model parameters for sands

© All Rights Reserved

5 vues

model parameters for sands

© All Rights Reserved

- OptiStruct_05_2-D Shape Optimization of a Cantilever Beam
- Finite Element Structural Analysis on an Excel Spreadsheet
- Geotechnical Investigation Report of Burj Khalifa
- J.N.Reddy
- Applied Mechanics of Solids - Theory and Implementation of the Finite Element Method
- Parallelepiped check
- 01 HBSN Pullout Test Program
- ED 9221 — FINITE ELEMENT METHODS IN MECHANICAL DESIGN
- Example for Part A
- 10.1007_s00202-013-0291-9
- 1DBVP
- STR_018
- 37184238 Soil Mechanics
- Vst
- GB5 Submission Guidelines
- 011_015_018
- NOTA KURSUS TAHUN 2006 - Analisa Kesetabilan Cerun Dan Rekabentuk Tembok Penahan - 16-05-2006
- Pile Foundation Design
- Field investigation of base resistance of pipe piles in clay.pdf
- Master Technical

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

R.B.J. Brinkgreve

Geo-Engineering Section, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands/Plaxis B.V., Delft, Netherlands

E. Engin

Plaxis B.V., Delft, Netherlands

H.K. Engin

Geo-Engineering Section, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands

ABSTRACT: The right selection of soil model parameters is essential to make good predictions in geo-

engineering projects where the Finite Element Method (FEM) is used. In order to support geotechnical engi-

neers with soil model parameter selection, empirical formulas have been developed to derive the model para-

meters of the Plaxis Hardening Soil model with small-strain stiffness (HSsmall), on the basis of a characteris-

tic property (relative density for sands and plasticity index for clays). This paper shows a validation of

formulas for sands which have been derived from published soil testing data. The main goal of the empirical

formulas is to give a reasonable first order approximation of soil behaviour in FEM calculations, covering a

wide range of sands. In a case study it is demonstrated that the empirical formulas work reasonably well to get

a first estimate of deformations and stress developments for a real project.

engineering projects.

In the last decades, many researchers have investi- Some authors have published data sets with pre-

gated the properties of sands and clays, and they defined model parameters for particular types of

have published formulas, charts and tables as a gen- soils (e.g. Duncan et al. (1980) containing data sets

eral reference to support the design of geotechnical for the Duncan-Chang model). It is challenging but

structures (e.g. Kulhawy & Mayne (1990)). Most probably unrealistic to extend this idea and cover all

general data refers to soil strength properties, such as existing soil types on a world-wide scale. As an al-

a friction angle for sand or undrained shear strength ternative, the authors of this paper are developing

for clay, which can be primarily used for stability empirical formulas to derive all parameters of the

analysis and ultimate limit state design (ULS). In Plaxis HSsmall model on the basis of very limited

contrast to ULS, serviceability state design (SLS) geotechnical data in an attempt to stimulate the use

requires stiffness properties to be known. Several re- of advanced models for soil in general. This seems

searchers have published correlations between stiff- contradictive, but since most soil properties are sort

ness and strength, index properties and/or state pa- of correlated, it is believed that a first approximation

rameters. For sands, many correlations exist with the could be obtained with reasonable accuracy. The au-

relative density, whereas for clay many correlations thors are convinced that such a first approximation

exist with the plasticity index. using an advanced model gives better results than a

Over the last twenty years, the Finite Element first approximation with a simple model. It is defi-

Method (FEM) has gained much popularity for geo- nitely not the idea to abandon detailed site-specific

engineering and design. In FEM, the mechanical be- soil investigation, but the use of the formulas can be

haviour of soils is simulated by means of constitu- very helpful, especially in the early design stage of a

tive models, in which model parameters are used to project when very limited soil data from the site are

quantify particular features of soil behaviour. Con- available.

stitutive models may range from simple to very ad- In the next chapter formulas are presented for

vanced models. In general, simple models require sand to derive the model parameters of the HSsmall

only a limited number of parameters to be selected, model on the basis of the relative density. Even if

but they may also lack some essential features of soil the relative density is not precisely known, it could

behaviour. More advanced models may include be estimated on the basis of very preliminary soil da-

more features of soil behaviour, but also require ta. The formulas have been derived by regression

more parameters to be selected on the basis of soil analysis on a collection of soil data (general soil da-

investigation data. The latter often discourages FEM ta, triaxial test data, oedometer test data, etc.) from

