Comparison Between Plaxis and Conventional Method

11 Broadway, Suite 410
New York, NY 10004

Tel: 212 627 3366 U RBAN T ECH
Fax: 212 627 3833
Memo
To: Garcia Moreno, Jose Juan
From: Fang Fang, PE
CC: Wei Wang, Ph.D.,PE
Date: October 31st, 2018
Re: Comparison between Plaxis and conventional method
As per 3rd Track Contractors Request, UrbanTech and its sub-consultant MRCE performed
an in-depth analysis of the proposed Doublewal system to study the mechanical behavior of the
Doublewal system under combined dead and live loads.
Both classic/conventional analysis method and nonlinear finite element method are used for
this study. The two results from analysis methods are compared to identify potential shortcomings of
the classical/conventional analysis method.
For classical analysis method, the soil pressure is calculated per Coulomb theory. The
distribution and the magnitude of lateral soil pressure is proportioned based on the vertical soil
pressure and the active lateral pressure coefficient Ka. The non-linear F.E. analysis method is
performed by MRCE using Plaxis 3D. A typical 8-foot strip is considered in FE analysis, assuming
the embankment is infinitely long with uniform strip train loads applied to the entire length of the
railroad embankment. The model accounts for nonlinear behavior of soil and soil-structure interaction
as well as the construction sequence of the DoubleWal.
Both of the train load is calculated based on maximum Cooper E80 design load, uniformly
distributed along the 8’-6” tracks. The maximum axle load of 80 kips with minimum spacing of 5ft is
considered in the calculation, the equivalent surface load is 80/(5*8.5)=1.882 ksf. Total of three tracks
are considered in the calculation. Multiple track reduction factor is considered, i.e. 100% track loads
for two of the three tracks, and design load for one of the three tracks is reduced by a factor of 50%
per AREMA.
In the conventional method, the lateral soil pressures on doublewal units are calculated using the
following formula:
∗ ∗
Where:
- soil density
– depth of soil
– surcharge per calculated per AASHTO 5.5.2 and 5.8.12
– Active soil pressure coefficient
1
Z:\2568 - LIRR 3rd Track\Tasks\2568 - 6 - Retaining wall - DoubleWal\outgoing\20181031 UT report\Professional Memo.docx
Analysis Summary
Total Horizontal Force (Kip/Ft) Total Vertical FS For Sliding
Force (Kip/Ft) (For 0.55 Friction Factor)
Excel 11.54 32.4 1.56
GEO5 11.02 33.5 1.69
Plaxis 2D 9.58 33.4 1.93
In addition, software GEO 5 is used to compute the global slope stability of the system. The
result from GEO 5 is in good agreement with that obtained from Plaxis 2D and 3D analysis. When
soil in front of the DoubleWal is assumed to be level and align with bottom of concrete pad, the factor
of safety for global stability is 1.02 per Plaxis 2D and 1.14 per Plaxis 3D. Analyses using GEO 5 yield
factors of safety varying from 1.02 to 1.25 per several well established methods.
Based on the above, we conclude that conventional analysis methods provide reliable
results when compared with non-linear finite element analysis. Therefore, it is adequate for the
purpose of designing DoubleWal.
 Page 2
Track Locations Surcharge loads properties
Distance to centerline Tie width 8.50 ft Soil density 105 pcf
Track
(ft) E‐80 load 80.00 kip Soil friction 38 deg
1 19.75 80k/5ft 16.00 kip/ft Soil/wall fri. 21.33 deg
2 38.25 Total width 41.00 ft Wall base 10 ft
3 52.25 Uniform load 1.17 ksf Wall height 20.5 ft
Wall density 115 pcf
for last block:
soil density 100 pcf
soil friction 30 deg
Checking
overturning
overturning moment 85.63 kip*ft/ft
resisting moment 224.56 kip*ft/ft
factor of safety for overturning 2.62
Bearing
Total weight of block 23.29 kip/ft
Additional w. of top soil 5.09 kip/ft
Additional vert. surcharge 4.02 kip/ft
Total Norm. force 32.40 kip/ft
Total bearing pressure 3.24 ksf
Sliding
Base friction 29.00 deg fri. co 0.55
Total friction 17.96 kip/ft
Total horizontal load 11.54 kip/ft
Factor of safety for sliding 1.56
UrbanTech 3rd Track DoubleWal
11 Broadway Suite 410 GEO 5 check for sta. 112+00
New York, NY 10004
Prefab wall analysis

