EC7

S C I E N C E P A S S I O N T E C H N O L O G Y
COMPARISON OF EC7 DESIGN

APPROACHES FOR NUMERICAL
ANALYSIS OF DEEP EXCAVATIONS
Helmut F. Schweiger
Computational Geotechnics Group
Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Graz University of Technology
Eurocode 7 and New Design Challenges / University College London, 19 March 2013
Comparison of EC7 design approaches for numerical analysis of deep excavations
2
Introduction EC7 Design Approaches Benchmark Examples Simplified Case Histories Summary / Discussion
 Introduction
 Eurocode 7 Design Approaches
 Benchmark Example
• Excavation in sand
• Excavation in soft clay
- Comparison of constitutive model and design approaches
 Issues from simplified case histories
• Deep excavation in soft clay
• Deep excavation in stiff clay
• Wall with prestressed anchors
• NATM tunnel
- Comparison of design approaches
 Summary and discussion
3
Application of numerical methods for ultimate limit state design in

general and in accordance with Eurocode7 is a much discussed
issue and work in progress
 what design approach is best suitable for numerical methods?
 at what stage should "partial factors" be introduced (if at all)?
 should we use the same design approach for numerical and
conventional analysis (for a given type of problem)?
 should we use finite element analysis for ULS-design?
see also (with emphasis mainly on deep excavations), e.g.: Schweiger (2009, 2010), Simpson (2007),
Schweiger (2005), Lo (2003), Bauduin, De Vos & Frank (2003), Simpson (2000), Bauduin, De Vos &
Simpson (2000)
With respect to numerical modelling there is a significant difference between

 calculating a factor of safety
 performing a calculation with factored material parameters according to EC7
4
Goal of this presentation

 Demonstrate applicability of numerical methods
for design in accordance with EC7 design
approaches
 Address some important issues which have to be
considered when using numerical methods for
different design approaches
 Provoke some dicussion
NOT Goal of this presentation
 Advocate the use of a particular design approach
5
PARTIAL FACTORS EC7
Actions F
Design
Permanent
approach 1) 2)
unfavourable Variable
G Q for deep excavation and
DA1/1 1.35 1.50 tunnelling problems this
DA1/2 1.00 1.30 means that earth pressure
DA2 1.35 1.50 has to be factored
3)
Geot. : 1.00 1.30
DA3 4) • in numerical analysis
Struct. :1.35 1.50
not feasible
• alternatively effects of
Partial factors for actions according to EC7 actions can be factored
(can be changed in National Annex) (e.g. bending moments,
strut forces)
> commonly referred to
as DA2*
6
PARTIAL FACTORS EC7
Soil properties M Resistances

Design
approach tan’ c’ cu Unit weight Passive Anchor
 c cu F R;e a
DA1/1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10
DA1/2 1.25 1.25 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.10
DA2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.40 1.10
DA3 1.25 1.25 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.00
Partial factors for soil properties and resistances according to EC7

DA1/1 and DA1/2: two analysis required
7
EC7 design approaches in combination with numerical methods:

DA2:
 Analysis is performed in terms of characteristic material parameters
 Partial factors applied to loads (feasible only for e.g. foundation problems)
DA2*:
 Analysis is performed in terms of characteristic material parameters
 Partial factors applied to effects of actions (e.g. bending moments)
> This is straightforward for numerical analysis
DA3:
Option 1:
 Analysis is performed in terms of design material parameters
> perform all excavation steps with factored values for soil strength
Option 2:
 Analysis is performed in terms of characteristic material parameters but for
all construction steps a check with reduced strength parameters is made
8
excavation level 1
Option 1 for DA3:

excavation level 2
perform all excavation steps final excavation level

with factored values for soil strength
i.e. tanfact = tanunfact / 
> if failure does not occur in one of the

excavation steps > design criteria fulfilled
N.B. No information on serviceability limit state
9
Option 2 for DA3: excavation level 1

perform excavation step 1
with unfactored values for soil strength excavation level 2
> reduce tan to tanunfact / 

final excavation level
> check for failure
10


> check for failure
with unfactored values for soil strength
(start from results for excavation step 1 with
unfactored properties)
> check for failure
11


