Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Issues related to the use of Numerical Modelling in Design of Deep Excavations in Soft Clay
Andy Pickles of GCG (Asia) Ltd.
Asia
Content of Presentation
Describe the Method A/B Problem Comment on Cam Clay model in routine design Highlight Difficulty of modelling piles in 2D Analyses Comments on modelling of JGP
Asia
Most engineers are familiar with E and Preferable to adopt Shear Modulus (G) and Bulk Modulus (K) Shear strains due to changes in shear stress are proportional to 1/G Volume strains due to changes in mean stress are proportional to 1/K Water has zero G and very high Kw For drained and undrained conditions G is the same For drained conditions K is K for soil For undrained conditions K becomes very high (i.e. is Kw)
Asia
Most analyses adopt simple Mohr Coulomb model with no dilation For undrained condition no volume change Soil particles are only affected by changes in effective stress No volume change means no change in mean effective stress (p) in soil Soil is constrained to constant p stress path Soil will fail where constant p crosses failure line Method A/B refers only to choice of strength criteria in undrained analyses using Mohr Coulomb model Method A uses c and Method B uses Cu
Asia
Method A C, phi
Asia
Asia
Method A/B problem is not unique to Plaxis Method A was in widespread use in Singapore (and is widely adopted internationally) Method A was adopted for design of C824 Method A (and other methods) should be compared with design Cu profile Excavations at C824 were deepest ever in Singapore
Asia 7
MC Upper
Soft Clay 40 m
MC Lower
EC
Asia
Method A, Ko = 1
Method A, Ko = 0.6
Design Cu Profile
Asia
5th Strut
16
20
22
24
26
28
Design Cu Profile
30
Method B
105 100 95 90 85 RL (m) 80 75 70 65 60 55 -0.05 0.00
80 75 70 65 60 55 -0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.25 0.30
Asia
11
Method B
105 100 95 90 85 RL (m) 80 75 70 65 60 55 0 1000 3000 2000 -3000 -2000 -1000 4000
Asia
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
For deep excavations Method A can under-estimate wall displacement and BM For shallow excavations Method A will over-estimate wall displacement and BM Method B matches the design undrained strength profile and is preferable Neither Method A or B model the real behaviour of soft clay Post collapse recommendation to use Cam Clay type models
Asia 14
FE Model Constant p
Asia
15
Real behaviour of Marine Clay determined from high quality lab tests Sampling carried out using thin wall with 5 degree cutting angle Samples anisotropically re-consolidated to in situ stresses prior to testing Testing carried out undrained in extension and compression
Asia 16
Real Behaviour
Asia
17
Design adopted in Singapore is 22 (NSF calcs?) To obtain correct design Cu profile with modified Cam Clay model, = 17 is required
Asia 18
Modified Cam Clay model includes features of soft clay behaviour Some natural soft clays differ from Modified Cam Clay Physically unrealistic values may be required to match undrained strength profile For managing risk care must be taken to understand implication of differences Possibly simpler to adopt Mohr Coulomb with Method B
Asia 19
Structures constructed in deep excavations in Singapore are often founded above soft clay on piles Piles are often constructed after installation of JGP layers but before commencement of excavation Piles will be bonded to the JGP Heave of ground during excavation results in tension in piles Presence of piles will restrain heave and also restrict wall movements
Asia
20
Modelling piles in 2D analyses as walls connected to the ground can severely restrict the predicted wall movement Wall displacements will be under-predicted and wall bending moments also under-predicted If 3D modelling is not available then it may be preferable to carry out sensitivity studies without piles and with piles modelled as anchors not connected to the soil mesh For managing risk you must understand the limitations implicit in simple 2D models sensitivity analyses
Asia
21
Modelling JGP
Numerical models for design typically adopt Mohr Coulomb type model E = 150MPa, Cu = 300kPa (minimum UCS is 900kPa) JGP strength is a factored value used in analyses where soil strength is unfactored How are design values justified?
Asia
22
USC Results
M i n i m u m c o m p li a n t v a lu e 4 2
B a c k - a n a ly s e d E h=65M P a
Design 3 900kPa
Average 2000kPa
0 0 0 . 4 0 . 8 1 . 2 1 . 6 2 2 . 4 2 . 8 3 . 2 3 U n c o n fin e d c o m p r e s s io n s tr e n g th ( M P a ) . 6 4
0 0 1 0 02 0 03 0 04 0 05 0 06 0 0 0 7 E v (M P a ) 08 0 09 0 10 0 01 01 0 02 1 0 0
Asia
23
N u m b e r o f r e s u lt s
0 0 0 . 2 0 . 4 0 . 6 0 . 8 1 1 . 2 1 . 4 A x ia l s t r a in a t fa ilu r e , a f ( % ) 1 . 6 1 . 8 2
Asia
24
Advance Brittle? 500*2 / 200 d Non linear response *1 Analysis at 20% plastic strain *2 Peak to residual
Asia
80
2*2
25
Modelling of JGP
Actual mass characteristics of JGP not well understood No direct relationship between lab and field performance Parameters and model presently used for design are probably incorrect and may be unsafe JGP is probably a brittle material whereas Mohr Coulomb is elastic/perfect plastic Sensitivity analyses with high and low strength and stiffness values are essential
Asia
26
Concluding Remarks
Numerical modelling has an important role in design Numerical modelling requires specialist knowledge For managing risk make sure that the limitations of the model are well understood (investigated) Do not rely on preciseness of results Sensitivity/ trends in behaviour more important Always perform sanity checks by alternative means
Asia
27
End of Presentation
Asia
28