(A better approach in this case)
From the same triaxial test results given in figure 1 the material set data needed for a Method B
calculation have to be determined. Table 2 shows the data that has to be changed.
Table 2 : Properti es to be changed for Method B analysis.

I Parameter I
Symbol I Soft Clay (Method B) I Unit
Type of behaviour Type Undrained B -
Undrained shear strength Bu,ref kNjm:t.
Undrained shear strength increment Su,inc kN/m:t.jm
Coefficient for initial lateral stresses Ko 0.63 -
The determination of the parameters can also be found in Appendix B at the end of this exercise.
Undrained excavation using Method A & 8
Effective strength (Method A) with an advanced model

(The recommended approach in this case)
Though only limited stiffness data is available it is still possible to use an advanced model by applying
known relations between the different parameters of the model for clays. This leads to the parameters
given in table 3. The determination of the parameters is described in more detail in Appendix C.
Table 3: Soil material set parameters for Method A using HSsmall model
I Parameter I Symbol I Soft clay (HSS) I Stiff layer (HSS) I Units
Material model Model HSsmall HSmall -
Type of behaviour Material Undrained A Undrained A -
Soil weight 'Yunsat 16.0 20.0 kNjm 0
Permeability kx 0.0 0.0 mjd
Drained triaxial test stiffness Er~J 5000 8000 kN/m 2
50
Drained primary oedometer stiffness E:!l 2700 8000 kNj m 2
Unloading/reloading stiffness EreJ 17000 33000 kNj m 2
UT
Power for stress-dependent stiffness m 1.0 0.5 kNj m 2

I
Cohesion cref 0 10 kNjm 2
Friction angle cp' 22 35 0
Dilatancy angle 1/J 0 0 0
Threshold shear strain "(0.7 110-4 110-4 -

Small-strain shear modulus GreJ 45000 83000 kNj m 2
0
Advanced parameters Default Default
Interface strength reduction Rinter 0.67 0.67 -
Coefficient for initial lateral stress Ko Automatic Automatic -
Other material data
Table 4 and 5 give the necessary material data for the diaphragm wall and the struts respectively.
Table 4: Properties of the wall (plate)

I Parameter ISymbol I Diaphragm wall I Unit
Material model Model Elastoplastic -
Axial stiffness EA 2.010' kNj m
Flexural stiffness El 1.6710 kNm 2 j m
Weight w 15.0 kNj mjm
Poisson's ratio V 0.15 -
Full plastic bending moment Mp 3000 kNm/ m
Full plastic axial force Np 6000 kNj m
Table 5: Properti es of the strut (fi'xed-end anchor)

I Parameter I Symbol I Strut I Unit I
Model Model Elastoplastic -
Axial stiffness EA 12.01 0 6 kN
Spacing Ls 4.0 m
Maximum tension force IFmax,tensl 1 kN
Maximum compression force IFmax,compl 4500 kN
INPUT
Project properties
When opening Plaxis Input, start a new project and set the project Contour to Xmin = O,xmax = 70,
Ymin = -60 and Ymax = 0.
Furthermore, make sure it's a 15-noded plane strain model.
Soil mode
Material sets
Determine the missing material parameters for stiffness and strength in tables 1 and 2 with the
help of figure 1.
Create the 5 soil material sets given in tables 1, 2 and 3.
Create the material sets for the wall and struts given in tables 4 and 5.
Subsoil
Insert a borehole at the origin (x y) = (0 0)
In the borehole, define 2 soil layers: one layer from ground level down to y = -20m and another
layer from y = -20m toy= -60m.
Assign the Soft clay (Method A) material set to the uppermost layer and the Stiff layer material
set to the bottom layer
Structures mode
In structures mode, add the wall, the soil-structure interface, the struts and the levels of excavation
as shown in figure 2.
Select the struts and in the Selection explorer set:
- Equivalent length to 15 m (half the width of the excavation)

- Directionx to -15m so that the strut is aligned to the left.
- Material set to the Strut material set
Set the material set of the plate to the Diaphragm wall material set.
(15, 0)
<o.o>vL
(0, -5) - - - - - - + H (15, -5)
(0, -10) - - - - - - H i (15, -10)

1 Soft Clay
(0, -15) ------++ Q) (15, -15)
Stiff layer
(15, -27)
Figure 2: Geometry of the propped excavation
Mesh mode
Generate the mesh with an element distribution set to fine. No additional refinements are needed.
Figure 3: Generated (fine) mesh
Water levels and Staged construction modes
The calculation has 7 phases, of which the first four phases are Plastic Analyses (Staged Construction)
and the three final phases are Safety analyses.
For the calculations using the Mohr-Coulomb model (both Method A and Method B) the number of
Additional steps can be left at the default value of 250. However, for the calculation using Method A
with the advanced HSsmall model the number of Additional steps should be set to 500 in order to have
enough calculation steps.
Initial phase
No changes have to be made.
Phase 1 - Activation of the wall and interfaces
Add a new calculation phase by pressing the Add phase(~ ) button in the Phases explorer.
Double-click Phase 1 in the Phases explorer (or select the Edit phase button (~)) . The Phases
window now opens.
In the General options make sure the Calculation Type is "Plastic" and the Loading Type is
"Staged Construction". After that, close the Phases window.
In Staged construction mode activate the plate representing the wall. (it will become blue). Make
sure the interfaces alongside the wall become activated as well.
Phase 2 - First excavation step
Add a new calculation phase
Open settings window of this phase (either by double-clicking on the phase in the Phases explorer
or by selecting the Edit phase button)
- on the General tabsheet, make sure Calculation Type and Loading Type are set to "Plastic
Calculation" and "Staged construction" respectively.
- expand the "Deformation control parameters" option and select the option "Reset displace-
ments to zero". This will discard the displacements due to the installation of the wall in Phase
1.
In Staged construction mode now excavate to level Y= -5 m and activate the first strut.
After excavating the soil the excavated area still contains water as it is below the global water level.
Therefore we have to explicitly set the excavated area dry. As we're dealing with a short term excavation
in undrained material, we will not take into account ground water flow into the excavation.
Go to the Water levels mode.
Right-click on the area that was just excavated. From the popup menu that appears, choose the
option Set cluster dry.
Phase 3 - Second excavation step
Add a new calculation phase with the proper Calculation Type and Loading Input.
In Staged construction mode, excavate further to y=-"10 m and activate the second strut.
In Water levels mode, remove the water from the second excavation stage by setting the cluster
that represents the second excavation stage to dry (similar to Phase 2).
Phase 4- Third excavation step
Add a new calculation phase.
Excavate to level Y=- i 5 m and activate the third strut (similar to phases 2 and 3)
Remove the water from the third excavation stage (similar to phases 2 and 3).
Phase 5 - Factor of safety of the first excavation step
In the Phases explorer select Phase 2
Add a new calculation phase. The newly created phase 5 is drawn as a new branch starting from
phase 2 indicating that it will continue from the results of phase 2.
Open the settings window for Phase 5
- Set the Calculation type to Safety.

- Make sure that Start from phase is indeed set to Phase 2.
- In the "Deformation control parameter" tabsheet, select the option Ignore undrained be-
haviour to prevent the generation of additional excess pore pressures in this phase.
- In the "Numerical control parameter" tabsheet, set the amount of Max steps to 250 to guar-
antee sufficient load steps.
Note: For unloading problems like excavations undrained behaviour often contributes to
the short-term safety factor due to the generation of excess pore tensions.
Therefore, in order to get the least favourable situation, it is preferred not to
generate any additional excess pore pressure in a safety factor analysis for an
unloading problem. On the other hand, for loading problems like embankments or
dams the generation of excess pore pressures during Safety analysis generally
leads to a lower and thus more conservative factor of safety. Hence, for loading
problems it is preferred to generate excess additional pore pressures during
safety factor analysis.
Phase 6 - Factor of safety of the second excavation step
Equally to Phase 5, set the Calculation type to Safety, activate the option Ignore undrained be-
haviour and set Max steps to 250.
"10 Computational Geotechnics

Phase 7 - Factor of safety of the third excavation step
Equally to Phase 5 and 6, set the Calculation type to Safety, activate the option Ignore undrained
behaviour and set Max steps to 250.
Load-displacement curves
Select some points for load-displacement curves, for instance the top of the wall.
Now start the calculation by pressing the Calculate (IB) button.
Undrained A, Undrained B and Undrained A with HSsmall calculation
Perform the calculation for 3 different situations :
1. The soft clay modelled as Undrained A material using the Mohr-Coulomb model. The stiff layer
is modelled as Undrained A using Mohr-Coulomb.
2. The soft clay modelled as Undrained B material using the Mohr-Coulomb model. The stiff layer
is modelled as Undrained A using Mohr-Coulomb.
3. The soft clay modelled as Undrained A material using the HSsmall model. The stiff layer is now
modelled as Undrained A using HSsmall.
The different calculations can be done by either adding calculating phases, or by saving the project
under a different name after which the copy is modified.
In case of using HSsmall model, set for all phases the amount of Additional steps to 500 in the Numer-
ical control parameters section of the Phases window.
OUTPUT
Check for all 3 calculations the deformed mesh and maximum displacements. Double-click on the
walls to compare bending moments and wall deflections. Results are shown below for all three analysis,
where the Method A analysis with the Mohr-Coulomb model is shown on the left, the Method B analysis
in the middle and the results of the Method A analysis with the HSsmall model on the right
Figure 4: Deformed mesh (1 0 times scaled) for the final excavation with maximum displacements of
approximately 9, 11 and 41 cm resp.
+ +
Figure 5: Bending moments for the final excavation
Figure 5 shows the bending moments for the final excavation. The minimum moment for Method A with
Mohr-Coulomb, Method Band Method A with HSsmall are approximately -2300 kNm/m, -2800 kNm/m
and -2900 kNm/m respectively.
.
3.2 loo I I I
I 1 ._----- --T-- ----
1
--'-- I
I'
1s:r~ .lion ---- ----- -----
I I
/
I I
J
2.8
I
I I I I
I
I
I
20
I I
I
,I
i
I I I
1st exc vati6n
I I1
I I
I
/;' i
.. ,.1"""' ............... ~-
- ............. " ' "'i "" ............. ..... .!. ..... ........ .......
I
If
I I
I
I
i
I
I I I Safety factor 1-
I
' !
~
1 I I I I I - Method A (M-C)
...... Method B
- - Method A (HSS!nllll) 1-
I I I
'1,8
1/
I '
I I I 1
I I
//
~
2nd excava!io I ,_.1._. ._.J_,_ - - -- - ----
1.8
,.
l
'l / / .--
I I
-- I
II I
I I
............ ......,-...
t;;. I .....l.. .... """'j"'" .............. ......~......
2nd excavatlor I
1.2
I
I
"""J"""
~1 If ..... ~~ - --
3rd excavatlor
I I ---- I
I
lW""
0 0,1
--- - - ~
u
- -
--+--
I
~
----
u
-----
u
----
u u u ~
lul [m]
I Method A, Mohr-Coulomb I Method 8 I Method A, HSsmall I

Excavation stage 1 3.2 2.5 3.1
Figure 6: Factors of safety for every excavation stage for the three calculation methods.
MOHR-COULOMB MODEL AND UNDRAINED BEHAVIOUR
In figure 7 the results of the two triaxial test performed on the Soft Clay are again given. While the
stress paths representing the laboratory results are bending to the left, the stress paths predicted by
the Mohr-Coulomb model go vertically up in the direction of increasing deviatoric stress q until the
Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria is reached. The predicted undrained shear strength values according to
the Mohr-Coulomb model are su = 172/2 = 86 kPa and su = 86/2 = 43.5 kPa while the real undrained
shear strength from the laboratory tests are 65 kPa and 33 kPa respectively, about 30% lower!
Hence, the undrained shear strength according to the Mohr-Coulomb can be a considerably
overestimation of the real undrained shear strength according to laboratory tests.
This limitation of the Mohr-Coulomb model can be overcome by performing a Method B calculation in
which the undrained shear strength is an input parameter instead of a result of the program. However,
this input value of the undrained shear strength is based on triaxial test conditions, while in practice
different stress conditions will most likely occur leading to different excess pore pressures and therefore
a different undrained shear strength. Furthermore it is a known problem that a Method B calculation
often generates incorrect excess pore pressures.
O"~ = 100 kPa = O"~x = KoO"~y = Ko( "/sat - "fw) d =* 100 = 0.65(16- 10) d =* d = 25.6 m
Likewise,
fw~ = 200- 100 = 100 kPa '* !:J.d = 25.6 m
For the two triaxial tests stiffness of E~~=
100
= 5000 kPa and E~~= 200 = 7500 kPa have been found .
,>' =200 2 Ep' = tOO
2E 5o
E! = - so = 2-1500- 25000 = 195 kPa/m
me D.d 25.6
At ground surface y=O m:

E' = 2E~~=lOO- E~nc(d + Yref) = 2 5000- 195(25.6 + 0) = 5000 kPa
T~1is leads lu H1e sel uf rrH::ilerial IJararnelers as given ir1 Taule 6.
Table 6: Soil material set parameters for Method A using Mohr-Coulomb model
I Parameter I Symbol I Soft Clay I Stiff layer I Units
Material model Model Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb
Type of behaviour Type Undrained A Undrained A
Unsaturated weight "/unsat 16.0 20.0 kN/m 3
Saturated weight '"Ysat 16.0 20.0 kN/m 3
Permeability x-dir. kx 0.0 0.0 m/d
Permeability y-dir. ky 0.0 0.0 m/d
Young's modulus E' 5,000 200,000 kNJm:~.
Poisson's ratio v' 0.2 0.2 -
Cohesion I
cref 0 10 kNJm:~.
0
Friction angle cp' 22 35
0
Dilatancy angle 1/J 0 0.0
Advanced parameters:
Young's modulus increment E~ncr 195 0 kN/m2 Jm
Cohesion increment <ncr 0 0 kN/m2 /m
Reference level Yref 0 0 m
Interface strength reduction ~nter 0.67 0.67 -
Coefficient for initial lateral stresses Ko Automatic Automatic -
APPENDIX 8:
PARAMETER DETERMINATION METHOD 8
USING MOHR-COULOM8
In figure 9 the results of the same two available triaxial tests are again given but this time we will use
the results to determined the undrained shear strength parameters.
300 ,-------------------------------------------------.
250 -
200 -
p
0 50 100 150 200 250
Figure 9: Results of CUC tests with cell pressures of 100 and 200 kPa
The undrained shear strength in the soil depends on the depth. We already calculated the equivalent
depth for p'=1 00 kPa as d=25.6 m, and the change in depth between the two triaxial tests for the Soft
Clay.
Hence, the change of undrained shear strength in depth is calculated as:
fj.d = 25.6m
- L1s, - 65~ 32 .5 - 1 27 kPa/m
Su,inc - L1d - ~ -
With the undrained shear strength known at a depth d = 25.6 m (where Po=a~x= 100 kPa) and taking
the reference level at y=O m (at the ground surface) the reference undrained shear strength can be
calculated as:
Bu,ref = Bu,d- (Yref +d) Su,inc = 32.5- (0 + 25.6) 1.27 = 0 kPa
This leads to the set of material parameters given in table 7. In this table only the parameters that are
different for the total strength parameter analysis (Method B) are given.
Table 7: Properties to be changed for Method B analysis.

I Parameter I I
Sym bol Soft Clay (Method B) I Unit
Type of behaviour Type Undrained B -
Undrained shear strength Bu,ref 0 kNjm:l.
Undrained shear strength increment Bu,inc 1.3 kNjm'l.jm
APPENDIX C:
PARAMETER DETERMINATION METHOD A
USING HSSMALL
Soft Clay
Strength parameters for the HSsmall model are determined in the same way as for the effective strength
analysis performed with the Mohr-Coulomb model.
Stiffness parameters are determined by simulating and matching the two triaxial tests given. In order
to do so stiffness parameters are determined based on known relations between parameters and then
fine tuning them with the simulation of the triaxial tests using the SoiiTest facility of Plaxis.
From the laboratory test it's given that E;gt = 5000 kPa, for clays a proper estimation is that E~!~ ~
1 Eref E 50 = (2 to 6) Eref
2 50 ur 50
and cref
0
= (1 to 4) Eref
ur
Therefore the first simulation is done with E~!~ = 2500 kPa, E~~f = 15000 kPa and G~ef = 45000 kPa.
The threshold shear strain 'Yo. 7 is in the order of (1 to 2) w- 4 and is chosen as 'Yo. 7 = 1.5 w- 4
Furthermore m ~ 1.0 for clays and v~r = 0.2.
Figure 10 shows both the laboratory results and the results of the triaxial test simulations with the
HSsmall model. For the simulations first attention is given to proper prediction of the undrained shear
strength and additionally to fitting the shape of the curves.
q= lo1- o31 [kPa]
300
250
Laboratory result
HSsmall result
200 -
150 -
100 -
50 .
"' \
0 !----,.---.,....---.,.--....-----~'~---,---.------.----,---.--+-.,....----..---.-~ p [kPa]
0 50 100 150 200 250
Figure 10: Triaxial test results simulated with the HSsmall model
These results were obtained making some modifications to the parameters, that is
E';,!i = 2700 kPa

Eref
ur = 17000 kPa
"/0.7 = 1 . 10- 4
Stiff layer
The stiffness specified for the stiff layer is assumed to be the small strain stiffness given it is a deep
layer underneath an excavation, hence Eo = 200000 kPa.
The stiff layer is modelled downto y=-60m, but the stiffness was only determined in the upper meters
of the stiff layer. Assuming the stiffness Eo is determined at a depth of 5 meters into the stiff layer the
horizontal stress level there is:
O"~x = Ko O"~y =Ko 2:( 'Y~oil d) = 0.45 ( (16 - 10)20 + (20 - 10)5) = 99 kPa.
Since O"~x ~ Pref => E~ef = 200000 kPa
FJ'Q"' "th 83000 kP
G ref
0 = 2(1+u,.r) Wl
I
vur = 0 2 . cref
0
,....,
'"" a
Using G~ef = (1 to4). E~~f the unloading/reloading stiffness is estimated to be E~~f =33000 kPa.
For sands Eref =
ur
(3 to 4) Eref
50
and 7
E ef
oed.
~ Eref
ref'
hence it is estimated that Eref
oed
= Eref
50
= 8000 kPa
Finally, for sands typically m = 0.5.
Consolidation analysis using finite elements

Ronald Brinkgreve {with input from Vahid Galavi)
Plaxis BV, The Netherlands
:. _
L-
---~----
~-----
- ----- =----- - -
~-----=- =----------=---= -==-
-~
= ...._
Content
Theory of consolidation
FEM for consolidation analysis
Validation: One-dimensional consolidation
New features in PLAXIS 20 2010
Conclusions
14 September 2015 2
Considering :
Homogeneous, fully saturated, isotropic linear elastic soil

Incompressible particles
Volumetric strain of saturated soil is caused by:
1. Pore pressure change: Eiv= volumetric strain

Pw = (excess) pore pressure
n =porosity
2. Storage of pore water: Kw= bulk stiffness of water
q = pore water flow
M = time increment
14 September 2015 3
heory of consolidation
Pore water flow :
k
Darcy's law: q=--'Vpw
Yw
Total change of volumetric strain in time, k = permeability
considering homogeneous permeability : Yw = unit weight of water
14 September 2015 4
- - - - - ---
General 30 case :
asv _ 1 ap' _ 1 a(p- Pw) _ 1 ap 1 apw

------ -------
at K' at K' at K' at K' at
~_I_ap -(-~-+~Japw =-}5_\12p

K' at K' K ot Yw 11
, w
where K'= J(l_:~v') =bulk stiffness of soil skeleton and p =mean total stress
Considering incompressible water: k K' '\lzp _ apw _ ap

Yw w at at
14 September 2015 5
1 D consolidation:
asv =-r_aa' _ r aca-pw) ~O"l 2 H

at Eoed at Eoed at L_l
~_I_ aa -(-1-+~J apw = _ _!_ \12 p
Eoed at Eoed Kw ot Yw w
{1-11') ' . .
where ""' = (l + v')(l- 2v') = constramed modulus of so1l skeleton
Considering incompressible water: k Eoed \12 p = apw _ aa

Yw w at at
14 September 2015 6
Theory of conso idation
1D consolidation, considering a constant total stress a : a(]" = 0
at kE
=> C V2p = 8pw where cv = consolidation coefficient =~
V H' at ().()
' ' r ,-,-, 1 T'T"' - J
Yw
;:J
c
.2 0.2
(;j
;g
0
;;:;>, 5"' 0.4

11
u
N 1.0
-5c.. ~ 0.6
"'
Cl
Su
0
0
~li 0.8
~
;;.
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 <(
Pore Pressure Ratio. P.ji!l.q IJh'::-
.0 1~__._......_..........,
0.-:-
1 __._~~.........L..
I --->.__._~~1 U
14 September 2015
Time Factor. T = c t/H 2
' y
--- - - - - - ~ -
~ __.__ --- I
FEM for conso idation analysis

Consolidation analysis based on excess pore pressure (EPP) :
P active = P steady + P excess

Assumptions:
Steady state pore pressure is constant in time (horizontal phreatic level or
steady state pore pressure from groundwater flow calculation)
Excess pore pressure can change in time
Fully saturated soil (above and below phreatic level)
Limitation:
Time dependent hydraulic boundary is not possible (variable phreatic level)
14 September 2015 8
--~
- ------- ---- -
- - - - - - - ----
--~-

