PLAXIS Singapore (2011) - User Meeting 001 PDF

PLAXIS USER MEETING 2011 SINGAPORE
Er Eddy CH Tan Plaxis Asia-Pac

Regional Business and Sales Joseph Wong
Manager Lin Xing Cheng
Plaxis Asia-Pac
Asia Pac Seet Kor Chang
Dr William WL Cheang Contributors
Regional Technical Manager Dr Lee Siew Wei
Plaxis Asia-Pac Dr Richard Wittasse
Ir Dennis Waterman
Welccome
The 1st Plaxis User Meeting
April Singaapore 2011
Plaxis User Meetin
ng, Singapore 2011
Time
08 30
08:30 09 30
09:30 R i
Registration
i
09:30 09:40 Opening and Introduction‐PUM Singapore

Session 1
09 40
09:40 10 00
10:00 Plaxis An Update On Current Plaxis Finite Element C
Update On Current Plaxis Finite Element Codes
C Dr William Cheang Plaxis Asia‐Pac Pte Ltd
Dr William Cheang – Plaxis Asia Pac Pte Ltd
10:00 10:30 Speaker 1 Cut & Cover excavation above existing bored ttunnel ‐ Modeling of Dr Oskar Sigl ‐ Geoconsult Asia, Singapore

response
10:30 11:00 Speaker 2 Prof Harry Tan Siew Ann ‐ National University
Prof. Harry Tan Siew Ann ‐ National University of Singapore
of Singapore
11:00 11:30 Speaker 3 Modeling of Grouted Stone Column & Deep SSoil Mixing at Waterway Er Lily Yeo ‐ AGS Consultants Pte Ltd
11:30 12:00 Speaker 4 Plaxis 2D vs Phase 2

Plaxis 2D vs Phase 2 Mr Anwar Sajjad
Mr Anwar Sajjad – Aecom Singapore
Aecom Singapore
12:00 12:30 Q &A Session 1

12:30 1:30 Lunch
Session 2
1:30 2:00 Speaker 5 Bored tunneling and pipe box (mining) tunnelling design using Plaxis Ms Long Wenjiu ‐ Parsons Brinkerhoff, Singapore
2D
2:00 2:30 Speaker 6 Dr Ng Tiong Guan ‐ GeoEng Consultants, Singapore
2:30 3:00 Speaker 7 Re‐analysis of Nicoll Highway Collapse Mr Joseph Wong – National University of Singapore
3:00 3:30 Break
3:30 4:00 Speaker 8 Two projects in Singapore: Kalang‐Paya Lebar Expressway C423 and Dr Nick Mace – Mott MacDonald, Singapore

Downtown Line Stage 1 C908
4:00 4:30 Q & A Session 2
PLAXIS 2D
2 & 3D
Dr William WL
W Cheang
Regional Techn
nical Manager
Plaxis Assia-Pac
Contents (New Developments)
1. Plaxis 2D
a. Graphical User Interface in P2D D
b. Constitutive models
c. New calculation modes
d. U
Unsaturated
t t d Soil
S il modelling
d lli
2. Plaxis 3D
a. G hi l U
Graphical User IInterface
t f in
i P3D
D
b. Construction of Geotechnical 3-D3 FE models
c. Examples
A INPUT AND OUTPUT PROGRAM
A.
PLAXIS 2D v2010
A. Graphical User Interface (Input & Outp
put)
B CONSTITUTIVE SOIL MODELS
PLAXIS 2D v2010
B. Constitutive models
Constitutive models via UDSM

1. Linear elastic 1. Hypoplastic model with inter‐granular strain
2. Mohr‐Coulomb 2. Anisotropic clay models: S‐CLAY1 and S‐
3. Hardening Soil Model (HSM) CLAY1S
4. Soft Soil Model (SSM)
Soil Model (SSM) 3. MIT S1 model
MIT S1 model
5. Soft Soil Creep Model (SSCM) 4. CLoE hypoplastic model
6. Jointed Rock Model 5. Mixed isotropic‐kinematic hardening
7. Modified Cam‐clay model elastoplastic models for structured clay
8. NGI‐ADP model 6. Small‐strain + MC model
9. Hoek
Hoek‐Brown
Brown model
model 7. UBCSAND3D model (Plaxis Liquefaction
UBCSAND3D model (Plaxis Liquefaction
Model)
8. Sekiguchi‐Ohta model
9. Barcelona Basic Model
C CALCULATION MODES
C.
PLAXIS 2D v2010
C. CALCULATION MODES INPLAXIS 2D
1. Classical mode
2. Advanced mode
3. Flow mode
CALCULATION MODES IN PLAXIS 2D
Classical mode:
1. Similar to previous versions of PLAXIS 2D
2. All types of calculation + free vibration (new

w)
3. Terzaghi stress
4. Applicable for fully saturated or fully dry soils
5. Semi-coupled hydro-mechanical analysis
a. Pore pressure is independent of defo

ormation (within a calculation phase)
b. Multi-threading calculation (new)
c. Change of permeability with deformattion (new)
d. Change of elastic storage with stress in stress dependent models (new)

Calculation modes in PLAXIS 2D
Advanced mode (new):
1. Bishop stress (average stress)
2. Weight of soil changes with degree of saturatio

on
3. U
Unsaturated
t t d soilil b
behaviour
h i
4. Undrained behaviour of unsaturated soils
5
5. Consideration of suction in safety analysis
6. Fully coupled hydro-mechanical analysis (conssolidation TPP)
a. Pore pressure and deformation are dependent to each other
b. All types of flow boundary conditions of PlaxFlow are applicable
c. Change of permeability with deformation

n
d. Change of elastic storage with stress in stress dependent models
e. Updated mesh and updated water are not

n possible (drawback)
Calculation modes in PLAXIS 2D
Flow mode:
1. Similar to PlaxFlow
2. All functionalities of PlaxFlow rewritten in PLAX

XIS code (new)
a. Steady state groundwater flow
b. Checking local error as well as global errror (new)
c. Transient groundwater flow
d. All types of boundary conditions + some

e new features in wells and drains
3. Faster calculation (new)

D UNSATURATED SOIL MODELLING
D.
PLAXIS 2D v2010
D.UNSATURATED SOIL MODELLING
1. Bishop stress
2. S ti ((a new variable)
Suction i bl )
3. Retention curves (Mualem-Van Genuch
hten + user defined models)
4. E i ti Pl
Existing Plaxis
i models
d l (Bi
(Bishop
h stress)
t )
5. User defined soil models (Bishop stress
s and suction)
6. B
Based
d on B
Barcelona
l B
Basic
i MModel
d l (Al
(Alon
nso ett al.
l (1990)).
(1990))
7. Bishop stress and suction instead of ne
et stress and suction (Gonzalez & Gens (2008)
Suction,
Suction
Loading-collapse curve (LC)

Barcelona Basic Model (Unsaturated Soil Model) –Gens 2010 HK
A GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE IN P3D
A.
PLAXIS 3D v2010
1.Input Program: The Layout
Menu Bar
General Toolbar
Mode Tabs
Draw Area
Selection Explorer
Model
ode Explorer
po e
Tools (Mod
de dependent)
Command Line Area

1.Model Units and Contour (X‐Y spatial Extend)
1. Setting of operational units

2. Setting of model size
a. X-Y space ( where is Z)..similar to
3DF?
b. Z extend is set using the borehole
wizard
c. How do you set the point of origin
at the centre , positive and
negative spatial extent
3. ?Default button is useful
A1: FIVE MODES
1. Modelling the Ground (Soil Mode)
2. Modelling of Geotechnical Structurres (Structure Mode)
3. Meshing (Mesh Mode)
4. Staged Groundwater Modelling (W

Water Mode)
5 Modelling of Construction Stages (Staged

5. ( Construction Mode)
A1:Work Flow
Plaxis 3D Input
General toolbar
Mode switches
Selection explorer
Drawing area
Model explorer
Mode toolbar
Command line
Model and Selection explorer
1. The Model Explorer provides a graphical ove erview of the complete

model and the objects that it contains.
2. The Selection Explorer provides the same functionality as the Model
Explorer, but only for the current selection of objects
3. For managing
g g any
y objects
j created in the mod
del:
a. shows number of materials, loads
b. Showing, hiding or deleting model itemss
c Renaming model items
c.
d. Changing properties of model items
(load values, water height, material setss, …)
Command line
1. All the actions carried out using either the mouse or the explorers are translated into
commands.
2. Alternatively, PLAXIS 3D allows to carry out acctions using keyboard input by directly typing
the corresponding commands in the command line.
B CONSTRUCTION OF 3D GEOTECHNICAL MODELS
B.
PLAXIS 3D v2010
Soil M
Mode
Soil mode
Borehole 4
1. Definition of soil volumes and initial water levells Borehole 3
2. Based on the concept of boreholes
Borehole 1
p g
3. Offers import geometry
y facilities
4. Boreholes Borehole 2
a. Locations in the draw area where the inforrmation on
soil layering and location of the water table
e is
specified
b. For multiple boreholes, PLAXIS 3D will auutomatically
interpolate the soil layers between boreho
oles
c. Each defined soil layer is used throughoutt the whole
model.
Borehole definition
• Defining
g soil layer
y heights
g in the Soil layers
y
tabsheet
• Defining water conditions in the Water tabshe
eet:
– Specific Head
– Hydrostatic distribution,
– Interpolate from adjacent layers
– Dry
– User-defined pore pressures
• Defining Initial Soil conditions in the Initial
conditions tabsheet
– Specify OCR, POP, K0x and K0y for the K0
procedure
Material Sets
1. Definition of material sets and parameters for

f
representing the soil layers and structural elements
e
2. Same method of input as Plaxis 2D
Structurre Mode
re Mode
Defining the geometry
1. Points
a. Generated by clicking the Create point buttton.
b. Used for Point loads, Point prescribed dispplacements and Fixed-end anchors.
2. Lines
a. Generated by clicking the Create line buttoon.
b. Used to define Beams, Line loads, Line prrescribed displacements, Node-to-node anchors
and Embedded piles.
3 Surfaces
3. S f
a. Generated by clicking the Create surface button.
b. Used to define Plates, Geotextiles, Interfaces and Surface loads.
c The first three created points define the su
c. urface plane by default
default.
d. Existing surfaces can be edited from the Surface
S points dialog box of from the pop-up
submenu of Create surface button
Defining the geometry: Array
• Generate multiple copies of a selection, arranged in a rectangular pattern

Defining the geometry: Extrude
1. Extrusion of Lines and surfaces in order to crea

ate surfaces and volumes respectively:
a. From the Extrude dialog box
b. By dragging and dropping the bottom surfa ace to the top surface location
Defining the geometry: Other functions
1 Decompose into ssurfaces:

1. rfaces creates o
outer
ter ssurface
rface
es of selected volumes
ol mes
2. Decompose into outlines: creates contour of se
elected surfaces
3. Intersect: splits
p selected g
geometric objects
j alon
ngg their intersection
4. Combine: merges selected geometric objects of
o the same kind
5. These functionalities are only accessible from th
he RMB context menu in the draw area
Loads
• Generated by clicking the Create load button o

or by right
right-clicking
clicking on any geometric objects
in the draw area
Point load
Line load
Surface
Su ace load
oad
→ In a similar way it is possible create Prrescribed displacements.

