PREDICTION OF FIELD RESPONSE OF SOILSUPPORT SYSTEMS IN DEEP EXCAVATIONS.

By Ashraf Mohamed Hefny1, Tamer Mohamed Sorour2 , and Mohamed Ezzat Ezzat3
1- Associate Professor of Geotechnical Eng., Department of Civil Engineering, Ain Shams University. 2- Assistant Professor of Geotechnical Eng., Department of Civil Engineering, Ain Shams University. 3- Lecturer of Geotechnical Eng.,, Department of Civil Engineering, Al-Shrouk Academy.

. . Abstract.
This paper highlights, a parametric study was performed to evaluate the methodology of predicting soil-support system response. Analytical models are prepared using finite element program 2D PLAXIS and finite difference program GEODELFT MSHEET to be calibrated with field data monitored for realistic case studies, with the results of analytical models and by Changing of support systems for the same soil profile and collecting results again then compare them, we can insure the reality of the prediction technique suggested in this thesis. It concluded from the results of this paper that using Hardening soil model which depends on soil stiffness (E) can lead us to reach an accurate prediction of soil-support system response . As stiffness of soil could be accurately determined using laboratory tests like Triaxial test and Odometer test (Eoed) for field soil samples bored out from deep excavation site.

Keywords.
Deep excavations, Soil-Support systems, Finite Element Method .

1- Introduction.
The task of predicting the performance of deep excavations is challenging, because many factors influence the performance of deep excavations. Soil conditions, groundwater conditions, and the stiffness of the support system are three that are always important.

Hardening soil model depends on stiffness of soil which can be accurately determined using laboratory tests as TRIXIAL test and OEDMETER test. The main aim of this paper is analyzing two finite element models to compare them with two real case studies have a completely monitoring data to verify the suggested procedure of predication soil-support system performance.

3- Hardening Soil Model Methodology :

The Hardening-Soil model is an advanced model for simulating the behavior of different types of soil, both soft soils and stiff soils,. When subjected to primary deviatory loading, soil shows a decreasing stiffness and simultaneously irreversible plastic strains develop. In the special case of a drained triaxial test, the observed relationship between the axial strain and the deviatory stress can be well approximated by a hyperbola. However, supersedes the hyperbolic model by far. Firstly by using the theory of plasticity rather than the theory of elasticity. Secondly by including soil dilatancy and thirdly by introducing a yield cap. Some basic characteristics of the model are: - Stress dependent stiffness according to a power law. - Plastic straining due to primary deviatoric loading. - Plastic straining due to primary compression. - Elastic unloading / reloading. - Failure according to the MohrCoulomb model. Input parameter m Input parameter Eref 50 Input parameter Eref oed Input parameters Eref , nur ur Parameters c, j and y

A basic feature of the present Hardening-Soil model is the stress dependency of soil stiffness. For oedometer conditions of stress and strain, the model implies the relationship

In the special case of soft soils it is realistic to use m = 1. In such Eoed situations there is also a simple relationship between the modified compression index * and the oedometer loading modulus.

where p

ref

is a reference pressure. Here we consider a tangent oedometer modulus at a

ref

particular reference pressure p . Hence, the primary loading stiffness relates to the modified compression index
*

. Similarly, the unloading-reloading modulus relates to the modified swelling index k*. there is the approximate relationship:

Again, m = 1.

this

relationship

applies

in

combination

with

the

input

value

More than (50) trial were analyzed in this study using finite element program 2D-PLAXIS to achieve the perfect match with the results of monitored field data within soil modeling verifications. So , we advise to use this following soil parameters and its relations to reach the closest prediction of soil-support system field response in deep excavation.

3- Case Studies Verification:

To be satisfied of the methodology of using Hardening soil model to represent the soil support system performance we select two different case studies which included complete mentoring data of soil support system performance, mentored during the different stages of construction as shown in figure (1). This case studies were for constructed previous projects, The first was for Flame Towers in Baku and the second was for Towers in Japan as shown in figure(2). These

different cases with different soil profiles shown in figure (3) and table (1) and different support systems were modeled using Hardening soil models with 2D-PLAXIS with the same soil parameters that depends on soil stiffness parameters which needed in Hardening soil model shown in figure(4). The analysis procedure, boundary conditions, initial stress, ground water condition, soil parameters, support system parameters, stages of constructions and the results of case study (A) and (B) were accurately presented in finite element model according to case studies, To verify the methodology of modeling sequence and technics with the monitored data from the both case studies. To ensure the reality of the procedure anther (12) finite element model were analyzed for the same case studies .But, with different support systems and compared with the original support system used in the case studies.

4- The Results:
The result of finite element analysis conducted through the program 2DPLAXIS as shown in figure (5) were compared with the field measurements in the form of displacement (m), depth(m) within stages of construction. This results were calculated at several nodes representing the ground surface ,the excavation start ,stages of construction and excavation finish according to case studies. The results were recorded during the excavation and constructing the support system. Its clear from these results that theres a perfect agreement between the measured values and monitored ones as shown in figure (6). Anther (12) finite element model results ensure the reality of the procedure suggested in this paper as shown in figure(7) and figure(8).