Consolidation analysis based on Biot's theory of consolidation:
~ Coupling between deformation and flow of pore water (excess pore pressures)
Differences with Terzaghi's uncoupled or one-dimensional consolidation :

Instantaneous settlement in undrained loading
Spreading of load and therefore smaller excess pore pressures
Complex 'flow' of excess pore pressures
Mandeii-Cryer effect: Pore pressure may not immediately reduce
14 September 2015 9

Instantaneous settlement:
14 September 2015 10

Mandeii-Cryer effect: ..,
___L-.
,
A c B "'
~- -- '\ D
, \~ ~ F\ \
\ \
\\ ""~"""'~ \ \\., -
\ \ .. "'\.c
\ fi0. '~ \\
'
\
B\ E
'\.._
"' '---..... . . . -
- . , '>'"' -..
_____ .
"'-..... -~-
"
\'
\
.
\
."
-~
t
~ .......
- - - -- - -- - ------ --

Geometry creation:
Soil layers
Structures
Drains ~ Pw=O in consolidation analysis
- - --- ~ ----=------- ~ - - --::::" :: --- = - -
~ essential for g_eotech~ical professionals
. - -- --- ---- - - ---'- - ------~--- - I

Soil properties:
Unit weight (YsatYunsat)
Stiffness (E,v)
Strength (<p,c)
Material type (drained , undrained, non-porous), Permeability (k)
Drained behaviour is appropriate when

Permeability is high
I T>0.4 (l/>70%) *)
Rate of loading is low

Short term behaviour not relevant ~
~No excess pore pressures ~
T = hydrodynamic period Cv = consolidation coefficient
14 September 2015 *) Vermeer & Meier, 1998 13

Soil properties:
Stiffness (E,v)
Strength (<p ,c)
Material type (drained, undrained , non-porous), Permeability (k)
Undrained analysis appropriate when I T<0.01 (U<10%) *)

Permeability is low and rate of loading is high
Short term behaviour has to be assessed
~ Calculation of excess pore pressures ~
LIB
14 September 2015 *) Vermeer & Meier, 1998 14
'.- ' . . :-. , ~~- -~--
~
- - - ~
-~
I -
-- - L_
- = --- ..___
- .-. _I --
.:..J
'~ . , - ~ essential for geotechnical professi~nai~ J
~ - . ,'1
I ~I .. :
I
'- - . - , - I

Soil properties:
Unit weight (y satYunsat)
Stiffness (E,v)
Strength (<p,c)
Material type (drained, undrained, non-porous), Permeability (k)
Consolidation analysis appropriate when I0.01<T<0.4 I

BiJ
(10%<U<70%)l
Permeability is relatively low
Time-dependent behaviour has to be assessed
T =s_
Note: In consolidation analysis, drainage is ruled H2
by Permeability rather than Drainage type
14 September 2015 *) Venneer & Meier, 1998 15

Soil properties:
Stiffness (E,v)
Strength (<p,c)
'...-'--- - --.
Change of permeability (Ck) /og(~l = !le

k0 Ck
Note: Consolidation coefficient is more or less constant
But: k decreases with load (compaction of soil)
Eoed increases with load (stress level)
~ Use realistic Ck only with advanced models

Soil properties:
Stiffness {E,v)
Strength (<p,c)
Change of permeability (Ck)
Creep
Note: Adding creep leads to extra generation of pore pressures,

which is perceived as 'delayed' consolidation

......
c
-- --
(].)
E - -
:::: ' \
- 1-- ~t-
(].)
t~ f ~'~
(/)
(/)
(].)
aJ
u
Ill -
X no er ~ep
aJ
c.. -- .
l 'i- ~- '- - t-
-- t~
-
f- " -
.. 1 ... - ....
f-
-
\ . ~ree_~ i'""-
~
..! \ - -...:::::: - 1-
\ -- --
- f-
~.
-- !-'=
.
~ '
~'~" time (log-scale)
~!IQ~ \~, ~, creep
creep ~ -~ -. ,..
- ~
. .' .
I .. I 11 11111
tl,jp,l
time (log-scale)
- 18
r - - 'I

Boundary conditions:
Fixities
Loads
Closed consolidation boundaries (no outflow; otherwise 'draining' boundaries: Pw=O)
FEM for consolidation analysis Node - -

Element
Mesh: Stress
Elements : Interpolation of primary variables point - - f -O
a------ila-------
Nodes: Primary variables (displacements, pore pressures)
Stress points: Derived variables (str~ stresies, Darcy velocities)
Same order of interpolation in PLAXIS
FEM for consolidation ana ysis

Calculations:
Consolidation - Staged construction > Time interval ilt
Consolidation - Minimum pore pressure > lp-stopl
Consolidation- Incremental multipliers >Time increment
Typical: Plastic calculation (staged construction) with undrained materials,

followed by consolidation analysis
Advanced: All phases consolidation: SC > Llt > SC > ilt > ... > SC > lp-stopl
Rate loading: Time increment and load increment give loading rate
EM for consolidation analysis

Calculations:
Consolidation - Staged construction > Time interval ilt
Consolidation- Minimum pore pressure > lp-stopl
Consolidation- Incremental multipliers >Time increment
= ~umerlcal control parameters
Max cores to use 256
Max number of steps stored l i
12
Llfcrilical =- -
~
Use default iter parameters aC,
Max steps
Time step determination Note: smaller steps may give
Rrst time step AutJtTI::Jtic stress oscillations
Tolerated error 0 0 LOIJD
I =element length
Max load fraction per step
Over-relaxation factor 1.200
a= 80 for 15-node triangles
Max number of iterations 60
Desired min number of iterations

a= 40 for 6-node triangles 22
Desired mox number of iterations 15

Calculations:
K !J..y_+L!J..p = !J..f Equilibrium
r dv dp
- H p+L -=-S-= = q Continuity
= - = dt dt
L ][~:!::] ][:!::o] [ ~/]

[~K T -
[0 0
_* ~ p = 0 ~t H p 0 + ~t q_ * System of equations
~ Solution: Displacements and (excess) pore pressures


Calculations:
1
t r-
Stiffness matrix
Coupling matrix
= f
K !J..v+L~ !J..j--
=
rlow m~tw:
- .
.
Forces
Excess pore pressures
.
Equilibrium
_H
l k=J f :: _!?1~lacements
~~ ran spo~ec~~.!P 1mg_matnx
L :!.: _
P+ - l j --Net flow Continuity
=- = dt Compressibility of water
K
[ ~r
L ][
-~ ~;
~ v] = [00 ~tH ~f ]
0][p:!: o ] +[~tq_* System of equations
0
s* = a M H + S q
-
= -0
q +a 1:1q
-
~ Solution: Displacements and excess pore pressures


Output:
Deformations
Stresses
Excess pore pressure
History curves
(e.g. pore pressure as function of time)
E = 1000 kN/m1
1-'=0.0
k"' 0.001 m/day
,;t,.. 10 kN/m3
H 1.0 m
~ :;-~~- :~ 10
~
,., OB
1.0 ..
\ ,
, ,
.
_-: -
......
4
:; .- - .-
. "' ...
....
~
--
... -
-
..
.
T ., O.Q1
.

r;
a.
~
.2 , . . ., .. ~ o.q;- :::0 08
"'.,
&. 06 '
!"'
c.
j
~ 0.6 .
-e~ ) 8.
I
~ 04 :' .\
"0) :1
..
,..> ., .
I ..8
Cl>
04
.!!!
-
..
Cl: 0.2
"I
,
"I
~
.!1
~
0.2 . l
0
0
'
02 0.4
.
0.6
\
I
.,
OB 1.0
00
0.001 0 01 01 10 100 1000
Rtlaltvt txCfSS port prtSSUrt p I pO tlmt (day]
Recent PLAXIS versions:

In addition to standard consolidation analysis (based on excess pore pressures},
PLAXIS allows to perform a fully coupled flow-deformation analysis:
'Consolidation' based on total pore pressure (groundwater flow+ deformation)
Including boundary conditions for flow (seepage, infiltration, drain, well, ... )
Possibility to model unsaturated soil behaviour (Mualem-Van Genuchten
retention and permeability curves)
Possibility to include suction (Bishop stress)
(more detailed information in separate lecture)
" - ,- --. ~. -
. . .
~ essentiaifor geotechnical professionals
Conclusions
FEM is quite suitable for 20 and 30 consolidation analysis
20 or 30 coupled consolidation is different from 10 or uncoupled consolidation
PLAXIS has several options for consolidation based on excess pore pressure
Adding creep gives more realistic time-dependent behavour and leads to
'delayed' consolidation
Recent developments: Fully coupled flow-deformation analysis and unsaturated
soil behaviour
www.plaxis.nl
Pliixb [J., Dlllftechpark 53 PI axis bv A5i<l 16 Jnlan Kilang Tirnor
Headquurter 2628 XJ Delft Singupore #05-03 Redhill.f/'lurn
14 September 2015 Tol +31 (0)15 2517 720 The NethGrlands Tel +65 6325 4191 159308 Sin~J(Jore
Diagnostic d'une digue sur so mou
Fahd Cuira
Terrasol
- . -1 I I,- _- - 1- - T j- ~ --;;
d__I_L_ -~--
Ouvrage etudie contexte
Travaux executes en 1981

Mise en eau Juillet 1982
Le RhOne +235.00 Contre canal +231.2
I
11
11
I
I Limons
11
~::
'
11
ll
1
11
11
11
Tow be 1-5,5 m
lt
l
I
11
I Graviers
11
Ouvrage etudie : desordres observes
Resurgmces (1985 puis 2003)
Tassement a ce jour- 90 cm
I .. . Defonnations
laterales
Limons
:: ..
..
I
11
I
I
I
Tour be
Graviers
1-5,5 m
Objectifs du diagnostic (juillet 2007}

Exploiter les donnees disponibles : dossier geotechnique initial +
resultats du programme d'auscultation
f\l! Proposer une modelisation numerique capable de retranscrire

!'evolution de l'etat mecanique et hydraulique de la digue depuis sa
construction
~j Identifier les parametres susceptibles d'etre a l'origine des fuites

n Predire !'evolution future des tassements
1. Exploitation des donnees disponibles
Profil en long glmlogigue
s (;(lvM C- h<\1' '0 POO' ,o; fWO' I
N ... ' f'li2)~3

&2
cM!I iJ\111
I
TI II i
Limons S
~
~'<S/ I
Tourbe
Graviers
!
1
- - - - - - - --
- - -
r :! rl

Cn-..;'l<l U WUSie p o u t 11:! l'!rof 1
d alro 'N;l l
y Yd JP(%) LL (%) w(%) I
ea
(kN/nz 3) (kN/nz 3 ) i
Limons 19 15 1,0 31 78 30
1- -
14a a2 1a ~
1
Tourbe 12 5 I 3,6 17 47
I ---
l------,
I c' <Jl I
qc I
r---------------
CV
c/(1+e0 ) ct'll(l+e0 )
I (kPn) ( 0) I (kPn) I (m ' /s)
Limons 1 5 25 I 800 I 3,5 10-7 0,09 -

I
Tourbe 1 10 18 I -- I 2,0 10-
8 o,43 a o,51 o,o24 a o,o4
-T- -
"'" ---- r - -- - -
I I
Valeurs a completer par Valeurs a completer par les

les investigations futures resultats des suivis sur site
- -~----;;:::----,---~- -- -- ___ L_.._
- - ~ --- --- - - -
~ I
~ , essential for !Jeocecltnical professionals

Observations faites durant et apres edification de la digue
Dissipation tres rapide des surpressions interstitielles dans les niveaux limoneux
' Consolidation tres lente dans les niveaux tourbeux
Schematisation

111 Observations faites durant et apres edification de la digue : Limons
Isolation des tassements produits dans les niveaux limoneux au droit de
l'inclinometre => calage de la vitesse de consolidation apparente des limons
H2
Stabilisation des tassements en 2 mois => cv = -~ 0 ~ 1,7 x 10- m 2 Is
6
!::.t
'
j H : hauteur de drainage
- - - --~~- ----_.;- - - - - - -------n----~
:~ ." l'r I I - - - , " . - - I

~ .,jl - I - - I - I 1
. -- f =~<_- . essentlalforfol.eotech~l~(pro;~s~~~ai~- =1 :
I
;

11
."
.

:.
.
, -
I
. _

I

. I

.
I


ll1 Observations faites durant et apres edification de la digue : Limons
_. Isolation des tassements produits dans les niveaux limoneux au droit de l'inclinometre
=> calage du module de deformation apparent des limons
) Connaissant niveau chargement + tassements => E = 5 MPa (compatible avec 6qc)

Observations faites durant et apres edification de la digue : Tourbe
, Tassement atteint en 1982 etait < 50% du tassement de 1er ordre total attendu
- -- __ -~- -";;;"- - - - . = .- -~- ~- =-- ~- - .
,~- . . -- -;;"'.-
--'w
. '".
.
' . - essential for, g_eotachnical professionals
4 _- - -
'." I
1. Exploitation des don nees disponibles

Suivi des tassements a long terme ( depuis construction jusqu'a ce jour)
a;
~
.. .. ..... .."' .."' .. ... ..
N
~
M
~
en
~
en
~ ~
en
....
en
~ ~
en
en
~
0
en
~
~
en
~
N
en
~
M
en
~
...en "'en "'en
~ ~ ~
....
en
~
.
en
~
en
en
~
0
0
0
N
0
0
N
N
0
0
N
M
0
0
N
...
0
0
N
"' "' ....
0
0
N
0
0
N
0
0
N
0
5 Dates
10
15
20
25
30
e
~
35
40
J!l
c 45
Ill
E 50
Ill
r
U)
U) 55
ftl
1- 60
65
70 .
I
I
It
75
'I
80
85
90
11

11 Sui vi des tassements a long terme ( depuis construction jusqu'a ce jour)
5 ca __._____ _:__~- ------ - - --

------------ f, - - -----~,.. ___ __:__ _
.~
. ~ .--
10
1s
-------------:-------r '!'---r, ---\S'o~~---:-- : -:-------- -----. -------- .------.--- ~ --- ; : ; -
---------
- :
: ------.--- ~ --
: ' , ,
~~ --~- j ----------
Temps uours)- Echelle logarithmique
-- -~ --- - -- -:- ___ _. __- -: :-- : --:- .. -

0
:: ::::::::::::: j:::::::( :) ::::~:;:f~Q~;~::::::::-:: ~::::::: :!:: __ --: --- ~ ::~:: ;::~::::
30
- - - - - - - - : ---- - --:-- -- ~ - - - - --- - ~-:--r - ,~---- ------- ~ ------- -:------:----:---r-- r--r-0:-
1 ::
J!J
~~:=::::: !::::::: r:: :t-:: ~::: _:_ -.r,-1 -- lr'~ .------ : t::::::t:::t:::r::: t:-:!:t;::
I I I I I~ I I I I I I I
c 45 ------------- 1----- __ .J_-- -- ~ - -- - ~ --- - ~- ... J!J . - ~ ~ ... ..... ---- -~--~ . . ~- ------ -:------:-- --~- -- ~ -- : -- ~ ---.
0
..~
(I)
50 - --------- I ------- ~ -----~--- -~---:- --~
: : : I I
-r -:ov
----------- ~ ~ - ---
: :
-~-
: ,
-- ~ ~ -- ; -~-
:
--- -----:-- ---r--

: : : : : : I
~ 55 --------- ~ ------ -; ............ , ......... - ~ ---- ...... r.....:. . . ~-+- - ....................... -~-- ....... :............ , .... r... T ...... ,. ....... .
~ : ~:~::~~:~~~~:1~~~-~~~L~~~E~~:~::-~ :~~~tt~j:~~~::~~~~~~;i{~d~~~~:~~:t~~=~~:
75 ------------- . ---
~ I t I I 1 I I
----~--- --~- --- r- ---~ --~- -:--~-~- --- --- -----..:--------:----- ' ~- ; - - ~~-- ~ ... ., ...
I I """' I I I
I I I ' I I I I I I I .......,
80 ............... ---- 1---...-----t-- ---1-- ~---:---t--:--~--1--------------i-------:------ : ---- + - --r-"i"
-::---- ---- -:----. :----:- --:- -:--:--: .
I I o I I I I I I I I I
85 -----~-:--------:--!~~:--:-!-;
90
'r~- ----: - ------=-1 - - - -- - . - .~. I ~ .. ---. ~ - - - -
I . ,I - 11 ~
~ .essentfal forgeote~niCiJI professionals

11
-" .1
1'1 ~ I..'- ..
f
I
xploitation des donnees disponibles

Sui vi des tassements a long terme ( depuis construction jusqu'a ce jour)
Exploitation du palier du fluage : estimation du coefficient de fluage apparent

11 Sui vi des tassements a long terme ( depuis construction jusqu'a ce jour)
~ Palier de construction primaire : utilisation de la methode d'Asaoka
s4 - ---- - - ------- ---- C = 2_Hzlln(p~

s3 --------------- V 12 ~f
S l
~ Suivi des tassements a long terme (depuis construction jusqu'a ce jour)
Palier de construction primaire : utilisation de la methode d'Asaoka
CV - 4 x 10-s m 2 /s
0.32 0.37 0.42 0.47 0.52 0.57 0.62 0.67 0.72 0.77 0.82

Profil de tassements le long de la digue a une date donnee
237.20 .--~--.-~- : -..-~.--.--.--r--...--..--.-,.-.-..--.--.--r--,
237 .00 .
'
--" . ~-. :'. _t' _;_
' . '
. _ I_ . _j _ _ l '
'
' - :
'
Li:' '
'
Cl ' ~ .
z
.
236.80 -,.
'
'
.
r - ,--
'
1
' '
-(--: - - ~- - ~- .
:' : '
0 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
'-v---'
Zone de resurgences Rapport direct entre fuites et tassements
-- -- - - - -- - - --
- - ---- ----- - .
- - -- --~.--------:-- -~ ~4-i- .. ~... ~ -~~; .-~
- - f.l. ,,., !-il
0 - - - - - - -
., - I
I
-. - ) .- - I ~ = I' I - I
~
. TI. I
1
c::- '' -- essential for geotec:hnicrll.professionals -
1
,\

~ J - - I I , : .. .. ~.2 ~ ~ .. .-! CJ -: ~ I
' - 1: ~~
-- - ;___ = I I 1
1
I~-= L :.
2. Principes de modelisation
Modelisation elements finis 2D (PLAXIS 2D- Plane strain)
-~ Prise en compte de l'historique de l'ouvrage
> Lois de comportement affinees pour la tourbe et le corps de la digue
-, Couplage entre comportements hydraulique et mecanique
Maillage elements finis 2D (elements a 15 nreuds)
2. Principes de modelisation
Calculs menes en grandes deformations
. .) Actualisation de la geometrie du maillage a chaque increment de charge
c;, Reecriture de l'equilibre sur le maillage deforme
Actualisation des pressions hydrauliques avec !'evolution geometrique
Maillage elements finis 2D (elements a 15 nreuds)

,- ' - . - . --- -
~ essential for georecl~nical professionals
3. E ements du modele
Modelisation des sols : corps de la digue
c: Comportement draine
> Modele de type HSM
Permeabilite initiale (homogene) : k = 10-4 m/s
devlatoric stress
lo,-o,l
q. --- -- - -- - - - -- ---------- -- -- ---- -- --- ------ ~~~P!~~~ ref ~ ' )Ill
(
_
E~f =50MPa
1
- - - ---- - -- ra~ ure li n~ Eoed - EOI!tl Po
Eref _ Eref
oed - 50
- Eref
E 50- a 3')111 a= 3 rn = 0,5
50 (
Po c'= 0 rp'= 35
Eref _ aEref
axial strain E, ur - 50
- - - - - - -- - -
3. Elements du modele
Modelisation des sols : Limons
'-') Comportement draine
=-~ Modele type Mohr Coulomb
E = 5 MPa, c' = 5 kPa et q>' = 25

-c> Permeabilite homogene :
k= CvYw ~ k=3,6x10 9 m/s

E
Modelisation des sols : Tourbe
, Comportement non draine
_, Modele de type Soft Soil Creep : adapte au sols mous avec prise en compte du
fluage
, a
Caracterisation l'aide de trois parametres (en plus des parametres de cisaillement)
r---------- 1
log(t) I C I
I A*= '(' I
2,3(1 + e0 ) 1
1
Consolidation
., 2C, primaire
I. .= 2 3(1 ~ e )
0 1
----------
-- - - -- - ----1
.Consolidation Consolidation 1
1
*
J-1 =
Ca I
I
prima ire secoHdaire (f/ uage) : 2 3(1 +e0 ) 1
Fluage
I _---------~
.> Comportement non draine
., Modele de type Soft Soil Creep avec les parametres suivants :
___s_=047 cc =8 ~=0045 9l'=l8 c'=10kPa

(l+e0 ) ' C, (l+e0 ) '
k= Cvrw
, Permeabilite homogene : Eapp => ko = 8 x 10-10 m/s
{
Eapp ~ 500kPa
~-~~--.;;.-~- _-. --,,::::.;;,. ---~
1-- --.~-I _l___.,L....:-_..L-.-J.__,. ~--;.~,..:~
~-[ ~ ~--,--=--1 1
1 -
-. _ ,.
- _ _ -
-
__