Structures
• Generated by clicking the Structure button Fixed-end anchor

• Can also be created by right
right-clicking
clicking on selected:
– points Beam
(fixed-end anchor)
Node-to-node anchor
– lines
li
(beam, node-to-node anchor or embedded pile) Embedded pile
– surfaces
(plate geogrid
(plate, geogrid, interfaces) Plate
Geogrid
Positive interface
Negative interface
Group Creation
1. Selected objects in the draw area

can be grouped:
a. For fast model creation when
the same operations have to be
undertaken over a large
number of objects
b. For quick personalized model
representation in the draw area
Command Line
1. Examine commands
2 Clean up command history based on
2.
various criteria
3. Run already existing command files
(particularly relevant in the framework of
sensitivity analysis)
4. Access specific documentation of each
command d and
d corresponding
di parameters
t
through the Help menu item
Importing Geometry
1. Possibility to import from external sources in diifferent formats
like
a. 3D Studio files (*.3DS)
( .3DS)
b. AutoCAD native (*.DWG)
c. Interchange (*.DXF) file format
– Click to import surface
– Click to import volume

Import of 3DS models
The Messh Mode
The Mes
sh Mode
Mesh density in Plaxis 3D
1. Global coarseness:
a. Defines an average element size based on n model dimensions and relative element size
factor Re (Very coarse / Coarse / Medium / Fine / Very Fine)
b Reference element size = 0
b. 0.05
05 * Re * (Mod
del diagonal length)
2. Local refinement (Fineness factor):
a. Element size can be locally refined or coarrsened
b. Element size = (Fineness factor) * (Global coarseness) * (Ref. elem. size)
3. Color code
a. Depending on their degree of local refinem
ment, geometric objects are displayed in different
color in the Draw area (gray for Fineness factor
f of 1 and green otherwise with darker colour
when getting more refined)
Local mesh refinement
• By clicking the toolbar

buttons Refine mesh or
Coarsen mesh and
selecting the desired items
in the Draw Area
• From the Selection

explorer by entering the
desired fineness factor
value
• By invoking RMB context

menu after item selection
Generate Mesh
1. Can be done by clicking the Generate

mesh button from the Mesh Toolbar or the
right mouse button popup menu
2. While the mesh is being generated, the

possibilities are offered to either pause,
resume or cancel the process
The Water Levels Mode
The Water L
Levels Mode
Water Levels
1. Generated water level is created by specifyin
ng a Head in the boreholes (in the Soil mode)
and is the default water level
a. A single borehole can be used to create
e a horizontal water surface that extends to
the model boundaries.
b Wh
b. When multiple
lti l b
boreholes
h l are used, d a noon-horizontal
h i t l water
t surface
f can b
be created
t dbby
combining the heads in the various bore
eholes
c. Non hydrostatic distribution in the soil may
m be specified in the Water tabsheet of the
Modify soil layers dialog box
2. User water levels are available in the Water levels mode and can be used as a alternative
to the Generated water level.
Water conditions in soil volumes
1 Water levels can be specified for each

1.
individual volume
2. Available options are:
a Global level (default)
a.
b. Custom level
c. Head
d. User-defined
e. Interpolate
f. Dry
3. Can be done from
a. The WaterConditions feature in the
Selection explorer.
b. Right-clicking the mouse
The Staged Construction Mode
The Staged Construction Mode
Calculation phase definition
Phase explorer
Change and/or (de)activate objects

per phase by means of the
Model explorer,
p , Selection explorer
p
or directly in the Draw area
Defining Phase settings
• Calculation phase settings can be

edited:
– Calculation type
– Phase parameters
– Iterative procedure settings
The Phase explorer
1. For creating and editing the calculation phasses
Insert phase hase

Delete ph Define phase settings
Add p
phase Calculation type indicator
K K0 procedure (initial
Calculation status indicator phase)
to be calculated G gravity loading (initial phase)
not to be calculated P plastic
calculation successful D plastic drained
calculation failed C consolidation
S safety
C SOME EXAMPLES
C.
PLAXIS 3D v2010
C.Some Examples
Piled Raft Foundation for a stora

age platform and Stacker Reclaimer Runways
Example 2: Pier Y (Bang Na)
Examples
Examples
Examples (Lee et.al.2010)
Pointers
1. Modes: Take note and be aware of the Mode

M you are in...if correctly done you should
move in sequential manner from SOIL, STRUCTURE,
S MESH, WATER, STAGE.
2. Input will be slight different when comparred to the previous codes
a. Cad Input
b. ailable ‘command lines’ from HELP> COMMAND
Command Line ( Single Line Input.... See the ava
REFERENCE.
3 In
3. I 3D..visual
3D i l can b
be confusing
f i ((wellll we are
a ini 3D now).
) SSo use:
a. Get a good idea on the spatial position in P3D.Look at the colour coded GLOBAL AXIS (x=Red, y=Green,
z=Blue)
b. GEOMETRY>CUSTOM> [[OPAQUE, Q , SHOW 70% % SHOW 30%,
%, %, WIREFRAME,, HIDE]] to simplify
p y
visualisation.
c. Defaults Views [ Perspective, Top, Right, Left, Bottom].. Can be helpful.
4. ..save your work intermittently.
First Singapore Plaxis Users Forum
First Singapore Plaxis Users Forum
Pile Response due to Excavation
Lateral Soil Movement
Study using 2D vs
Study using 2D vs 3D FEM
3D FEM
Prof Harry Tan
7th April 2011
1
Outline
• 2D and 3D Model similar to Poulos and Chen
p p
Feb 1997 ASCE paper
• Parameters Input 2D
• Parameters Input 3D
P I 3D
• Comparison of Results
p
• Conclusions
2
2D FEM Model
• Struts at 0m, 4m and 7m; Excavate 10m; Wall 13m deep
• Single piles 0.5mD, L=21.5m, E=30 GPa at 1m, 5m and 10 m from Wall
Dummy paper piles: these piles will
have same displacements as the soils
22m
3
3D FEM Model
• Struts at 0m, 4m and 7m; Excavate 10m; Wall 13m deep
• Single Solid elements piles 0.5mD, L=21.5m, E=30 GPa at 1m, 5m and 10 m from Wall
22m
4
3D Plaxis Input
p R_inter=1.0
• Wall EI = 2640E3*1/12 = 22E4 kNm2/m same as 2D wall
• Strut E2A = 1000E3*1.0 = 1E6 kN/m same as 2D strut; E1 is made soft as 1000 kN/m2
• Pile is Solid elements with D=0.5m and E=30E6 kN/m2 and L=21.5m
EXCAVATION ANALYSIS ASSUMES:
EXCAVATION ANALYSIS ASSUMES
• Total Stress Undrained Analysis (switch soil type top drain, so no excess pore pressures in
the analysis
• Keep GWT at bottom of mesh; use Ko=1.0 so water pressures is included in the total
Keep GWT at bottom of mesh; use Ko 1 0 so water pressures is included in the total
weight of the soil
5
2D Plaxis Input
R_inter=1.0
_
Pile A=0.196m2
Pile I=3.06e‐3
Pile I 3.06e 3 m4
m4
• Dummy paper pile has EI and EA of real single pile divide by 1E6
Dummy paper pile has EI and EA of real single pile divide by 1E6
• To get BM, AF and SF in pile; multiply results by 1E6
Struts are elastic anchor
elements with k=1E6 kN/m
6
Model Excavation Sequence
Model Excavation Sequence
• Install wall and piles
• Install Strut at 0m, excavate to 4m
Install Strut at 0m, excavate to 4m
7
Results
• Compare Wall deflection at 10m Excavation
• 1m away pile BM
1m away pile BM
• 5m away pile BM
• 10m away pile BM
8
Compare Wall Deflection at 10m excavation
•2D FEM dh_max = 42.9 mm
•3D FEM dh_max = 42.3 mm
• Results are nearly identical
13m
9
Piles Displacements
39.3mm 35.7mm
• Good agreement of pile deflection between 2D and 3D
10
Pile 1m from wall
39.3 mm 487 kNm 35.7 mm

35.7 mm 119.5 kNm
119 5 kNm
119.5 kNm
•3D BM << 2D BM
11
Pile 5m from wall
86.2 kNm
31 1
31.1 mm 29 7
29.7 mm 54.2 kNm
• 3D BM < 2D BM
12
Pile 10m from wall
22 6 mm
22.6 mm 22.1 mm
34.8 kNm
57.2 kNm
• 3D BM < 2D BM
• Max BM at different point on pile 13
14
• Compare Poulos results with Plaxis: Nc=gH/cu = (20*10)/50 = 4
• Poulos result for Nc=4; Max BM of 1m away pile = 110 kNm at 12m below top
• Plaxis 3D FEM results for Nc=4; Max BM of same pile = 119 kNm at 12.5m below top
• 3D FEM results are correct and reliable; but 2D FEM is grossly over‐estimated =487 kNm
(may wrongly conclude that pile would fail)
15
Conclusions from FEM Study
• 2D‐FEM analysis using plate elements to model pile as a wall is too
conservative; it would grossly over‐predict pile BM (because of incorrect soil
pressures on 2D pile)
2D il )
• Critical need to use 3D‐FEM with solid pile elements to correctly predict
pile BM
• 3D‐FEM has great advantage of including correct pile loads and boundary
3D FEM has great advantage of including correct pile loads and boundary
conditions before excavation; but disadvantage of more complex models
and longer computation time
• The differences in 2D vs
The differences in 2D vs 3D pile BM becomes smaller for piles further away
3D pile BM becomes smaller for piles further away
from the wall (>5m)
• But the point where maximum BM occurs cannot be correctly obtained
from 2D‐FEM
from 2D FEM equivalent pile model
equivalent pile model
• 2D‐FEM analysis is easy to do but too conservative; and must be used with
caution especially when assessing potential pile damage due to excavation
induced ground movements
g
16
Case Study Presented by
AGS CONSULTANTS PTE LTD
Presentation Outline
1. Introduction
2. Initial Design
Initial Design
• Limit Equilibrium Analysis
3. Site Observations
4. Analysis Using
• PLAXIS 2D Finite Element Analysis (V9.02)
• PLAXIS 3D 2010 Finite Element Analysis
PLAXIS 3D 2010 Fi it El tA l i
5. Review of Design
• PLAXIS 3D Tunnel (V2.4)
PLAXIS 3D Tunnel (V2.4)
6. Conclusions
Artist
Artist Impression of Waterway
Impression of Waterway
Site
Cross Section of Waterway
Cross Section of Waterway
Top Width : 24m to 40m &
Bottom width : 10m to 26m
Depth : ~7m.
10m wide promenade to be built on
each bank of waterway.
Soil Condition
Soil Condition
RL100 5
RL100.5
Soft Peaty CLAY
ɣ=15kN/m3, Cu=15kPa
8m
RL92.5
RL89.0
Soil Improvement
Soil Improvement
Configuration
• Consists of 700mm diameter Grouted Stone Columns
(GSC)
• Arrange at 1m c/c in grids of 2.5m by 5.4m.
• Toe of GSC varying depending on soil profiles identified.
Typically at 1m below the Soft Peaty layer
• GSCs are intended to cut off the slip circle and improve
the stability of the slope for both temporary and
permanent stages
Initial Design
Initial Design
Design
• Only unconfined compressive strength are considered Design
• UCS = 5000kPa Undrained shear strength Cu = UCS/2= 2500 kPa
• “Smeared” strength as adopted in 2D Analysis = Replacement
ratio × Cu
• Area of GSC in each ‘panel’ = 1.92m2
• Area of ‘panel’ = 11.75m2
• Replacement Ratio = ~16%
• ‘Smeared’ Cu = 16% of 2500 = 400 kPa
• Contribution of the soil is ignored in the composite strength
Section Modeled
Section Modeled
AGS Consultants Pte Ltd 10
Initial Design
Initial Design
FoS=1.75 (UnDrained) FoS=1.52 (Drained)
Findings using Limit Equilibrium method
• Factor of Against against global slope failure > 1.5 for both Undrained & Drained conditions

• Slip Circles passed below the GSC
Slip Circles passed below the GSC
• Slip Circles cutting through GSC gave very high FoS
Site Observations
Site Observations
GSCs Exposed for checking
Site Observations
Site Observations
• Inclinometer shown that approximate 10mm movement was
b d 4th May 2010
observed on 4 M 2010
• The shear strain at this stage is ≈ 0.5%
• But two days after (6th May 2010), there was a sudden jump in
lateral movement of ~100mm
lateral movement of 100mm
• Sharp curvature with was observed with shear strain ≈1%.
• It appeared the sudden movement of the slope might caused
by some breakage of the GSCs at low strain with the
RL92 5
RL92.5 development of tensile stress.
Site Observations
Site Observations
RL92.5
• Back analysis indicated such movement “shouldn’t occurred” since the “composite
strength” should be able to resist it.
Site Observations
Site Observations
Site observation suggested
a. Brittle behaviour of the GSCs column.
b. Possible breakage of GSCs at RL92.5m
c. GSCs exposed indicated that the columns were
displaced laterally while remaining fairly vertical
What Next?
What Next?
Limit Equilibrium Analysis gave high geotechnical FoS. It considered only the Compressive
Strength of the Composite Block.
In order to study developed stress‐strain within the GSCs, PLAXIS FEM software is utilised.
• 2D PLAXIS Finite Element Analysis (V9.02)
• 3D PLAXIS Finite Element Analysis (2010)
Analysis results were compared to field observation so that the GSC could be improved to avoid
repeat of the large movements.
Analysis – PLAXIS 2D
Analysis –
Analysis PLAXIS 2D
AREA METHOD
AREA METHOD using Replacement Ratio to
using Replacement Ratio to
determine Cu
Replacement "Smeared" "Smeared" E' Tensile cut‐