Jeffries & Been (2006) and others. The third chapter E50ref = 60000 RD /100 [kN / m 2 ] (3)

describes a validation of the formulas by comparing

the results of model simulations with real lab test da- ref

ta for different types of sands. Chapter four de- Eoed = 60000 RD /100 [kN / m 2 ] (4)

scribes a benchmark example (Schweiger, 2000 and

2002), in which the formulas have been applied to Eurref =180000 RD /100 [kN / m 2 ] (5)

Berlin sand to predict deformations and structural

forces due to the excavation. Finally, some conclu- G0ref 60000 + 68000 RD /100 [kN / m 2 ]

= (6)

sions are drawn.

Figure 1 shows the variation of G0ref with RD for

different sands, in comparison with Equation 6.

2 FORMULAS FOR SAND The actual stiffness is stress-dependent. The rate

of stress dependency, m, is observed to be negatively

The relative density (RD) is defined as (emax–e) / correlated with the density. The following formula is

(emax–emin), where e is the current void ratio, emax is proposed for m:

the maximum void ratio (loosest packing) and emin is

the minimum void ratio (densest packing). The rela- m=

0.7 − RD / 320 [−] (7)

tive density is usually presented as a percentage, as Poisson’s ratio for unloading and reloading, νur, is

also used in this paper. taken 0.2. The parameter relating the modulus reduc-

Before considering the parameters of the HSsmall tion curve to the cyclic shear strain level is γ0.7, for

model, the relative density can already be used to es- which the following formula is proposed:

timate the unit weights of sand for practical applica-

tions by means of the following formulas: γ 0.7 =

(2 − RD /100) ⋅10−4 [−] (8)

γ unsat= 15 + 4.0 RD /100 [kN / m3 ] (1) The following formulas are proposed for the

strength-related properties:

γ sat= 19 + 1.6 RD /100 [kN / m3 ] (2) ϕ' =

28 + 12.5 RD /100 [°] (9)

The HSsmall model contains four different stiff-

ness parameters, each of them quantifying the refer- ψ =− 2 + 12.5 RD /100 [°] (10)

ence stiffness in a particular stress path for a given

reference stress level, pref. For a detailed description Rf =

1 − RD / 800 [−] (11)

of the HSsmall model and the meaning of its para-

meters, reference is made to Benz (2007) and These values should be used for drained condi-

Brinkgreve et al. (2008). tions.

For (quartz) sand, stiffness is supposed to vary li- Table 1 gives an example of parameter values for

nearly with RD. The following formulas are pro- loose, medium, dense and very dense sand using the

posed for the reference stiffness parameters, consi- above formulas.

dering pref = 100 kN/m2:

180

Toyoura Sand-1 (subangular)

Toyoura Sand-1 (subangular)

Toyoura Sand -2 (subangular)

160 Toyoura Sand -2 (subangular)

Ham River Sand (subangular)

Ham River Sand (subangular)

140 Hostun Sand

Ticino Sand

Ticino Sand (subangular)

120

Goref (MPa)

According to Eqn (6)

100

80

60

40

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Relative Density, RD

Figure 1. Comparison of formula for small-strain stiffness for different sands at different densities

22

Toyoura Sand

Ticino Sand

Nerlerk Berm

21

Alaskan Sand

Ersak Sand

Equation (2)

20

19

18

0 20 40 60 80 100

Relative density, RD (%)

Figure 2. Comparison of formula for saturated unit weight for different sands at different densities

ent relative densities

______________________________________________

5

RD γunsat γsat E50ref Eoedref Eurref G0ref m

3 2 2 2 2

- kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m

______________________________________________ -

Stress Ratio ( σ1 / σ3 )