~-- !!5. . . . . . . .
essentfa/ fof acorecfmica/ "rofesslonaff., .
,. . I
I I 1 CK ~. IL r /. : I
11 I I - , - ... ~ l \1 I I I - I ol 11
I ' r= ,,..:. .!, - ~-:::- - _a--.=.11=t. - - I l1
Surconsolidation par vieillissement pour sols sujets afluage
Jog(u)
Fluugepur
viei/lissement
''
Ae = Ca log(l_t__ f
lo ''
''
''
t ; t1 ~ age - - ' '--"==::::::1~~
c.~_..::~
OCR = - .
u~ J=
(age)[ c~!c.)
(
CTvo
-
lo
- - - - - - - - - - -
, Comportement non draine
, Modele de type Soft Soil Creep avec les parametres suivants :
___s_ = 0 47 cc = 8 ____S:._ = 0 045 ~ = 18 c' = lOkPa

(l+e0 ) ' C, (l+e0 ) '
k= CvYw
? Permeabilite homogene : Eapp => ko = 8 x 1010 m/s
{
Eapp ~ 500kPa
, Tourbe surconsolidee par vieillissement : OCR= -

(
0'~
O'~o
l (dgeJ( c.c~c,)
= -
lj
~ 3 pour 1000 ans
-- --
~ essential/or g_
e oteclinical professionals
~~ Modelisation des sols : Graviers (substratum mecanique)
~ Comportement draine
. Modele type Mohr Coulomb
E = 150 MPa, c' = 0 kPa et <p' = 35
Permeabilite homogene (valeur forfaitaire)

k = 1,0 x 10-3 m/s
a Choix pratique des permeabilites
ki+ 1/ki > lOO => i+ 1 apparait permeable par
a
rapport << i
Couche (i-1)
En pratique : contraste de permeabilites limite a 100 Couche (i)
entre couches adjacentes Couche (i+ 1)
Valeur theorique Valeur de calcul

m/s mjs
Graviers de digue 1,0 X 10-4 3,6 X 10-7

Limons 3,6 X 10-9 3,6 X 10-9
Tourbe 8,0 X 10-lO 8,0 X 10-lO
Graves de fond 1,0 X 10-3 8,0 X 10-8
Phasage : phase 0- initialisation des contraintes
Etat initial avant construction de la digue
~~ - - '
Phasage: Construction de la digue (12/1980 => 12/1981)
. I
~
11 - -;- --1,
-
~ . essential for geotechnlcvl P'?~es.~~~"l!.l~ ~ I
Phasage : Mise en eau (Juillet 1982)
Initialisation des conditions hydrauliques (calcul d'ecoulement)
Phasage : Mise en eau (Juillet 1982)
Calcul d'ecoulement - lignes de courant

- - -
Phasage : comportement apres mise en eau
_;, Consolidation +23 ans (jusqu'a Juillet 2005)
, Recharge 70 cm en Juillet 2005
:) Consolidation +10 ans
& .. & .t, I
4. Resultats : calculs de calage

Calage du tassement en crete de digue
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 1999 2001 2003 2005
0 - I j 1 I I I t I
: : : : I : : : : Dates
10 - -- -- -~-- -- --: -- -- - ~ ---- -- ~- --- ---:----- - - r ----~- --~- ...: - - - - - - ~ -- ---=-------:..-" -~---- ....
20 -- --:-----+----+----+-----~-~ OCR= 21 ~I Cll/(l+eo) 0,028 ~---m~mm
I I t I I I i I
=
t ! I
E Jo - --- ~------ ; ................ ~ .............. ~- -----;................... ~ .. ----- 7 --- ~ - . . . . . . . : ----- ~ . -----~- -----~------
.. : ~ : : : : : : : :
~ ~-- ~ -- ----i------ ~- ----- -:----- --~- ----~ ------1----- -~- ---- --r----- -~------
E
Q)
: : : I :
Ill
Ill - Tassement mesure sur site
Cll
1-
-+-- Tassement simuh~
I I I I t I
-------- ..... .a ............. .. ............. -1 ............... """ ...... __ .. _____ _
: : ' ! :
------L------"-----
'
'
'
---~
- -. -- -. - -- -=--- \.---
I
I .--:._

r---
-
~ - ess~~-t;;,.for g.eotechni~l professionals
4. Resultats : diagnostic mecanique

Prediction des tassements futurs a partir de 2005
Tassement total Supplement de
en 2015 tassement I 2005
Sans nouvel rechargement 93 cm 8cm
Nouvel rechargement 50 cm 99 cm 14 cm
Nouvel rechargement 100 cm 105 cm 19cm
~ essent1al for geotechnical professionals

Analyse des deformations : deplacements verticaux
0.200
0.100
0.000
~.100
~ .200
-() ,300
~.'lOO
-{).500
-().600
-{).700
.(),000
Mise en evidence d'un effet emporte-piece
~.'lOO
caracteristique des remblais sur tourbe
' - - _- ~ ' . ~ = - -=.1
~
-
e>Gental for 9''otechnical -1
profpss/ona/s
11
I
. .,
4. Resultats : diagnostic mecan ique ))
Analyse des deformations : deplacements horizontaux 0.440

0.400
0.160
0.320
0.21!0
0.210
0.200
0.160
o.uo
o.oeo
O.D10
0.000
.0.&10
-o.oso
Entrainement des deux extremites de la digue -o..uo
.0.160
-0.200

Analyse du champs de contraintes dans le corps de la digue
Formation d'effet de voOte dans la partie peripherique de la digue
t. t+ tt t\
t' I t t tt t t
Contraintes principales effectives dans la digue

4. esultats : diagnostic (( mecanique ))
M Synthese des principales observations
Zone peripherique Zone centrale (decomprimee)

(peu deformable)
Tassements
- --
Deformations
laterales
Formation d'une zone decomprimee au creur de la digue

Premieres conclusions
~, Augmentation locale de l'indice des vides et par consequent celle de la
permeabilite (localement)
Necessite de conduire un calcul d'ecoulement avec des conditions hydrauliques
actualisees : contraste de permeabilite (5a 10) entre la zone centrale de la
digue (decomprimee) et peripherique
l.~----1
4. Resultats : diagnostic ydraulique
r 1 Situation initiale : mise en eau Juillet 1982
Permeabilite
+235.00
uniforme dans la digue
4. Resultats : diagnostic hydraulique

r\il Situation actuelle : actualisation geometrie + permeabilite
+235.00
Permeabilite xs
au cceur de la digue
+232.00
+231.20
- - -
--- ----~~-~----
=;;-
~
I
:
: -
-
.'(~~~
. . . - . - Tl-:-1--:-........-rr~~~.-
-
:..., _ :
,
~ ~~=. _-
It-==~
11
1
~
~
:. I
-
-
..
- - . - -~
.
es.sentl~j for. geotech~ical professionals
l
1
1
r1~
1 1 1
I. .
a. _.
, . I..

1 11
- ..
I
ll
4. Resultats : diagnostic hydraulique

Situation actuelle : actualisation geometrie + permeabilite
+235.00
Permeabilite x 10
au creur de la digue
+233.00
+231.20
4. Resu tats : stabilite globale

H Coefficient de securite vis-a-vis de la stabilite d'ensemble
Securite vis~a-vis de la
stabilite d'ensemble
Cas 0- Etat actuel (conditions hydrauliques initiales) 1,45
Cas 1 - Etat actuel (conditions hydrauliques actualisees) 1,30
Cas 2 - Cas 1 + Rechargement futur 100 cm 1,20
~"7-T;...-...::::.=---.=-~--
-- ~-
1
~- :.L
~ !M ..o-
1
____ ~~-=-~-=~~-
- .-- - - essential far, ~eorechnic~!.f'of~~kl~nnis
;.
-~
~- '
' --=
-
.
- - - - ------------------
esultats : stabilite globale

wl Coefficient de securite vis-a-vis de la stabilite d'ensemble
/ Resultat identique avec calcul << Bishop

I
Securite vis-a-vis de la
Cas 1- Etat actuel (conditions hydrauliques actualisees) 1,30
Cas 2- Cas 1 + Rechargement futur 100 cm 1,20
~ essential for geotec:hnic:al professionals
4. Resultats : stabilite globale

m Influence des parametres de cisaillement des limons
Securite vis-a-vis de la
Cas 1 - Etat actuel (conditions hydrauliques actualisees) 1,30
Cas 1 + (<!>' = 25 c' = 5 kPa) dans les limons 1,30

Cas 1 + (<!>' = 30 c'= 5 kPa) dans les limons 1,38
Cas 1 + (<!>' = 30 c'= 10 kPa) dans les limons 1,51
5. Reconnaissances complementaires
Objectifs
) Valider l'hypothese d'une decompression localisee au centre la digue
) Verifier l'hypothese d'une differenciation de permeabilites selon les zones
Valider les parametres de cisaillement des limons
Contenu
Essais au penetrometre statique (CPTu) : qualifier le contraste de densite dans la
digue
. ~ Profil en travers : entre la zone peripherique et la zone centrale
c.o Profil en long : entre les zones impactees par les resurgences et celles non impactees
Sondages piezometriques + essais au micro-molinet

Essais de pompage avec mesure de profil de vitesses verticales
c .;> Estimation de la permeabilite globale + contribution des horizons traverses
Essais complementaires sur les limons

Identification complete (w, granulometrie, teneur en CaC03 ... )
. ., Essais triaxiaux CU+u
6. Resultats des reconnaissances complementaires

Releves piezometriques dans l'axe de la digue
233.4
ZONE DE RESURGENCES
233.2
233.0 --------------------------------
______________,._ ______~------------------------------------------------
__.,. _________________________________ _
r '
232 _8 _________ _.(_ SD3, _____ __C1 . . . . ... SD2 _____ ___C2 __ __ SD1 '." . . - -- ---------.
232.6
/ /
.. "fj'"' --- ----------------- ------------------------------
'
- .. - --------------
232.4 -- SD4 ------------------------------------------------------------ C3\--- -------
232.2 ----.-------------------------------------------------------------------\-------- ---
\
232.0 - -------------------------------------------------- -------------- ---- ~ -------
231.8 ~ ---- -------------------------------------------- ... .. ---- -- - ----.- - - __ \ __ , ... -

~ \
231.6 -;; ... ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ . ---
S0 C4
231.4 u
.. --------------- - ---------------------------------------------------------
231.2 -- -------------.--- . --------------------------------- --- . ------ ---- --------------
Profil en long : releves piezometriques dans l'axe de la digue

r ..- o-----= - : - - ~~=- __ -. ___ ~ . =........., ~ _=F-.. --'-=- .. =-_ -=.- I
I ~ r . " Ill'~
: . essential for geotecl111fcal profes;tonais ; ] -:'11
I - . I I _I
. - . -
-
-
'
. ..

t\'i Resultats des sondages CPT : contraste de densites le long de la digue
0 10 l.O ~0 40 50 50 7 0 10 20 lO 40 50 lO 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7 0 10 20 30 ~0
60 7 50 Toit de
:o ~-""~"'....,.,-qcti:iPOI~, ---.t- o:G .,....-,......-.- q< (MPaJ , , o;o ..........-.. ....,..__..+ - - l d .
, - qc{rii'Piii....,...
,
~ I I I
- - t - - t - - 11-- --1 - - _,_ - - - - -
1 :
- ; - ; - ~- , -~ - :
: :
I
:
--r
, qc(M'Pa
' '
1
'
1.0
: ; :
1
'
---:--- --~ ... - ~---.---- : -~
:
- - : : : - :-- _.. _ .. : - 1.0
..:.
: :: --~--
: ~: : :
-- ~--:--~-- -:---:---~--
-:-r j
a tgue
-- ~ -- :-. :_.:___ ~ __ :.. A. vant trou
I l I I I I
- - . ... J ... __,_ .....~ .. - ....~ ............. _ ..
j --~~~-
j o -~--~
~ ~
I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I I I I I
2.0 __ L
! : : :
2.0 -- -- -- ~--~ - --!---:- - 2.0 '--!" -- ~ -- ~ ---:--~ --~-- __ J. __ ~---L--:---~--
- -
I
--L--J _ ... .J ... -.l--
..... ~
I
.....
.-.......'.. .-...
I
-- *'--
I
--L.-

t
__...
I
_ ..._ . . 1. -
1 I
I
I
..I .... J,.. ............. L .....
I
_'-
I
~ - -
I
-
-.: 1 .:-.. -_: {:' _-::..-.:J-.:. ~ -..:
I I I I
3.0 3.o --r -- ,---:---:---:- -- 3.0 ' ' -,--
- ~ ---~-
'' ''
~, -- . ---~-- 1"' -- '' : : I
- -r r-
I I I I
: I :
I I I I
4.0 t - -- , - - -r - - r - - r - -
--:---r-
: I : : :
5.0 ........ -......... - _: _ -~ I
' I' I' ' '

t t
- - ,. __ .t __ _. __
1
..~.,.- ....__-
I I , ,
__ ... __ j .... .J...........
I
--
I t
-L ' - -- ~
I I
-~
I
-~~ Base de
-:- -t - - :- - +- - :-
-:-- ~ - t ....- --la digue
t- - :- -t- t--
~ --: --~--~- --:--:--- G.O ::l_ j~_1_:~~-:~::t~- ~
-- ~--~-- ~-- -:--- ~
r Zone de
: I t t :
' I I
-t -
:: Hors Zone de :--- : Zone de
r- -.~ ~-
. ~ ~~ resurgences ~
70 7.0 7.0 -- r-
, .. , .. transition __ ; _resurgences~ __ -- ~- resurgences --
1.0
~
11.
; : : ~ u
Sonda es CPT executes dans l'axe de la di

~ Resultats des sondages CPT : contraste de densites dans la digue
CPT- central
CPT periphirique
Resultats des sondages CPT : contraste de densites dans la digue
o 10 20 30 4o 5o ao 10 a o 10 20 30 40 50 ao 10 a
0.0 - 0.0 -t-t
: : : : : : ~o(MPt : : : l t qc(MP.J
- -"f---.,--- , ----...---- r- --,-- -.-- ""' ..... , ......
~ I I
'"'"""('"'" ,---,-- --,--- -,---
1 1 I ,
~ : : :
: : : : ~ : : : : : : :
1.0 :::. -~--- ~ - --~----~ ---~------: ---:-- - -- 1 ,G ;:::, ; ~-- ~--- ~-- - ~ ---; ..... .... ;--- ... ~ ---
E I I I I I E
1-t--- +--+--+- ]-- +--+

I I I ' ' I I
t r---1---i-~-~ ---~----~ ----:- ---

~ I I I I I I I
- - Sondage peripherique
2-0 ' f.
.@
t-i--:----:-.---:---:---:---
I
1 I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0
1
----t. -
. j - .. - ~ .... --("'
1
-- 1- ... ...... ---:--
I I I I
. ---+---{---:-- :.o -----1------f-------:- - . , , - -:- -r--- -- Sondage central

~
3.0
I
~ -:. : __ j___f~
---t---;- .1~ I t
3.0
I I I " I I
I I I I I I
...0 ' -- -~- .. : - -- -:';: -
~Q-.9~.- ~- -- ~
-:---- t --- : --- : --- .
'
---
.
~--- ~
' '
1.0
0 I I I
I I I I I I I
~"'"' t., ...... .J- .. - .. I .. - - . , L ...... I - - - .. -I . . . . . --1- .. - "
I I I I I I I
I I I t ' I
4.0
.
,.--- '"'--- 1.0
ProfilP78
.
... __ ,' --- Profil P34
7.0 ' ..._ ~
- - . 7.0
~ essentral for geotechnical professionals

Essais de cisaillement dans les limons
500
I~ c' = 1 kPa et cl>' = 36"

400 ....
300
200
100
s'(kPa)
0
0 lOO 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
I ~--=-=--::::;;;;;;._-=- -- ----,-----_--;-.::~~----.....::::--_
,. --------- - . -------
: , ~; . . esse~~~i~l io~ ~:eotec/mlcal. profes~lonals
I -
7. Conclusion
r~ Stabilite actuelle : assuree avec une securite suffisante (F = 1,48)
lij Altimetrie : aujourd'hui, les differents chargements operes permettent de

corriger le toit la digue a sa cote d'origine. Tassements supplementaires
a
attendus sont de l'ordre 10 cm sur les 50 ans venir (sans rehaussement), ce
qui est acceptable.
~ Confortement hydraulique : plusieurs solutions ant ete preconisees

possibles (drainage aval, ecran etanche + enrochements ... ).
Pratique de PLAXIS pour le dimensionnement
des ouvrages geotech niq ues
Ouvrages en terre
Remblai sur sol compressible
Fahd Cuira
Terrasol
Juin 2015 Page 1

se tee
Workshop PLAXIS - Remblai sur sol mou
Conseils de modelisation
- Sol fin compressible = > comportement non draine
Permeabilite pour sols fins : peut etre evaluee par correlation avec le coefficient
de consolidation
Prise en comptes des drains : directement (modeles 3D) ou moyennant un

calibrage prealable de la permeabilite equivalente d'une cellule elementaire drain +
massif associe . Ce calibrage prealable peut etre total ou partiel.
Variation de la permeabilite avec l'indice des vides :
Changeofpenneablft
1og-
( ko
J_
k -!:!J.e
-
ck
setec
F. Cuira - 2015
Page2
Construction du modele
Lois de comportement
Identification Limons sableux Remblai Vases Substratum
Material model Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb Soft soil creep Linear Elastic
Drainage type Drained Drained Undrained (A) Drained
y_unsat kN/m 3 20 20 20 20
y_sat kN/m 3 20 20 20 20
k_x m/day 0.01 0.1 2.59E-04 0.1
k_y m/day 0.01 0.1 8.64E-05 0.1
c_k l.OOE+15 1.00E+15 l.OOE+15 1.00E+15
E kN/m 2 l.OOE+04 5.00E+04 1.50E+05
v (nu) 0.3 0.35 0.3
c_ref kN/m 2 5 1 10
 (phi) 30 38 20
ljJ (psi) 0 8 0
i\* (lambda*) 0.1739
K* (kappa*) 0.04348
~-~ 4.35E-03
Use alternatives Yes
C_c 0.8
c_s 0.1
C_a 0.02
e_init 1
OCR 2
terrasol
se tee F. Cuira- 2015 Page7
Choix des parametres pour loi Soft Soil Creep
log(t)
<.'<ll 1ll<ll id at i( 111 Ctmsol id at io1 1

6
p1'i11lllii'L' SI'<'OIIdtJin (t7uagc)
r---- - ----- -I
1
I p* = a :
: _3(1 + e 0 ) :
K* = 2C,
I
2,3(1 + e0 ) l- ----------
'-----------'
se tee F. Cuira - 2015 Page8
Surconsolidation par vieillissement pour les sols sujets a fluage
log( a)
Fluog'l'~~~'
l'itill i:l.:lt'll! I'll t 1
1 c
J
0 R= - / = -
c/, J (ageJ c,-"c.)
( O" vo lo Flung.
e 1o-
- lj'
terrj)~ol
s~te~
F. Cuira- 2015 Page9
Phasage
PO - Phase initiale (KO)
Pl- Activation des drains
P2 - Mise en place du remblai : phase de type plastic
P3 - Pnkhargement 90 jours : phase de type consolidation sur 90 jours
P4 - Mise en service 50 ans : phase de type plastic sur 18250 jours
+ deux phases orphelines pour calcul de stabilite

P2bis : stabilite a court terme depuis phase P2 I de type safety
P3bis : stabilite a long terme depuis phase P3 I de type safety
I Name:
~
,,...... [lro-...1 Nome ,.., Value
Orahs [Phast_l) z~ [g
.J :.1 Gen2l"aa - General
Rembla1 [Phase_2] b B
';"'; ID , .....,.., ...... I ID 190 jotn conso I I
90}0l!l"sCO!lSO[F>hase_3] i!S '-j:i Start from ptoo! Cfaru Start !Tom ph.!l~e Rembl~ ""
0 fklageSOans[Phase_'l] :O:l ~
1
c~ru...,.,~,. (101 ""'"' I C~culation type (flil C"""'d I
Q Stab'iite long terme [Ptw:e_6] 1(1 1t.l load!Y,J~ 1
HS~t'"'
Statwte cou-t ~me (Phase_S] 'fi [.6.1 \
Loading type P-l Staged c "'
1Ms;a;4 1,000
IM v.~:~ kt 1.000
HI"'~M l.OC{I
Pore17essu-e~tioBPIYeati:::""
Pore pressure calalabJ t:i Plveabc ""
Tuneinterval O.OOO~y
Tone nterv~ I 90.00 day I
Esbmated e1d lime 0 OGQ d~i Estimated end bme 90 (JO cioy
terr<ts.ol
se tee
F. Cuira- 2015 Page 10
Workshop PLAXIS- Remblai sur sol mou
Tassement instantane 12 cm
2000
....
000
1000
-"'00
-JOOO
"'"'
"'"'
<1000
-1000
<000
.....
-100.00
11000
.,. ..
-1JOOO
l
TOial dllplacemenls uy
Muimum value= 0.02182 m (Eiement386 at Node 104431

Minimum value= ..0.1241 m 1Eiement33 atNode4564l
terra sol
setec F. Cuira-2015 Page 11
Surpressions interstitielles 190 kPa
000
-10.00
-~0.00
3000
--40.00
.~ooo
-8000
-9000
10000
-110.00
12000
13000
-1~00
11i000
-11000
100.00
~1QOM
terrasol
se lee F. Cuira- 2015 Page 12