Ratio cu (kPa) (kPa) off
16% x 16% x
10%(2x400) =
~16% 2500 1,000,000
80kPa
≈400kPa =163700kPa
Analysis –
Analysis PLAXIS 2D
Findings
i di
a. Only observed tensile cut‐off points near top of GSC block
b. No sign of failure plane in the block corresponding to site observation
Analysis –
Analysis PLAXIS 2D
AREA METHOD
AREA METHOD using Replacement Ratio to
using Replacement Ratio to
determine Cu
But with gaps of soil in between columns
Replacement "Smeared" "Smeared" E'

Tensile cut‐off
Ratio cu (kPa) (kPa)
22%x2500 ~22%x1000000=2
~22%x2500 22%x1000000 2 10%(2x549)
10%(2x549)
~22%
=549kPa 19800kPa =109kPa
Analysis –
Analysis PLAXIS 2D
Failure Plane
Findings
i di
a. Tensile points more pronouced at the top of GSC
b. Sign of failure near to the observed slip plane
c. Mode of failure differed from site observation
d. More deflection but not matching that observed
Analysis – PLAXIS 3D (2010)
Analysis –
Analysis PLAXIS 3D (2010)
Simulating the exact configuration of GSCs
Design strength for Grouted Stone Columns (GSCs)
UCS = 5000kPa
cu = UCS/2 = 2500kPa
00 U S 00 5000 000000 a
E’=200×UCS=200×5000=1000000kPa
Tensile cut‐off points = 10%(2cu)=500kPa
Analysis – PLAXIS 3D (2010)
Analysis –
Analysis PLAXIS 3D (2010)
Tensile cut‐off points more significant and close to
the observed slip plane
Failure Plane
Findings of PLAXIS 2D & 3D
Findings of PLAXIS 2D & 3D
• PLAXIS 2D with ‘Smeared’ properties derived from Area Method did not pick up
the slip plane observed on site
• PLAXIS 2D with GSCs in a ‘Composite Strip‐Soil’ simulation gave more deflection
and more tension points
• PLAXIS 3D with GSCs modeled realistically as individual columns surrounded by
soil mass gave a better comparison to site observation
Review of Design
Review of Design
≈13m
13
Deep Soil Mixing
Deep Soil Mixing
• The GSCs replaced by Deep Soil Mixing columns
The GSCs replaced by Deep Soil Mixing columns
• DSM has to be deep enough to cut off the potential failure plane
• A portion of the DSM is deepened to key into the stiffer stratum for support
• A id portion is introduced acting like ‘strut’ to transfer & balance the forces.
A mid ti i i t d d ti lik ‘ t t’ t t f &b l th f
• The high lateral load is
transferred to the front pile
transferred to the front pile
and then arch to the
longitudinal piles.
• This high unbalanced lateral
g
force must be effectively
transferred to the
longitudinal piles and be
balanced by the DSM
balanced by the DSM
columns on the opposite
side of the waterway.
• The reaction to the high lateral force is
dependent on the cutting of the DSM (0.44m
dependent on the cutting of the DSM (0.44m
width). This is the maximum contact zone
achievable on site.
Information by Specialist
Information by Specialist
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) = 800kPa
E’ref=200UCS=200800=160,000kPa
Tensile strength = 0.115UCS=0.115800=92kPa
Poisson’s ratio = 0.3
PLAXIS 3D Tunnel
PLAXIS 3D Tunnel
Front Plane (z=1.35m) Plane A (z=0.22m)
• The observed tensile cut‐off points at Front Plane & Plane A .
• These’re limited & localised at the DSM & next to the waterway only.
• The DSM is effective to resist the critical slip plane
The DSM is effective to resist the critical slip plane.
• The configuration is robust to prevent tensile development
• The FEM 3D Analysis shows
that the DSM columns will
that the DSM columns will
behave satisfactory.
• The deflection is within the
range where DSM columns
are unlikely to crack up very
badly.
• The overall stability as
obtained from phi/c
reduction is stable as the
reduction is stable as the
tensile cut‐off points as
observed is localised &
limited at the column & next
to the waterway only.
Msf = 1.472
• The inclinometer results shown the proposed
DSM performed quite well
• No slope failure
• No crack being observed on the crest of slope
Conclusions
• Limit Equilibrium Analysis couldn’t simulate the stress‐strain behaviour of the GSCs
• 2D PLAXIS with ‘smeared’ properties of GSCs gave different results depending on how the
‘smearing’ was taken.
• The gaps of soft clay in the 2ndd PLAXIS 2D simulation indicated the influence of gaps on the
results.
• Hence
Hence for this case PLAXIS 3D is a better tool to use as it simulates the actual GSC
for this case PLAXIS 3D is a better tool to use as it simulates the actual GSC
configuration. Prediction slip plane corresponded to site observation.
• DSM was adopted for a 13m clay deposit since GSC with the soft clay gap between the
columns is shown to have high lateral movement. PLAXIS 3D Tunnel used to simulate DSM
l h h h hl l l d l
as strips. Work was completed successfully.
AGS Consultants Pte Ltd 34
GEOCONSULT
C&C construction Impact on Existing

Bored Tunnels 1
GEOCONSULT
<< Existing
Bored Tunnels
New Development >> 2

GEOCONSULT
Geotechnical Conditions
3
GEOCONSULT
Geotechnical Conditions
 WEST | EAST 
4
GEOCONSULT
Close Proximity to Existing
Tunnels
FILL
SAND
UGU
GFU
LGU
5
GEOCONSULT
Deflections - Heave
6
GEOCONSULT
Geometry
7
GEOCONSULT
General Arrangement
8
GEOCONSULT
Ground Treatment
» Use Deep Soil Mixing (DSM) ground treatment

installed above (below) formation level
» Provide toe support of short D-wall

» Interrupt permeability paths
» Provide confinement and possibility to focus the
dewatering efforts
9
GEOCONSULT
Arrangement
10
GEOCONSULT
Interface with existing Tunnels
Key Design Considerations:
= Proximity to existing Tunnels

= Construction Impact
= Minimisation of Movements
= Stabilisation of D-wall Toe
11
GEOCONSULT
Control of Groundwater Flow
12
GEOCONSULT
Control of Groundwater Flow
Dewatering Wells
13
GEOCONSULT
Support of Short Toe
Deep Soil Mixing (DSM) installed above/below formation level
Ground Treatment
DSM
14
GEOCONSULT
General Arrangement
Dewatering Well
Cut-off Wall
DSM
15
GEOCONSULT
Excavation Sequence
16
GEOCONSULT
Excavation Sequence
17
GEOCONSULT
Excavation Sequence
18
GEOCONSULT
Ground Model Plaxis 3D
19
GEOCONSULT
Modelling Plaxis 3D
Ground
Treatment
Structural Elements
20
GEOCONSULT
21
GEOCONSULT
Impact on Existing Tunnels
» Up-lift – 9mm
22
GEOCONSULT
3D Analysis 3D Tunnel
» Up-lift above tunnels – 10mm  (max 19mm)
23
GEOCONSULT
Deflection of Retaining Wall
» Wall Deflection  4-5mm above tunnels

 15mm elsewhere
24
GEOCONSULT
Deflection of Tunnels
» Tunnel Deflections – 10mm
25
GEOCONSULT
Track Movements
Heave : 8mm
Gradient change: <1:3000
26
GEOCONSULT
Deflection of Tunnels
27
GEOCONSULT
Impact Assessment
» Track deflection less than 15mm & 1:1000

» Lining deflections are expected less than 10mm
» Thrust change – Thrust remains within similar
Order of Magnitude
» Moment change – Bending moments increase

but remain within similar Order of Magnitude
» However N/M combinations change

28
GEOCONSULT
Impact Assessment
» Comparison of sectional forces to be based on

actual Thrust/Moment combinations and not on
maximum values only
» Change of N/M combination results in strain

change  opening of cracks & new seepage
29
GEOCONSULT
Impact Assessment
INITIAL AFTER C&C EXCAVATION
30
GEOCONSULT
Impact Assessment
» If no ground treatment at all, increased ground

movements and heave of existing tunnels,
resulting less robust overall system
» tunnel deflections increase and come closer to

15mm limit
» Wall deflections, hydraulic soil failure (boiling

sand)
» Overall construction risks increase with no GT

31
Plaxis 2D modelling
2D modelling for Bore
for Bore
tunnel& Pipe Box Tunnel
p
For Plaxis User Meeting
For Plaxis User Meeting‐7
7 April 2011
April 2011
Case Study 1 Bore tunnel
Case Study 1‐Bore tunnel
Soil profile for Bore tunnel
Soil profile for Bore tunnel
Plaxis Model
Ground settlement
Ground settlement
Maximum ground settlement 19mm
g
Tunnel movement
Tunnel movement
Maximum tunnel movement Maximum tunnel movement
=38mm =52mm
Lower tunnel Upper tunnel
Tunnel Axial forces
Tunnel Axial forces
Maximum Axial force=1540kN/m Maximum Axial force=995kN/m
Tunnel bending moment
Tunnel bending moment
Maximum Bending moment=65kN/m Maximum Bending moment=62kN/m
Tunnel Shear forces
Tunnel Shear forces
Maximum Axial force=64kN/m Maximum Axial force=58kN/m
Shielding Pile
Shielding Pile
Maximum bending moment= 411kN/m
Maximum deflection =13mm
Comparision of modelling with Muir
Wood method
Lower bound tunnel Upper bound tunnel
Cases Total Axial Bending Shear Total Axial Bending Shear

Displaceme Displaceme
nt force Moment force nt force Moment force
mm kN/m kNm/m kN/m mm kN/m kNm/m kN/m
with Joints 38 1540 65 64 52 995 62 58

rigid lining 36 1770 95 93 40 1430 154 117
Muir Wood 10 1872 85 14 1506 142
TBM Launching shaft
TBM Launching shaft
Lower bound tunnel
Lower bound tunnel
Retrival Shaft
Case study 2‐
Plaxis 2D Modelling for Pipe Box
tunnel
tunnel
• Geological Soil Profile For 2 Lane Mined Tunnel
f
Pipe Box
T
Tunnell
Construction
Construction Stage 1
1. Install the waterproofing system within every second
section between the temporary steel support frames
as shown
2. Cast the concrete lining within sections in which the
waterproofing system has been installed
3. Avoid placing niche at construction stage 1
Construction Stage 2
1. Remove temporary steel support frames upon sufficient setting
p y pp p g
of concrete at 40MPa
2. Install the waterproofing system within the remaining open
sections
3. Cast the concrete final lining within the remaining open sections
4. Place niche at construction stage 2
2 Lane Mined Tunnel PLAXIS 2D Modelling
Excavation
Retrieval Shaft Launching Shaft
2 Lane Mined Tunnel PLAXIS 2D (With JGP)
Max vertical displacement = 19mm
2 Lane Mined Tunnel PLAXIS 2D (Typ)
l ( )
g
Max Bending Moment = 613 kNm/pipe (Unfactored)
Existing Tunnel Movement Due to 2 Lane
Existing Tunnel Movement Due to 2 Lane
Mined Tunnel
CCL NEL (SB) NEL (NB)

4 mm 3 mm 2 mm
Max total displacement=4 mm <15mm
p
Piped Roofing Works
Piped Roofing Works
Installation of 800mm pipes using micro‐tunneling machine
Piped Roofing Works
Piped Roofing Works
Break through
Mining of Piped Box Tunnel
Installation of face bolt
Initial excavation and installation of entrance frame
Completed entrance frame and shotcrete works
Mining works and frame installation as per design sequence
RC Works
RC Works
Completed mining works and commencement of RC works
RC Works
RC Works
RC works
RC Works
RC Works
Completed piped box tunnel
Thank you
•Thank you
SINGAPORE PLAXIS USERS MEETING
7TH APRIL 2011
CASE STUDY 5:
3 BASEMENT EXCAVATION AT KENG LEE RD
3-BASEMENT
by Dr Ng Tiong Guan
GeoEng Consultants (S) Pte Ltd.