Input data
Project
Date : 10/15/2018
Settings
USA - Safety factor
Materials and standards
Concrete structures : ACI 318-11
Wall analysis
Active earth pressure calculation : Coulomb
Passive earth pressure calculation : Mazindrani (Rankine)
Earthquake analysis : Mononobe-Okabe
Shape of earth wedge : Calculate as skew
Allowable eccentricity : 0.333
Verification methodology : Safety factors (ASD)
Safety factors
Permanent design situation
Safety factor for overturning : SFo = 1.50 [–]
Safety factor for sliding resistance : SFs = 1.50 [–]
Safety factor for bearing capacity : SFb = 2.00 [–]
Safety factor for sliding along geo-reinforcement : SFsr = 1.50 [–]
Geometry of structure
Slope of wall = 0.00 °
Width Height Offset Offs.(L) Offs.(R) Self w. Friction Cohesion Shear bear.cap.
No.
b [ft] h [ft] k [ft] o1 [ft] o2 [ft] [pcf] [–] [psf] Rs [lbf/ft]
6 3.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 115.00 0.533 0.0 0.00
5 6.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 115.00 0.533 0.0 0.00
4 14.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 115.00 0.533 0.0 0.00
3 12.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 115.00 0.533 0.0 0.00
2 10.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 115.00 0.533 0.0 0.00
1 10.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 115.00 - - -
Note: Blocks are ordered from bottom to the top
1
[GEO5 - Prefab Wall | version 5.2018.49.0 | hardware key 9585 / 1 | UrbanTech Consulting Engg. | Copyright © 2018 Fine spol. s r.o. All Rights Reserved | www.finesoftware.eu]
[Gintegro, LLC | 201.204.9560| info@gintegro.com| www.gintegro.com]
New York, NY 10004
Name : Geometry Stage - analysis : 1 - 0
3.00
1.50
6
6.00 4.00
5
14.00 4.00 15.50

4
20.50
12.00 4.00
3 10.00
2.00
2
5.00 5.00
10.00
1
Basic soil parameters

jef cef g gsu d
No. Name Pattern
[°] [psf] [pcf] [pcf] [°]
1 embankment 32.00 150.0 120.00 57.50 21.33
2 crushed stone 38.00 0.0 105.00 42.50 25.30
3 existing fill 30.00 100.0 100.00 42.50 20.00
4 sand 32.00 10.0 115.00 57.50 21.33
All soils are considered as cohesionless for at rest pressure analysis.
Foundation
Type of foundation : soil from geological profile
Terrain profile
Terrain behind the structure is flat.
Water influence
Ground water table is located below the structure.
2
New York, NY 10004
Input surface surcharges
Surcharge Mag.1 Mag.2 Ord.x Length Depth
No. Action
new change [lbf/ft2] [lbf/ft2] x [ft] l [ft] z [ft]
1 Yes permanent 1882.00 12.50 8.50 on terrain
No. Name
1 1
2 2
3 3
Name : Surcharge Stage - analysis : 1 - 0
1882.0 1882.0
941.0
6
12.50 31.00
8.50 45.00 8.50 8.50
5
4
20.50
3
2
Resistance on front face of the structure

Resistance on front face of the structure is not considered.
Settings of the stage of construction

Design situation : permanent
Verification No. 1
Active pressure behind the structure - partial results
Layer Thickness a jd cd g dd Ka Comment
No. [ft] [°] [°] [psf] [pcf] [°]
1 1.50 26.00 38.00 0.0 105.00 38.00 0.543
2 4.00 26.00 38.00 0.0 105.00 38.00 0.543
3
New York, NY 10004
Layer Thickness a jd cd g dd Ka Comment