50 17.0 19.8 30000 30000 90000 94000 0.544 4

80 18.2 20.3 48000 48000 144000 114000 0.450

100 19.0 20.6 60000 60000 180000 128000 0.388

______________________________________________

______________________________________________ 3

RD γ0.7 ϕ’ ψ Rf

- - ° ° -

______________________________________________

-4

25 1.8⋅10 31.1 1.1 0.969 2

50 1.5⋅10-4 34.3 4.3 0.938

80 1.2⋅10-4 38.0 8.0 0.900

100 1.0⋅10-4 40.5 10.5 0.875

______________________________________________ 1

Axial Strain, ε1(%)

3 VALIDATION OF FORMULAS 0 2 4 6 8 10

5

RD = 27.90%

Volumetric Strain, εv (%)

The formulas for unit weight have been validated for 4 RD* = 27.9 %

different sands at different densities with data from RD = 66.20%

3 RD* = 66.2 %

Jeffries & Been (2006). Both the saturated unit RD = 94.0%

weight γsat and the dry unit weight γdry were reported. 2 RD* = 94.0%

Figure 2 shows the variation of γsat with RD for dif- 1

ferent sands, in comparison with Equation 2. The

unsaturated unit weight γunsat, as proposed in formula 0

1, is a realistic practical value in between γdry and -1

γsat.

-2

To validate the formulas for the HSsmall stiffness

parameters, a comparison has been made between Figure 3. Comparison of drained triaxial tests on Karlsruhe

data from real drained triaxial tests on different sand with HSsmall model for different relative densities (* in-

dicates experimental data, after Wu, 1990)

types of sand with the results from numerical simu-

lations with the HSsmall model. Figure 3 shows the Another comparison has been made for dense

results for triaxial tests on Karlsruhe sand of differ- Hokksund sand, based on a drained triaxial test and

ent densities at 100 kN/m2 cell pressure, based on an oedometer test as reported by Yang (2004). The

data by Wu (1990). results are shown in Figures 5 and 6.

Another series of drained triaxial tests have been

analysed for loose and very dense Sacramento River

sand at different cell pressures, based on data by Lee

(1965). Some of these results are shown in Figure 4.

4 200

180

160

140

120

σ₁ - σ₃

3

Stress Ratio, σ₁/σ₃

100

σ3 = 98 kN/m²

80

*σ3 = 98 kN/m² 60

σ3 = 196 kN/m² 40 RD = 98% - Plaxis HSsmall

2 *σ3 = 196 kN/m² 20 RD* = 98% (Test)

σ3 = 441 kN/m² 0

0 1 2 3 4 5

*σ3 = 441 kN/m² 4

σ3 = 1245 kN/m² 3

2

*σ3 = 1245 kN/m²

1 1

Axial Strain ε₁ (%) 0

0 5 10 15 20 -1

0 1 2 3 4 5

2

Axial Strain, ε₁(%)

Volumetric Strain, εv (%)

1

0 Figure 5. Comparison of drained triaxial test on dense Hokk-

-1 sund sand with HSsmall model

-2

1500

-3 RD = 80% - Plaxis HSsmall

-4 RD* ≈ 80% (Test)

1200

-5

-6

Vertical Stress,σ₁'

900

Figure 4. Comparison of drained triaxial tests on loose Sacra-

mento river sand (RD=38%) with HSsmall model for different 600

cell pressures (* indicates experimental data, after Lee, 1965)

300

From the different test results the following can

be concluded:

• In most cases, the formulas show a (small) over- 0

0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016

estimation of the stiffness in triaxial loading.

• Strength and dilatancy are generally under- Axial Strain, ε₁

estimated. High friction and dilatancy may reduce Figure 6. Comparison of oedometer loading and unloading test

in reality as a result of shearing and softening, on dense Hokksund sand with HSsmall model

which is not included in the HSsmall model.