5- Conclusion.
The following conclusions are drawn from the work describe in the dissertation:

1. Finite element analysis and instrumentation monitoring of deep excavations are naturally complimentary tools for studying deep excavation. 2. Using of Hardening soil model depends on accurate laboratory test results can lead us to an accurate prediction of support system response. 3. Stiffness of soil and support system is the major factor which control the soil support system performance.

Case (A) BAKU towers

Case (B) JAPAN towers

Figure 1. Inclinometer readings for case studies (A) and (B)

Case (A) BAKU towers

Case (B) JAPAN towers

Figure 2. Case studies (A) and (B)

Case (A) BAKU towers

Case (B) JAPAN towers Figure 3. Soil profile for case studies (A) and (B)

Case (A) BAKU tower Soil Layer Unit Weight, SPT N60 Cohesion, c Internal Friction Angel, Modulus of Elasticity, Eref (Unload-Reload Condition) Poissons Ratio, Fill-Slope Debris 18kN/m3 20 - >50 5 kPa 28 Very stiff Silt 20kN/m3 20 -25 20 kPa 30 Hard Silt 20kN/m3 30 -35 35 kPa 32 Weak Rock 22kN/m3 >50 5 kPa 40

15MPa

45MPa

60MPa

150MPa

0.33

0.33

0.33

0.25

Case (B) JAPAN towers

ID / IL 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.27 0.60 0.00 0.10 0.70

kN/m3

19.0 21.8 20.2 22.5 20.0 20.7

cu kP a 0 7 0 15 25 0

22 27 34 28 16 36

Terzag hi 2230 8000 4470 32000 16000 10860

kh [kN/m3] Chaidesson Monnet 16000 20500 37000 27000 15000 43000

MenardBourdon 6000 4100 20200 14400 7500 41500

Table 1. Soil parameters for case studies (A) and (B)

Case (A) BAKU tower

Case (B) JAPAN towers Figure 4. Finite element model for case studies (A) and (B)

Case (A) BAKU tower

Case (B) JAPAN towers Figure 5. Results of finite element model for case studies (A) and (B)

COMPARISON BETWEEN MONITORING READINGS, FINITE DIFFERENCE RESULTS AND, FINITE ELEMENT RESULTS FOR CASE STUDY (A).

COMPARISON BETWEEN MONITORING READINGS, FINITE DIFFERENCE RESULTS AND, FINITE ELEMENT RESULTS FOR CASE STUDY (B). Figure 6. Verification of finite element model for case studies (A) and (B)

Figure 7. Relation between horizontal displacement and excavated depth for soil model supported by different support systems for case study (A).

Figure 8. Relation between horizontal displacement and excavated depth for soil model supported by different support systems for case study (B).

6- References.
1) Athanasiu, C.M., Simonsen, A.S., and Ronning, S. (1991). "Back-calculation of case records to calibrate soil-structure interaction analysis by finite element method of deep excavation in soft clays", Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 10(1), 297300. 2) Bachus, R.C., Clough, G.W., Sitar, N.C., Shafir-Rad, N., Crosby, N. and Kaboli, P. (1982). "Behavior of weakly cemented soil slopes under static and seismic loading", Engineering Report, Vol. II, .ohn A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, California. 3) Balasubramaniam, A.S., Bergado, D.T., Chai, ..C., and Sutabutr, T.(1994). "Deformation analysis of deep excavations in Bangkok subsoils", Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 13(2), 909-914. 4) Benham-Holway Power Group (1995). "Deformation Analyses," engineering report for the Arkansas Electric Cooperative Dam Number 2 Hydropower Project, FERC Project 3033-006, Tulsa, Oklahoma. 5) Biot, M.A. (1941). "General Theory of Three-Dimensional Consolidation," Journal of Applied Ph!sics, 12, Feb., 155-164. 6) Bolton, M.D. and Powrie, W. (1988). "Behaviour of diaphragm walls in clay prior to collapse", Geotechnique, 38(2), 167-189. 7) Bolton, M.D. and Powrie, W. (1987). "The collapse of diaphragm walls retaining clay", Geotechnique, 37(3), 335-353. 8) Bolton, M.D. and Stewart, D.I. (1994). "The effect on propped diaphragm walls of rising groundwater in stiff clay", Geotechnique, 44(1), 111-127. 9) Bono, N.A., riu, T.K., and Soydemir, C. (1992). "Performance of an internally braced slurry-diaphragm wall for excavation support," Slurry Walls: Design, Construction, and Quality Control, ASTM Special Topic Publication 1129, 347360. 10) H. A. Afatoglu1 ENAR Case study on a deep excavation in Baku: Flame Towers project earth retaining system Engineers Architects & Consultants, Istanbul, Turkey. 11) M.Mitew Numerical analysis of displacements of a diaphragm wall Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland 12) Zienkiewicz, O.C. and Taylor, R.r. (1991). The Finite Element Method Volume 2: Solid and Fluid Mechanics D!namics and Non-linearit!, 4th edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, rondon, U.K.