SPECIALIST CIVIL AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Outline of Presentation
• Site Location
• Ground Condition
• Proposed Earth Retaining System
• FE Analyses
A l
• Instrumentation and Monitoring
g
• Site Photos

Site Location
Tanjo
ong Katon
ng Road

Site Location
Tanjo
ong Katon
ng Road

Site
KENG LEE ROAD

Newton
Life Church
Site

Amaryllis Ville
(behind proposed site)
Neighboring
Site
Site
KENG LEE ROAD

Amaryllis Ville
(behind proposed site)
Neighboring Site
Site

7TH APRIL 2011
Ground Condition

Site Investigation
B
Boreholes
h l Layout
L t Plan
Pl
Site Investigation
B
Boreholes
h l Layout
L t Plan
Pl 12m
Depth of Marine Clay

11m
15m
18m
21m
23.5m
24m 15m
17m
18m 12m 24m

15m
AB
BH6
AB
BH3
AB
BH1
AB
BH8
AB
BH2
Generalised Sub-soil Profile
AB
BH4
AB
BH5
AB
BH7
AB
BH9
ABH
H10
AB
BH6
B3 Level
AB
BH3
AB
BH1
AB
BH8
AB
BH2
AB
BH4
AB
BH5
AB
BH7
AB
BH9
ABH
H10
AB
BH6
B3 Level
AB
BH3
DW toe Level
AB
BH1
AB
BH8
AB
BH2
AB
BH4
AB
BH5
AB
BH7
AB
BH9
ABH
H10
Geotechnical Design Parameters

Undrained Shear Strength - Cu (kPa)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0
Design Line:
Cu = 17kPa
2
4
ABHs
Corrected Field
Vane Shear Test
6
8
Depth ((m)
10
12
14 UNDRAINED SHEAR
STRENGTH, Cu vs DEPTH
Worst Line used in FOR MARINE CLAY
16
Analysis: Cu = 10kPa
* A factor of 0.8 has

18
been
used to correct the Field
Vane Shear Tests
20
7TH APRIL 2011
Proposed Earth Retaining

System
y

DW TYPE 4
PROPOSED TERS
DW TYPE 3
D
DEPTH OF EXCV = 13m ~ 14m
LEGEND:-
DIAPHRAGM WALL
- 800mm THK
- 33m ~ 36m DEPTH
DW TYPE 2
D
SOIL IMPROVEMENT
-GMP/JGP
- 2.5m
2 5m ~ 3.0m
3 0m THK
DW TYPE 1
1st Layer :-
CS Compound
CS: C d strut
t t 2 x UC350x350x137kg/m
UC350 350 137k /
Waler Size UC400x400x172kg/m
2nd Layer :-
Compound strut 2 x UB610x324x155kg/m
Waler Size 2 x UB610x324x155kg/m
3rd Layer :-
Compound strut 2 x UB610x324x174kg/m
Waler Size 2 x UB610x324x155kg/m
Strutting Layout Plan

Designed Sections
C C
B B
A A
D
Analysed Sections : Section A-A
A A
Section A-A
JGP
Analysed Sections : Section B-B
B B
Section B-B
JGP
Analysed Sections : Section C-C
C C

Section C-C
JGP
Analysed Sections : Section D-D
D
Section D-D
JGP
7TH APRIL 2011
FEM ANALYSIS
SECTION A
A-A
A

Table A1: Material Parameters used in PLAXIS Analysis
Soil Properties
Linear Elastic
ID Name Type g_unsat g_sat k_x k_y n E_ref E_incr y_ref R_inter
[kN/m^3] [kN/m^3] [m/day] [m/day] [-] [kN/m^2] [kN/m^3] [m] [-]
1 Backfill Non-porous 19 19 0 0 0.2 30000 0 0 0.7
2 Base Slab (1000mm) Non-porous 48 48 0 0 0.2 28000000 0 0 1
Mohr Coulomb
C
ID Name Type g_unsat g_sat k_x k_y n E_ref c_ref phi R_inter
[kN/m^3] [kN/m^3] [m/day] [m/day] [-] [kN/m^2] [kN/m^2] [°] [-]
3 F1 Drained 19 19 0.0864 0.0864 0.3 13000 0.1 30 0.5
4 F2 UnDrained 19 19 8.64E-05 8.64E-05 0.35 5200 20 0 0.5
5 Fill (Clayey) UnDrained 19 19 0.0864 0.0864 0.3 8500 25 0 0.5
6 G V(N>100) UnDrained 20 20 0.00863 0.00863 0.3 130000 10 35 0.7
7 G V(N>50) UnDrained 20 20 0.00863 0.00863 0.3 87000 5 32 0.7
8 G VI ( N<30) UnDrained 19 19 0.00863 0.00863 0.3 18000 2 30 0.7
9 JGP UnDrained 16 16 0.000864 0.000864 0.3 130000 300 0 0.33
10 Lower Marine Clay UnDrained 16 16 8.64E-05 8.64E-05 0.35 2100 10 0 0.5
11 U
Upper M
Marine
i Cl
Clay U D i d
UnDrained 16 16 8 64E 05
8.64E-05 8 64E 05
8.64E-05 0 35
0.35 2100 10 0 05
0.5
12 G V(30<N<50) UnDrained 19 19 0.00863 0.00863 0.3 52000 5 32 0.7
Beam Properties
ID Name Type
yp EA EI w n M_pp N_pp
[kN/m] [kNm^2/m] [kN/m^2] [-] [kNm/m] [kN/m]
1 600mm Bore pile Elastic 955125 21600 0.42 0.2 1E+15 1E+15
2 Base Slab (1000mm Thk) Elastic 26000000 2166600 0 0.2 1E+15 1E+15
3 DWall (800mm) Elastic 17920000 955700 4.8 0.2 1E+15 1E+15
4 800mm Bore pile Elastic 1690000 67500 0.75 0.2 1E+15 1E+15
Anchor Properties
ID Name EA |F_max,comp| |F_max,tens|

[[kN/m]] [[kN/m]] [[kN/m]]
1 250mm Slab 6500000 1E+15 1E+15
2 S1-2x350x350x137kg/m 1188333.3 1.66667E+14 0
3 S2 2x400x400x172kg/m 1494500 1.66667E+14 0
4 S3-2x400x400x172kg/m 1494500 1.66667E+14 0
Table A2: Calculation
C Phases
Identification Phase no. Start from Calculation Loading input Time Water First Last Error
Initial phase 0 0 N/A N/A 0.00 day 0 0 0 N/A
Staged Construction 20 0 Plastic analysis Staged construction 0.00 day 0 1 2 No errors.
I t ll D
Install Dwall,
ll BP
BP,JGP,
JGP AApply
l surcharge
h 1 20 Pl ti analysis
Plastic l i St d construction
Staged t ti 0 00 dday
0.00 1 3 12 N errors.
No
Exc to RL101.0 2 1 Plastic analysis Staged construction 0.00 day 2 13 28 No errors.
Install S1@RL101.5 3 2 Plastic analysis Staged construction 0.00 day 3 29 30 No errors.
Exc to RL93.0
RL93 0 6 5 Plastic analysis Staged construction 0 00 day
0.00 6 49 70 No errors
errors.
Cast base slab 9 8 Plastic analysis Staged construction 0.00 day 9 131 133 No errors.
Cast 3rd Basement 10 9 Plastic analysis Staged construction 0.00 day 10 134 135 No errors.
Remove S3 11 10 Plastic analysis Staged construction 0 00 day
0.00 11 136 137 No errors
errors.
Cast 2nd Basement 12 11 Plastic analysis Staged construction 0.00 day 12 138 139 No errors.
Remove S2 13 12 Plastic analysis Staged construction 0.00 day 13 140 141 No errors.
Cast 1st Basement 14 13 Plastic analysis Staged construction 0.00 day 14 142 143 No errors.
Remove S1 15 14 Plastic analysis Staged construction 0.00 day 15 144 145 No errors.
Over Excavation 16 8 Plastic analysis Staged construction 0 00 day
0.00 16 146 148 No errors
errors.
Remove S1 at FEL@RL88.0 17 8 Plastic analysis Staged construction 0.00 day 17 149 150 No errors.
OSF @RL97.0_S1 21 4 Plastic analysis Staged construction 0.00 day 4 155 162 No errors.
OSF @RL93.0_S1
@RL93.0 S1 22 6 Plastic analysis Staged construction 0.00 day 6 163 192 No errors.
OSF @RL93.0_S2 23 6 Plastic analysis Staged construction 0.00 day 6 193 218 No errors.
FEM Modelling : Section A-A
St
Stage 1 : Install
I t ll diaphragm
di h wall,
ll JGP/GMP
JGP/GMP, bore
b piles
il

Stage 2 : Excavate to RL101.0

Stage 3 :Install 1st layer strut @RL101.5
I t ll 2ndd layer
Stage 5 : Install
St l strut
t t @RL97.5
@RL97 5

I t ll 3rdd layer
Stage 7 : Install
St l strut
t t @RL93.5
@RL93 5
Stage 8 : Excavate to soffit of base slab and pile cap @ RL88.15

Stage 9 : Construct
St C t t pile
il cap, castt 1000
1000mm raft
ft slab
l b
Stage 10: Cast 3rd basement slab

Remove 3rdd layer

Stage 11 : R
St l strut
t t
Stage 12 : Cast 2nd basement slab

Remove 2ndd layer

Stage 13 : R
St l strut
t t
Stage 14 : Cast 1st basement slab

St
Stage Remove 1stt layer
15 : R l strut
t t

CHL_Sec A-A
Section A-A : Diaphragm Wall Deflection
Horizontal Displacement, Xd Left Side Wall, ABH4 (mm) Horizontal Displacement, Xd Right Side Wall, ABH1 (mm)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 -60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
106 106
104 104
102 102
100 100
98 98
96 96
94 94
92 92
90 90
ation, RL (m)
ation, RL (m)
88 88
1
86 1 86
Eleva
Eleva
84 1 84
1
82 82
0
80 0 80
78 0 78
0 1 2
76 76
74 74
72 72
70 70
68 68
66 66
Exc to RL101.0
RL101 0 Exc to RL97.0
RL97 0 Exc to RL93.0
RL93 0 Exc to FEL RL88.0
RL88 0 Cast base slab
Remove S3 Remove S2 Remove S1 Over Excavation
Section A-A (Bottom Up) : D-Wall Deflections

Section A-A : Diaphragm Wall Design
M u/1.4 Capacity of Left Wall for Section A-A Mu/1.4 Capacity of Right Wall for Section A-A
Type '7' (800mm thk.) Type '1' (800mm thk.)
106 106
104 104
-500 102
0 0 1650 -500 102
0 0 1650
100 100
98 98
96 96
94 1650 94
92 92 1650
90 90
-800 88 1650 -800 88 1650
Reduced Level (RL, m)
Reduced Level (RL, m)

86 86
-800 1650 -800 1650
84 84
82 82
80 80
-800 -500 500 -800 -500 500
78 78
76 76
74 74
72 72
70 70
-500 0 0 500
68 68
-500 0 0 500
Soil 66 Excavation 66 Excavation
Soil
64 64
62 62
60 60
58 58
56 56
-1000
1000 -500
500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 -1000
1000 -500
500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Mu/1.4 Capacity (kNm/m) Mu/1.4 Capacity (kNm/m)
Capacity (Soil) Capacity (Exc) FEM BM (Soil) FEM BM (Exc) Capacity (Soil) Capacity (Exc) FEM BM (Exc) FEM BM (Soil)
Summary of FEM Results
Max Wall
M W ll Max
M Strut Force
Max Wall Max Ground
Section Bending Shear
Deflection Settlement
Moment Force
S1 S2 S3
(mm) (mm) (kNm/m) (kN/m) (kN/m)
A-A 47 31 1270 562 342 533 718
B-B 68 46 1190 600 329 516 792
C-C 40 25 1180 526 317 470 577
D-D 35 17 1140 693 322 384 363

Summary of FEM Results
Depth
D th off
Max. Predicted Wall Max. Ground
Section Excavation
Deflection Settlement
Modelled (H)
A-A 13.85m 47mm (0.34%H) 31mm (0.22%H)
B-B
B B 13 0 m
13.0 68mm (0.52%H)
(0 52%H) 46mm (0.35%H)
(0 35%H)
C-C 13.0 m 40mm (0.31%H) 25mm (0.20%H)
D-D 13.0 m 35mm (0.27%H) 17mm (0.13%H)

7TH APRIL 2011
INSTRUMENTATION &
MONITORING

Instrumentation & Monitoring
• 6 clusters of IWP
(Inclinometer Water Standpipe
(Inclinometer, Standpipe, Piezometer)
Piezometer).
• 7 nos of In-wall Inclinometers
• 44 nos of Ground Settlement Markers
• 6 nos of Optical Prisms (Newton Life Church side) and Tiltmeter

respectively
• 60 nos proposed Strain Gauges to be determined on site.
• Monitoring
g Frequency
q y shall be twice p
per week during
g excavation
and once a week after completion of basement. Frequency shall be
increased depending on monitoring condition

Instrumentation and
Monitoring Layout Plan
IW6
IW5
IW4
IW7
IW3
IW2
IW1
7TH APRIL 2011
SITE PHOTOS

25 June 2009
03 Sept 2009
29 Sept 2009
7TH APRIL 2011
THANK YOU!

Re‐analysis of Nicoll Highway Collapse
Using Plaxis Advanced Soil Models
Joseph WONG Yan Kiat
April 2011
Singapore Users Meeting 2011
 Introduction
 Case Study : Nicoll Highway Collapse Incident
 Project Information
Project Information
 FEM Model
 Initial Stress State
 Simple soil model
Simple soil model
 Advanced soil models
 Modified Cam Clay
 Hardening Soil
Hardening Soil
 Conclusion
Re‐analysis of Nicoll Highway Collapse Using Plaxis Advanced Soil Models
Introduction
 Attempts of using advanced soil models are generally accepted

nowadays, after the incident of Nicoll Highway Collapse.
 The COI
COI’ss findings also brought into the perspective the importance of
modeling the soil behavior.
 The use of simple elastic‐perfectly plastic Mohr‐Coulomb model has
several drawbacks especially when modeling the behavior of the highly
non‐linear consolidating soft clay.
 The use of Plaxis advanced soil models shall be assessed based on a well‐
documented
doc mented case study:
st d The Collapse of Nicoll Highway
High a
Case Study
The collapse of Nicoll Highway on 20 April 2004
Site Plan
Overview of Type M3 Area
Final
Formation Analysed
Section
Images before & after collapse (20 April 2004)
Geology of Site and History of Reclamation
Kallang
Formation
NCH Site
Reclaimed Land
Interpreted Stratigraphy
Analyzed Cross Section
CROSS-SECTION
Chainage (m)
110
Northbound Wall Southbound Wall N thb

Northbound
d NORTHBOUND Chainage (m)
105
0
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
ABH-32 ABH-30 M3010 ABH-84
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110
ABH-83 ABH-30 M3010 ABH-32 WN4 ABH-85 ABH-34

Panel 302 Panel 307 105
ABH-28
Fill S1 [1H350x350x12x19] Exc.100.9

Fill 100
Fill
100 100 100 100 100 Fill 100 100
100 95
E
E
Exc.98.1 UMC UMC

E S2 [1H400x400x13x21] 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
E
E
m)
85 E
Elevation (m
F2 F2
F1
95 Exc.94.6 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
S3 [1H400x400x13x21]
LMC
LMC
75 F2 F2
F1
F2
UMC 70 OA 70
sand
70 70 F1 70 70 70 70
UMC clay F2
Exc.91.1
F2
silt silt
65
S4 [1H400x400x13x21] sand
E
E
90
silt sand
60 60 60 60 60 60 OA 60 60
clay
sand clay
55
Exc.87.6 sand
S5 [1HR400x400x13x21]
silt
50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
85 F2 Exc.84.6
S6 [1H414x405x18x28] F2
Elevation (m)
Exc.81.6
S7 [2H400x400x13x21]
80
Exc.78.3
S8 [1H414x405x18x28]
Southbound SOUTHBOUND Chainage (m)
LMC
LMC
0
Exc 75 3
Exc.75.3
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
75 S9 [2H400x400x13x21] 110 110 110 110 110 110 110
JGP (1.5m thk) 105

ABH-28 ABH-82 ABH-29 ABH-84 ABH-31 ABH-33
Exc.72.3 Fill
S10 [1H414x405x18x28] 100
E
100 100
E
100
E
100 100 100
F2 95
E F1
70 F1 Exc.69.6 UMC UMC

90 90 90 90 90 90 90
E JGP (2.6m thk)
Elevation (m)
85
F2 F2 F2 E
F2 F2
F1
F2 F2 80
LMC
80 80 80 80 80 80
LMC
75 F2
65 OA(C) OA(D)
F1
Sand
70 OA 70 Sand Clay70 70 70 70 70
Sand clay F2 F2
65 sand clay F2
OA(C) silt silt
Sand clay
sand Clay
60 60 60
sand
60 60 60 OA 60
sand
OA(B)
60 OA(B) 55 Sand
Clay
50 50 50 50 50 50 50
OA(A)
55
50
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
30
Instrumentation Plan of C824 Site
FEM Model
6w w w a = 7w > 2d
Fixed
REFINED CLUSTER Horizontal,
UX=0
a > 2d = 2.7
Fixed in both horizontal and vertical UX=0 , UY =0
Element numbers : 3705
Number of nodes : 30651
p
Number of stress points : 44460
Average element size : 3.15m
Actual and Modelled Excavation Sequence
No Construction Sequence Approximate known date of event (monitoring records)
1‐4 Install Diaphragm Walls / Drive Kingposts / Jet Grout Piling and Install Bored Piles
5 Excavate to RL 100.9m
L 100 9
6 Install Strut S1 at RL 101.9m
7 Excavate to RL 98.1m 17/12/2003
Install Strut S2 at RL 98.7m
9 Excavate to RL 94.6m 27/12/2003
11 Excavate to RL 91.1m 14/01/2004
13 Excavate to RL 87.6m 03/02/2004
16 Install Strut S6 at RL 85.2m 23/02/2004
18 Install Strut S7 at RL 82 2m
Install Strut S7 at RL 82.2m 05/03/2004
21 Excavate to RL 75.3m 01/04/2004
23 Excavate to RL 72.3m 17/04/2004 – Collapse on 20/04/2004
Measured Undrained Shear Strength : CPTU, FSVT and UU test
100
CPT‐AC 1 (ABH 33)
CPT‐AC 2 (ABH 85)
CPT‐AC 3 (ABH 31)
CPT‐AC 4 (ABH 34)
VST‐ABH 27
VST‐ABH 28
VST‐ABH 30
VST‐ABH 31
C482 UU Data
C483 UU Data Tan et al. (2003)
90 C486 UU Data
Cu = (qt ‐ sv) / Nkt Nkt = 12
Elevation ((m.RL)
Cao et al (2001)
Cao et al (2001)
80
Cu = [(0.866qt+0.134‐ubt)Sin’] / (1+sin ’)
70
60
0 50 100 150 200 250
Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)

Calibration of Soil Model using Plaxis Soil‐Test Application
Initial Stresses
 It is important to consider the initial stress state in the ground prior to any
stress redistribution taking place as a result of any construction activities.
 When advanced soil model are used, the initial stress state may have a
When advanced soil model are used the initial stress state may have a
significant influence on the predicted mechanical behavior.
3
3 available methods:
il bl h d
a. Initialize the domain with a certain stress state corresponding to the unit
weight and a Ko value. Applicable to horizontal ground
b. Apply gravity to the soil body. Not suitable for over‐consolidated soils
c. Modeling the geological history, especially when preconsolidation
g g g y p y p and
unloading has been significant
Initial Stresses for Advanced Soil Models
Comparison of Effective Vertical Stress profiles obtained from CPTU against
C i f Eff i V i l S fil b i df CPTU i
consolidation analysis
110
Measured Eff. Vert. Stress at AC-1
'v General Eff. Vert. Stress
HS Model
MCC model
100
Interpreted effective stress profile of the
Interpreted effective stress profile of the
piezocone profile is based on Konrad et al
Upper (1998)
Marine
90
Cl
Clay
Elevation (m.RL)
Vertical effective yield stress,
syc’= (qt ‐ u)/(1+M tan ’ cot q)
F2
where
80
From
consolidation
Lower
qt = measured cone resistance corrected for unequal end area
analysis
Marine effects
Clay
Effective overburden
Effective overburden
um= assumed average pore pressure on face of penetrating tip
70
pressure u = measured pore pressure immediately behind the tip
M = friction factor for soil acting on the cone surface (assume M=1)
’ = effective friction angle of normally consolidated soil
q= half apex angle of the cone tip (usually 30°)
 = factor relates to the measured pore pressure behind the tip to
factor relates to the measured pore pressure behind the tip to
that along the face. (assume  =1)
60
0 200 400 600 800
Effective Vertical Stress Plot (kPa)
Simple Soil Model
Elastic‐perfectly plastic Mohr Coulomb (M‐C)
Quick Recapped of M‐C Method A and B
Undrained Behavior
Method PLAXIS Material Material Model Parameters Computed Stresses

Settingg
Strength Stiffness
A Undrained Mohr‐Coulomb c’, ’ E’,u’ Effective stress and

[effective] [effective] pore pressure
B Undrained Mohr‐Coulomb
Mohr Coulomb u
cu,  E ,u
E’ u’ Effective stress and
Effective stress and
[total] [effective] pore pressure
C Non‐porous Mohr‐Coulomb cu, u Eu,uu=0.495 Total stress

[total] [total]
D As in Method A, for other soil models
A A
Cu [Method A]
ʼ
D B C
Cu [Method
B,C,D]
ʼ
pʼ, p (Confining
p (C fi i St
Stress))
Quick Recapped of M‐C Method A and B
 Overestimation of undrained shear strength with effective strength inputs
g g p
C483 BH-1 [12m] UU#1
100 C483 BH-1 [12m] UU#2
C483 BH-1 [12m] UU#3 160
UMC C483 BH-2 [12m] UU#1

C483 BH-2 [12m] UU#2
LMC C483 BH-3 [33m] UU#1
90 C483 BH-2 [12m] UU#3
C483 BH-3 [33m] UU#2
50
E'ref =7500kPa, C' = 0kPa, φ'=22° C483 BH-3 [15m] UU#1
C483 BH-3 [33m] UU#3
Mohr-Coulomb (A) C483 BH-3 [15m] UU#1 140 C483 BH-4 [33m] UU#1
C483 BH-3 [15m] UU#2
C483 BH-4 [33m] UU#2
C483 BH-4 [18m] UU#1
80 C483 BH-4 [33m] UU#3
C483 BH-4 [18m] UU#2
C483 BH-6 [30m] UU#1
C483 BH-4 [18m] UU#3
C483 BH-6 [30m] UU#2
C483 BH-5 [18m] UU#1 120 C483 BH-6 [30m] UU#3
C483 BH-5 [18m] UU#2
70 C483 BH-7 [33m] UU#1
C483 BH-5 [18m] UU#3
C483 BH-7 [33m] UU#2
C483 BH-6 [12m] UU#1 C483 BH-7 [33m] UU#3
50
C483 BH-6 [12m] UU#2 E'ref =10000kPa, Cu = 50kPa
C483 BH-8 [36m] UU#1
C483 BH-6 [12m] UU#3 Mohr Coulomb (B)
Mohr-Coulomb
100 C483 BH-8 [36m] UU#2
60 C483 BH-6 [18m] UU#1 Mohr-Coulomb (A)
Deviator Stress (kPa)
C483 BH-8 [36m] UU#3
De viator Stress (kPa)

C483 BH-6 [18m] UU#2 50 C483 BH-9 [21m] UU#1
E'ref =10000kPa, C' = 0kPa, φ'=24°
C483 BH-6 [18m] UU#3 C483 BH-9 [21m] UU#2
50 C483 BH-7 [12m] UU#1 C483 BH-9 [21m] UU#3
E'ref =7500kPa, Cu = 25kPa 50
50 C483 BH-7 [12m] UU#2 E'ref =10000kPa, Cu = 40kPa C483 BH-9 [24m] UU#1
Mohr-Coulomb (B) 80
C483 BH-7 [12m] UU#3 Mohr-Coulomb (B) C483 BH-9 [24m] UU#2
C483 BH-8 [12m] UU#1 C483 BH-9 [24m] UU#3
C483 BH-8 [12m] UU#2 C486 BH-2 [30m] UU#1
50
E'ref
E ref =7500kPa,
=7500kPa Cu = 20kPa C483 BH-8 [12m] UU#3
40 50
C486 BH-2 [30m] UU#2
Mohr-Coulomb (B) C483 BH-8 [18m] UU#1 E'ref =10000kPa, Cu = 30kPa C486 BH-2 [30m] UU#3
C483 BH-8 [18m] UU#2 60 C486 BH-12 [24m] UU#1
Mohr-Coulomb (B)
C483 BH-8 [18m] UU#3 C486 BH-12 [24m] UU#2
50
E'ref =7500kPa, Cu = 15kPa C483 BH-9 [15m] UU#1 C486 BH-12 [24m] UU#3
30
Mohr-Coulomb (B) C483 BH-9 [15m] UU#2 C486 BH-12 [36m] UU#1
C483 BH-9 [15m] UU#3 C486 BH-12 [36m] UU#2
C486 BH-14 [15m] UU#2 40 C486 BH-12 [36m] UU#3
C486 BH-14 [15m] UU#3 C486 BH-15 [27m] UU#1
20 C486 BH-17 [15m] UU#1 C486 BH-15 [27m] UU#2
C486 BH-17 [15m] UU#2 C486 BH-15 [27m] UU#3
C486 BH-17 [15m] UU#3 Mohr-Coulomb-Method B (Mean)
C486 BH-20 [12m] UU#1 20 Mohr-Coulomb-Method B (Upper)
10 C486 BH-20 [12m] UU#2 Mohr-Coulomb-Method B (Lower)
C486 BH-20 [12m] UU#3 Mohr-Coulomb - Method A
Mohr-Coulomb-Method B (Mean)
Mohr-Coulomb-Method B (Upper)
Mohr-Coulomb-Method B (Lower)
0 0
Mohr-Coulomb - Method A
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Axial Strain (%) Axial Strain (%)
Quick Recapped of M‐C Method A and B : Deflection profile
17 Dec 2003 [Exc. to strut S2] 27 Dec 2003 [Exc. to strut S3]
105 105 105 105