Hence, a small under-estimation of the peak

strength might even be desirable. 4 CASE STUDY

• The stiffness in oedometer loading is difficult to

match with soil testing data. The data presented in In this chapter a case study is presented, based on

Figure 6 seems reasonable, but other tests were the benchmark example as described by Schweiger

less successful. Reason for this is that in oedome- (2002). It concerns an excavation in Berlin sand,

ter tests the stress range is usually quite large and supported by a triple anchored retaining wall. The

the density changes significantly, so one RD- excavation is 16.8m deep and the wall is 32m long.

value cannot cover the full test. Three rows of anchors are used, starting just above

• Hostun sand seems to be rather soft. The formulas the intermediate excavation levels of 4.8m, 9.3m and

tend to significantly over-estimate the stiffness of 14.4m depth. The wall has been modelled by Min-

Hostun sand (not presented herein). dlin beam elements; the wall-soil interaction by in-

terface elements; the anchors by a combination of

It should be noted that these tests primarily vali- membrane elements (grouted body) and two-node

date the formulas for loading stiffnesses, friction and spring elements (anchor rod). Figure 7 shows the

dilatancy (Equations 3, 4, 9 and 10) and to a lesser used 2D finite element mesh composed of 15-node

extend the formulas for the other model parameters, (cubic strain) elements, and some model details.

but some of these will be considered in the next The soil was reported to be medium dense Berlin

chapter. sand (from an undisturbed sample at 8 m depth). Al-

though more soil data was provided, only the infor-

mation ‘medium dense’ was used here and inter-

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0

-20

-40

-60

2

Row kN m cm m

1 768 2.3 15 19.80

2 945 1.35 15 23.30

-100 3 980 1.35 15 23.80

Figure 7. Geometry and mesh of triple anchored excavation in Berlin sand (with details from Schweiger, 2002)

preted as RD = 50%, at least for the upper 20 m of Figure 7 shows the horizontal displacements of

sand. The next 20 m was considered to be denser, the wall after full excavation, and a comparison with

with an assumed RD of 80%, whereas the lower 60 the reference solution by Schweiger (2000). The cal-

m was assumed to be very dense with an assumed culated maximum displacement of the wall is 51

RD of 100%. The formulas presented in Chapter 2 mm. This is about 1.5 times higher than the (cor-

were used to estimate the model parameters (see Ta- rected) measurements. The overall deformation

ble 1 for RD = 50%, 80% and 100% respectively). In shape is quite similar, but shows a 15 mm ‘shift’

this case study the unloading stiffness and small- compared to the reference solution. This indicates

strain stiffness parameters are more relevant than the that the soil is not stiff enough, which could indicate

loading stiffnesses. that the small-strain stiffness is too low.

The interface strength was related to the strength The distribution of bending moments is quite

in the surrounding soil, and reduced by a factor 0.8, similar to the reference solution; the maximum value

as in the original benchmark. The structural proper- (735 kNm/m) is almost equal. Anchor forces are in

ties were taken from Schweiger (2002), i.e. Esteel = the right order, but show more variations in the

2.1·108 kN/m2 and Econcrete = 3.0·107 kN/m2. The ex- phases after installation than in the reference solu-

cavation process was simulated in 8 different stages, tion, due to the lower soil stiffness.

starting with the installation of the wall, followed by Considering that the reference solution is based

the four excavation stages (including lowering of the on more detailed soil data, the results presented

water table), and in between separate stages to install herein are quite reasonable for a first approximation.

and pre-stress the next anchor row.

Bending moment (kN-m/m)

Horizontal displacements (mm) -1000 -500 0 500

-60 -40 -20 0 0

Depth below ground level (m)

0

5

Depth below ground level (m)

5

10

10

15

15

20

20

25

25

30

30

35

35 Reference Solution (Schweiger, 2000)

Reference Solution (Schweiger, 2000) Using Proposed Formulas

Solution with proposed formulas Figure 9. Comparison of bending moment diagrams of the wall

Figure 8. Comparison of horizontal displacement profile of the with triple anchors (after Schweiger, 2000)

wall (after Schweiger, 2000)

5 CONCLUSIONS Schweiger, H.F. (2000), Ergebnisse des

Berechnungsbeispieles Nr. 3 “3-fach verankerte

Empirical formulas have been presented for sands to Baugrube”. Tagungsband Workshop “Verfor-

select all model parameters of the Plaxis Hardening mungsprognose für tiefe Baugruben”, Stuttgart,

Soil model with small-strain stiffness, on the basis of 7-67 (in German).

the relative density. The formulas have been vali- Schweiger, H.F. (2002), “Results from numerical

dated against lab test data for different sands at dif- benchmark exercises in geotechnics”, Proceed-

ferent densities and different pressures. Moreover, ings of 5th European Conference on Numerical

the formulas have been used in a benchmark exam-

Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Paris.