> check for failure
> check for failure
N.B. Serviceability limit state obtained as well
> check for failure
12
EXCAVATION IN SAND
Phases:
1: Initial stresses (K0 = 1 - sin')
2: Sheet pile wall (wished-in-place)
> displacements set to 0
3: Excavation 1 to -2.00 m
4: Activation of strut at -1.50 m
5: GW-lowering to -6.0 m
8: Surcharge 15 kPA (variable load)
13
EXCAVATION IN SAND Constitutive models compared:

Hardening Soil (small) model*
Mohr-Coulomb model
* MC failure criterion
40000
Secant modulus G [kN/m²]

30000
20000
10000
HS-Small
Hardin & Drnevich
0
1E-5 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Shear strain [-]
14
EXCAVATION IN SAND
Parameters for HSS-model
Parameter Meaning Value
 [kN/m³] Unit weight (unsaturated) 18
r [kN/m³] Unit weight (saturated) 20
′ [°] Friction angle 41
c′ [kPa] Cohesion 0
 [°] Angle of dilatancy 15
ur [-] Poisson’s ratio unloading-reloading 0.20
ref
E50 [kPa] Secant modulus for primary triaxial loading 30 000
Eoedref [kPa] Tangent modulus for oedometric loading 30 000
Eurref [kPa] Secant modulus for un- and reloading 90 000
m [-] Exponent of the Ohde/Janbu law 0.55
pref [kPa] Reference stress for the stiffness parameters 100
K0nc [-] Coefficient of earth pressure at rest (NC) 1-sin(′)
Rf [-] Failure ratio 0.90
Tension [kPa] Tensile strength 0
G0 [kPa] Small-strain shear modulus 112 500
0,7 [-] Reference shear strain where Gsec=0.7G0 0.0002
15
EXCAVATION IN SAND
horizontal wall displacement [mm] bending moments [kNm/m]
15 12 9 6 3 0 -3 -6 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40
0 0
HS HS
HSS HSS
MC 1 MC 1
2 2
depth below surface [m]

3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
16
EC7 PARTIAL FACTORS

DA2*:
Permanent loads: G = 1.35
Variable loads: Q = 1.50
All soil factors = 1.0
surchargepermanent = 10 kPa
surchargevariable = 15 kPa
DA3:
Permanent loads: G = 1.00
Variable loads: Q = 1.30
Strength: c =  = 1.25
Note: if an advanced model is used, where
> ' = 28.35° ( = 12°)
strength depends on e.g. density then this
approach cannot be used.
It becomes more complex but can still be surchargepermanent = 10 kPa
done, see: > surchargevariable = 15 kPa > 19.5 kPa
Potts and Zdravkovic
Accounting for partial material factors in
Initial stresses (DA3):
numerical analysis, Geotechnique 2012
K0c = 1 – sin(41) = 0.344 (based on characteristic ')
17
COMPARISON OF RESULTS
bending moments [kNm/m]
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
0
HSS-DA3
MC-DA3
HSS-DA2 1
Mdesign, DA2* = M1 x 1.35 + (M2 – M1) x 1.5 MC-DA2
M1 … bending moment excluding variable load

M2 … bending moment including variable load

3
Difference in maximum design bending

moment between DA2 and DA3 smaller 6
for HSS model than for MC model (in

this particular example) 7
18
200
MC 181 176
180 HSS
161
design strut force [kN/m]
160
140
138
120
100
80
60
40
Strut force after Strut force Design strut
20 DA2
excavation due to load force
0
DA2 DA3
MC 78 21.6 138
HSS 108.6 23.1 181
design approach
Strut force after Strut force Design strut

