.

33 5 (459 - 472) 2549

KKU Engineering Journal Vol. 33 No .5 (459 472) September October2006

1)
1)

Email: ank_pun@yahoo.com

14

(Benchmark
Problem)

Constitutive Soil Model

: , ,

460

A Case Study: The Comparison of the

Results obtained from the Finite Element
Analysis of a Deep Excavation
Benchmark Problem
Ankana Punlor1)
1)

Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Rangsit University

Email: ank_pun@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
This paper will illustrate the comparison of the results obtained from the FE-analysis of a
deep excavation with anchored diaphragm wall which had been analyzed by different 14 groups of
researchers from Germany and Austria. A same benchmark problem had been assigned to all
groups. It was allowed to select the FE program and the constitutive soil model freely. From a
comparison, the significant scatter in results had been found. The different in methods of parameter
determination, FE-model constructing and analysis procedures could be the main cause of such
inconsistent results.

Keywords : Deep excavation with anchored diaphragm wall, Benchmark problem, Finite
element analysis

461

Constutive Soil Model

Constitutive Soil Model


German Geotechnical Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Geotechnik,
DGGT) (Benchmark Problem)
14
Workshop 16-17 2543

Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, University of Stuttgart

Workshop

Geometry

(Anchored Diaphragm Wall)

Constitutive Soil Model 1

Plain Strain

462

Beam Element Continuum Element

2-3
Soft gel horizontal base cut-off
Prestress (Anchor prestressing force) 1
2-3 x

1
(G.W.T)

2
3
4

(Soft gel horizontal base cut-off)

Sand
2-3 x

1: 2.30 m
2: 1.35 m
3: 1.35 m
Prestress
1: 768 kN
2: 945 kN
3: 980 kN
15 cm2
E = 2.1 x 108 kN/m2

1 Geometry

(Berlin Sand)
2 4
s = 2.66 g/cm3
, emin = 0.48 , emax = 0.81
8 d = 1.60 g/cm3 , e = 0.66 Relative
Density, Dr = 0.45

463

Stiffness Modulus ,
E s 20000 z 0 < z 20 m (z = )
E s 60000 z z > 20 m,
= 35(), = 19 kN/m3, = 10 kN/m3 K0 = 1-sin
E = 30,000x103 kN/m2, = 0.15, = 24 kN/m3
Angle of wall friction /2

% Finer

[.]

2 Berlin Sand
1 [%]

1 [kPa]

1 [%]

1 [kPa]

3 Odometer Test () ()

464

[kPa]

Confining
pressure (2)

1 [%]

1 [%]

4 Triaxial Test: -1 () e-1 ()

10x10 cm

1. -17.90
2. -4.80
3. Prestress -4.30
4. -9.30
5. Prestress -8.80
6. -14.35
7. Prestress -13.85
8. -16.80

1 2 1
B1 B14 (
B3 B9 Constitutive Soil Model
B3a B9a )
Constitutive Soil Model Stiffness Modulus
1 Constitutive Soil Model
Hypoplastic Soil Model

465

Stiffness Modulus Constitutive Soil Model

Stiffness Modulus B3,
B3a B13
Poisson Ratio, 0.20 0.35 Friction Angle
(35< <36) B7 ( =40.5) Dilatancy Angle, 0 15
Program

Soil Model

E-modulus

[-]

[]

[]

B1

Tunnel

Mohr-Coulomb

B2

PLAXIS

Hardening-Soil (z<40m)
Mohr-Coulomb(z>40m)

B3

Abaqus

B3a

Abaqus

B4

Ansys

Hypoplastic without
Intergranular Strain
Hypoplastic with
Intergranular Strain
Drucker Prager

B5

Sofistik

Mohr-Coulomb

B6

Z_Soil

Mohr-Coulomb

B7
B8

FEEREPGT
PLAXIS

B9

x
[m]

0.3

35

100x64

0.2

36

100x100

(Ohde)