Elevation (m.RL)
Elevation (m.RL)
S1 S1
S2
95 95 95 95
85 85 85 85
75 75 75 75
South Dwall I-104
South Dwall I-104

North Dwall I-65
North Dwall I-65

65 65 65 65
S
S
55 55 55 55
0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0
Horizontal Displacement, Ux [mm] Horizontal Displacement, Ux [mm]
Measured Readings Measured Readings

Mohr-Coulomb-Method A Mohr-Coulomb-Method A
Mohr-Coulomb-Method B Re‐analysis of Nicoll Highway Collapse Using Plaxis Advanced Soil Models
Mohr-Coulomb-Method B
14 Jan 2004 [Exc. to strut S4] 3 Feb 2004 [Exc. to strut S5]
105 105 105 105

Elevation (m.RL)
Elevation (m.RL)
S1 S1
S2 S2
S3 S3
95 95 95 95
S4
85 85 85 85
75 75 75 75
South Dwall I-104
South Dwall I-104

North Dwall I-65
North Dwall I-65

65 65 65 65
S
S
55 55 55 55
0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0

23 Feb 2004 [Install strut S6] 5 Mar 2004 [Install strut S7]
105 105
Elevation (m..RL)
105 105
RL)
Elevation (m.R
S1
S1
S2
S2
S3
S3
95 95
95 95
S4
S4
S5
S5
S6 85
85 S6 85
85
S7
75 75
75 75
04
North Dwall I-65
5
South Dwall I-10
South Dwall I-104

4
North Dwall I-65
65 65
65 65
55 55
55 55
0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0
0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0
Horizontal Displacement, Ux [mm]
Horizontal Displacement, Ux [mm]
Measured
M d Readings
R di
Measured Readings
Mohr-Coulomb-Method A
Mohr-Coulomb-Method A
17 Mar 2004 [Install strut S8] 1 April 2004 [Exc. to strut S9]
105 105 105
Elevation (m.RLL)
105
Elevation (m.RLL)
S1 S1
S2 S2
S3 S3
95 95 95 95
S4 S4
S5 S5
S6
85
S6
85 85 85
S7 S7
S8 S8
75 75 75 75
South Dwall I-104

North Dwall I-65
South Dwall I-104
North Dwall I-65
65 65 65 65
55 55 55 55
0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0

Mohr-Coulomb-Method B Mohr-Coulomb-Method B
7 April 2004 [Install strut S9] 20 April 2004 [Failure]
105 105 105
Elevation (m.RL)
105
Elevation (m.RL))
S1
S2
S1
S3
S2
95 95 95 95
S3
S4
S4
S5
S5
S6 85
85 S6 85 85
S7
S7
S8
S8
S9 S9
75 75 75 75
South Dwall I-104

North Dwall I-65
South Dwall I-104
North Dwall I-65
65 65 65 65
55 55 55 55
0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 500 400 300 200 100 0

Quoted from Professor Lee Fook Hou’s lecture notes
…while using a simple model like Mohr‐Coulomb may lead to modelling

errors, using sophisticated model may not be only unnecessary and
infeasible given the lack of knowledge of the various material parameters
needed by the model, they may also give false confidence to the user that
all is well,, when actuallyy not so…..
Question is : Will advanced constitutive model be superior?
Advanced Soil Models
 Modified Cam Clay (MCC)
 Hardening Soil Model (HS)
Modified Cam Clay
 Developed
Developed starting in 1958 at Cambridge University, Roscoe et al. based
starting in 1958 at Cambridge University, Roscoe et al. based
on original Cam Clay and later was modified in flow rule, Burland (1965)
 Able to describe 3 important aspects of soil behavior
 Strength
 Compression dilatancy Critical State Line [CSL]
 Critical states q
1
 Characterize by 5 parameters
Ch t i b 5 t M
k -line
line o
NC
 Specific volume, v
 Swelling index,  C
 Iso. Log. Compression index,  Modified Cam Clay
[MCC] Yield Curve
 Frictional constant, M
Cam Clay [CC] Yield
 Shear Modulus, G Curve
 (Poisson ratio, )
p’o
p’
Modified Cam Clay – Input Parameters
Name Type   ur einit m cinter nter yinter
[-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [kN/m^2] [°] [°]
Upper
pp MC UnDrained 0.6 0.1 0.15 2.14 0.772 0.1 20 0
Lower MC UnDrained 0.6 0.1 0.15 1.47 1.418 0.1 35 0
E upper UnDrained 0.6 0.1 0.15 1.48 0.772 0.1 20 0
E lower UnDrained 0.6 0.1 0.15 1.47 1.418 0.1 35 0
For Singapore Marine Clay
(Cc) – typical 0.6 to 0.8
 (Cr ) – typical 0.2 to 0.3
Modified Cam Clay – Calibration with UU specimens
80
160
Undrained Shear Strength of Upper Marine Clay C483 BH-1 [12m] UU#1
C483 BH-1 [12m] UU#2 Undrained Shear Strength of Lower Marine Clay
C483 BH-1 [12m] UU#3
70
UMC C483 BH-2 [12m] UU#1
C483 BH-2 [12m] UU#2 LMC C483 BH-3 [33m] UU#1
C483 BH-3 [33m] UU#2
C483 BH-2 [12m] UU#3 140 C483 BH-3 [33m] UU#3
C483 BH-3 [15m] UU#1
C483 BH-4 [33m] UU#1
C483 BH-3 [15m] UU#1
C483 BH-4 [33m] UU#2
C483 BH-3 [15m] UU#2
C483 BH-4 [33m] UU#3
C483 BH-4 [18m] UU#1
C483 BH-6 [30m] UU#1
60 C483 BH-4 [18m] UU#2
120 C483 BH-6 [30m] UU#2
C483 BH-4 [18m] UU#3
C483 BH-6 [30m] UU#3
C483 BH-5 [18m] UU#1
C483 BH-7 [33m] UU#1
C483 BH-5 [18m] UU#2
C483 BH-7 [33m] UU#2
C483 BH-5 [18m] UU#3
C483 BH-7 [33m] UU#3
50 C483 BH-6 [12m] UU#1
100 C483 BH-8 [36m] UU#1
C483 BH-6 [12m] UU#2
Deviator Stress (kPa))
50 C483 BH-8
BH 8 [36
[36m]] UU#2
Mohr-Coulomb (B), E'ref =10000kPa, Cu = 40kPa
c'=0.1,=0.6, =0.1
C483 BH-6 [12m] UU#3
Deviator Stress (kPa)

MCC c’=0.1, 
MCC=20,  '=14°, =0.6, =0.1 C483 BH-6 [18m] UU#1
C483 BH-8 [36m] UU#3
C483 BH-9 [21m] UU#1
C483 BH-6 [18m] UU#2
C483 BH-9 [21m] UU#2
C483 BH-6 [18m] UU#3
40 50 C483 BH-9 [21m] UU#3
E'ref =7500kPa, Cu = 20kPa C483 BH-7 [12m] UU#1 80
C483 BH-9 [24m] UU#1
Mohr-Coulomb (B) C483 BH-7 [12m] UU#2
MCC c'=0.1,  '=35°, =0.6, =0.1
MCC c’=0.1,  =35, =0.6, =0.1 C483 BH-9 [24m] UU#2
C483 BH-7 [12m] UU#3
C483 BH-9 [24m] UU#3
C483 BH-8 [12m] UU#1
C486 BH-2 [30m] UU#1
C483 BH
BH-8
8 [12m] UU#2
D
30 C483 BH-8 [12m] UU#3
C486 BH-2 [30m] UU#2
60 C486 BH-2 [30m] UU#3
C483 BH-8 [18m] UU#1
C486 BH-12 [24m] UU#1
C483 BH-8 [18m] UU#2
C483 BH-8 [18m] UU#3 C486 BH-12 [24m] UU#2
C483 BH-9 [15m] UU#1 C486 BH-12 [24m] UU#3

C486 BH-12 [36m] UU#1
20 C483 BH-9 [15m] UU#2
C483 BH-9 [15m] UU#3
40 C486 BH-12 [36m] UU#2
C486 BH-14 [15m] UU#2 C486 BH-12 [36m] UU#3
C486 BH-14
BH 14 [15
[15m]] UU#3 C486 BH-15
BH 15 [27m] UU#1
C486 BH-17 [15m] UU#1 C486 BH-15 [27m] UU#2
C486 BH-17 [15m] UU#2 C486 BH-15 [27m] UU#3

10
C486 BH-17 [15m] UU#3 20 Mohr-Coulomb-Method B (Mean)
C486 BH-20 [12m] UU#1 MCC
C486 BH-20 [12m] UU#2
C486 BH-20 [12m] UU#3
0 MCC
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
0 2 4 6 8 10
Axial Strain (%)
Axial Strain (%)
Modified Cam Clay – Deflection Profile
A l
Analyses against measured horizontal displacement
i dh i l di l
105 105 105 105

Elevation (m.RL)
Elevation (m.RL)
S1 S1
S2
95 95 95 95
85 85 85 85
75 75 75 75
South Dwall I-104
South Dwall I-104

North Dwall I-65
North Dwall I-65

65 65 65 65
S
S
55 55 55 55
0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0
Modified Cam-Clay Modified Cam-Clay

105 105 105 105

Elevation (m.RL)
Elevation (m.RL)
S1 S1
S2 S2
S3 S3
95 95 95 95
S4
85 85 85 85
75 75 75 75
South Dwall I-104
South Dwall I-104

North Dwall I-65
North Dwall I-65

65 65 65 65
S
S
55 55 55 55
0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0

105 105 105 105

Elevation (m.RL)
Elevation (m.RL)
S1 S1
S2 S2
S3 S3
95 95 95 95
S4 S4
S5 S5
S6 85 S6 85
85 85
S7
75 75 75 75
South Dwall I-104
South Dwall I-104

North Dwall I-65
North Dwall I-65

65 65 65 65
S
S
55 55 55 55
0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0

105 105 105 105

Elevation (m.RL)
Elevation (m.RL)
S1 S1
S2 S2
S3 S3
95 95 95 95
S4 S4
S5 S5
S6 S6
85 85 85 85
S7 S7
S8 S8
75 75 75 75
South Dwall I-104
South Dwall I-104

North Dwall I-65
North Dwall I-65

65 65 65 65
S
S
55 55 55 55
0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0

105 105 105 105

Elevation (m.RL)
Elevation (m.RL)
S1
S1 S2
S2 S3
95 95 95 95
S3
S4
S4
S5
S5
85 S6 85
85 S6 85
S7
S7
S8
S8
S9 S9
75 75 75 75
South Dwall I-104
South Dwall I-104

North Dwall I-65
North Dwall I-65

65 65 65 65
S
S
55 55 55 55
0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 500 400 300 200 100 0

Modified Cam-Clay
Modified Cam-Clay
Hardening Soil Model
 Based
Based on works from Brinkgreve
on works from Brinkgreve & Vermeer (1997) and Schanz
& Vermeer (1997) and Schanz (1998)
 The model involves frictional hardening characteristics to model plastic
shear strain in deviatoric loading, and cap hardening characteristics to
model plastic volumetric strain in primary loading
model plastic volumetric strain in primary loading
 Requires 9 parameters
 Stiff unloading / reloading compared to virgin loading
1
3
2
Hardening Soil Model – Calibration with odeometer specimens
Modulus of Upper Marine Clay

1.80
ref
E'50 = 3600kPa,
1.60 UMC Eoedref = 1850kPa,
Eurref = 18,000kPa
C482 BH-014 PS-1
C482 BH-009 PS-3
m = 0.75 C482 BH-015 PS-2
1.40
 = 15° C482 BH-016 PS-2
C483 BH-5 PS-1
1.20 C483 BH-9 PS-2
C483 BH-6 PS-2
Stress,  (N/mm2)
C483 BH-7 PS-3