Tassement avant mise en service IV lm

lml
010
01)1)
~
~20
.0.30
.0111
-0!<1
~- ..
-CUD
oCIO
"""
-100
.,,,
[ l
To131 dl&placcmonl8 u,
Maximum value= 0.03368 m (Element 368 at Node 10447)

Minimum value= -1.007 m tElom ~ 71 ~Node 2716) _
Taux de deformation de l'ordre de 20/o

i'1o-' I
120.00
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0.00
20.00
-.10.00
-11000
8000
-10000
12000
-14000
-160.00
100.00
200.00
220.00
- -
... X
-24000
~
se tee
terrasol
F. Cuira- 2015
Page14
Surpressions interstitielles avant mise en service IV 5 kPa
terrasol
.of------
se tee F. Cuira - 2015 Page 15
Tassement differ de l'ordre de 27 cm

I"10''mJ
2000
0(10
2000
4000
0000
-0000
-10000
-1:?000
14000
100 00
10000
200 00
.?2000
24000
----1~ X 200 00
-200.00
terr.asol
~-
se tee F. Cuira- 2015 Page 16

Identification des deformations de type fl uage

0 I
I I
I
0 "). ~ ''
I I I I 11
)
I ~
!'-... I I! I I II I
I ]: hart 2
N3306(A)
. I
" ,.... ,.....

-
~
.t. ~mtW)))
~-
~
'"" ~ - ~~-
l l_jl . .........
RTatal~

, 11 I
' \I
~~
I
- I 1' "....
~
"
11 f I 1
1'\. I
I I I
I
8
I
I
I~ I
'
I I
I
0
'
:~ ~
I
,_ Jll I I I .. I I
Ill I I I
I ~~~ ~
-IJ
I
z
I I 1---....-----~
-...__,.,.
...........
'
J - - I
- - --- -- -
I I I I
0 I 10 100 1000 I ()COO
lime (dovJ
terraso1
se tee F Cuira- 2015 Page 17
Calculs de stabilite : court terme

1'10 .3-mJ
2200
Fs =1,35
1000
1000
12 00
1000
800
000
AOO
-----1...... X 200
000
selec
terr.a'5oof
F. Cuira- 2015
Page 18
Calculs de stabilite : court terme
t
u
t
_cr''l. + u
t 't
terra~ol
setec F. Culra - 2015 Page19
Calculs de stabilite : long terme
41~ 00
00000
27500
25000
22$00
20000
17500
1~00
1?..500
10000
/100
sooo
000
s e lee: F. Culra- 2015 Page 20

Calcul en grandes deformations

Prise en compte des effets de 2nd ordre
0.9 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - .... - -- - - - - - -
0.8 - Petits de placements

~ Grands deplacemeots
0.7 ---- - -- - - - - - - -- - - ------- - -- - -- - - - - -- - - -- - ------- ------- - - -
Q)
e>
~ 0.6
0
Q)
~ 0.5
Q)
Augmentation
~
0
0.4
de la rigidite
c
apparente
0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 0.75 0.9 1.05 1.2 1.35 1.5
Deplacement

Utilisation de l'option << Updated Mesh sous PLAXIS
''ltl ~~if.".;::,-
Initial phase [lnitialPhase] Inilial phase [JnltiaiPhase} Value

Dro!lins [Phasl!!_l] Drains [Phase_!]
L~st step 161
y R<omblai [Phase_Z] RembliJi [Phllse_2]
Design approach (None}
y 90 JOurs conso [Phase_3] 90 jours conso [Phese_3]
Defonnation control parameters
(.) Huage 50 ans [Phase_4] fluage 50 ans [Phase_"1]
Ignore undr. behavloUI 0
Reset dtsplacemenl!i tc D
Selection explorer (Phase_2)
C~tr:;
Cavitation rut-off D
Cavitation stress 100 0 kli/m~
Numerical control parameters
Max cores to use 256
Max number of steps s
Model explorer (Phase_2) Use default irer paramt
f!, Attributes library Max steps 251j
ic ~~Geometry Tolerated error 0 GlOD:)
Fi-' et)~ SoBs
-- ~ -1--~-- ----
Cf:1 Ct_j ~ Drains
' C'j D Groundwl!lter AoN BCs
F. Cuira - 2015 Page 22


Tassement en fonction du temps
.01
~~' _t! I

I

I
I l I
~ ! I
~ J I
I
I I
~- I .I i I I
~ f I
~ :
I
; :
,
00
I I_
'~
I
I
I
I I I I I
' I
:
I II
I
..,. I I
I
11 \.
"-.
....... .....__ I i I
I
I
I
_., . I i I I
I . ~ I
11
I i f I
11
I '
j
.....
~~
~
..........
~J
--. ~ Grandes deformations
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
....., Calcul classique
j I r
l l
o' ; 10
l
ilo
Time[doy]
UJOO loo;IO IC'X ..
tarra!i.ol
setec F. Cuira - 2015 Page 23

r ... - 1 - 1
1~ _ essenrlnl for geotechnic:al professionals
Prati que de LAXIS pour la

justification E U des ouvrages
Fahd Cuira
Terrasol
Position du probleme
:; Principe des justifications selon les Eurocodes :
Actions (amplifiees) $ resistances (penalisees)
illl Formalisme facilement applicable au calcul des structures mais

application plus complexe en geotechnique
liJ Pour un modele aux elements finis, ce formalisme se heurte par

a
ailleurs plusieurs difficultes :
_~ Notion de stabilite pour un calcul en deformations ?
> Identification des termes stabilisants et destabilisants
Modification ou non de la deformabilite avec la resistance ?
:-:--- - __ - 1:---~-=-----=- --= .. -- -- = -- =.--..---.-.=~=--==:--~;;;
~ '. _ essentlal.for~.eol'~~~i~, ;~~p.ro;esslonal~ .
Elements de vocabu laire

11 Trois approches de calcul selon I'Eurocode 7 :
> en France ce sont les approches 2 et 3 qui sont appliquees en fonction du
type de l'ouvrage et du mecanisme de ruine etudie
11Approche 2 : on pondere les actions et les resistances

Approche 3 : on pondere les actions et les parametres de resistance
Resistance (tan rp, c) Resistance tanrp , - c J

[ y(/) Ye
Approche 2 Approche 3
Elements de vocabulaire
Ensemble
Parametres du sol Symbole
M1 M2
Angle de froltement interne }(p 1,0 1,25
Cohesion effective Ye' 1,0 1,25
Cohesion non drainee Ycu 1,0 1,4 Approche 2
Compression simple }qu 1,0 1,4
Approche 3
Poids volumique Yy 1,0 1,0
Ensemble
Resistance Symbole
R2 R3
Butee }fl;b 1,4 1,0
Buteeb }R;b 1'1 1,0
Cas d'un ecran de soutenement

~ essential io.r geotech~lea/ professionals
Elements de vocabulaire
Trois approches de calcul selon I'Eurocode 7 :
> en France ce sont les approches 2 et 3 qui sont appliquees en fonction du
type de l'ouvrage et du mecanisme de ruine etudie
Approche 2 : on pondere les actions et les nsistances

till Approche 3 : on pondere les actions et les parametres de resistance
Par exemple : cas d'un ecran de soutenement

> Resistance = butee mobilisable
. , Approche 2 : butee mobilisable calculee avec la valeur caracteristique de
cp', puis ponderee par 1,40
Approche 3 : on pondere tan(cp') par 1,25 puis on calcule la butee
mobilisable sur la base de cp' ainsi pondere
Deux facons d'etudier les ELU sous PLAXIS

1111 Calcul de type << c-phi reduction >> = > approche 3 !
Principe : recherche du facteur de ponderation global Fs sur la resistance au
cisaillement disponible permettant d'obtenir l'equilibre limite. Ce principe est
a
comparable celui applique par methodes analytiques telles que Bishop
''
1. 1
']
.I
I , --~-'----:----=------::------:!
Deux facons d'etudier les ELU sous PLAXIS
Calcul de type courbe de chargement => approche 2
Principe : recherche de la charge provoquant la rupture (simulation d'une
courbe de chargement). Le rapport entre la charge de rupture et la charge
appliquee definie un facteur de securite su sens de l'approche 2
0.4 0.6
Courbe de
chargement
Fondations et soutenements : approche 2 !

Ecrans de soutenements => Norme NF P 94 282
Calculs ELU selon

Fondations superficielles => Norme NF P 94 261
l'approche 2
Fondations profondes => Norme NF P 94 262
Approche adaptee a une analyse aux equilibres limites, mais s'avere

difficilement applicable a une analyse en deformations de type
elements finis puisqu'elle necessite de distinguer les zones de sol
agissant en tant qu'actions ( ou defavorables vis-a-vis de la stabilite)
de eel le agissant en tant que resistances (ou favorables a la stabilite)
- ----~---.~--=.~-TI~r- - - - : ~-- -yll,.(
.. I J I J - . I - ' ~ ~.,
~ I .1.1 ... I _..,., _:
~ ::: 1 ~= ......, - I eotechnicaJ profes~l~~~ls .!! 1 1

essential for_g_
:
1...:
-
~
...J
=..--
- - I - -

Exemple d'un ecran de soutemement : modele aux equilibres limites
Actions et resistances sont

identifiables au prealable
Effort d'ancrage
(necessaire a l'equilibre)
Actions x 1,35
--- I
- I
---- -- -._____, ----- -.....!

Exemple d'ecran de soutenement modele d'interaction sol-structures
de type elements finis I
/-------, \
, _______ ,
~ essent1r1l fo r 9P.o!e< hmc:al prof'ssionals

Exemple d'un mur de soutenement : modele d'interaction sol-structures
de type elements finis
Calcul des efforts ELU-STR : approche 2*

Resistance structurale d'un radier
~ Valeur caracteristique des efforts Ek : obtenues sous G + l,lQ
~ Valeur de calcul ELU Ed (efforts ELU) = 1,35 x valeur caracteristique
~ On verifie que Ed < ~ calculee separement selon norme materiau
Mk avec G+1,10 Q
Md =1,35 Mk
'Yr/ = 'Ye = y1 = 1,00

Calcul des efforts ELU-STR : approche 2*

1rJ Resistance structurale d'un ecran ( + ancrages)
Mk avec G+1,10 Q
Md = 1,35 Mk
Butee
mobilisee
y~' =Ye= Yr = 1,00
I <~E(-- Poussee
(mobilisee)
Capacite portante : approche 2*

m Justification de la capacite portante (ELU - GEO)
Vk avec G+1,10 Q
Vd = 1,35 Vk
/
'
YRv = 1,40
'
Y+' =Ye= 1,00
-~ Rvd = Rvk I
1,40 (x YRd) Rvk peut etre estime par simulation d'un
a
essai de chargement la rupture sous PLAXIS.
---~ =0~
I . I -.; I . ,. ~~ 1- - .
- I I ......._~11-

Justification de la capacite portante (ELU - GEO)
0.2 0.4 0.6 o.s IMstage
Courbe de
chargement
Rvd = Rvk I 1,40 (x YRd) Rvk peut etre estime par simulation d'un
a
essai de chargement la rupture sous PLAXIS.
~ essent1al (or geotechnical professionals

B=3m
lE )j
z = 0.00 Semelle
limons argileux E = 27 MPa, cp'= 25, c' = 20 kPa

z = -7.50 v= 20 kN/m 3
Marnes E = 133 MPa, cp'= 35, c' = 20 kPa

v=20 kN/m 3
Z= -24.00
~ essenttal for 9eotechnical professionals
Capacite portante approche 2*

.----------.---------.--------.-------~
Mstage := o,ss
=
, .. 1----~~~+---~--4-------~-----~
i!'i
.,
u,(m]
.,,
-~col
---l

Vnm, tneorique = B X (0,5 X Ny X y' X B + Ne X c1 "' 1610 kN/ml
'"'
'"'
1100
ua
""
'"'
100
000
000
040
020
000
M9l<imum value= 2.242'10"3 m (Eiement724 at Node 1647)

~ essent1al for ~jeotechnlc.J/ professionals

Vnm, meortque = B X (0,5 X iv X Ny X y' X B + N, X i, X c') "' 1060 kN/ml 03l
032
OlO
"""
021>
02<
021.
020
018
010
000
000
00<
O(lz
000
Capacite portante approche 2*
Vservice
Charge verticale 300 1650 5,5
Charge lm:linee l.QP '1 oso 35

,.J .. 1,83
Approche 2 Approche 3
Resistance (tan rp, c) tan ({J , - c )

Resistance
(
~ F: F:~
-- - --- - - - -- - - -- - ;-; =-- -
~ I .
~ . - essential for geotechniCill professioniJIS
Defaut de butee (ELU - GEO): approche 2*

~~ Approche 2/2* : ce n'est pas un calcul c-cp reduction !
llil NF P 94 282 - deux << variantes reglementairement acceptables
::::> Option 1 : Evaluation de la butee mobilisee sous G + 1,10 Q puis

comparaison a
la butee limite calculee separement. On vise une
securite entre butee limite et butee mobilisee de 1,50 ou 1,90.
=> Option 2 : Calcul sous G + 1,10Q + simulation d'une reduction de

la resistance ( = butee limite) 1,50 ou 1,90. On s'assure que
l'equilibre peut etre obtenu.

Verification du defaut de butee pour un ecran : option 1
Butee mobilisee ::5 butee limite I (Ya x Yb)
!!!! G+1,10 Q
'Y a ''fb
Phase provisoire 1,35 1,10
Phase definitive 1,35 1,40
Butee
mobilisee
Butee
limite / 1-E"(-- Poussee
~.... .... (mobilisee)
~---- ~-----w~~
t!ii Verification du defaut de butee pour un ecran : option 1
-------------------
=) Exemple de calage de la butee limite a l'aide de PLAXIS
Defaut de butee (ELU- GEO): approche 2*

~~ Verification du defaut de butee pour un ecran : option 1
-::: -
Q)
Butee limite
E
Q)
~
ro
.c
u .
Deplacement
. ., ...
a l'aide de PLAXIS
~ ~
> Exemple de calage de la butee limite

Defaut de butee (ELU- GEO): approche 2*
~ Verification du defaut de butee pour un ecran : option 1
:> Exemple de calage de la butee limite a l'aide de TALREN (calcul a la rupture)

~(100
G+1,10 Q H'.O
J500
JOOO
,,,,.,
I:lOO
'""
y~' , Ye, Yr tels que butee limite theorique soit reduite par Ya x Yb
,O.!lOO
0800
,0800
-+- ~/~' l/l :A'il; poo
0.79()
0 700 -- 6/~' 1/l;!,O;po<J
,0600
0.760
-f-
,0100
,0400
,O.lOO
-+- 6/IIF }/3;Ao;!;p'(J
-+- 6/~o 1/J;AoO;p'(J

,DlOO
,0100 I
0.740 J
I~ 70 15 >o 15 JO JS 40 4\
....~(')
,.,!<[') _ __
(c, <p) pour simuler une reduction de 1,90 de la butee limite theorique
Ouvrages en terre : approche 3

Approche 3 = s'apparente a un calcul de type C-<P reduction
Aucune ponderation sur les actions permanentes
Ponderation des surcharges variables par 1,30
Ponderation des parametres de resistance au cisaillement par 1,25 (ou

1,40 pour la cohesion non drainee)
a
Stabilite justifier selon un facteur modele de 1,10 pour les ouvrages
courants et 1,20 pour les ouvrages sensibles aux deplacements
ni!IB'!Ir~
I I-
l- I
I
-
~~-
1 -
I -

. . ~\ : _ essential for geotec/;n;cnl professionals
~- - - -- =- - - -_ - -= - - ~ ~ -- -----~-: =- = -~--- - -
Ouvrages en terre : approche 3

G + 1.3 Q
En plus des ponderations ci-dessus, on doit justifier par un calcul c-q>

reduction une securite de 1,10 pour les ouvrages courants et 1,20
pour les ouvrages sensibles aux deplacements
---------~ - ~ - -
Ce qu'il taut retenir
.. Fondations et soutemements : approche 2*
.) Valeur de calcul des effets des actions = 1,35 x valeur caracteristique
, Valeur caracteristique obtenue par un calcul sous G + 1,10 Q
a
Resistance evaluee soit analytiquement soit l'aide du modele PLAXIS par
un calcul de type courbe de chargement
Stabilite generale, remblais et talus renforces : approche 3

-; Calcul sous 1,00 G + 1,30 Q
:::.> Ponderation des parametres de resistance (a la source)
, Compatible avec un calcul c-q> reducti_
on
des ouvrages geotechniques
Fondations profondes
Pieu isole ou en groupe
Fahd Cuira
Terrasol
se tee Juin 2015 Page 1
Workshop PLAXIS - Fondations profondes
Cas d'un pieu isole

Donnees : parametres geotechniques
2 200 kN
0.00
Sable fin
moyennement dense
Pieu fore - 80 cm EM = 10 MPa, pi= 1 MPa

Eb = 20 000 MPa -----1~ qs = 60 kPa
q~' = 30 - c' = 5 kPa
-14.00
Sables et graviers
:1~~ 9.0 EM = 30 MPa, qs = 120 kPa
q~' = 38 - c' = 0 kPa
qpl- 3,0 MPa
-20.00

Cas d'un pieu isole

Donnees : resultat du modele semi-empirique de Frank et Zhao
charge en tete (kN)

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000
q
0 ctco
q,~
, l!i o
<1. ~,15
1
<~,12 (\,12 2 o o~rvlc&
K, K., 3 0 0
0
0 -;., 0 -- -w, 4 ~ .. - 4-mm
0
5 0
e6
E 0
Sol
1'-t = O iM ~=4~ "i 7 0
granulaire 'B 'B ~
41
8 0
.. 9
~ 0
10
Sol fin 1'-t =2 0 Ewt
' B
~ = I~
B
11 o Frank et Zhao 0
12 0
13
14
15
setec F. Cuira- 2015 Page3
Cas d'un pieu isole

Charge en t~te Q 0 (kN)

0 500 1000 1500 200(
PIEU ISOLE,
L=Sm
I' a
L -
- -:L__- - - -----;
!Om 0
5
Sol
EM = 12 MPa e
.
-10
.1 P1"' = 1.2 MPa ... 15

Cl)
....
ell -20
~
c 25
....cell L'essentlel du tassement
ell -30 provient de la polnte I
Fascicule 62 : fore boue E
ell
u
qsl= 100 kPa a
~
-35
qp1 = 1 MPa -al

Q -40
PoNeou potu

Cas d'un pieu isole

Otctc (kN)
' . L 1Qm 0 1000 2000 3000
PIEU ISOLE
L=5m _c - 0 ~ ~
\ - F"'""-Ztooo ~IJ(I,.j
Sol '\
EM= 12 MPa '
'"' P1* =
. ~
I
1.2 MPa
--
~
-0.01 -
....._, -0.02
'
'
I
\
''
'
'
i s
U
\
\
\
I :>:: ~ \
Fascicule 62 : fore boue p. ',
-0.03 I
qsl = 100 kPa "'d\
qv 1 =I MPa ~ 'I
-0.04 '\
s~tec
Cas d'un pieu isole

Construction du modele sous PLAXIS- modele axisymetrique
Charge surf cique Interfaces

ou deplacement avec c=qs
impose et <p = 0
Pieu en elements 20m

volumiques +plaque
fictive noyee
Axe du pieu ---~ e
20 m
Cas d'un pieu isole

Construction du modele sous PLAXIS- modele axisymetrique
Charge surfacique
, r
Deplacement vertical
imposee --~
r =40 cm
terraaol
!etec F. Culra- 2016 Paga7
Cas d'un pieu isole

Construction du modele sous PLAXIS - Maillage
Maillage a 1255
elements
se tee F. Cuira- 2015 PageB

Cas d'un pieu isole

Calcul a deplacement impose : courbe de chargement jusqu'a 1,5 cm
X-Axis Y-Axis
[Prqjc<t [A (0.1.!1 / 0.00)

. -~~ ..... ~~
--I
Step lO' Deformalions
f} Multiplier 8 Total displacenenl>
B Force iul
I "
ffiStr~
0 lrfo'ert sign

se tee
Cas d'un pieu isole

Calcul a deplacement impose : courbe de chargement jusqu'a 1,5 cm
o-
00 ...______ ; I
..., ~ IChart 81
<)))
. --.___ ..- N58(A)
00.1 ~---
,,_,. t I "'-. t
I I
0 001
1\
cm
I I ; \
W!l
I I \
I \ :
'"'
001
! I I \
... I I I I .\ I
!
~"
I I I I \
01)
I '
I
\
014
: I I
I \
t \ ....
1'00
"" ""2n: 11>'1 rm
'"' Fy I kN/rad] X
se lee
Cas d'un pieu isole

Calcul. a deplacement impose : courbe de chargement jusqu'a 1,5 cm
Charge en llite (kN)
0 400 800 1 200 1 600 2 000 2 400 2 800 3 200 3 600 4 000
0
s
'E 6
E
i" 7
~ 8
~
{! 9 PLAXIS 1,0 ~ EM/a
0
10 - PLA)(IS 2,0 x EM/a
0
11
- PLAXIS 2,5 x EM/a
12
'ill Frank et Zhao 0
13
14
15
~ '""""I
setec F. Cuira - 2015 Page 11
Cas d'un pieu isole