No. [ft] [°] [°] [psf] [pcf] [°]
3 4.00 0.00 38.00 0.0 105.00 25.30 0.217
4 4.00 0.00 38.00 0.0 105.00 25.30 0.217
5 2.00 0.00 38.00 0.0 105.00 25.30 0.217
6 5.00 0.00 30.00 100.0 100.00 20.00 0.297
Active pressure distribution behind the structure (without surcharge)
Layer Start [ft] sZ sW Pressure Hor. comp. Vert. comp.
No. End [ft] [psf] [psf] [psf] [psf] [psf]
0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1
1.50 157.5 0.0 85.5 37.5 76.8
1.50 157.5 0.0 85.5 37.5 76.8
2
5.50 577.5 0.0 313.4 137.4 281.7
5.50 577.5 0.0 125.2 113.2 53.5
3
9.50 997.5 0.0 216.2 195.5 92.4
9.50 997.5 0.0 216.2 195.5 92.4
4
13.50 1417.5 0.0 307.3 277.8 131.3
13.50 1417.5 0.0 307.3 277.8 131.3
5
15.50 1627.5 0.0 352.8 319.0 150.8
15.50 1627.5 0.0 385.8 362.5 132.0
6
20.50 2127.5 0.0 534.5 502.2 182.8
Pressure profile due to surcharge - 1
Point Depth Hor. comp. Vert. comp.
No. [ft] [psf] [psf]
1 0.00 0.0 0.0
2 0.00 0.0 0.0
3 1.50 0.0 0.0
4 3.27 0.0 0.0
5 3.27 183.8 376.9
6 5.50 174.9 358.5
7 5.50 357.7 169.1
8 9.50 319.9 151.2
9 9.50 0.0 12.3
10 9.50 319.9 151.2
11 13.50 282.2 133.4
12 13.50 0.0 10.8
13 13.50 282.2 133.4
14 15.50 263.3 124.5
15 15.50 375.2 136.6
16 20.50 296.7 108.0
1 0.00 0.0 0.0
4
New York, NY 10004

2 0.00 0.0 0.0
3 1.50 0.0 0.0
4 3.27 0.0 0.0
5 5.50 0.0 0.0
6 9.50 0.0 0.0
7 9.50 0.0 0.0
8 13.50 0.0 0.0
9 13.50 0.0 0.0
10 15.50 0.0 0.0
11 17.14 0.0 0.0
12 17.14 353.7 128.7
13 20.50 323.6 117.8
1 0.00 0.0 0.0
2 0.00 0.0 0.0
3 1.50 0.0 0.0
4 3.27 0.0 0.0
5 5.50 0.0 0.0
6 9.50 0.0 0.0
7 9.50 0.0 0.0
8 13.50 0.0 0.0
9 13.50 0.0 0.0
10 15.50 0.0 0.0
11 17.14 0.0 0.0
12 20.50 0.0 0.0
Forces acting on construction
Name Fhor App.Pt. Fvert App.Pt. Design
[lbf/ft] z [ft] [lbf/ft] x [ft] coefficient
Weight - wall 0.0 -9.39 23287.5 5.48 1.000
Weight - earth wedge 0.0 -17.80 4317.9 8.84 1.000
Active pressure 4700.5 -6.67 2582.9 11.73 1.000
1 5185.0 -8.23 2899.9 12.25 1.000
2 1137.3 -1.70 414.0 10.00 1.000
3 0.0 -20.50 0.0 11.32 1.000
Verification of complete wall
Check for overturning stability
Resisting moment Mres = 235648.6 lbfft/ft
Overturning moment Movr = 75957.9 lbfft/ft
Safety factor = 3.10 > 1.50

Wall for overturning is SATISFACTORY
5
New York, NY 10004
Check for slip

Resisting horizontal force Hres = 20295.73 lbf/ft
Active horizontal force Hact = 11022.84 lbf/ft

Wall for slip is SATISFACTORY
Overall check - WALL is SATISFACTORY
Bearing capacity of foundation soil

Design load acting at the center of footing bottom
Moment Norm. force Shear Force Eccentricity Stress
No.
[lbfft/ft] [lbf/ft] [lbf/ft] [–] [psf]
1 7819.5 33502.04 11022.84 0.023 3514.3
Service load acting at the center of footing bottom
Moment Norm. force Shear Force
No.
[lbfft/ft] [lbf/ft] [lbf/ft]
1 7819.5 33502.04 11022.84
Verification of foundation soil
Stress in the footing bottom : rectangle
Eccentricity verification
Max. eccentricity of normal force e = 0.023
Maximum allowable eccentricity ealw = 0.333
Eccentricity of the normal force is SATISFACTORY
Verification of bearing capacity