MC-linear

161x162
161x162

43

6

0.3

35

105x107

0.3

35

15

80x60

0.3

35

15

122x90

0.26
0.2

40.5
35

13.5
10

90x60
90x70

Zienkiewicz/Pande/Schad
Hardening Soil 2 layers
(z<20m) (z>20m)

60000 kN/m3

PLAXIS

Mohr-Coulomb

0.35

35

150x100

B9a

PLAXIS

Hardening-Soil

0.2

35

10

150x100

B10

PLAXIS

Hardening-Soil

0.2

36

100x72

B11

PLAXIS

0.3

35

150x120

B12

PLAXIS

Hardening Soil 2 layers

(z<20m) (z>20m)
Mohr-Coulomb

3




9

0.3

35

90x92

B13

Abaqus

B14

BEFE

Hypoplastic with
Intergranular Strain
Shear Hardening Model
with small strain stiffness

100x100

0.2

35

120x100

466

2 Element Type Grout Body

Interface
Prestress


Element Type
for Soils
B1
B2

B3

linear

B3a
B4

Element
Type
for Wall
Continuum
9 nodes
Beam

Element Type
for Anchors/Grout
Body

Element Type
for Interface

Rods/Membrane

Laboratory
Tests

467

Remark

Prestress ?

Rod/Membrane

PLAXIS
Rinter=0.5
Einter>Esoil

Continuum
4 nodes

Rod Ele./Rod Ele.

=0,

Prestress ?

linear

Continuum
4 nodes

Rod
Ele.

Prestress

linear

Continuum
4 nodes
Beam

Rod Ele./8 Rod Ele.

Prestress

B5

=20
Ele./4-5

Rod

Spring

=0,
=20

interface

B6

Prestress ?
Prestress ?

Es E?
B7

Continuum

B8

Beam

Continuum/
Continuum
Rod Ele./
Membrane Ele.

=20.25
PLAXIS

C=2.5 kN/m2
Capillary cohesion

Reload/Unload

Oedometer

Triaxial
B9

Beam

B9a

Beam

B10

Rod Ele./Membrane
Ele.
Rod Ele./Membrane
Ele.

PLAXIS
Rinter=0.5
PLAXIS
Rinter=0.5

Beam

Rod Ele./Membrane
Ele.

PLAXIS
Rinter=0.61

B11

Beam

B12

Beam

Rod Ele./Membrane
Ele.
Rod Ele./Membrane
Ele.

PLAXIS
Rigid?
PLAXIS
Rinter=0.5

=15.5

B13

linear+intern

Beam
linear

Rod Ele.

B14

Continuum
8 nodes

Rod Ele./2
Membrane Ele.

Triaxial

Prestress ?
Prestress ?

,
Grout Body

=0,
=17.5

2 ( 1)

468

2.3
-

[m]

[m]

5
-229 +33 .
()
122 .
B1 B7
100 %

[mm]

[kNm/m]

469

(s) 6

(Heave) +40 .
-135 . B3

7 Active
100%
Active Passive
(m)

s
(mm)

Active
Earth
Pressure
[kN/m2]

Passive
Earth
Pressure
[kN/m2]

8
B2, B7, B8, B9, B9a, B10, B13 B14 Prestress

[m]

[m]

470

471

[kN/m]

8 1-3

5
8

Constitutive Soil Model

Element
Prestress Interface

472

D.M. Potts. 2003. Numerical Analysis: a virtual dream or practical reality. Geotechnique. 6:
535-573.
D.M. Potts and L. Zdravkovic. 1999. Finite Element Analysis in Geotechnical Engineering:
Theory. Thomas Telford.
H.F. Schweiger (Redaktion). 2000. Beitraege zum Workshop Verformungsprognose
fuer tiefe Baugruben 16-17 March 2000. Stuttgart, Germany.
M.Puller. 1998. Deep Excavations a Practical Manual. Thomas Telford.