Calcul a contrainte imposee : 2, 4 et 8 MPa - frottement mobilise
2 MPa 4 MPa 8 MPa
St'LP(
Cas d'un pieu isole

Calcul a la rupture : courbe de chargement jusqu'a uy = D/10 = 8 cm
~
"'
- -..
.... --~
r---......
Charge ultime
conventionnelle
!M
'" "'.,
'-...,
Q)
"'
.
I 04
Dl
i>l
"' \"
"'
\\
'\
"'
-~ X
"'. ~ Xh 41 l<t> ~ M

~
,,.,
""'
!'>) !C((l 1111)
F, IWrod) X 2:n:
setec E Cuira- 2015 Page 13
Pieu en groupe
Calcul en cellule elementaire (pieu en partie courante)
2200 kN 2200 kN 2200 kN
---
f.~ri-":
~..M
l _._ J
... - '
1
Req -1,354 m
e = 3 x 8 = 2,4 m
-20.00

Pieu en groupe
Courbe de chargement - mise en evidence de l'effet d'assouplissement
b j~~ [---._
'
I
OO'J
'"le
""'-.
~~ ------
~
~
y~
... ~
I
i'\
olft- ~~ ""-, :le
I
~
'\
01
1" ....1 -<>.
\
~ "'(o
~o".
f
llt>
I
... I
.!lro~.,."<t 91J
... ~9
\
:
.
.. ., I 1\
tro 200
F, [kN/rod]
... '""' ~ -~
terrasol

se tee
Pieu en groupe
Influence sur la mobilisation du frottement lateral
2 MPa 4MPa 8 MPa
s~ler.
F. Cuira - 2015
Page 16
Pieu en groupe
Entrainement du sol entre les pieux = pas de frottement en partie superieure
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
0
-2
-4
-6 - Sol
- pieu
-8
Tassement en
fonction de la
-10
profondeur
-12
-14
-16
lerra!iol
Pieu en groupe
Influence sur le mecanisme de rupture (a uy = D/10)
seluc F. Cuira - 2015

Page 18
Pieu en groupe
Influence sur le mecanisme de rupture (a uy = D/10)
o,
~ terrasol
5etec
Cas d'une file de pieux

Homogeneisation en paroi >> equivalente attention aux effets
d'ecran !
terrasol


Homogeneisation en << paroi equivalente
Id~olisolion des groupcs de picu

-
\ -=,.._.,.--,-- -- I
Maillage
I
I
I
l
(d)
~ terraol

Homogeneisation en paroi equivalente
Exemple etude ATM M09
-0 --------~~~~~:.!.
E F G H
'
:,~:Eo('--~
'
15:::_,3m
---'-;..;
71 I 15,2m l
I
' ''
''
I
' 1 e= 18m
-~ .. ..... ..... ... .. !~!

qs * = q si peff
2e L-~
+---+
Beq
terrasol


Utilisation de la methode des coefficients d'influence
l , I o Appui E35
i I - Appui F35
(r" 'i" 'i"

i ' I
'!
! i j
i i teo
I
: ~
- 8~----------- ------J.
e =18m
0.1
-0 . .... . . . ... . l"t!
o ~~~+-~~i-~~~~-;~~-;~~~
-54 -36 18 0 18 36 54
.
Stile = Sisole X (1 + 2 X 0,25 + 2 X 0,07) = 1,65 Sisole

Utilisation des Embedded piles >>
Suppose une file infinie dans la direction perpendiculaire au plan de travail

Plus adapte au cas d'un micropieux ou d'un pieu travaillant principalement
en frottement.
S.UlOC
Effets parasites
Simulation des effets de frottement m:gatif
N niveau de la nappe ette"ain nature! 5 1 sol compre111ibla

R remblal 5 2 substratum
\ o,.o.G11 _
1
ljJ ,~~
s~tec
Effets parasites
Simulation des effets de frottement negatif
+ + l lr
h
GsJ =Jp.Ktgo. dv (z)dz
0
-- ---- ...-
-~
lr
7,1 ..._
(]". ( 7)
_ ka; (::)
-
I,
(] 1' z)
/
'
-- --
/ '- .....
....- /
' ..__
-- Le: ------
Effort parasite :
~ Maximal a long terme (comportement draine)
~ (K.tgi>) traite comme un parametre unique
terr~1sol

se tee
Effets parasites
Pieux
Sols Pieux
Pieux fores Pieux Pleux
chemises
tubas fores battus
bitume
Tourbes sols organlques 0,10 0,15 0,20 <0,05
<0,05
mous 0,10 0,15 0,20
ArgUes, Llmons <0,05
fermes a durs 0,15 0,20 0,30
<0,05
tres laches 0,35 0,35 0,35
<0,05
Sables, graves lAches 0,45 0,45 0,45
<0,05
autres 1,00 1,00 1,00
NOTE 1 - Le cholx du type de sol pourra tre guide par les categories conven1ionnelles donnees
dans l'annexe B. I
NOTE 2 - Lorsque le type de sol ne peut etre identifie preclsement, le terme Ktan& est determine par
Interpolation ll partir des dlfferentes valeurs presentees dens le tableau H.2.2.1.
NOTE 3 - Naturellement, la valeur de calcul de Ktana pourra atre dedulte des mesures effectuees
lorsque, pour diverses ralsons, et en particulier lorsque l'economle du projet le jusUfie, on est amene A
proceder, sur le site mi!Jme, I!J des essals en vraie grandeur.
terra!!.ol
5etec
F. Culra - 2015 Page27
Effets parasites
Pleu lsoh! fore 6m
Dlametre = 1 0 m le
4m
So/fin
qs1 = 30 kPa
10m EM=B MPa
=
Cof(1+eo) 0,10
Ktan6=0,15
Sol granulafre (peu detonnable)

qp~=3,0MPa
q 51 = 120kPs
E,.,-=20 MPs
terr.uol

Effets parasites
..
0.~ i
ifil~:mieN JlffU/~
IUi
EHorts te~laua ple:u ec ul
,,
Li! ,,
:o[ '"
!Ill ,, Qtite =0
,, HI
,., "
I
"I "'I
.I ., .
"""
ul
I
i .u;
il
.. I
. I
,
I:
~
~ ~ .u; ~
J"....
l
j ",
!!: .u:
. ..."'
4Df 4.0!
! )( 1.0[ .K
Ul
"I "
.. I ... ao(
.,,"'
..."' .,
1.0: ~i
.. ~!
;o.ol ..
U!
,'
-~I
I
md lfAi , .a:
TOI~t~nenl (mJ
1111 lllllol
,.,, r..,
. . J J.1
11
I
... "'
setec F. Cuira- 2015 Page 29
Effets parasites
... 1.1\ u tu mh 1 ~~:u r1 sel ,._
.,
u! u!
.. i >~~~j
-
.. !I .t$!
.:Di
Hj
,, Qtete =1000 kN
I
Uj
"
"' "'
1

.. j
I:, I:
.
.u-1
~ <1 d
~ .&Ill ~ ~ ui
~ I
i::: .,I.. i re ..u)
R u
j .,;
~ u/
"'111) L.j ;; lli ~ w '"I
...
1.$;
I '-'1
4'01
'-'!
"'oi
u! I
ui
I
''I ''I
Ui
;~] "'~I
'10~
I
I r....~ j ..,
IlD'
.,. u.o! ,. "' ICQJ lW
"'
SQ)
141t. U! t J: '"
r..u~menl tmJ EtrOlt tal.&t(UI)
~wv-...OIIr.n.t.uo.~.-
11. ~:- 1
l ""~>!:-:--~-::::-l~~a li~ ___ I
se tee
Effets parasites
Simulation des effets de frottement negatif : deux possibilites
Utilisation de PLAXIS pour determiner le tassement << libre du sol

+ modele t-z pour determiner plan neutre et Nmax;
Oa1000kN
Integration de !'element pieu dans PLAXIS (modele 3D si charge

non uniforme) et controle des conditions d'interface de maniere a
garantir la condition t(z)/o'v(z) ~ ktanl>.
~ terrasol
Effets parasites
Simulation des effets de poussee laterale du sol
. . :<:~>>:.:. . :-
"' I I ~...,. .
Remb/ai . . /:~. .
:-~. . :..:,...,~....;.:..;.,_: . . . :;,.-. -.. ;.,:.~.~:.>:.-~,_ ...
~ ' ' ~ : , ~: ~ a
y
-.-
. . : :~
- ~ .~).
w ... "!~
Sol mou
.....'a,
g(z)
Mp
ltlUUOt
z
se tee
Effets parasites
Flltd1e M01l1DHI fl6d1IUbnt
.
1),01
"I,
uj
Hj
-a!
...
..'" .... ,,
11:1\
:uj
...
.. I
u(
,
~
-4.!if
ut
::,
....
I ~;: ~ ?D,
.ij , .. {
I ~;
~ ?.11:
~!
~ U1 ..j 1 f]
~ ::: u; ~ :;
le '1ui ::j
i!'fO.Ol
0..,
:::: to~!
!.1111l
Y.11.111
1
~!01!(
!
x1u 1
IUI!
1::1
!.1113
)( IIJI
1~J) I UO',
tJJil
~:~ j
n.t,
,.. .0\
!U! ......~
Pieu '"
mm
,,.
"~
Do:J ODI D11f OJD

CDlOOO
0.000 OM
::I , .. ~ D
,.~::1... . . ...
... - 0 '"'
0.,.~-.nl Ut M .AI (m I M(IU.m) Y(U_,) p ll.fi-'J
C: . ._. "'"' ""'I [L ff~--~1 ['=K.............~~

--
...
terroJ!HJL
:~----~
au...,._.... ~ .. ~~~ " ' '
fid~ , ........ ...... _._l t~
.... :~-- -~]

.~
--
,_:[ ...... &IWtlll --::=Juu.:[m,.60Ut. ] --. . .
-<~- -:::J .... ,~~ --
:~-----] ..... :[?D.fi~- ---]
se tee
Effets parasites
--~~~~------~~~~~~---
...
ODr
:-;I "
...
uf
:!I .
,.
ul
::!
'
uj
'"
.. I ....
1iJ ....
i ;~I
...
l :;
~
j
::; .. ....
~ )j
f~:i
ell
i .. '" i" ~
~~I
:::<A .:::. 10.~
.!no ,!..u,o
X il.
,,. IC HJI
......
IM .... oU
:~!..
.
... Inclusion '"
...... .. ,
too l
..
CD350 mm
.. ::!I lt,O
m Obl I).GJ I:I.OJ 00<1 IIM

Ofpl.ICD-e!fllt t.t41r.t.l ()
..
]u.., ~~ J
l l)inno l

selec
Effets parasites
Simulation des effets de poussee laterale du sol : deux possibilites
Utilisation de PLAXIS pour determiner le deplacement libre du

sol + modele p-y pour determiner les sollicitations
additionnelles dans le pieu ; -~
:1 ~
.::. >..
flemblai
~___...._- --v,
M.
:: P.eJ yfrl
.:..
~.;.:_.:.: :
Sol mo-..~
..i q(:l
Sub!/10/urr>
"
Integration de !'element pieu >> dans PLAXIS (modeles 30/20
selon situations) et controle des conditions d'interface de maniere a
garantir la condition p(z) ~ pi*.
~ torrasol
Interaction sol-structure : exemples

Le schema classique
Modele geotechnique Reactions des appuis
Raideurs apparentes Modele structure

des appuis
terrc1sol

Interaction sol-structure

Conception d'une dalle de couverture de voies ferroviaires existantes
lerrasul
5etec
F. Cutra- 2015 Page37

I Dalle de couverture : Z = 41.00 NGF I
... ~ Voies SNCF r-

a 34.oo
- r-
E F G H I
-
..._ ...__ ..._____ ...__
-
~ tecracl


Filel -
FileH -
FileG -
FileF -
FileE -
se tee

Contexte geotechnique 1 principe de fondation
~ ~ l~l!il~~~~~~~!l t!l~!!~~!!l
0
-- \~! il l!l l !l l !
grCMier
,._ "'~"
:r ::r. calcaire grossier

l
..............
.... ~..,..,
- ...... -- ~-
_ , . . . , . , ... roo*""'""
... -
...
_ _ ,.,.._ ..... _ _ ,..,.. .. _,... ..... _ _
.... ......... "'"' ........ .
...... ..
.. of"> .............. ,.. ...... ""......... ,..
'< .~, ' . - -..~ ~..~ ..~. - -: : : .. ' .. ~..- -~- ~ .. :-~ -:- - . ~ ...-. -. ~.. - ~ -- -:---. .. ..:- -..-..-. Fausses glaises
' " " - _..._ ..".,".,".. . .. -..",".,", ",_' ''-'"JI.'lil~~-...... ",.",".;'.,", ".,".," . ,,"_., _.' .,", "-,"
,
~
...... .,.. ..................-i"o,..

... --""'
.............. "'"' .........................................
~.,., ......., .."
.,..
..,..,.................. . .
.... "" ",.~,..,,..: ,.."',..
-
,.,..._... ............ '"'...""'..."".,.,,...,......... ~ ...:'"' .-- . ,.. -,..: , . . .... ..._.; ... r!:~:
. ... - :-: :-:-:-----:-:-:-:-:-:-:--:~: ----..--~--: -~~-~~~~:~~}~:~~;~;:

=::~i_-=: ~:::: ;~ -~:~:~~.-.~-~~:--~.: .. ~. - -~~-- -~~~~ -_ . ::~:t.:
selPC

Tassement d'un appui isoh (PLAXIS + FOXTA) 56 MN (H35)
w
1li
Alluvions
modernes
s,T
i I Alluvions -0,5 cm
1 l Os anciennes
l i I
i I
/ Qp
H A1 '' Calcaire
/ a '' grossier
'
Fausses -1,5 cm
glaises

Interaction entre appuis : notion de courbe d'influence
1 I
I
I
-r 0 Appu i E35
0.9 - ~-I -- t--
I
-~ --p - Appu i F35
j - Appui H35
!!! 0.8
c
Q)
..s. 0.7
c
Q)
0.6
E
Q)
on
on 0.5
ro
1-
_. 0.4
c N
Q)
E 0.3
Q)
on
on
ro
1- 0.2
0.1
0
-54 -36 -18 0 18 36 54
~ lumuol

se tee

Interaction entre appuis : facteurs d'amplification par file
--.--- --.--- --.--- --.--- --.---
2,3 x S 0 3,2 X S 0 3,3 x S 0 2,8 x S 0 1,8 x S 0
.~
E F G H I
- - '- '-
Tassements differentiels?
terra5ol
s e tec F. Cuira- 2015 Page43

Tassements differentiels entre appuis (distorsion relative de la dalle)
0.30%
0.25% 1- -
- Sans ISS (appuis rigides)
0.20% -1- -
0.15%
0.10% - 1---f-----1----1-----f--- --1---~~,.._....~

1/1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
ler ras o l
se t a e F. Cutra- 2015 Page44


0.30%
0.25% -1- - - Sans ISS (appuis rigides)
- Avec ISS (sans raidisseurs)

0.20% -1- -
O.OS%
0 10 20 30 40 so 60
~ ~"lerrasol
setec

0.30%
- Sans ISS (appuis rigides)

0.2S% +---
- Avec ISS (sans raidisseurs)
0.20% +-- .& Avec ISS + raidisseurs 1/500
0.1S% . 1-----~----~-------r-----+----.Hr-----~~-- -~-
0 10 20 30 40 so 60


Distribution des reactions : approche sans ISS (appuis rigides)
Qtotale = 1 050 t/ml
I
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll I
11 11 11 11 11
17% 16% 19% 30% 18%
E F G H I
terrdsol
5etec

Distribution des reactions : approche avec ISS (appuis elastiques)
Ototale =1 050 t/ml
I
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll I
11 11 11 11 11
20% 18% 19% 23% 20%
E F G H I
terrasol
selec F. Cuira - 2015 Page48

Interaction sol-structure exemples

La question des interactions
ul = au.Vl + a12.V2
u2 = a21v1 + a22v2
x/b
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0%
V 10%
~
I I --=
0
20%
30%
--=
40%
I I
..... SO%
I< )I >< 60% - Filante
2b 70%
- Circulaire
80% I
90% Courbe d'influence
100% d'une fondation rigide
terrasol

La question des interactions
ul = au.Vl + a12.V2
u2 = a21'v1 + a22v2
> La raideur apparente depend de la charge !
terrasol
se lee

Ce que devrait donner le modele geotechnique
une matrice de souplesse intrinseque avec laquelle le modele
structure pourrait iterer si necessaire
Mode le
----------T
---------:
io
''
''
1 i
. -----r---------r
i i
-------:------------:o-----
2 -- ---
, -- - ,I
u,
Uz
'
I
I
I
r ' az,
~
all
geotechnique
,-------------,
aJz
azz
a ,,,
,- -- ,
"'
F2 :
:
: ;: CJ
~
I
:
I ::
I
~
I p
I
='
I
I
I
I
-----------:1:-----+------ j ------+---+---------- lln- 1 I : F,, _l

t
I
l :.'
'
t
I
:''
t
c:J
::'
I
I
'
~
I U 11
---~
: I' a"'
' -------------
a"" }
... "---
F
-'
I
I
B
'
------ - ~------------"t""----- n ' .......................... . .
~
:' :' :'

:,
I
I: :,
I
.:
I
,:
I ,~ - --- F
---,
,-----------,,
I I I I
I . I
II K.I = -1 I : Modele 1
I
I
l .... _ _ ___U..!_ 1I structure
I
lerliB.ol

IGH fonde sur micropieux
file A file B flleC file 0
i
I
I I

.
P ! (I I
@. $
3 I $"' !
ii
-~ ,0
t I
e
-
seloc F. Cuira- 2015 Page 52

Modele geotechnique bati sous PLAXIS (fondations + sol environnant)
, Definition de motifs homogeneises

Decomposition des lignes d'appui en 13 zones caracteristiques
terras.ol


Definition d'une matrice d'influence pour les 13 zones d'appuis
intrinseque au systeme sol + fondations
fij=
zonel
zone 2
zone3
zone4
zoneS
zone6
zone 7
zone8
1.09E-08

Schema ISS mis en reuvre
Verifications geotechniques
Modele geotechnique (stabilite et portance)
(FOXTA v3 + PLAXIS 3D)
Reactions definitives
des appuis
Matrice de souplesse
Modele superstructure
pour le systeme
(Pythagore)
sol + fondations
terrdsol


Tassement maximal attendu de l'ordre de 3 cm
--~-
,.,.-...,,.,,...e ..
~:)1\lH.:o~J.,

Fondations profondes
Inclusions rigides
.' Fahd Cuira

Terrasol
~ '"""'"'
Juin 2015 Page 1
setec
Workshop PLAXIS - Inclusions rigides
Concept d'inclusions rigides
Solution de fondation intermediaire

Renforcement par inclusions rig ides = presence d'un matelas de transfert
Homogeneisation des deformations en surface
r-------
-f1 tf1 f1 1
.::- __ ---.: ...
... ~
Fondation superficielie Fondation sur pieux Fondation mixte Inclusions rigldes
t~rrr1'i.ol

sP.tec
Concept d'inclusions rigides

Matelas
granulaire Charges
Additifde
renforcement eventuel
Tete d'inclusion
SOLPEU
PORTEUR,
D~FORMABLE
Domaines d'application
F. Cuira- 2015
Page4
Principe de modelisation
D
- m'; I
:
: -
.:
-r
LJ
setec F. Cuira - 2015 Page5
Resu ltats types

Tassement {mm) Frottement {kPa) Effort {kN)
0 s 10 15 20 25 30 35 -210 -140 -70 0 70 140 210 0 80 160 240 320 400
0 +-~-+~--+-~-+-n 0 +--+--t--r--r--t---;
1 .
2 . 2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6 6
7 7
8 . 8 8
9 9
10 10
11 . 11
12 12
13 - PIEU 13 i r--+--!-'
14 - SOL . 14
'E L-~~~--~~~~ 'E
N
N------------------~
t onn~ol

Regles de justification
Ouvrage de domaine 1 Ouvrage de domaine 2
Stabilite de l'ouvrage avec inclusions Stabilite de l'ouvrage sans inclusions
Portance des inclusions
Sollicitations dans !'inclusion Sollicitations dans !'inclusion
Sollicitations dans la fondation Sollicitations dans la fondation
Verification des tassements Verification des tassements
Verifications de coherence Verifications de coherence
linrasol
Stabilite de l'ouvrage : cas d'un remblai = approche 3 (EC7)
Stabilite generale sans inclusions (domaine 2)

Modele de type Talren
setec
terrasol
F. Culra- 2016
PageB
Stabilite de l'ouvrage : cas d'un remblai = approche 3 (EC7)
G + 1.3 Q
Stabilite generale avec inclusions (domaine 1 uniquement)

Modele de type Talren
se tee F. Cufra- 2015 Page9
Stabilite de l'ouvrage : cas d'une fondation superfiielle = approche 2 (EC7)
1.35 G + 1.5 Q < Rv;d
YR;v =1,40
'Y+' ='Ye'= 1,00
Stabilite generale sans inclusions (domaine 2)
sPte c
Stabilite de l'ouvrage : cas d'une fondation superfiielle = approche 2 (EC7)
'YRiV =1,40
Yt' = Ye = 1,00
Stabilite generale avec inclusions (domaine 1 uniquement)
terrasol
se tee F. Culra- 2015 Page 11
Workshop PLAXIS- Inclusions rigides
Portance des inclusions (ELU et ELS) : domaine 1 uniquement
Qp(O)
he
Qmax ~ Capacite portante sous le plan neutre au sens

de la norme fondations profondes NF P 94 262
Sel compact
se tee
terra~ol
F. Cuira- 2015
Page 12
Contraintes dans !'inclusion ELU (si domaine 1) et ELS
1:. =infU.(t);c_;J'*) Is~ (k1 methode forage, k2 elancement)
fed = Min(acc k3 fc: ; ace fck (t) ; ace Cmax J