Max. stress at footing bottom s = 3514.3 psf
Bearing capacity of foundation soil Rd = 8000.0 psf
Bearing capacity of foundation soil is SATISFACTORY
Overall verification - bearing capacity of found. soil is SATISFACTORY
6
Slope stability analysis
Input data
Project
Rigid bodies
g
No. Name Sample
[pcf]
1 Wall material 115.0
Assigning and surfaces

Coordinates of surface points [ft] Assigned
No. Surface position
x z x z soil
1 18.92 -5.50 25.47 0.00
crushed stone
0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.50
3.00 -1.50 3.00 -5.50
11.00 -5.50
2 61.50 -15.50 61.50 0.00

embankment
25.47 0.00 18.92 -5.50
7.00 -15.50
3 18.92 -5.50 11.00 -5.50

crushed stone
11.00 -9.50 9.00 -9.50
9.00 -13.50 7.00 -13.50
7.00 -15.50
4 7.00 -20.50 7.00 -15.50

Wall material
7.00 -13.50 9.00 -13.50
9.00 -9.50 11.00 -9.50
11.00 -5.50 3.00 -5.50
3.00 -1.50 0.00 -1.50
0.00 0.00 -3.00 0.00
-3.00 -1.50 -3.00 -5.50
-3.00 -9.50 -3.00 -13.50
-3.00 -15.50 -3.00 -20.50
5 61.50 -20.50 61.50 -15.50
existing fill
7.00 -15.50 7.00 -20.50
1
Coordinates of surface points [ft] Assigned
No. Surface position
x z x z soil
6 7.00 -20.50 -3.00 -20.50
sand
-51.25 -20.50 -51.25 -36.90
61.50 -36.90 61.50 -20.50
Settings of the stage of construction

Design situation : permanent
Results (Stage of construction 1)
Analysis 1
Circular slip surface
Slip surface parameters
x= -5.45 [ft] a1 = -27.54 [°]
Center : Angles :
z= 3.29 [ft] a2 = 82.96 [°]
Radius : R= 26.83 [ft]
The slip surface after optimization.
Slope stability verification (Spencer)
Factor of safety = 1.23 < 1.50
Slope stability NOT ACCEPTABLE
2
Name : Analysis Stage - analysis : 1 - 1
-12.00
-18.00
-24.00
-30.00
-36.90
-6.00
0.00
61.50
54.00
3
48.00
42.00
36.00
2
30.00
24.00
18.00
1
12.00
6.00
0.00
-6.00
-12.00
-18.00
-24.00
-30.00
-36.00
-42.00
-48.00
-51.25
3

Comparison Between Plaxis and Conventional Method

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Comparison Between Plaxis and Conventional Method

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

11 Broadway, Suite 410

New York, NY 10004

Excel 11.54 32.4 1.56

GEO5 11.02 33.5 1.69

Plaxis 2D 9.58 33.4 1.93

Prefab wall analysis

14.00 4.00 15.50

Basic soil parameters

1 embankment 32.00 150.0 120.00 57.50 21.33

2 crushed stone 38.00 0.0 105.00 42.50 25.30

3 existing fill 30.00 100.0 100.00 42.50 20.00

4 sand 32.00 10.0 115.00 57.50 21.33

All soils are considered as cohesionless for at rest pressure analysis.

Name : Surcharge Stage - analysis : 1 - 0

Resistance on front face of the structure

Settings of the stage of construction

Layer Thickness a jd cd g dd Ka Comment

Point Depth Hor. comp. Vert. comp.

Safety factor = 3.10 > 1.50

Check for slip

Safety factor = 1.84 > 1.50

Overall check - WALL is SATISFACTORY

Bearing capacity of foundation soil

Verification of bearing capacity

Overall verification - bearing capacity of found. soil is SATISFACTORY

1 Wall material 115.0

Assigning and surfaces

2 61.50 -15.50 61.50 0.00

3 18.92 -5.50 11.00 -5.50

4 7.00 -20.50 7.00 -15.50

Settings of the stage of construction

Вам также может понравиться