DA3
excavation due to load force
MC 122 39 161
HSS 140 36 176
19
EXCAVATION IN CLAY
Phases:
1: Initial stresses (K0 = 1 - sin')
2: Sheet pile wall (wished-in-place)
> displacements set to 0
4: Activation of strut at -1.50 m
7: Surcharge 15 kPa (variable load)
20
EXCAVATION IN CLAY
Parameters for HSS-model
Parameter Meaning Value
 [kN/m³] Unit weight (unsaturated) 15
sat [kN/m³] Unit weight (saturated) 16
' [°] Friction angle (Mohr-Coulomb) 27
c′ [kPa] Cohesion (Mohr-Coulomb) 15
 [°] Angle of dilatancy 0 "Method A":
ur [-] Poisson’s ratio unloading-reloading 0.20 undrained analysis with
E50ref [kPa] Secant modulus for primary triaxial loading 4 300 effective strength parameters
Eoedref [kPa] Tangent modulus for oedometric loading 1 800
Eurref [kPa] Secant modulus for un- and reloading 14 400
m [-] Exponent of the Ohde/Janbu law 0.90
pref [kPa] Reference stress for the stiffness parameters 100
K0nc [-] Coefficient of earth pressure at rest (NC) 1-sin(′)
Rf [-] Failure ratio 0.90
t [kPa] Tensile strength 0
G0 [kPa] Small-strain shear modulus 25 000
0.7 [-] Reference shear strain where Gsec=0.7G0 0.0003
Undrained analysis with "Method B" (undrained strength parameters):

cu = 23.9 kPa at -2.0m
cu = 2.1 kPa/m
21
EXCAVATION IN CLAY
horizontal wall displacement [mm]
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10
0
HS
Comparison of constitutive models HSS
MC
1
SS
2
distance from wall [m]

3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
60
surface displacement [mm]

50 HS 4
40 HSS
MC
30 SS 5
20
10 6
0
-10
7
-20
-30
8
10
11
22
EC7 PARTIAL FACTORS
DA2*: DA3:
Permanent loads: G = 1.35 Permanent loads: G = 1.00
Variable loads: Q = 1.50 Variable loads: Q = 1.30
All soil factors = 1.0 Strength: c =  = 1.25
surchargepermanent = 10 kPa > ' = 22.2°
surchargevariable = 15 kPa > c' = 12 kPa
> surchargevariable = 15 kPa > 19.5 kPa
Undrained strength: cu = 1.40
cu = 17.1 kPa at -2.0m, cu = 1.5 kPa/m
Initial stresses (DA3):

K0c = 1 – sin(27) = 0.546 (based on characteristic ')
23
design bending moments [kNm/m]
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50
0
Difference resulting from choice of 2
constitutive model much larger than

3
difference between DA2 and DA3

4
Note: undrained strength for "Method B" HSS_DA2-A

8
is chosen such that cu is the same for MC_DA2-A

HSS_DA2-B 9
Methods A and B for MC-model and this MC_DA2-B
HSS_DA3-A
value is also used for the HSS analysis MC_DA3-A 10
HSS_DA3-B
using Method B MC_DA3-B
11
24
EXAMPLE AK 1.6 - KLEI
Introduction
DA2EC7 Design Approaches
- DA3 / Method Benchmark
A - B Examples Simplified Case Histories Summary / Discussion
250
HSS-A
206 MC-A
193 193
design strut force [kN/m]
200 HSS-B
MC-B
176
159
150 152
150
123
100
strut force after strut force design
DA2
excavation due to load strut force
50 MC 95.7 13.7 150
HSS 121 19.6 193
MC_B 100.6 15.3 159
0 HSS_B 121.4 19.4 193
DA2 DA3
strut force after strut force design
design approach DA3
excavation due to load strut force
MC 101.4 21.1 123
HSS 140.2 35.3 176
MC_B 116.7 35.1 152
HSS_B 161.9 43.8 206
25
CASE HISTORY - STIFF CLAY
+ 13.7 m
+ 10.0 m P1
+ 6.5 m GWT + 6.5 m

P2
+ 2.5 m
P3
- 3.0 m
P4
- 7.5 m
P5 Diaphragm Wall
- 12.5 m t = 46.7 m
P6
- 17.5 m
London Clay d = 66.7 m
- 22.5 m
P7
stiff clay
- 27.0 m
- 33.0 m
1.2 m Prop Level