ple involving a triple anchored excavation in Berlin

sand. Wu, W. (1990), “The behaviour of very loose sand

Although not all formulas or model parameters in the triaxial compression test: Discussion”.

have been validated in sufficient detail, it can be Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, 159-

concluded from the current results that the formulas 162.

may give a reasonable first approximation of the Yang, S.L. (2004) Characterization of the properties

drained behaviour of (quartz) sands in geo- of sand-silt mixtures, PhD thesis, Norwegian

engineering applications. Some formulas may be re- University of Science and Technology, Norway.

considered or improved, but it should be realized

that a high accuracy can never be achieved unless

additional information (such as grain size distribu-

tion, grain shape, etc.) is taken into account. Never-

theless, the formulas can be quite useful in the be-

ginning of a project when only limited soil data is

available.

By using general formulas for model parameter

selection it is not the idea to abandon detailed soil

investigation. Since the formulas cannot provide suf-

ficient accuracy for a final design, more detailed soil

investigation remains definitely required. A first

analysis based on these formulas may actually help

to define a detailed soil investigation plan, because it

can give insight in dominant stress paths and critical

locations in the project.

REFERENCES

its numerical consequences, PhD thesis,

University of Stuttgart, Germany.

Brinkgreve, R.B.J., Broere, W., Waterman, D.

(2008), Plaxis 2D version 9.0, Material Models

Manual. Plaxis BV, Delft.

Duncan, J.M., Byrne, P., Wong, K.S. Mabry, P.

(1980), Geotechnical Engineering – Strength,

stress-strain and bulk modulus parameters for

finite element analyses of stresses and

movements in soil masses. Virginia Tech, Dept.

of Civil Engineering, Blacksburg.

Jefferies, M., Been, K. (2006). Soil Liquefaction: A

Critical State Approach. Taylor & Francis,

Abingdon, UK.

Kulhawy, F.H., Mayne, P.W. (1990), Manual on

estimating soil properties for foundation design,

Electric Power Research Institute, California.

Lee, K.L. (1965), Triaxial compressive strength on

saturated sands under cyclic loading conditions,

PhD thesis, University of California at Berkeley.

- OptiStruct_05_2-D Shape Optimization of a Cantilever BeamTransféré parBaljinder Singh
- Finite Element Structural Analysis on an Excel SpreadsheetTransféré pardskymaximus
- Geotechnical Investigation Report of Burj KhalifaTransféré parsumitchoudharymbm91
- J.N.ReddyTransféré parpvmoorthi
- Applied Mechanics of Solids - Theory and Implementation of the Finite Element MethodTransféré parEdomrg
- Parallelepiped checkTransféré partempalb81
- 01 HBSN Pullout Test ProgramTransféré parsiavashsaeedi
- ED 9221 — FINITE ELEMENT METHODS IN MECHANICAL DESIGNTransféré parMichael Butler
- Example for Part ATransféré parVenkatesh Chegireddy
- 1DBVPTransféré parougueway
- STR_018Transféré parbanudgp
- 37184238 Soil MechanicsTransféré parAla Thajil
- 10.1007_s00202-013-0291-9Transféré parVlatko Trifunovic
- VstTransféré parmhamed1
- GB5 Submission GuidelinesTransféré parericastorgaluco
- 011_015_018Transféré parHenry Jeysson
- NOTA KURSUS TAHUN 2006 - Analisa Kesetabilan Cerun Dan Rekabentuk Tembok Penahan - 16-05-2006Transféré parAmnee Halim
- Pile Foundation DesignTransféré parBright Muza
- Field investigation of base resistance of pipe piles in clay.pdfTransféré parFernando Smith
- Master TechnicalTransféré parlahsivlahsiv684
- The Finite Element Method a ReviewTransféré parOzlem Ozgun
- 6002_notes_07_L16Transféré parMandar Patil
- Alluvial SoilTransféré parfrog15
- Design of Spiral ReinforcementTransféré parRifky Netriady
- CFD EXTransféré parjuchaca36
- DNV GL 0016-Nd Rev 8.1 23 Oct-16 Seabed and Sub-seabed Data Required for Approvals of Mobile Offshore Units (Mou)Transféré parMichael Shelton
- Seismic Lateral Movement Prediction for Gravity Retaining Walls on Granular SoilsTransféré parBouraida El Yamouni
- Chapter 9 10Transféré parAvinTaguinod
- Visio--27-04-2015.pdfTransféré parimran_ishaq75hotmail
- CV-M Sohail AshrafTransféré parmsohailashraf

- GSI HoekTransféré parRichard Wentzel
- Barton N. and Grimstad E. 2014 Forty Years With the Q System in Norway and Abroad. Fjellsprengningsteknikk NFF Oslo 25pTransféré parWilson Rivera
- 1-s2.0-S1674775514000328-main.pdfTransféré parObaid Ur Rehman
- A Two-dimensional Approach for Designing Tunnel SupportTransféré parKubilay Baykal
- Slope_of_graphs.pdfTransféré parChecks Joseph
- Why Convergence Method Not Much UsedTransféré parObaid Ur Rehman
- Tutorial 18 3D Tunnel Simulation Using Core ReplacementTransféré parObaid Ur Rehman
- inclinometerTransféré parFarhat Javed
- Slope StabilityTransféré parPamela Danisza Narváez Hernández
- staticAndDynamicModelsForCAPWAPSignalMatching.pdfTransféré parObaid Ur Rehman
- Rausch eTransféré parObaid Ur Rehman
- L7-InSituStressTransféré paradarshjaiswal
- CAPWAP Models, Procedures and ParametersTransféré parObaid Ur Rehman
- Displacement to Mobilize Toe in High StrainTransféré parObaid Ur Rehman
- Existing Building StabilityTransféré parObaid Ur Rehman
- Static and Dynamic Models for Cap Wap Signal MatchingTransféré parObaid Ur Rehman

- 33-10-FELUWA Hose Diaphragm Pumps E21009 0712Transféré parjohan
- Manual Auraton 2005 EnTransféré parUna Loona
- Assignment 3.pdfTransféré parManoj
- A Direct Torque Control Method for CSC Based PMSG Wind Energy Conversion SystemsTransféré parMostafa8425
- RecruitmentAgencies0910.pdfTransféré parasaxen2002
- ROCKET PROPULSIONTransféré parOscar Pamos
- Newton's First Law of MotionTransféré parMax Sauberman
- F 986 - 86 R04 _RJK4NG__.pdfTransféré parRománBarciaVazquez
- EDC7UC31 CodesTransféré parFastcross Honda
- IJETR031868Transféré parerpublication
- Manitou MT 14 18 (EN)Transféré parManitou
- Dredge Valve BrochureTransféré parDredge Yard
- Nahad IndustrialTransféré parVictor Rojas
- Weld_Cost_Calc_XL.xlsTransféré parAstri Ngent
- Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Blog - LEAP Australia & New Zealand _ Tips & Tricks_ Calculating the Mean Age of Air for HVAC Simulations in ANSYS CFDTransféré parArun Mali
- PW seriesTransféré parMt Gr
- pipe rackTransféré parSaid Ahmed Salem
- kp largeRactangular ground water tank.xlsxTransféré parSakthivel Vedachalam
- Rheological Methods in Food Process Engineering (2nd Edition)Transféré parjmprta
- MOTOR-PW4168-DIFA340-A330-B2Transféré parHugo Dias
- Introduction to Capillary PressureTransféré parMuhammad Mir
- MEC Threads ChartTransféré parenrico
- 1RFO-DN-1012(D) 05-11-2015 Through Bridge BhaupurTransféré parAnonymous sfkedkym
- plugin-DTC-Fault-codes.pdfTransféré parRafael Hubner
- Material 5Transféré parMaiDinh Dinh
- Alfa Laval Pump HandbookTransféré parsen_subhasis_58
- History of the Stirling EngineTransféré parRavi Donga
- RoGIS PresentationTransféré parFamilia Mena Godoy
- conservation of energy pptTransféré parapi-285179261
- An Accurate Method to Determine Electric Motor Efficiency While the Motor is in OperationTransféré parShri Kulkarni

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.