1.00
C483 BH-8 PS-2
C9120 DT-2343 TW-2
0.80 C9120 DT-2342 TW-2

C9120 DT-2342 TW-3
C9120 DT-2342 PS-1
Modulus of Lower Marine Clay
0.60 C91201.80
DT-2129 PS-1
C9120 DT-2128 PS-2
E' 50ref = 3600kPa, C9120 DT-2133 TW-2 ref
0.40 E' 50 = 5500kPa, E'50ref = 3600kPa,
Eoed
ref
= 1850kPa, C91201.60
DT-2131 PS-2 ref ref
Eoed = 2750kPa, Eoed = 1850kPa, C482 BH-014 PS-1
ref HS model - Phi = 15refdegree
Eur = 18,000kPa Eur = 22000kPa Eur
ref
= 18,000kPa C482 BH-015 PS-3
0.20 m = 0.75 HS model - Phi = 22 degree
1.40 m = 0.6 m = 0.75 C482 BH-015 PS-6
 = 22°  = 24°  = 28° C482 BH-016 PS-7
C482 BH-028 PS-2
0.00 1.20
C483 BH-1 PS-5
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
C483 BH
BH-3
3 PS
PS-4
4
Stress,  (N/mm2)
Strain,   1.00
LMC E' 50
ref
= 5000kPa,
C483 BH-4 PS-2
C483 BH-4 PS-6
ref C483 BH-4 TW-2
0.80 Eoed = 2500kPa,
C483 BH-5 TW-1
Eurref = 20000kPa
C483 BH-6 PS-6
m = 0.6
 = 24° C483 BH-8 PS-4
0.60
C483 BH-8 PS-6
C483 BH-8 TW-4
0.40 HS model - Phi = 24 degree
HS model - Phi = 28 degree
HS model - Phi = 24 degree
0.20
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
Strain,  
Hardening Soil Model – Calibration with UU specimens
C483 BH-1 [12m] UU#1

80 C483 BH-1
BH 1 [12m] UU#2 160
Undrained Shear Strength of Upper Marine Clay C483 BH-1 [12m] UU#3
Undrained Shear Strength of Lower Marine Clay
C483 BH-2 [12m] UU#1
UMC C483 BH-2 [12m] UU#2

C483 BH-2 [12m] UU#3
LMC C483 BH-3 [33m] UU#1
C483 BH-3 [33m] UU#2
70 C483 BH-3 [15m] UU#1 C483 BH-3 [33m] UU#3

140
C483 BH-3 [15m] UU#1 C483 BH-4 [33m] UU#1
C483 BH-3 [15m] UU#2 C483 BH-4 [33m] UU#2
HS  '=22°
=22° Equiv Cu =31.6kPa
=31 6kPa C483 BH-4
4 [[18m]
8 ] UU#1
# C483 BH-4
BH 4 [33m] UU#3
C483 BH-4 [18m] UU#2 C483 BH-6 [30m] UU#1
C483 BH-4 [18m] UU#3 C483 BH-6 [30m] UU#2

60 120
C483 BH-5 [18m] UU#1 C483 BH-6 [30m] UU#3
C483 BH-5 [18m] UU#2 C483 BH-7 [33m] UU#1

C483 BH-5 [18m] UU#3 C483 BH-7 [33m] UU#2
C483 BH-6 [12m] UU#1 C483 BH-7 [33m] UU#3
HS  '=17° Equiv Cu =25.0kPa C483 BH-6 [12m] UU#2 C483 BH-8 [36m] UU#1
50 C483 BH-6 [12m] UU#3 100 C483 BH-8 [36m] UU#2
HS  '=16° Equiv Cu =23.6kPa C483 BH-6 [18m] UU#1 50 C483 BH-8 [36m] UU#3
ator Stress (kPa)
Mohr-Coulomb (B), E'ref =10000kPa, Cu = 40kPa
ator Stress (kPa)

C483 BH-6 [18m] UU#3 C483 BH-9 [21m] UU#2
HS '=28°, Equiv Cu = 40.0kPa
40 50
C483 BH-7 [12m] UU#2
80 C483 BH-9 [24m] UU#1
E'ref =7500kPa, Cu = 20kPa C483 BH-7 [12m] UU#3 HS '=26°, Equiv Cu = 37.1kPa C483 BH-9 [24m] UU#2
Mohr-Coulomb (B)
C483 BH-8 [12m] UU#1 C483 BH-9 [24m] UU#3
Devia
Devia
C483 BH-8 [12m] UU#2 HS '=24°, Equiv Cu = 34.4kPa C486 BH-2 [30m] UU#1
C483 BH-8 [12m] UU#3 C486 BH-2 [30m] UU#2
C483 BH-8 [18m] UU#1 C486 BH-2 [30m] UU#3
30 60
C483 BH-8 [18m] UU#2 C486 BH-12 [24m] UU#1
C483 BH-8 [18m] UU#3 C486 BH-12 [24m] UU#2
C483 BH-9 [15m] UU#1 C486 BH-12 [24m] UU#3
C483 BH-9 [15m] UU#2 C486 BH-12 [36m] UU#1
C483 BH
BH-9
9 [15m] UU#3 C486 BH
BH-12
12 [36m] UU#2
20 C486 BH-14 [15m] UU#2 40 C486 BH-12 [36m] UU#3
C486 BH-14 [15m] UU#3 C486 BH-15 [27m] UU#1
C486 BH-17 [15m] UU#1 C486 BH-15 [27m] UU#2
C486 BH-17 [15m] UU#2 C486 BH-15 [27m] UU#3
C486 BH-17 [15m] UU#3 Mohr-Coulomb-Method B (Mean)
10 C486 BH-20 [12m] UU#1 20 Hardening Soil Model Phi = 24 degree
C486 BH-20 [12m] UU#2 Hardening Soil Model Phi = 26 degree
C486 BH
BH-20
20 [12m] UU#3 H d i SSoilil M
Hardening Model
d l Phi = 28 d
degree
Hardening Soil Model Phi = 14 degree
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 Re‐analysis of Nicoll Highway Collapse Using Plaxis Advanced Soil Models
0 2 4 6 8 10
Axial Strain (%) Hardening Soil Model Phi = 22 degree Axial Strain (%)
Hardening Soil Model – Input Parameters
Formation FILL KALLANG FORMATION OLD ALLUVIUM
Geological Classification Fill Eupp UMC F2upp LMC F2low F1 Elow OA OA OA OA

(D) (C) (B) (A)
E50ref kN/m2 10000 3600 3600 7500 5000 7500 10000 5000 6000 20000 30000 40000
Eoedref kN/m2 10000 1850 1850 5000 2500 5000 10000 2500 6000 20000 30000 40000
Eurref kN/m2 30000 18000 18000 22500 20000 22500 30000 20000 24000 80000 1.2E5 1.6E5
5E50Ref 5E50Ref 3E50Ref 4E50Ref 3E50Ref 4E50Ref 4E50Ref 4E50Ref 4E50Ref 4E50Ref
Effective ’ ° 30 17 14^ 28 28^ 28 30 28 28 28 30 32

angle of (22)
(22)* (24)
(24)*
friction (14)# (24)#
Effective c’ kPa 0 0 0 10.0 0 10.0 0 0 5 10 10 10

cohesion
m 0.5 0.75 0.75 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
vur 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Ko nc 0.500 0.708 0.741 0.531 0.530 0.531 0.500 0.531 0.531 0.531 0.500 0.470
Hardening Soil Model – Parametric Studies
 Undrained effective stress analysis with effective strength parameters
Type of analysis ’ UMC ’
Model Type LMC
HS-01 Adopts effective stress parameters 22° 24°

obtained from CIU data
HS-02 Undrained shear strength calibrated 14° 28°

from HS model with odeometer and
UU tests (all soils are capped by
CPTU data)
HS-03 UMC as of HS-02 but LMC as of HS- 14° 24°

01.
HS model – Deflection Profile
105 105 105 105

Elevation (m.RL)
Elevation (m.RL)
S1 S1
S2
95 95 95 95
85 85 85 85
75 75 75 75
South Dwall I-104
South Dwall I-104

North Dwall I-65
North Dwall I-65

65 65 65 65
S
S
55 55 55 55
0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0

Hardening Soil Model 01 Hardening Soil Model 01
105 105 105 105

Elevation (m.RL)
Elevation (m.RL)
S1 S1
S2 S2
S3 S3
95 95 95 95
S4
85 85 85 85
75 75 75 75
South Dwall I-104
South Dwall I-104

North Dwall I-65
North Dwall I-65

65 65 65 65
S
S
55 55 55 55
0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0

105 105 105 105

Elevation (m.RL)
Elevation (m.RL)
S1 S1
S2 S2
S3 S3
95 95 95 95
S4 S4
S5 S5
S6 85 S6 85
85 85
S7
75 75 75 75
South Dwall I-104
South Dwall I-104

North Dwall I-65
North Dwall I-65

65 65 65 65
S
S
55 55 55 55
0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0

105 105 105 105

Elevation (m.RL))
Elevation (m.RL))
S1 S1
S2 S2
S3 S3
95 95 95 95
S4 S4
S5 S5
S6 S6
85 85 85 85
S7 S7
S8 S8
75 75 75 75
South Dwall I-104
South Dwall I-104

North Dwall I-65
North Dwall I-65

65 65 65 65
55 55 55 55
0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0

105 105 105 105

Elevation (m.RL)
Elevation (m.RL)
S1
S1 S2
S2 S3
95 95 95 95
S3
S4
S4
S5
S5
S6
85 S6 85 85 85
S7 S7
S8 S8
S9 S9
75 75 75 75
South Dwall I-104
South Dwall I-104

North Dwall I-65
North Dwall I-65
65 65 65 65
S
S
55 55 55 55
0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 500 400 300 200 100 0

Hardening Soil Model 02
Hardening Soil Model 03
Comparison of computed and measured struts for excavation
between April 17 to 20, 2004
Maximum Strut Load (kN/m)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
7
Measured Strut Load
MC M th d A
MC-Method
MC-Method B
HS
Strut Level
MCC
8
Comparison of computed and measured settlements for excavation
between April 17 to 20 2004
Beach Road Distance from face of excavation support wall (m) Southbound Dwall
140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

-50
G.L
0
Max Settlement observ ed at far-field

L2046 - Craw ford Bridge = ~25mm 50
L2047 - Craw ford Bridge = ~15mm
ment (mm)
S.M Installed in Mar 2003 100
EXCAVATION TO STRUT 10
Settlem
150
200
M Settlement
Max S ttl t recorded
d d on 17/04/04
L111 = ~265mm 250
S.M Installed in June 2002 and has account for 40mm settlement
300
MC-Method A MC-Method B MCC HS Model
Conclusion
 Both simple and Plaxis advanced soil models gave almost similar
deflection profiles and strut forces. HS model gives the best settlement
prediction and realistic settlement trough.
trough
 However, when using advanced soil models, it requires careful
calibration of soil parameters and proper initial stress set‐up
 When
h using advanced soill models l like
l k MCC and HS models, l high
h h
anomalous effective shear strength parameters are inputted in
undrained effective stress analysis.
Conclusion
 When using HS model, there is no direct mathematical relationship

between the undrained shear strength and the effective strength
parameters The undrained shear strength is a result of the calculation,
parameters. calculation
the location where the effective stress path hits the M‐C failure line.
The effective stress path depends on the amount of (excess) pore
pressures generated. d The
h development
d l off pore pressures plays
l a
crucial role in providing the right effective stress path that leads to
failure at a realistic value of undrained shear strength. Also note that
most material models are not able to provide the right effective stress
paths during undrained loading.
 Recommend to check the calculated undrained shear strength g with
known shear strength data
Abstracted from COI Report, recommendation by
Professor Pieter A Vermeer
…And even with Plaxis you can do the simple analysis, and the simple
analysis is based on Mohr
Mohr‐Coulomb.
Coulomb. Because it is a simple model. Every
engineer has a feeling of it. But at the same time, although the model is
simple, and we do not want mean to stick to that model, we want to go then
further but the model is simple,
one step further, simple but the project that we have here
is complex, very, very complex. So that is also – then it is good to go first for
the very simple analysis, and that is what we state everywhere. Do a simple
analysis
l i withith Mohr‐Coulomb,
M h C l b and d then
th proceed d with
ith a more advanced
d d
model. That is the analysis…..
Thank you for listening!
PLAXIS Users Day 2011
Nicholas Mace
Mott MacDonald Singapore
Contents
• Kallang-Paya
K ll P L
Lebar
b E Expressway C423
– Cross Wall analysis and performance
• Downtown Line Stage 1 C908 Cross Street

– Semi-floating retaining system analysis
• Marina Coastal Expressway

– Pile modelling (structural properties and interfaces)
– Groundwater
G d t modelling
d lli
– C482 irregular area 3D analysis
Kallang-Paya Lebar Expressway C423
36 ~ 55 m
5m
~6m
10 m
Standard Tunnel Section

Blk 126
Blk 124
Blk 125
Blk 123
Blk 122
Blk 121
Block 122
Location
Block 122
Geologic profile
SB D/Wall
Center Sheet Pile
NB D/Wall
Blk 122
Soft Soil
Soft Soil
Bored Pile
Old Transverse
Alluvium Center D/Wall
D/Wall
Block 122
Temporary Works Scheme
LOAD BEARING ELEMENT

BOX WIDTH
4.5m
7m
NB 1.4m OA LEVEL
D-WALL
SB 1m THK.
D-WALL
1m THK.
NB 1.4m 1.5 DIA. NB CENTRE 0.8m 1m THK. 1.5 DIA. SB SB 1m THK. TRANSVERSE
D-WALL PILES THK. D-WALL TRANSVERSE PILES D-WALL D-WALL
D-WALL
1.5 DIA. NB
PILES CENTRE 0.8m
THK. D-WALL
PLAN 1.5 DIA. SB
PILES
ELEVATION
Block 122
Temporary Works Configuration
Stage 1 (South Bound)
Block 122
Construction Sequence
Stage 2 (North Bound)
Block 122
Construction Sequence
-35.000 -30.000 -25.000 -20.000 -15 .000 -10.000 -5 .000 0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000 45.000
105 00 0
105.00
100.00 0
95.00 0
90.00 0
85.00 0
80.00 0
75.00 0
70.00 0
65.00 0
60.00 0
55.00 0
Deformed Mesh
-3
Extreme total displaceme nt 260.86*10 m
(di splacements at true scale)
PLAXIS model at Southbound excavation

stage
Southbound Wall De fle c tion (Original)

106
104
102
100
98
Elevation(m)
Pr e dicte d
105 96
Actual
94 Ale rt
WS
92
100
90
88
95 Exc. 1 Measured
Exc. 1 Analysis 86
Exc. 2 Measured
84
Exc. 2 Analysis 0 10 20 30 40 50
90
mRL)
Exc. 3 Measured De fle ction (mm)
Level (m
Exc. 3 Analysis
Exc. 4 Measured Northbound Wa ll De fle c tion (Or igina l)
85 Exc. 4 Analysis 1 06
Exc. 5 Measured
Exc. 5 Analysis 1 04
Exc. FL Measured
1 02
80 Exc. FL Analysis
1 00
98
Elevation(m)
75
96
P r e dic te d
Ac tua l
94 Ale r t
70 WS
92
15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -40
Displacement (mm) 90
88
86
84
0 40 80 120 16 0 20 0 24 0
De fle ction (mm)
Southbound Wall Displacements –

Predicted and measured (Stage 1)
Str ut Ax ia l For ce of 1s t laye r (CH.3660) Str ut Axial For ce at 2nd laye r (CH.3660)
106 106
104 104
102 102
100 100
98 98
Pr e dic te d
Elevation(m)
Elevation(m)
Pr e dic te d 96 Ac tua l
96
Ac tua l Ale r t
94 Ale r t 94
WS
WS 92
92
90 90
88 88
86 86
84 84
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Strut Ax ial Force (kN/m) Str ut Ax ial Force (kN/m)
Str ut Ax ia l For ce of 3r d laye r (CH.3660) Str ut Ax ial For c e at 4th laye r (CH.3 66 0)
10 6 106
10 4 104
10 2 102
10 0 100
98 98
Elevation(m)
Pr e dic
di te d
Elevation(m)
Pr e dic te d
96 96 Ac tua l
Ac tua l
Ale r t
94 Ale r t 94
WS
WS
92 92
90 90
88 88
86 86
84 84
0 2 00 4 00 60 0 8 00 10 00 120 0 1 40 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Str ut Ax ial For ce (kN/m) Str ut Ax ial Force (kN/m)
Strut Levels 1 to 4 (Stage 1)

Bolt Settlement Markers on Concrete Column

10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
ment (mm)
2.0
1.0
0.0
Settlem
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0 2090 2091 2092 2093

-6.0 2094 2095 2097 2098
2099 2100 2101 2102
-7.0
2103 2104 2105 2106
-8.0 2107 2108 2109 2110
-9.0 2111 2112 2090A 2092A
-10.0
29/12/2 26/01/2 23/02/2 23/03/2 20/04/2 18/05/2 15/06/2 13/07/2 10/08/2 07/09/2 05/10/2 02/11/2 30/11/2 28/12/2 25/01/2 22/02/2 22/03/2 19/04/2 17/05/2 14/06/2 12/07/2 09/08/2 06/09/2 04/10/2
004 005 005 005 005 005 005 005 005 005 005 005 005 005 006 006 006 006 006 006 006 006 006 006
Date
Building settlement markers

Downtown Line Stage 1 C908 Cross Street
EWL
L
NE
L
NS
CCL
Bugis
Promenade
EWL
Chinatown
C
Cross St Bayfront
Landmark
DTL Stage 1
Circle Line
Existing MRT
Downtown Line Stage 1

Downtown Line Stage 1 C908 Cross Street
EWL Line
Location
Layout
C909 C908
Tunnel: 30m Station: 150m Tunnel: 295m
Viaduct (L=396m, Interface with EWL

W 8m,
W=: 8 H H: 5
5.4m)
4 ) (13 x 20
(13m 20m))
Worksite Area: Interface with Raffles

3,000m2 Quay I/S (40m x 20m)
L= 150m, W= 30m, D=14m L= 325m, W=13m, D= 4.7m L= 396m, W=8m, D=5.4m
STATION TUNNEL VIADUCT

Temporary Works Design
Station Tunnel EWL Tunnel

Cross walls/4-6m JGP 4m JGP Crossing 4m JGP
Geologic Profile/Ground Improvement

Tunnel TERS Scheme
• Continuous 4m JGP slab to resist base heave and reduce wall deflection
• Top-down construction
• Short permanent 0.8m thick D-wall panels 4.5m below Formation Level with
min. 2m penetration below base of Fill layer for cut off
• Long 2.8m wide D-wall ‘Trouser Leg’ panels at 12m c/c with 2m penetration into
FCBB; also serves as foundation element
Tunnel Geometry
Roof
slab
Centre
wall
Short D-
walls
Barrettes
(spaced 15 m) Centre p
piles
(spaced 10 m)
Tunnel TERS Scheme Analysis
LSS
Backfill Fill
F1
JGP
UMC
E F1
LMC
F2
FCBB
Model I – For Short D-wall panels
Out of plane presence of long panels is modelled using anchor elements that do not
interfere with the potential base heave mechanism
Tunnel TERS Scheme Analysis
LSS
Backfill Fill
F1
JGP
UMC
E
LMC
F2
FCBB
Model II – For Long D-wall panels
Long panel length (below base of short panels) is modelled as a separate beam
element, with a stiffness divided by the long panel spacing
Justification for Tunnel TERS Scheme
3.5m
2 to 2.5m
Clarke Quay C421 KPE
Precedents
Justification for Tunnel TERS Scheme
Modified Terzaghi Section T2 Model I

Method (LTA CDC) with c- reduction
Base Stability
Tunnel TERS Scheme Revision
• Original scheme • Revised scheme

– Long panel spacing 15m – Long panel spacing 12m
– Gap 12.4m – Gap reduced to 9.2m
– Short panels supported on both sides
Marina Coastal Expressway
Location Plan
• Tension
T i Piles
Pil
– High tension predicted by Mohr-Coulomb
– Agreed with LTA at tender stage that more advanced constitutive model
could be proposed
– MM engaged Prof Wong Kai Sin (NTU) to assist in development of
Hardening Soil Model parameters
– Technical proposal accepted by LTA
– Cost issue: non-compliance with GIBR
Hardening Soil Model

• 2D plate
l element
l ffor ffoundation
d i piles
il
• EsAs during excavation stages, EcAc during backfilling stages
• EI=0 for Wall Design; EI=0.4EcIc for Pile Design
• No interface elements for foundation piles
Pil modelling
Pile d lli assumptions
ti
2 strut
levels
Long-short 10m DCM 75mm deflection

pipe pile
limit in greenfield
wall
site
Tension
T i
piles
Check:
- Pile structural
capacity
- Pile-DCM bond
- No DCM
tension
Iterative approach for pile design

Impact of Interface modelling

• Pore water pressure

GL
definitions Exc. Level Pore
pressure
I
Impermeable
bl
– D
Drained
i d llayers: d
depends
d
on boundary conditions Drained
– Undrained layers: no Drained

Permeable
changes in phreatic
levels
Hydrostatic with
– Z-method not adopted respect to GL
Hydrostatic with respect

to Excavation Level
Impact of groundwater modelling

Impact of groundwater modelling

MCE alignment
135m
Stub tunnel for

future MCE re-
re Future Transit Tunnel
alignment (NSLe)
 PLAXIS 3D Foundation analysis with Prof Harry Tan (NUS)
C482 Transit Tunnel Interface Area

PLAXIS 3D Foundation analysis by Prof Harry Tan

Discussion Points
• Modelling of piles within excavations in 2D analyses

– Interfaces
– Structural model
• Acceptance of more advanced constitutive models

www.mottmac.com

PLAXIS Singapore (2011) - User Meeting 001 PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

PLAXIS Singapore (2011) - User Meeting 001 PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

PLAXIS USER MEETING 2011 SINGAPORE

Er Eddy CH Tan Plaxis Asia-Pac

09:30 09:40 Opening and Introduction‐PUM Singapore

10:00 10:30 Speaker 1 Cut & Cover excavation above existing bored ttunnel ‐ Modeling of Dr Oskar Sigl ‐ Geoconsult Asia, Singapore

11:00 11:30 Speaker 3 Modeling of Grouted Stone Column & Deep SSoil Mixing at Waterway Er Lily Yeo ‐ AGS Consultants Pte Ltd

11:30 12:00 Speaker 4 Plaxis 2D vs Phase 2

12:00 12:30 Q &A Session 1

2:30 3:00 Speaker 7 Re‐analysis of Nicoll Highway Collapse Mr Joseph Wong – National University of Singapore

3:00 3:30 Break

3:30 4:00 Speaker 8 Two projects in Singapore: Kalang‐Paya Lebar Expressway C423 and Dr Nick Mace – Mott MacDonald, Singapore

Constitutive models via UDSM

1. Similar to previous versions of PLAXIS 2D

2. All types of calculation + free vibration (new

4. Applicable for fully saturated or fully dry soils

5. Semi-coupled hydro-mechanical analysis

a. Pore pressure is independent of defo

b. Multi-threading calculation (new)

c. Change of permeability with deformattion (new)

d. Change of elastic storage with stress in stress dependent models (new)

Advanced mode (new):

1. Bishop stress (average stress)

2. Weight of soil changes with degree of saturatio

4. Undrained behaviour of unsaturated soils

6. Fully coupled hydro-mechanical analysis (conssolidation TPP)

a. Pore pressure and deformation are dependent to each other

b. All types of flow boundary conditions of PlaxFlow are applicable

c. Change of permeability with deformation

d. Change of elastic storage with stress in stress dependent models

e. Updated mesh and updated water are not

2. All functionalities of PlaxFlow rewritten in PLAX

a. Steady state groundwater flow

b. Checking local error as well as global errror (new)

c. Transient groundwater flow

d. All types of boundary conditions + some

3. Faster calculation (new)

Loading-collapse curve (LC)

Command Line Area

1. Setting of operational units

1. Modelling the Ground (Soil Mode)

2. Modelling of Geotechnical Structurres (Structure Mode)

3. Meshing (Mesh Mode)

4. Staged Groundwater Modelling (W

5 Modelling of Construction Stages (Staged

1. The Model Explorer provides a graphical ove erview of the complete

1. Definition of material sets and parameters for

• Generate multiple copies of a selection, arranged in a rectangular pattern

1. Extrusion of Lines and surfaces in order to crea

1 Decompose into ssurfaces:

• Generated by clicking the Create load button o

→ In a similar way it is possible create Prrescribed displacements.

• Generated by clicking the Structure button Fixed-end anchor

1. Selected objects in the draw area

– Click to import volume

• By clicking the toolbar

• From the Selection

• By invoking RMB context

1. Can be done by clicking the Generate

2. While the mesh is being generated, the

1 Water levels can be specified for each

Change and/or (de)activate objects

• Calculation phase settings can be

1. For creating and editing the calculation phasses

Insert phase hase