17.5 m
Excavation Level
- 53.0 m
Chalk
EXAMPLE STIFF CLAY - STAGE 3
26
Introduction EC7 Design Approaches Benchmark Examples DA2
Simplified / DA3
Case - HSS-Model
Histories Summary / Discussion
CASE HISTORY - STIFF CLAY bending moments [kNm/m]

-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000
0
DA2
DA2
DA3 5
DA3
DA2*1.35
DA2*1.35 10
15
Partial factor on strength parameters

does not influence bending moments 20
significantly > higher design values

for DA2* 25
30
35
40
45
50
27
DIAPHRAGM WALL WITH PRESTRESSED GROUND ANCHORS
Prestressed
ground anchors
28
DIAPHRAGM WALL WITH PRESTRESSED GROUND ANCHORS
max. bending anchor force anchor force anchor force

factor of
moment layer 1 layer 2 layer 3
safety
kNm/m (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m)
characteristic 658 334 756 755 1.57
x 1.35 (DA2*) 888 451 1021 1020
DA3 867 358 805 766 1.26
Only sligthly increased as compared to prestress forces

Increase in anchor force due to factored soil strength < 10%
Consequence: anchor forces DA2* >> DA3
bending moments are not so much different
N.B. effect of water is fully factored in DA2* but not in DA3
29
CASE HISTORY - SOFT CLAY 10.0 m
Strut levels Excavation

(Prestress forces) steps surface 0.0 m
-1.0 m (200)
-2.0 m GW-Table -4.0 m FILL
K0 = 0.5
-4.0 m (550)
-5.0 m
-7.5 m (650)
-8.5 m
-11.0 m (600)
-12.0 m
-14.5 m (700) -15.5 m

-17.5 m (700)
-18.5 m
MARINE CLAY
-21.0 m (800) K0 = 0.625
-22.5 m
-24.0 m (850)
-25.0 m
-27.0 m (800) -27.5 m
JGP 1: 2 m
-30.0 m (700)
-31.0 m
Final excavation -33.0 m
-36 m JGP 2: 3 m
-40 m -38.0 m
0.8 m
OLD ALLUVIUM SW2
K0 = 0.46
-45.0 m
OLD ALLUVIUM CZ
K0 = 0.46
30 EXAMPLE MARINE CLAY EXAMPLE MARINE CLAY
Introduction EC7 Design Approaches
DA2 / DA3
Benchmark Examples DA2 / DA3
Simplified Case Histories Summary / Discussion
CASE HISTORY - SOFT CLAY

wall deflection [mm] bending moments [kNm/m]
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40
0
0
MC_DA2_A
MC_DA2_B
MC_DA3_A 5
MC_DA3_B 5
MC_DA3_A2
10
10
MC_DA2c

MC_DA2c
MC_DA2d 15
15
MC_DA2d
MC_DA3_A
MC_DA3_A
MC_DA3_B 20
20
MC_DA3_B
MC_DA3_A2
MC_DA3_A2
25
25
30
30
35
Note: Analysis A2 35
> partial factor on
stiffness of soil layers
40
40
31
NATM TUNNEL
Phases:
Step 0: Initial stresses (K0 = 1.25)
Step 1: Pre-relaxation top heading (55%)
Step 2: Full excavation top heading with
lining in place (shotcrete "young")
Step 3: Pre-relaxation bench (35%, shotcrete
top heading > "old"))
Step 4: Full excavation bench with lining in
place (shotcrete bench "young")
Step 5: Pre-relaxation invert (20%, shotcrete
bench > "old"))
Step 6: Full excavation invert with lining in
place (shotcrete invert "young")
32
NATM TUNNEL
Normal force in lining smaller for DA3?
maximum design bending moment [kNm/m]