Ye Ye Ye
Valeurs Avec essais de A . A . Avec essais

Sans essai rt\flexion vec ess:us vec essrus de controle
de k3 ou impedance de qualiteD de portance renforce
ELU : smax < fed et Smoy < 7 MPa
Domaine 1 OJ5 1,2 1,4
ELS : Smax < Min(0,6klct/, 0,6fck)
et Smov < (0,3klck*)
Domaine 2 0,65 0,85 1,4 1,5 1,7
terrasol
Sollicitations dans le dallage methode enveloppe dite de moments
additionnels
Moment enveloppe = << ma + << mb + me
ma >> : resultat du calcul d'un dallage sur sol homogeneise
mb >> : influence des inclusions sur un dallage continu

me : interaction entre les inclusions et les joints
Approche basee sur le resultat du modele de cellule elementaire
se tee:
te r ri\s.ol
F. Culra- 2015
Page 14
Sollicitations dans le dallage : calcul du terme ma
Descente de
charge detaillee
if~ o&o3:,0'3 :,oaojOj:,o3.l"o3 lilBI~

Calcul dallage ou
radier sur sol
homogeneise
Sol
renror~ '
:---- ....
Sol d'anorage
Modele geotechnique
se t ec F. Cu/ra - 2015 Page 15
Sollicitations dans le dallage : calcul du terme << ma
Ht
Q)
1/) Q) A: -6,000
~a:;
:::J B:751S
c C: 7150
Q) Q)
C'l u D: -6 US
0 Q) E: ~. 300
E "0
0 Q) Q) Eoe~o2 H, G: -5 450
..c. ;a:; L..
...... "0 ro .j....l

H: -5..()25
I' ~ 600
HJ
"iii 0 c
1/) J:-1.17S
ro E Q)
E :::J,Q)
E K:'3.750
l:Jl2S
:::J -o:a::; M: -2900
"0 .j....l
ro
c .:!::
N ! -2475
0 : l-050
0
:p :::J
P:-IU'i
1/)
Q)
c L..
\;:::::
Q) 11
"0 T: 0075
U: 0 'XKJ

Sollicitations dans le dallage : calcul du terme << mb
Msup
I
I I
I
I
:::~:. .. ....::::-~
- ..--- Minf
I
I
I
I
[mb] = [Msup ; Minf]
L'intervalle [mb] ne depend pas de

-- -- _JII.eu,p --
-- la distribution geometrique des
1--~--+---\--------,,__--t- - --- i 0 -- inl charges, il ne depend que du
maillage et de la l'intensite de la
::0 - -
M 1nr (kN.m/m) L------ -- ---' charge uniformement repartie
DISTANCE (m) DISTANCE (m) equivalente
Sf.!tec
F. Culra - 2015 Page 17
Sollicitations dans le dallage : calcul du terme me
[me] = -[mb] = [-Minf; -Msup]
~ Courbe reelle me
- - Courbe majorante me - - - - Borne sup. me
- - Courbe minorante me - - - - Borne inf. me
- Minf
- Msup
4 6 6 10 12 14 16
DISTANCE (m)

Verifications des tassements (ELS)
S < Smax
smax defini par maitre d'ouvrage (critere sur tassement absolu, maximal,
moyen, differentiel, global, local)
Specificite des ouvrages sur inclusions les tassements sont toujours

calcules
Exercice : dallage sur inclusions

Donnees Charge repartie moyenne de 80 kPa
l l lllllllllltllllllllll ~
+0.4 I I Z 1
Dallage
30
cm
+0 .0 ~ ... 'm3. r~~!e:l_:s d: reP.~~~?.~.
Limons argileux
-6.0
Sables graveleux
Inclusions rigides
diametre = 40 cm


Donnees
Frottement sol/inclusions : 30 kPa dans limons, 120 kPa dans sables
Interface sous dallage : 5 = 2/3q>
Ne pas oublier les conditions de symetrie !
Inclusions mises en ceuvre par refoulement
-- kp x pi = 5 MPa
Identification limons Sables et graviers Matelas limons interface Sables interface Be ton
Material model Mohr-Coulomt Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomt Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb linear elastic
y_u nsat kN/m' 20 20 20 20 20 25
v_sat kN/m' 20 20 20 20 20 25
E kN/m 2 5000 1.20E+05 5.00E+04 5000 1.20E+05 1.10E+07
v(nu) 0.3 0.33 0.35 0.3 0.33 0.2
c_ref kN/m 2 5 0 0 30 120
q, (phi) 28 38 38 l.OOE-03 l .OOE-03
ljJ (psi) :. 8 0 0
0 8
R_i nter 1 1 0.61 1 1
tarrasol

setec

Etape 1 : modele de cellule elementaire (Req = 1,128 m)
Etat initial Inclusions Dallage + chargement 80 kPa
se lee
t er ras.ol
F. Cuira - 2015
Page 22

Etape 1 : modele de cellule elementaire (Req = 1,128 m)
Tassement Effort axial Frottement lateral
Frottement
E negatif
CO
I
~
:o:l
u Plan neutre z =-3.85
._
IV - - --
:I
~IV
:I:
Frottement
positif
se tee F. Culra- 2016 Page 23

Verification portance
Nmax = 300 kN
Qs sous plan neutre = 3,14 x 0,4 x (30 x 3,39 + 120 x 0,5) = 200 kN
Qp = 3,14 X 0,2 2 X 5000 = 628
QELS = (200/1,5 + 628/1,5)/1,4 = 394 kN > Nmax => OK
Sollicitations additionnelles dans le dallage

> ~Madd = [+21 -8] kNm/ml
+21
-8
terrt~so 1


Etape 2 : calcul de l'ouvrage sur sol homogeneise
E 4m )E Bm X 4m ;;.
1~ 1~ 1~ 1~
kN kPa kPa kPa
uti .tot il ,s:, 11 **o*11 Xi ;;,,,,

I I o.4o
24m
E
CO Sol homogemeise
11
.,u>
Cll
Eeq- 40 MPa
...
Cll v=O
~
....Cll
~
Cll
:I:
-7.60
Sables et graviers
-9. 00
ten d~.ol
!>et~c

Etape 2 : calcul de l'ouvrage sur sol homogeneise
230 kPa 230 kPa
sur 1 m sur 1 m
50 m
tOfi!'I"'.O I


Tassements
000
-I DO
-200
-JOO
4.110
5 00
000
....
1000
-1100
~12. 00
-1100
14.00
1.SOO
-1600
11_00
-18_00
tarrasDI
5etec
F. Culra- 2015 Page27

Moments flechissants
+25
+
Calcul sur sol
homogeneis
e
+21
Calcul cellule
elementaire
sous charge
moyenne
se l e e
te rrasol
F. Cu/ra- 2015
Page 28
Pratique des elements finis pour le dimensionnement
Ouvrages de soutenement
Fahd Cuira
Terrasol
setec
Juin 2015 Page 1
Workshop PLAXIS - Ecrans de soutenement
Recours aux elements finis

Modele d'interaction sol-structure (MISS)
MISS- K : methode aux coefficients de reaction
MISS- F : methode aux elements finis ou differences finies
., , , -p~ - - - - - -
.. .. -------- .. ,
" 1" Milieu continu ,
/ " Pb ' ', '.......... EJ v, c',<p'... ., ~'
I \
---- -- --- ~,
( Ressorts juxtaposes: \
\
' Po elasto-plast/ques ,' \
\ I \
', ,
' ...- ..-....L...:....::'---- ~..... ,"
------- _....... , ' '

''
'' ,~
~ te"a>ol

se tee

> Ouvrages sensibles I interaction avec les avoisinants
Interaction entre l'ecran et le massif d'ancrage ( = zone de scellement,

corps mort ou contre rideau)
Deplacement oeplacement
Longueur libre Fkranz (MISS-F} (MISS-K}
15 m 3,0 "'1,8 cm "-'1,3 cm
10 m 1,4 "'2,2 cm rvl,2 cm
Sm 1J1 "'15 cm "-'1,0 cm
terras.ol
se lee F. Cuira - 2015 Page4

Workshop PlAXIS- Ecrans de soutenement

Interaction entre equilibres vertical et horizontal
Cas d'un ecran porteur
Chargement => tassement sol < tassement ecran => poussee dirigee
vers le ha ut => valeur amplifiee par rapport aune poussee vers le bas
0.60
- cfl=2S'
0.55 - <1>=30'
t /~ussee
- cl>=35
0.50
~
v~ rs le bas
1
.t 0.45
Plan neutre i
.IJ
0.40
,.;
.!! 0.35
1 i 0.30
Butee vers / 025

le hau/? 1 0
ers le haut
1 0.33 0
lndinalson fia/cfl
0.33 0.66
----------------
'5et~c
Workshop PLAXIS- Ecrans de soutenement

Paroi etanche et rabattement interieur prealable
Rabattement => tassement => butee dirigee vers le bas => butee limite
a
fortement reduite par rapport l'hypothese d'une inclinaison vers le haut !
Argile molle
r--- -----------------------
,-
....':::- ... :.:
Sable graveleux
Marne
terrasol


Paroi etanche et rabattement interieur prealable
Rabattement = > tassement = > butee dirigee vers le bas = > butee limite
a
fortement reduite par rapport l'hypothese d'une inclinaison vers le haut !
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
c: 5.5
~
5.0
~ "'
:I
..c 4.5
....c"'
"1:1 4.0
3.5
"'
;:;
!E 3.0
"'0
V
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
-0.67 -0.33 0.00 0.33 0.67

Prise en compte des effets de surcharge sur le terrain
q
0 O.l 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
o --+- t.a/q _.___.__.,.......___._--,~
H=B Couche
raide
Couche meuble
3
- Sol Homogene (Boussinesq)
- Sol bi-couche avec contraste de

raldeur (elements finis)

Workshop PLAXIS- Ecrans de soutmement
Principes de modelisation : Sols

La question des modules (qui n'est pas propre aux soutemements)
~> Idealement : disposer d'un dossier geotechnique complet avec des essais
permettant de couvrir une gamme de deformations allant de lQ- 2 a l0-4
.> L'utilisation directe des resultats des essais classiques conduit
a
generalement des estimations par exces des deplacements
~H:IIIIII"s de southreme11t
I fondations
twmels
r+-----.-!JII remblais
! Sill' sols
' 10-E 10-'
Triaxiaux de precision
Essais dynamiques Essais labo classiques
Essais in situ classiques
terrasol

> Choix des modules : exemple d'une paroi mouhe experimentee
J>arol NORD (~ 0 8Zm)
+U !lO
Marnes e1 caiDasses
V p14MPa
t-1 2 ~0 EM 35 MPa 12 .oo
1-(J _J
CAic.alrf;l eros~ier Calcalre grossler
...
+9.50
P. Schmitt, CFMS, 2005

selec
Workshop PLAXIS - Ecrans de soutemement

Choix des modules : exemple d'une paroi moulee experimentee
DE-placeme-nt (mm)
-24 -18 -12 -6 6 12 18 z

21
Terrassemenl itllt.ial
aoo 2'
<2200
't'
Alullion moo.mes 21
[
~ 18
~
15
12
0.820
Colcalre groa,;or
9.50
't'

Choix des modules : exemple d'une paroi moulee experimentee
2-' 18 -12 -6 6 12 1e 2-'
/
/
A.IIJ.,_,nl~'ll ,/ i
f1 OOMP /
LJ.'"''"f'.a / ..
:6/


Particularite d'un projet de soutemement
Dechargement
Dechargement/
Rechargement
Chargement + - - -
terrasol
se tee

La loi HSM dans PLAXIS permet :
,__;, Variation du module avec la profondeur I l'etat de contraintes
;, Distinction entre module de 1er chargement et celui de
decha rgement/ recha rgement
> Distinction entre comportements en cisaillement et celui en compression
-:> a
Plus apte reproduire le comportement d'un sol reel observe lors d'un essai
Caracterisation a l'aide de 4 principaux

para metres
] I[ ~ 101
> E 5 o,ret module deviatorique
fG~~ ~ Parameter< IGro..;:,a-;;~ter IThonMI Llllierr..= lh.t~a ]
secant de reference
Propo<ty u..r Yllllf
-c> Eoed,ret module oedometrique Stiffness
tangent de reference .,0 roi kNfm' l_ o.ooo
--;; Eur,n!f module de dechargement E....,,"'
kNfm' 0.000
e., kNfm' o.oaa

elasique de reference
goVrc:r (m) o.soao
> m parametre controlant la dependance
ten <\Sol
des modules avec l'etreinte
selec
Workshop PLAXIS- Ecrans de soutemement

Formulation de la loi HSM pour un sol sans cohesion (c' = 0)
E'50e.f ( (J"~ Jm
Ill
_ ref 0"1 ' Jm E50 -- E = Eref (J"~

( Pref
Eoed- Eoed - -
Pref
ur ur
(
P ref
)
P~' ~-------------
strain h)
~ terrasol
se tee

Formulation de la loi HSM pour une etreinte donnee
deviatoric stress
101-031
Qa -----------------------------------------~-$](~~!~~~
--- -------- failure lin_!l_
axial strain 1


Phase initiale : Procedure KO reservee au cas d'un multicouche horizontal.
Chargement gravitaire equivalent a
un KO = v/{1- v) + effets surconsolidation
eventuels
Procedure KO
Eft'ectiYe stresses
Extreme effective pri"qlal stress -336.80 kN/m 2
lerrasol
se tee
Principes de modelisation Sols

Inclinaisons de poussee/butee
La limitation des inclinaisons de

poussee/butee peut etre controlee
par des elements d'interface avec
Rinter = tan(t5)/tan( <p)
t5 = k.cp'cv ou cp'cv designe l'angle de

a
frottement interne l'etat critique, et
k pris generalement egal a 2/3 et
peut atteindre 1,0 pour les
parements en beton
Ne pas oublier qu'on a dans certains

cas <p'cv ::::; <p~
Article(s) de reference : 5.1.3.2 (2)- NF P 94 282

terrasol

se tee
Principes de modelisation : Ecran

Trois de types de modelisation possibles
Option 1 : epaisseur non materialisee
Option 2 : epaisseur materialisee, efforts inaccessibles
Option 3 : element plate souple EI/ 1000 et EA/1000 place a l'axe neutre
Option 3 Option 2 Option 1

Mixte Volumique Plate
(recommandee)
~ '"""'"I

Utilisation des elements plate
--------------------,
~
Property llklit l Value I

Material set
Identification lradier
Commen~
Colour RGBO, 0, 255
MaLerill1 type Elastic
Properties
Isotropic ~
End bearing 0 E =(EA)
EA 1 kN/m 5.000E6 eq A
EA 2 kN/m s (IJ~;::r:;
eq
, ~ -------- !N~ 21m _______ !!!4.:..2El _~
m
--------------------
I d G "0'"J r - - -
...;-- -
, d _A
eq - 12 EA
El ~
> G
eq
= Eeq
2(l+v)
w kN{m/m 12.00
\'(nu}
Ra~eigh
Rayleigh~
a
0.000
0.000
0.000
(GS')eq = i Geq Aeq
OK
s8lec F. Cuira- 2015 Page 20


Utilisation des elements plate
~
i'rope'ty l lk"dt IValue I

Material set
IdenUiication Jradier
Comments
Colour RGB 0, 0, 255
Mater1al type 8astic
Properties
Isotropic ~
End bearing D
EA, kN/m 5.000E6
EA2 kN/m 5 IJDJEIJ
El kNm 2 /m 104.2E3
m 0,51](}}
Cw.:::.:::.:::.:::.:::.:::.:::.::: .::: tE~.:::.:::.:::.:::.:::.::::: :i7Jo:. . --- yA poids surfacique

v (nu) 0.000
Rllyle~Qh .. 0.000
Rllyleigh p 0.000
setec
terrasol
F. Cuira- 2015
OK
---
Page 21

Utilisation des elements << plate >>
&
1'!--ty r~ lvk I
Material set
Identilication Jrodie<
Comments
Colour RGB 0, O, 255
Matonal type Elastic
Properties
Isotropic ~
End bearing D
EA, kN/m S.OOOE6
Heterogeneite (modele ax symetrique)
l?!----------------~----------------~~:;_Dc.:_-2----
El kNm 2/m 104.2E3
m 0 5(JJi)
1200
v (nu) 0.000
[ R.~ --------------- -a:ooo ~ _-- Amortissement (calcul dyna tnique)

I Ra~eigh P 0.000 1

se lee
Workshop PLAXIS - Ecrans de soutmement

Utilisation des elements << plate
Plaplanches
Liernes
EA1 = Eacier X Spalplanches (/ml)
Eacier X sliernes
EA = ----
2 Espacement
controle l'effet de voOte

Exemple d'une enceinte cylindrique
Lerra5-ol
Principes de modelisation Ancrages

Tirants
Partie libre : modelisee en elements de

barre n'interagissant pas avec le sol et reliant ",'"'.....
elastiquement le point de connexion avec Llibre~ ~-
l'ecran (A) et la tete de !'element representatif
du scellement (B) ( ou le rid eau secondaire
dans le cas d'un ancrage par centre rideau).
Partie scellee : modelisee en elements de

structure interagissant avec le sol, travaillant
generalement exclusivement en traction
(Embedded piles ou Geogrid). 11 est d'usage
de negliger la contribution mecanique du
coulis de scellement et ne tenir compte que de
la rigidite axiale de la barre des tirants

Principes de modelisation : Ancrages

Raideur apparente d'un buton
.... ----- ..... ..

,- .......
'' ,,"''
I
.,'
I
'
~------1
\ Buton ,'
.,,
I 'I I
I
I I
I
\ K _ ES I
I
I ~ - I
I
ehL I
I
''
I I
'I
'\
. I
.
'
II
I
'
I
\
\
\ I
I
I
.
I
I
I'
'
......... ..... . . __ __.. ......... ,,'
,'
', I
Cas particulier des butons << porteurs = > necessite de representer le

buton par des elements plate
~ terrasol
Principes de modelisation : Ancrages

Buton
L
L" =- K2 = Cf)
2
K =K
eq L
= 2ESL
eh
L
Systeme parfaitement symetrique

se tee
Principes de modelisation Ancrages

Buton
Ce systeme n'est pas symetrique = > la longueur utile >> equivalente

peut etre superieure ala longueur meme du buton ! ! !
terr.1sol
Principes de modelisation : Eau

~~> Rabattement de nappe = calcul d'ecoulement prealable
~~----
i
!
-1o.qoo
'~---~--n---44
se tee
Workshop PlAXIS - Ecrans de soutenement
Principes de modelisation : Eau

Attention aux frontieres hydrauliques
Adapter la largeur du module au rayon d'action de la fouille
. Toujours controler le caractere impermeable des interfaces
Plan de symetrie = frontiere fermee
Workshop PlAXIS- Ecrans de soutenement
Verifications ELU
1. stabilite generale
2. Defaut de butee
3. Resistance de la structure
4. Stabilite du fond de fouille
5. Equilibre vertical
6. Stabilite du massif d'ancrage (Kranz)
7. Resistance de l'ancrage
8. Stabilite hydraulique
Verifications ELS
1. Deplacements
2. Durabilite
3. Fluage des ancrages
F. Cuira - 2015 Page30

Workshop PLAXIS- Ecrans de soutEmement
Stabilite generale
Mecanisme de type
renard solide
Grand glissement -
instabilite d'ensemble
satec F. Cuira - 2015 Page 31
Stabilite generale
Mecanisme de type
Kranz
setec F. Cuira - 2015 Page32

Stabilite generale : par un calcul de type c-phi >> reduction
G + 1.3 Q
.........
........
....
......,.,,
....,......,
"'"
,,..
.........
.....
..,
u ..
-...
U.;OIII
En plus des ponderations ci-dessus, on doit justifier par un calcul c-q> reduction une securite
de 1,10 pour les ouvrages courants et 1,20 pour les ouvrages sensibles aux deplacements
~ terrasol
se tee- F. Cuira- 2015 Page 33
Stabilite locale : defaut de butee pour un ecran
Ecran auto-stable Ecran ancre
l erraso l

r-..;
I
I I
I ,.._,_
I
/
.(/ I
I
I t/
I
l \ I
I
I
I \
I J) I
I
I
_.... /
I \ ~
,...__ I
I
/
Buton en pied Buton en tete
se tee
F. Cuira - 2015 Page35
Butee mobilisee s butee limite I (Ya x Yb)
Phase provisoire 1,35 1,10

Phase definitive 1,35 1,40
Butee
mobilisee
Butee
limite ~ +<- - Poussee
~// (mobilisee)
.!'- - - - ' - - -----11.11...-- - . J
te r r.asol
selec
--~ Exemple de calage de la butee limite a l'aide de PLAXIS
1~-~;~a~~~-~---- -~--
setec
--- ---- --------------------H- -I- F. Cuira - 2015 Page37
~"';'. ............................................................ Butee.limite................. "'""'

-
~
~ - -~ - . ~ ; ~
i r/ p.q
;
:
-
l
...... . . . . . - ~
: /;: / +' 1
V.. ' : I
I;. J~ i
:
~
:
i
:
- .,.,. ~ , '' ,... ;' ., 0 --,.h ; ~...,,...,,,~-o.~ -nu j
! : ! :
l I
1 :1t::::::r:::::::: !
: : t :
i I j I
. .. .. . .
a l'aide de PLAXIS
~.
=> Exemple de calage de la butee limite
selec:
Resistance des elements de structure : paroi, tirants, clous etc ...
Ruine d'un ecran auto-stable Ruine d'un ecran ancre
I
Rupture
d'un buton .t/ I
I
I
I
I
Rupture I
d'un tirant ______

' ' "-
......
....... 1
/ Arrachement
d'un tirant

Valeur caracteristique des efforts Ek : obtenues sous G + 1, 1Q
Valeur de calcul ELU Ed (efforts ELU) = 1,35 x valeur caracteristique
. " On verifie que Ed < ~ calculee separement selon norme materiau
Mk avec G+1,10 Q
Md =1,35 Mk
Butee
mob ill see
1...:(, ___- Poussee

(mobilisee)
~ lerr.-ol
se tee
Resistance structurelle des ancrages
R
La resistance structurelle d'un tirant d'ancrage est ajustifier Pd<
-
___!_:!!__
selon l'inegalite ci-contre.
YRd
Le facteur partiel de modele YRd est pris egal a
1,00 pour les aciers de construction et de beton arme
1,05 pour les aciers de precontrainte dans le cas d'un tirant permanent
0,85 pour les aciers de precontrainte dans le cas d'un tirant provisoire ( < 2 ans)
La valeur de calcul de l'effort d'ancrage Pd est en multipliant par 1,35 la valeur
caracteristique de l'effort d'ancrage issu de PLAXIS sous G + 1,1Q
L'effort resistant Rt d est pris egal a
l'effort correspondant a
la limite elastique
pondere par 1,15 pour les aciers de beton arme et de precontrainte. Pour les
a
tirants en acier de construction, la valeur Rt,d est calculer selon I'EC3 (Partie 5)
a
Le taux de travail global des tirants est ainsi limite 60/o de la limite elastique
pour les tirants permanents en acier de precontrainte et 65% pour lesa
a
aciers de beton. Ce taux passe 75/o pour les tirants en acier de construction
et ceux de nature provisoire en acier de precontrainte
se tee
Justification des scellements
R a,d
a
La resistance l'arrachement d'un tirant scelle est ajustifier Pd<
-
selon l'inegalite ci-contre. YRd
Le facteur partiel de modele YRd est pris egal a
1,00 si la resistance du scellement est estimee par un essai d'arrachement
prealable (voir Annexe H.l)
1,40 minimum si la resistance du scellement est estimee par un modele de
calcul (voir Annexe H.1.2). Le recours a
de tels modeles n'est admis qu'en
phase de pre-dimensionnement.
La valeur de calcul de la resistance du scellement Ra d est prise egale sa valeur a
caracteristique Ra k ponderee par 1,10. La valeur de Ra k est calculee selon la
relation ci-dessous, ou Ram represenle les re!>iStances me'surees di:mS les essais.
I
~pou r n = 2 3 4
1.40 1,30 1,20 1,10 1,00
1,40 1,20 1,05 1,00 1,00
Equilibre ( ou stabilite) verticale
-~ verifier la porta nee de l'ecran en pointe => norme pieux (NF P 94 262)
:-:"? stabilite au soulevement d'un ecran soumis ades poussees verticales
~ Valider le choix des inclinaisons de poussee/butee
. . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
\ GJ)
11 I
se tee
Stabilite hydro-mecanique
> Le gradient hydraulique doit etre limite a --------. ---

---------
-----------
(y'fvw)/(1,35 X 1,10)
> La presence d'un gradient reduit
significativement la contrainte effective 1 I
I
verticale cote fouille, et done la butee I
I
disponible ; I
Pour y = 20 kN/m 3, un gradient moyen .-+-
im , la butee limite est proportionnelle a 1
I
I
(1-im) : I I
I I
L---------------------J
Gradient moyen
Butee limite avec ecoulement

100% 75% 50% 33% 0%
Butee limite sans ecoulement
~ l o rraol
sete c F. Cuira- 2015 Page46
Workshop PLAXIS - Parois clouees
Cas d'un soutenement par clouage
Forag~4>~
..
MUR DE SOUTENEMENT PAR CLOUAGE
( Methode par scellement de barres)
s 'i!' t e c

Etats limites ultimes
Instabilite generale (grand glissement)
Instabilite externe (massif cloue = bloc monolithique) Approche 3
Instabilite mixte (glissement dans le massif cloue)
Instabilite interne (defaillance des clous/parement) Approche 2
Etats limites de service
Deformations vis-a-vis des structures voisines
Durabilite (corrosion)
terrasol
se tee
F. Cuira- 20115
Page47
Workshop PLAXIS- Parois clouees

=> Approche 3 = calcul de type c-phi reduction
Toujours commencer par examiner la stabilite generale du site en phase initiale
. Ye'= y",= 1,25

UIJ "t"
Ycu = 1,40
.I
IIII ShodJt de ealcul: Blshoc
==> Msf ~ 1,10 pour ouvrage courant

=c? Msf ~ 1,20 pour ouvrage sensible aux deplacements
se tee
F. Cuira- 20115
Page48

, Ne pas oublier de limiter la resistance dans les elements structure
(comportement elasto-plastique des elements structure)
,.,,'l pll\ll)(
'Ycu = 1,40
,, I CRITERES DE RUPTURE I
'1) Barre : T < k
(r
( 2) Frottement sol-barre
Tn<7T.BL 8 .q 5
1,3) Reaction normale sol-barre
Stabilite mixte p < Pp
:4) Sol: T < C + (Jtg0
tE.!rra!i.ol

setec

Comparaison aux calculs analytiques >> : exemple
Sol homogene
c' = 4 kPa 10 m
q>' = 33
V= 20 kN/m 3
Clous
400 kN
Tacier =
Q5 = 115 kN/m

setec

Comparaison aux calculs << analytiques >> : exemple
Stabilite generale Stabilite mixte -

mecanisme classique
(1 seul bloc)

Comparaison aux calculs analytiques >> : exemple
..
Msf= F = 1,34
sot()c F. Cuira - 2015 Page 52


Comparaison aux calculs analytiques : exemple
Poussee
Butee
Mecanisme Schema
atrois blocs simplifie
~ tee<a>ol
sHtec

~ Comparaison aux calculs analytiques >> : exemple
--
Arc de',
spirale
ation
Sf!lf~C
F. Cuira- 2015
Page 54

Instabilite interne = approche 2 = calcul PLAXIS sous G + 1, 1Q puis
application de 1,35 sur les sollicitations obtenues
1 l Instabilite par perte d'adherence soljclou(s)
J) Instabilite par insuffisance de la resistance structurelle des clous
3) Instabilite due a la ruine du parement ou des dispositifs de liaison

Instabilite interne = approche 2 = calcul PLAXIS sous G + 1, 1Q puis
application de 1,35 sur les sollicitations obtenues
ev/2
"'i Presslon moyenne p0

p max a Jpo ~)
Ppmax = 1,5 Po (./
Sollicitation dans le parement : passage 20/30 - methode Clouterre 2002
se tee
terras.ol
F. Cuira- 2015
Page 56
Workshop PLAXIS - Ecrans de soutemement Terrasol 03/06/2015
Etude d'un soutemement en paroi mouh~e avec calcul d'ecoulement
L'objectif est le dimensionnement complet des soutemements provisoires d'une fouille

de 13,0 m de profondeur, realisee a l'abri de parois moulees de 60 cm d'epaisseur et
ancrees par trois lits de tirants.
2Sm
Remblais J
6m
-5,0 m/TN
13 m
11
I Llmons sableu~ J
Gm
Mamo-calcaires
Les calculs seront menes sous PLAXIS avec une loi de comportement HSM pour les
sols sableux, dont la caracterisation mecanique sera directement calee sur
!'exploitation d'un corpus d'essais geotechniques fourni en annexe. Une loi simple
sera utilisee pour les remblais et le substratum marno-calcaire (Mohr-Coulomb).
Les elements connus du modele geotechnique sont presentes dans le tableau
suivant:
ep. y lols c' cjl' KO E' V Eso ref Eurrof m Rr k
Ill Prer
[m] [kN/m
3
] comp. [kPa] [0] n [-] [MP a] [-] [MPa] [MPa] [-] [kPa] [kPa] [m/s]
Remblais 6.0 19.5 MC 0 30 0 0.50 25 0.3 - - - - - 1.00E-03
Sables
fins
13.0 21.0 HSM ? ? ? ? - - ? ? ? ? ? 1.00E-06
Llmons
sableux
6.0 21 .0 HSM 10 30 0 0.50 - - 65 195 0.5 100 0.9 1.00E-06
Marno-
calcaires
- 20.0 MC 25 35 0 0.43 200 0.3 - - - - - 1.00E-09
Tableau 1 : Synthese partielle du modele geotechnique
Les formations sont baignees par une nappe libre dont la surface piezometrique
s'etablit dans les remblais a la cote -5,0 m/TN .
A noter que pour les besoins pedagogiques de l'exercice, les formations sableuses
et limono-sableuses sont considerees moyennement permeables et de permeabilite
equivalente, tandis que le substratum marno-calcaire est suppose etanche.
1
Workshop PLAXIS - Ecrans de soutenement Terrasol 03/06/2015
Compte tenu de la dun~e attendue des travaux, et des permeabilites de calcul, toutes
les formations seront considerees drainees .
La fiche de la paroi est a justifier par le calcul PLAXIS.
La fouille devra necessairement etre maintenue par trois lits de tirants, dont les
caracteristiques principales sont precisees ci-apres :
Section d'acier : 0,0012 m2

Limite elastique fy =670 MPa
Module d'elasticite lineaire : E =210 GPa
Diametre de forage : Dd = 11 0 mm
Diametre de calcul du bulbe de scellement : Ds =a.Dd = 1, 15*11 0 = 126,5 mm
(pour des injections gravitaires- IGU - dans des sables denses)
=
Frottement unitaire mobilisable dans les sables : q5 350 kPa (IGU)
Les espacements horizontaux, l'inclinaison et la longueur libre des tirants sont a

determiner.
Une surcharge repartie de 20 kPa est retenue en phases provisoires de part et

d'autre de la fouille .
Le phasage de calcul est presente dans le tableau suivant :
Phase Action
0 Initialisation des contraintes (procedure KO)
1 Realisation de la paroi moulee
2 1ere passe d'excavation jusqu'a -2,5 m/TN
3 Activation du premier lit de tirants a -2,0 m/TN
4 2eme passe d'excavation jusqu'a -6,0 m/TN
5 Activation du second lit de tirants a -6,0 m/TN
6 3eme passe d'excavation jusqu'a -10,0 m/TN
7 Activation du troisieme lit de tirants a -9,5 m/TN
8 4eme passe d'excavation jusqu'au fond de fouille -13,0 m/TN
Tableau 2 : Phasage de ea/cut
2
Workshop PLAXIS - Ecrans de soutenement Terrasol 03/06/2015
ANNEXES
Corpus geotechnique :
Essais triaxiaux sur echantillon no1 (4 eprouvettes)

Essais triaxiaux sur echantillon no2 (4 eprouvettes)
3
PROCES VERBAL D'ESSAI
ESSAIS A L'APPAREIL TRIAXIAL DE REVOLUTION

Essai consolide draine : CD
NF P 94-074
Informations gfm~rales I Informations sur l'echantillon I
Dossier no : 13-55-0005a00 Mode de preh)vement : SC Sondage no : PDC-SC1
Chantier : RATP Date de prel(wement: 07/12/12 Profondeur : 15-50-15. 73m
Ligne14 Mode de conservation : El 5 Date d'essai : 04/02/13
no TEA120355 Numero d'identification: 13P0106 Dmax (mm):
Ouvrage: - Date de reception : 25/01/13
Client: TECHNOSOL Description : Sable marron avec blocs de gres
CaractMistiques des ~rouvettes Courbe Deviateur/Deformation et Variation Volumique/Deformation I

Initial 1 2 3 4 2000 - - EPROUVETTE 1
H mm 80.0 80.0 80.0 80 .0 - - EPROUVETTE 2
1800 -n-- - - EPROUVETTE 3
D mm 38.0 38.0 38.0 38 .0
1600 - - EPROUVETTE 4
w % 20.2 21 .1 18.9 18.0
(01400
c CRITERE (s'1-s'3)max
ph kglm3 2080 2065 2071 2097
pd kglm3 1731 1705 1742 1778
a.
~1200
-=
0::
e 0.56 0.58 0.55 0.52 iil10oo
f-
Sr % 97 98 93 93 ::;!;
> 800
ps estime
Volume cm
kg 1m3
3
27.0
90.7
27.0
90.7
27.0
90.7
27.0
90.7
w
0 600 .
~~-<> -
Fin de Consolidation 400
W Saluratlon % 19.8 20.3 18.8 17.9 200

ph kg/m3 2107 2098 2127 2145 0 .
pd kg/m3 1759 1744 1791 1819 0 5 10 15 20 25
DEFORMATION AXIALE (%)
e 0.54 0.55 0.51 0.48
3
!'!.Vs cm 1.4 2.1 2.5 2.1 5.0
I'!.Hs cm 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.06
4.0
m in
~
t100 0.03 0.34 0.08 0.08
~ 3.0
B % 94 88 99 93
~
W finale % 20.9 20.1 20.2 19.5 ~ 2.0
w
::::J
Resultats a 1.0
Pression Cellule kPa 146 241 399 507 ~
::::J 0.0
...J ~
Centre Pression kPa 802 804 795 800 0 5 10 15 20 25
>
z
-1.0
Vitesse cis. mm/mir 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085
0
(cr'1-cr'3)max kPa 516.2 754.5 1303.0 1783.5 f= -2 .0
::;!;
E(s"1-s"3)max % 5.3 6.9 6.7 6.2 ~ -3.0 .
U(s'1-s'3)max kPa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 >
-4 .0 :
-5 .0
DEFORMATION AXIALE (%)
Mode de sechage des materiaux : Q Etuvage a 105 oc D Etuvage a 50 oc
I
Obs6va6ons
Le Technicien charge de l'essai

TREFOUEL Floriane
Le Responsable du laboratoire
GUJLLEMAN Gyri/
PRV SOL 19-4 V01 Page 5/9

FUGRO GEOCONSULTING S.A.

NF P 94-074
Informations generales I Informations sur l'echantiflon I
Dossier no : 13-55-0005a00 Mode de pnHevement : SC Sondage no : PDC-SC1
Chantier : RATP Date de prelevement : 07/12/12 Profondeur: 15-50-15.73m
Ligne14 Mode de conservation : El 5 Date d'essai: 04/02/13
no TEA120355 Numero d'identification : 13P01 06 Dmax (mm):
Ouvrage: - Date de reception: 25/01/13
Client : TECHNOSOL Description : Sable marron avec blocs de gres
Enveloppe de MOHR-COULOMB
1800
- - EPROUVETIE 1
1600 - - EPROUVETIE 2
- - EPROUVETIE 3
"'
0..
::: 1400 - - EPROUVETIE 4
f-
~ 1200
LU
;;j 1000
<(
(f)
(3 800
LU
Cl
~ 600
z
~ 400
f-
z
8 200
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

CONTRAINTE NORMALE TOTALE ( kPa)

FUGRO GEOCONSULTING S.A.

NF P 94-074
Informations generales I Informations sur l'echantillon I
Dossier no : 13-55-0005a00 Mode de preh}vement : SC Sondage no: PDC-SC1
Chantier : RATP Date de preliwement: 07/12/12 Profondeur : 15-50-15. 73m
Ligne14 Mode de conservation : El 5 Date d'essai : 04/02/13
no TEA120355 Numero d'identification : 13P01 06 Dmax (mm):
Ouvrage:- Date de reception : 25/01/13
Client : TECHNOSOL Description : Sable marron avec blocs de gres
Diagramme de LAMBE
1400
SELON LE CRITERE (s'1-cr'3lmax
1200 cp' = 39 Degres
c'= 0 kPa
~1000 32 Degres
a=
"'
Q_
-"' t'o = 0 kPa
~BOO
-
N
':,l 600
~
'
Ul
"ii' 400
....
200
300 600 900 1200 1500 1BOO 2100
s' =(s'1 + s'3) /2 ( kPa)
Dlagramme de CAMBRIDGE
1400 SELON LE CRITERE (s'1-cr'3)max
1200
<p' = I 39 I Degres
C'= I 0 I kPa
10
~1000 .
N
:::::_ BOO
M
Ul
.:.- 600
Ul
11
.... 400
11
N
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1BOO 2100

p' =( s'1 + 2s'3 ) I 3 ( kPa)

~!bLON
Affaire n
r~'l(3re2
In dice Page n
e t LBborBtoire d'Essais
RATP-LIGNE 14
12 10 1126 A
ESSAI TRIAXIAL CD
Essai conforme ala Norme NF P 94- 074
Echantillon n ; Date de prelevement
Sondage n ; PDCSC2 Mode de prelevement ; Carottier 116 mm
Profondeur (m) : 19.60/20.10 Date d'essai 26 fevrier 2013
Prelevement (m) ; 19.60/19.70 Vitesse de cisaillement (~m/min) ; 20
Nature du materiau : Sable moyen vert
ObseNations :
0 35.50 mm Masse volumique des estimee gcm3

Caracteristiques de l'eprouvette
particules solides 2.69
H 73.00 mm mesuree gem"
Z.50
OtullctbrlelJqu"' 'niUaLea des ~prouvettas de sol
~
2.00
N" V pd, W; Sr1
a. "'-.
i / ........ ---.... ~ .......r- t--
v
3
cm gem" % % 1,50
~
1 72.3 1.61 19.5 78.6 " ~~
1. 00
....... .... ~
3
72.3
72.3
1.63
1.65
19.4
19.8
80.7
84.4 0. 50 f. ~~
......... ...
4 72.3 1.66 19.5 84.1
o.oo
1/{
0 2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20
I --+- 1 ~2 ~3 --+-4 [ Diilormatlon axlale (%)
N" C-tra.a'l.ltl,llqulleOI'IOlldttl dea iiprouvettes de aol

3.00
v. pd. w. He
2.00 ,., - l
I
i
'
3 3
cm gcm % mm
1.00
/
~N ...~. I
1 69.7 1.67 22.5 72.70 "~g 000
""'-,
:::.~
~ .
r - ~ ........ ..
2 71.5 1.65 23.4 72.20 -~ -1 ,00 .....,
3 71.1 1.68 22.5 71.80
~
> -200 ~
~ ~
-3.00
4 68.8 1.74 20.4 71.30 "--._ ........
400 I
-
-5.00
0
- 2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 1B
-
:!0
1 ~1 -- - 2 _._ 3 --- I D9formatlonaxlale (%)
N" Corool~tl.sllauos flnnlos dos 6Drouvottos do sol

VI pdf Wf
3 gcm3 %
cm
:f '"
~
-...
1 71.6 1.63 24.2
/
2
3
71.8
73.7
1.64
1.62
23.6
24.7
w
V
/
4 71.6 1.67 22.7
.... //..,
'"
0 o.oo oo ,., , . 2<0 ,., 100 ,.,
s'(MPa)
UNISeL
Gtfotec:hnique, Environnement
Affaire :
RATP-LIGNE 14
Affaire n" lndice Page n"
el Laboratolra d'Essnis
12 10 1126 A
ESSAI TRIAXIAL CD
Essai conforme a la Norme NF P 94 074
Echantillon n" Pate de prelevement :

Sondage n" : PDCSC2 Mode de prelevement : Carottier <l> 116 mm
Profondeur (m) : 19.60/20.10 Date d'essai 26 fevrier 2013
Prelevement (m) : 19.60/19.70 Vitesse de cisaillement (llmimin) : 20
Nature du materiau : Sable moyen vert
Observations :
0 35.50 mm Masse volumique des estimee gcm3

Caracteristiques de l'eprouvetle
H 73.00 mm particules solides 2.69 gcm-3
mesuree
Crlttlra de ruplure (ar-a3)max Param8tres de l'essal
N" s' I olmax N" cr, Cp T,.o
Mpa Mpa % Mpa Mpa Mn
1 0.459 0.309 5.12 1 0.150 0.300 5.00
2 0.697 0.447 4.49 2 0.250 0.300
3 1.151 0.751 7.05 3 0.400 0.300
4 1.574 1.024 6.55 4 0.550 0.300
1.600 -
7
1$400 - /
.
~
1 200 L
1
1iE 1 000
0.800
v Vf-'" --....
~
i -- -
;?
- !'-.. I~
?t
0.600
~ I"' \
Resultats d'essai
0.400
0200
,/ r,""'- '-
~
N" Cohesion Angle de frollement 0.000
0000
/1
0200
I
0.400
I \
0600 0800 1 000
\
1.200 1,400 1,600 1 BOO
\2,000 2200 2400
C' 1Mpa) $(")
0.000 40
Contralnte narmale elfective (MPa)

Ecrans de soutenement
Exemple d'une fouille tirantee
Manuel HOCDE
Terrasol
se tee
Juin 2015 Page 1
Workshop Plaxis - Fouille tirantee
1. Construction du modele
Dimensionnement des soutemements d'une fouille tirantee- Contexte
-5,0 miTN
Limons sableux
Inconnues du probleme 6m
-l
Marno-calcair'es
Remblais
I oj Mobr-Coulomb
c'-0 kPal<p' -30
E' = 25 MP a I v =0,3
k = 1 103 mls
Sables fins
=
l..lliJ::iSM
c' I <p'l 'I'
=
Esoref Eoedref 3 X Ellr'
k = 1.10_. mls
Llmons sableux
Esoref
l2LHS.M
c' I <p' I 'I'
=Eoedref =3 X Eur'er
k=110.. mls
l Marno-calcaires
I oj Mohr-Coulomb
c' = 25 kPa I q>' - 35
E' = 200 MPa I v = 0 3
k = 1.109 mls '
t~rra!>ol
se tee
M. Hocde- 2015 Page2
Rappel sur loi de comportement HSM (hardening soil model)
Loi de comportement elasto-plastique hyperbolique ecrouissage isotrope et a
deviatorique (critere de rupture Mohr-Coulomb), avec dependance des
modules a l'etreinte (cr3) et differenciation des modules de ter chargement
puis de dechargement/rechargement
deviatoric stress Formulation loi HSM :
lo,-o,l (J - (J _ _f"J
....;.,.--_
q. J 3- a+ b El
q,
a == 2. b = 1 R == C(Jt - (J3) f
El (0" 1 - 0'3 ) 1111 f (O't - 0'3)u/t
5 [}
Rr
= li;(l - 2)
La dependance du module a o3 s'exprime comme :
axial slraln - 1 , m
3)
Eso = Eso - - ref(CJ
Pref
L'utilisation d'une loi HSM pour modeliser le comportement d'un sol necessite le calage des
~
setec
'"".'"'
parametres : E50 ref et Eu/ef, Rt, m, 1p ainsi que les parametres necessaires la definition
du critere Mohr-Coulomb c' '
~~~-------------------
M. Hocde- 2015
a
....---
Page3
Choix des parametres de sol - parametres de cisaillement
A partir de !'exploitation d'essais triaxiaux consolides-draines (3 essais)
Determination du couple c' I <p'

Projetction dans diagramme de Lambe (s', t=t')
1.2 . . -- - - - - - - - -- - - -
0.2
o r--~-,--~-~-~-~--~-~~
0 0.2 0.4 06 0.8 1.2 1.4 16 18
s' (o'1 +o'3)/2
(jl' = 39,8' I c' = 0 kPa

dans la plage de contraintes a3 E [0- 550 kPa]
se le( M. Hocde- 2015 Page4

Choix des parametres de sol - Modules de deformation
Calage direct a partir de !'exploitation d'essais triaxiaux consolides-draines
Exemple : Sable fin, echantillon 1 - eprouvette 3 => o3 = 399 kPa
2000
EP3 - a'3 =399 kPa
0.06
1500
i~ /:>~;::~~:,.- ....,,"'"' ...... 0.04

_ _j
~ I
i [:'/ . . 0.02
r a= 1/Ei
-~ 500 : - -bans~ re-~aomaine
i!!
de-
deformation << utile , : ~1% -
t b= /q' lt .
5% (pie du deviateur) a
0.00
0
M ~ ~ ~ 1M 1~ 1~
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
t, y = 06223x+ 0 0081
Deformation axiale 1 (%) R2 = 0.9889
Eprouvette 3
q'ult = 1/0,62 = 1610 kPa Ei = 1/0,008 = 123,4 MPa

q't = 1300 kPa =
R, = q'tf q'ult 0,81
= 73,4 MPa
terra5ol
se tee M. Hocde- 2015

Et E50
Page5
Exemple: Sable fin, echantillon 1- eprouvette 3 => o3 = 399 kPa
1600
Pour verifier le choix des parametres, on

1400
superpose !'hyperbole definie par les parametres
a, b et les resultats d'essai q' et E sur la courbe 1200
d'essai (formulation HSM) :
"ii 1000
0.
.....
~
~ 800
On peut egalement simuler l'essai triaxial sur

PI.AXIS (pointilles verts)
~
i
~
200
0.0 20
--f
0 ~--~--~--~--~----~~
~.0 60 BO 100 120 140 160
Deformation axiale 1 (%)
EprOliVette 3
-verification loi hyperbolique EP3
- .... Simulation essai sous PLAXIS

se lee
c m
Expression de la dependance du module secant a 50% du _ ref(
0'3 +--
tan qJ )
deviateur max. vis-a-vis de l'etreinte o3 (formulation loi HSM) : E50- 8 50 c
C m P1e[ +tan qJ
Ere{_ E (Pref +tan qJ) Le calage des parametres E50 ref et m est etabli a
50 - 50 c partir d'une regression en puissance sur une
0'3 +tan qJ correlation log - log
Pour le cas teste on trouve ainsi :
Soit
E50 rer = 39,2 MPa et m= 0,42

torra5ool
setec
Choix des parametres de sol - angle de dilatance
A partir de !'exploitation d'essais triaxiaux consolides-draines (1 echantillon)
Determination de l'angle de dilatance 111
0.05
~ 0.04 '
- - - - - - - - - --1
l- pente = 2.sin ljJ/(1-sin ljJ)
~
u
0.03 +-+-..........._._
.E 0.02
.iZ
g 0,01 -1-------,.-p~"""'""-----------
~ 0.00 +.r..-r~rxa......~;...-'---.----.---..----..----.
E o. 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
~ 0.0 1 +-- - - - -
0 -002 +-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - -
-0.03 +-- - - - -
004
-005
Deformation axiale 1
+ ECH3 sig'3 =399 kPa - Simulation PLAXIS
L ljJ=10,9 J l lV =11,8
~ tonsol
setec M. Hocde- 2015 PageB

Synthese geotechnique retenue
ep. y lols c' 'I' ojJ KO E' V Eso'er E,,'" m Pref R, k

[rrj [kN/ni'] comp. ]kPa] ['] ['] I-I [MPa] 1-1 [MPa[ [MPa[ [-[ [kPa[ [kPa) fm's]
Remblais 50 19 5 MC 0 30 0 0 50 25 03 - 1 OOE-03
Sables fins 13 0 21 0 HSM 0 40 11 0 36 - 40 120 0.42 100 0.85 1 OOE-06
Limons sableux 60 21 0 HSM 10 30 0 0.50 65 195 05 100 0.9 1 OOE-06
Substratum
marno-calcaire
20.0 MC 25 35 0 0,43 200 03 - 1 OOE-09
terra~ol
se tee M. Hacde- 2015 Page9
Modelisation des parois moulees
Modelisation par elements plate (comportement elastique)
Ep. = 0,6 m
E.A = 20 GPa * 0,6 m2/ml = 12,0E6 kN/m/ml
E.l = 20 GP * ,6 11 3/ 12 rn4/'m~E m2 m/ml
w = 25 kN/m3 * 0,6 m2/ml = 15,0 kN/m/ml
Coherent vis-a-vis de la justification de l'equilibre vertical, mais

conservateur vis-a-vis des tassements de la paroi :
!!,a= (Ybeton-Y501 )*epaisseur paroi (par ml)
Ancrage de 3<1> dans les sables inferieurs (1,5 m), a la cote -19,5 mjTN
Astuce : introduction d'un element plate

articule a la base de la paroi (ep. paroi)=>
maitrise du poinc;onnement du sol
d'ancrage
( )
Prolongement des interfaces => limitation
des effets de bord
se tee M. Hocde- 2015 Page 10

Estimation des longueurs libre des ancrages
En premiere approche : fonction des cones de poussee (coin de Coulomb)
Longueurs libres :
elements node-to-node (raideur axiale)
Espacements horizontaux des

tirants:
- 2,0 m premiere file
- 1,5 m 2eme et 3eme file
(n/4 + c.p/2) Hypothese de pnkontrainte a
60% de la limite elastique des
aciers:
Soit P = 0,6 * 670 MPa * 0,0012 m 2
~ P = 480 kN par triant

M. Hacde- 2015 Page 11
se tee
Conditions aux limites et maillage
L = 250 m
.,
1
... ....
~
~~
~
2 450 elements
20 249 noeuds
raflinement progressif a l'aKe de la fouJIIe
M. Hacde- 2015 Page 12

Workshop Plaxis- Fouille tirantee
2. Exploitation des resultats

Verification de la stabilite generale - calcul c/phi reduction sur derniere
phase
Affichage des deplacements incrementaux => permet la visualisation du mecanisme
de rupture
IMsf - 1 ,5 ~ Stabilite globale assuree vis-a-vis du risque de grand ,.,
I I
glissement
.'".,
090
""
"'
010
...
00.
os~
oso
.,."'.,
0<0
"'
020
0 I!.
010
"'
000
terra!iol
se tee M. Hocde- 2015 Page13

Verification de la stabilite hydraulique du fond de fouille
La stabilite hydraulique est pilotee par l'action du gradient hydraulique
moyen Cimoy) qui se developpe le long de la fiche
On cherche:
Regime d'ecoulemerit moyen :
~ (Y- Yw)
Force d'tkoulement
(action) *1,35
...
./tJJ
Force stabilisatrice
(resistance) I 1,1
gradient moyen imoy = L\H/ L\z Qui se traduit par :

..................
(i~~~} ~::_{Y.- y w> rY.>
Groundwillcr h11d
-., . . -...... ; ;~- .. -
Finalement: imoy *1,35*1,1 ={(13-11)/7,5}*1,35*1,1 = 0,35 *1,35*1,1 gradient
Et ic = (21-10)/10 = 1,1 ~ imoy :5 ic critique

1.:.
~ t errc1so l
M. Hocde- 2015 Page 14

se lee
2. Exploitation des nsultats

Verification de la stabilite mecanique de la fiche
Dans le cas ou les deux ecrans sont suffisamment eloignes l'un de l'autre
Butee
Ecrans suffisamment eloignes l'un de l'autre ~Poussee
Absence d'interaction des massifs en (mobilisee)
poussee
Pour une situation transitoire on cherche : Buteemobilisable *1,35 ~ Buteemobilisee/1,1

(ponderation sur l'action) (ponderation sur la resistance)
Soit: ButeemobilisablefButeemobilisee ~ 1,35*1,1=1,5
Remarque : dans le cas de fouilles etroites Cl-fiche > 1roumef2), il Y a

interaction des massifs en poussee et l'on ne sait pas correctement calculer
le terme de resistance (butee mobilisable)
lerra!>o l

Rapports de butees
Dans le cas ou l'on peut negliger !'interaction entre coins de butee
Beffectlvement mobllls6e I Btotale moblllsable
(ecrans suffisamment eloignes)
-135 ~ - ~- Construction analytique classique : PP= a'v,th.*KpY + Kpc*c'

...
-14.5
Attention a !'influence du gradient !
~15 5
{ -165
t -175 .
~
-1a s
-20 5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
presslon des terres sur la parol (kPa/ml)
- Bul.3e mobihsee, resultaffi PLAXIS GtoUndWOIII head
Rappel: gradient moyen !,nay= /::;.H/f"...z
se tee
M. Hocde - 2015
Page 16
2. Exploitation des nsultats

----- - - ------.
Profil de pressions interstitielles Rapports de butees Construction analytique
sur la hauteur de fiche, u(z) BeneeUvemenl mobitrsee I Brotale moblllsable << corrigee du gradient :
-13 5
-14 5
ou
-15 5 ,
a v,reel = av,th. - ureel.
i -165
t -17 5
3 Finalement, le rapport de
-18 5
butees est verifie avec :
-19 5 f5 =
1,8 > 1,5
(phase transitoire)
-20 5
25 50 75 100 125 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
press Ion des terTes eur la parol (kPalml) presslon des lenes sur la parol (kPalml)
- Bul&e mobilises, resultals PLAXIS
- - - u hydrostatique - um>X - Butee mobilisable, solution analytique (avec prise en compte du gradient)
BulBe mobihsable, solution analylique (sans prise en compte du gradient)
lerra!>ol
setec
2. Exploitation des nsu ltats

Remarque : la contrainte verticale effective a !'interface sol/PM subit l'effet de
l'entralnement de l'ecran
Evolution de la contrainte verticlae
effective a'v(z)
-130
-140
ll
-150
-160
[
!-170
~
~
-180
-190
20 40 so eo
-'--'---'-- J
100 120 140 160 1so 200
a'v{z)
Cette perturbation s'estompe progressivement; la contrainte - a'v,Lh =Y'z
verticale effective retrouve un profil theorique d'evolution en - - o'v avec gradient a mi-fouille
a
fonction de la prof. environ 5 m de l'axe de la PM -
---------
a'v avec gradienl, a l'inlerface
terrno;.ol
se tee
2. Exploitation des resu ltats

Admissibilite des efforts dans la paroi
Extraction des courbes enveloppe
Moments Effort tranchant Effort normal
-u- -
i i ~ ....
l l l - 1115
~ ~
-t ~ s
14-5
185
~ '"''"'"' IMimax = 335 kN.m/ml _ lVI max = 235 kN/ml IN I max = 610 kN/ml

Admissibilite des efforts dans les ancrages
Verification des scellements vis-a-vis de l'arrachement
Extraction de l'effort normal en tete de scellement
Exemple du tirant le plus sollicite (T3)
Traction de service T 5 = 490 kN
Axial forces N )scaled up 0.0200 limes)

A confronter a:
Maximum value= 489.5 kNim (Eiemeol 9 al Node 20240)
Traction ultime Tu= n*CD*L.*q.
~ rr * 0,127 m* 7 m* 350 kPa = 975 kN
sel<~c
M. Hocde- 2015
Page 20

Admissibilite des efforts dans les ancrages
Verification structurelle des aciers
Determination de la contrainte de traction dans les aciers - Exemple du tirant le plus

sollicite (T3)
at = Nmax * esp. hor. I Sa
- L'espacement horizontal des tirants de la derniere file est de 1,5 m
- La section d'acier est de 1200 mm 2
- Limite elastique des aciers vaut fv = 670 MPa

at = 365 kN/ml * 1,5 m I 0,0012 m ~ at =453 MPa 2
Cela correspond a un travail des aciers les plus fortement sollicites a hauteur de 68% de leur
limite elastique. Cette valeur est acceptable pour des elements provisoires Cot< 75% fv)
(On remarque que !'increment de contrainte par rapport a la tension de precontrainte imposee est faible, de
l'ordre de 8%)
terra!i.o l

Admissibilite des deformations - deflection de la paroi moulee
Deformee de la paroi
En tete ux,max "' 7 mm

25
En ventre ux,max "' 22 mm
~g-as
t
=> Hfouille / Ux,max IV 590
oa-105 -
~
-125
-145 1--+--1
u_,;(mm)
- Deplacemenlshonzonlauxderecran


Admissibilite des deformations- tassements
Profil de tassements en phase finale

Distance a la fouille (m)
00 10.0 20.0 30 0 40.0 50,0 60,0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100,0
- Tassements en surface - Tassements a !'interface Remblais/Sables
En phase finale : sabsoru = uy,max "' 8 mm (20 m en amont de l'axe de la paroi)

Maillage insuffisamment taffine dans les Attention aux distorsions !
remblais
Entre 15 et 30 m de la fouille, les tassements differentiels

a !'interfaceremblais/sables (niveau probable d'ancrage
des fondations de mitoyens) sont tres importants :
sdifferentiel "' 5/1000
~ '"""'0'
se tee

Admissibilite des deformations- tassements
Analyse de !'evolution des deplacements verticaux au point de tassement maximum a !'interface
remblais/sables :
(33,7 ; -65)
Evolution des deplacements verticaux
2.0
Tolal displacements u!f !scaled up 500 Limes) o.o

f\.b.>Jmum v~lue = -0 09375'10"3 m
Minimumv.:~lue =-7 523'10-l m -2.0 -----
E
!. -4.0
Le dechargement de la fouille et les phases de
mises en tension provoquent des soulevements -6.0
jusqu'a !'excavation de la troisieme passe de

terrassements (phase 6) -8.0 1------ - - - - - - - - - -
-lOO
Phasedecatcul


Admissibilite des deformations - tassements
Effet de la precontrainte dans les tirants sur le profil de tassements
Avec precontrainte reduite Prect. = O,S*Psoit 30%.fyet sans precontrainte dans les tirants
Profil de tassements en phase finale- Effet de la precontrainte

Distance 8 la foullle (m)
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60 ,0 70 0 80. 0 90.0 100.0
e.5. 15.0
20,0
25 .0
30 0
- Avec Pnko11trainte a 60%*fy - Precontrainte reduite a Pred = P/2 (30%fy) - - Sans pnkontrainte dansles tirants

Verification de la portance des parois moulees
Effort normal
Effort normal croissant : le sol charge la plaque

Inversion de pente : le sol resiste (pas d'entralnement de
la paroi) = > frottement << positif
On verifie que l'effort axial a la base

de la paroi communique aux sols
d'ancrage une contrainte compatible
F\Jint neutre avec leur taux de travail.
En de<;a du point neutre, il est possible

de comptabiliser le terme de
resistance en frottement le long de la
paroi dans le calcul de l'equilibre
vertical.
terra~ol
se tee

Verification de la portance des parois moulees
Norme NF P 94-282 : mobilisation du terrain Fd inferieure a la valeur de calcul de

la charge de fluage de compression Re ;er ;d' soit :
Fd::;; Rc;cr;d
..
calcul PLAX1s
Fd (kN'rrl) 325
R - Rccrk
. , , + 0 , 7 Rs.k
- 0 , 5 Rbk
c;cr;d - -Y-- - Y E'quolibre analytoque (NF P 94-262)
er er couche d'ancrage lirrnns seblewc
kp 1.3
pr (kPa) 3soo
0,5 X qh:bk X Ab+ 0,7 X :E 1 As:tqs:l:k Ab (1112) 0.6
hallteur frotlanle (~
y(r qs sables (kPa) 60
perim Frottant (m'ni) 1.2
ycr 1.1
0,5 X qb X Ab + 0,7 X :E 1 A,,1q,,1 yR;d1 1.15
yR;d2 1.1
Ycr X Yn;dl X YR;d1 as
Qp 9B1
i X kp X pi" X Ab+ 0,7 X (As;sables_sup X qs:sables sup + As;sables_lnf X qs;sables. Rc:cr:d (kN'rrl) 9B1
Fd ~ Rccr ;d 1
ytr X yR;dl X yR;d2 '*
202'..
La condition est ici veriMe avec simple prise en compte du terme de pointe. La
I!
- - ; , terr.asol
a
contrainte la base de la paroi est de 325 kN I 0,6 m 2 = 542 kPa.
5etec
M. Hocde-2016 Page27

Plaxis - 2D

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

Plaxis - 2D

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Introduction to Plaxis 20

~ essential for geotechnical professionals

Plaxis 20 Input Modes

Definition of soil stratigraphy Definition of structural

Creation of the FE mesh

MESH WATER LEVELS STAGED CONSTRUCTION

~ essential for geotechnical professionals

Model and Selection explorer

of objects - Cfj Bo<ehoies

11979> _phase Phase_2

Borehole 1 Borehole 2 Borehole 3 Borehole 4

~ essential for geotechnical professionals

Materials Define the material

Available materials in this project Define new material

Plaxis Input- materials

1'--+I'- -------rr-- Copy material sets between

~ essential for geotechnical professionals

Drag-and-drop to subsoil model or borehole to assign materials

Snapping options 5 Create paint load

Create point -------+ ""'il createfixed-endanrnor

lil Create soil p o l y g o n - - - - - - - - - - ~... Create line load

er.. t~ >Oi r..:~ ~~ Create line displacement

"'0 Create connection

/ createoroundwaterflowbc u ..,. 1>0111"'1 ....

..v.. Create node-to-flode anchor

~ essential for geotechnical professionals

Default Boundary Conditions

Default boundary conditions are -I"'. I'"'

All displacements fixed for the

for lateral surfaces of the soil

Prescribed displacement surfaces

Generated by clicking the Structure [r ,.

~ essential for geotechnical professionals

The Mesh Mode

Mesh generation Plaxis 20

Green = refined, lighter= finer

Global water level

Changes can be made through

~ essential for geotechnical professionals

The Staged Construct on Mode

~ essential for geotechnical professionals

Initial water conditions I initial pore pressures

Initial geometry configuration I initial stresses

Calculation phase definition

Insert phase Define phase settings

I Calculation type indicator

Calculation status indicator - Initial phase [InitiaiPhase] :z: [5 1

0 to be calculated Phase_l [Phase_!] . . [9 ~

~ essential for geotechnical professionals

Phase settings .. define

Phase settings - additional functionality

Structura elements in PLAXIS

~ essential for geotechnical professionals

Structura elements in PLAXIS

Embedded beam rows (as of 20 2012)

geotextile wall anchored wall cofferdam

3 or 5 noded line elements

Element thickness d= h=~12 El (control parameter!)

Plates I shells - elasto-plastic behaviour

~ essential for geotechnical professionals

Plates I shells - M-K diagrams (new in 2015)

EA, kll/m 20.00E6

~--_I--- -~~- -~~Jl

~--_I--- -- -Jl

= _ :._.- UI,; ;.__._ : I :.. .- - - -;}

..,_ I; ""8: ~:~~ _I' r - - _d l 30, 8.5!