100
1400 HSS HSS
MC MC
HS HS
design normal force [kN/m]
1200 SS 80 SS
1000
60
800
600 40
400
20
200
0 0
DA2 DA3 DA2 DA3
design approach design approach
33
NATM TUNNEL
DA3 DA2
Vertical displacements
DA3: possibly pre-relaxation factors have to be modified too
34
EC7 - ULS-design approaches using FEM:

 Different design approaches (DA2 / DA3) will lead to
different design (true also for conventional analysis)
 Choice of constitutive model may have larger influence than
choice of design approach
 It seems that difference between DA2 and DA3 is less
pronounced for advanced constitutive models
 Application of numerical methods complying with EC7
requirements is in general possible, but
• results of numerical analysis depend on constitutive model and other
modelling assumptions
• not all failure modes required to be checked by EC7 are easily covered,
but is this really required?
 Structural elements have to be considered in a consistent manner
35
Arguments for DA2 (DA2*), against DA3

 "Real" soil is considered
 "Limit state" of working load conditions are obtained, only one
analysis required (not exactly true if variable loads are present)
 Unrealistic system behaviour (e.g. struts in tension) is avoided
Arguments against DA2 (DA2*), for DA3

 Partial factor should be placed where one of the uncertainty is > soil
parameters
 Soil is load and resistance > not always clear cut, automatically taken
into account in DA3/DA1
 Some critical mechanisms may be missed in DA2*

EC7

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

EC7

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

S C I E N C E P A S S I O N T E C H N O L O G Y

COMPARISON OF EC7 DESIGN

Application of numerical methods for ultimate limit state design in

With respect to numerical modelling there is a significant difference between

Goal of this presentation

PARTIAL FACTORS EC7

PARTIAL FACTORS EC7

Soil properties M Resistances

Partial factors for soil properties and resistances according to EC7

EC7 design approaches in combination with numerical methods:

Option 1 for DA3:

perform all excavation steps final excavation level

> if failure does not occur in one of the

N.B. No information on serviceability limit state

Option 2 for DA3: excavation level 1

> reduce tan to tanunfact / 

Option 2 for DA3: excavation level 1

> reduce tan to tanunfact / 

Option 2 for DA3: excavation level 1

> reduce tan to tanunfact / 

EXCAVATION IN SAND Constitutive models compared:

Secant modulus G [kN/m²]

depth below surface [m]

EC7 PARTIAL FACTORS

Mdesign, DA2* = M1 x 1.35 + (M2 – M1) x 1.5 MC-DA2

M1 … bending moment excluding variable load

depth below surface [m]

Difference in maximum design bending

for HSS model than for MC model (in

Strut force after Strut force Design strut

Undrained analysis with "Method B" (undrained strength parameters):

distance from wall [m]

depth below surface [m]

EC7 PARTIAL FACTORS

Undrained strength: cu = 1.40

cu = 17.1 kPa at -2.0m, cu = 1.5 kPa/m

Initial stresses (DA3):

Difference resulting from choice of 2

constitutive model much larger than

depth below surface [m]

Note: undrained strength for "Method B" HSS_DA2-A

is chosen such that cu is the same for MC_DA2-A

CASE HISTORY - STIFF CLAY

+ 6.5 m GWT + 6.5 m

1.2 m Prop Level

CASE HISTORY - STIFF CLAY bending moments [kNm/m]

depth below surface [m]

significantly > higher design values

DIAPHRAGM WALL WITH PRESTRESSED GROUND ANCHORS

DIAPHRAGM WALL WITH PRESTRESSED GROUND ANCHORS

max. bending anchor force anchor force anchor force

characteristic 658 334 756 755 1.57

x 1.35 (DA2*) 888 451 1021 1020

DA3 867 358 805 766 1.26

Only sligthly increased as compared to prestress forces

CASE HISTORY - SOFT CLAY 10.0 m

Strut levels Excavation

-14.5 m (700) -15.5 m

CASE HISTORY - SOFT CLAY

depth below surface [m]

Normal force in lining smaller for DA3?

maximum design bending moment [kNm/m]

design approach design approach

EC7 - ULS-design approaches using FEM: