Civil Engineering magazine, №4, 2014 CALCULATIONS

doi: 10.5862 / MCE.48.2

Selection of groundwater models parameters in software

complex Plaxis 2D
Master of OV Sokolova,
St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University

Annotation. For solving complex geotechnical problems are increasingly used software systems based on the finite element
method. The use of such systems requires special attention to models of subgrade and destination parameters.

The problem of model selection subgrade when calculating the sediments in the test problem in relation to complex
engineering-geological conditions of St. Petersburg. The obtained precipitate were compared in models of Linear Elastic, Mohr -
Coulomb elastoplastic hardening Hardening Soil and elastoplastic hardening at small strains Hardening Small Soil.

The article presents the results of the calibration parameters for the data base model for soil compression tests. It confirmed
the need for a preliminary rough calculations to assess the correctness of the groundwater model for geotechnical calculations.

Keywords: numerical modeling; calibration; parameters of the model; model Mohr - Coulomb elastic-plastic model with
hardening

introduction
Currently under construction in the conditions of the existing historical buildings particularly important task is to minimize the
impact on the buildings in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. Since the greatest impact occurs during the "zero cycle" it is
especially important to limit the movement of walling excavation of foundations and existing buildings. To solve complex problems
geotechnical software systems are widely used in modern conditions realizing on the basis of the finite element modeling tasks
possible without exact or approximate analytical engineering solutions [1].

An important issue for designers during the geotechnical calculations is the correct choice of the design ground models, as
well as its options for obtaining the picture of stress-strain state (SSS) of the base. Before engineer question arises to use a simple
model with known parameters or to use a more complicated model, but with a number of parameters requiring further definition.

Most often for of geotechnical calculations used

uprugoidealnoplasticheskaya groundwater model Mora - Coulomb, which is defined by the four design parameters are always
available in the geotechnical reports: module

total deformation E, Poisson's ratio •• clutch with and angle of friction •[ 2, 3]. However, the use of this model to meet the challenges of
the pit passages correctly, since the total deformation modulus E It does not correspond to the actual work on the ground unloading
stage. Of all the models that take account of soil unloading dirt elastic-plastic model with hardening Hardening Soil (HS) the most
widely known, implemented including in software Plaxis complex. The complexity of the use of this model is to specify additional
stiffness parameters not listed in the standard table of standard characteristics of soils as part of geotechnical reports. model HS

ref
considering separately module soil deformation during loading deviator ( 50 E), module
ref
Compressive deformation ( E),oedand unloading modulus and soil re-loading ( ref
E).ur
For these parameters conduct triaxial necessary. In fact, often the designer has stabilometric test results only for a few soils of all cut
occurring, usually at a depth of more than 20 m Other characteristics are set based on the recommendations Plaxis development
[4-6].:

Sokolova OV Selection of groundwater model parameters in the software package Plaxis 2D

ten
CALCULATIONS Magazine of Civil Engineering, No.4, 2014

ref ref
E 50
• E oed
(one)
ref ref
E ur
• 3 • E 50
Matter of comparing the results of using different groundwater models, including the HS, engaged in many geotechnical engineers [7-14]. However, the vast
majority of Russian researchers are limited to a comparison of the two models based on existing stabilometric tests and report the results of the selection of
parameters for the most accurate simulation of the VAT base that is consistent with the results of field tests. A more serious study of the choice of the ground model
and its parameters for numerical simulation of doing AI Golubev, AV Seletskii, LA String, and other scientists who have made significant contributions to the
development of this topic [15-17]. Foreign researchers compared the calculations made in several models of groundwater, with the results of field trials [18-21]. This
was done as the calibration work model by solving the inverse problem and developing the algorithm for solving the problem [22, 23], and selection of parameters
based on the so-called hereditary optimization algorithm [24, 25]. In particular, the parameters of the selection results showed the importance of considering the soil
loading history. [26] Most of the work clearly demonstrates the benefits of improved soil over conventional models - elastic and Mohr - Coulomb. It should be noted
that of particular interest are foreign studies in the annex to the specific conditions of St. Petersburg and modeling of weak silty clay soils [15-25]. the results of the
selection parameters have shown the importance of considering the soil loading history. [26] Most of the work clearly demonstrates the benefits of improved soil over
conventional models - elastic and Mohr - Coulomb. It should be noted that of particular interest are foreign studies in the annex to the specific conditions of St.
Petersburg and modeling of weak silty clay soils [15-25]. the results of the selection parameters have shown the importance of considering the soil loading history. [26]
Most of the work clearly demonstrates the benefits of improved soil over conventional models - elastic and Mohr - Coulomb. It should be noted that of particular
interest are foreign studies in the annex to the specific conditions of St. Petersburg and modeling of weak silty clay soils [15-25].

Initial data
This article presents the results of the selection parameters for the soil model and comparing the results of calculations
carried out for the test tasks performed in the software package Plaxis 2D. The task performed in the plane formulation. Data on
inzhenernogeologicheskim elements were taken on a specific area and are typical for the central part of St. Petersburg (Table. 1).

To assess the correctness of the given soil parameters produced complex test calculations. The test problem was modeled
uniform precoat array of 10x10 m, which in turn for each prescribed characteristics geotechnical element (EGE) of the geological
section of the selected characteristic of the central part of St. Petersburg. Particular attention was paid to silty-clay soils with low
strength and rigidity characteristics. After the first phase of natural stress modeling soil on the surface of the array wondered
foundation with applied load. The value given by the load on the precoat array corresponds to the pressure on the sole of 100 kPa
(Fig. 1).

The initial calculation of this task was carried out using three soil models:

• linear-elastic model (Linear Elastic - LE);

• Mora models - Coulomb (MC);
• elastic-plastic model with hardening soil (HS).

After the first settlements were not only adjusted the parameters of the initial setting of three groundwater models, but also
added a calculation using a hardening soil model for small deformations - Hardening Small Soil (HSS).

Table 1. haratkeristiki soil and additional options for the HS and HSS models

Main Additional parameters for Additional parameters

ground name characteristics the model for HSS model
soil HS
ref
E 50 • 5400 kPa
IGE 4 silty loam gray with plant • • 18.8 kN • • 0.35
ref
m
3
E • 5400 kPa G • 74644 kPa
residues, with interbedded oed
/
•
with 7 kPa • • 21 ref • • 0.34 •
•3
E oed
• 8677 kPa 0.7 10
sand, flowing
E • 5400 kPa E ur
ref
• 16200 kPa K o• 0.642

Sokolova OV Selection of groundwater model parameters in the software package Plaxis 2D

eleven
Civil Engineering magazine, №4, 2014 CALCULATIONS

Main Additional parameters for Additional parameters

ground name characteristics the model for HSS model
soil HS
ref
E 50 • 5000 kPa
IGE 8 silty loam gray unclear layered • • 18.9 kN • • 0.35 ref
m
3 E • 5000 kPa G • 75203 kPa
with plant residues oed
/
•3
kPa
• four
with • • 17 E
ref
• 3940 kPa • 0.7 0.376
• 10 •
oed
flowable
E • 5000 kPa ref
K o•
E ur • 15000 kPa 0.708

ref
E 50 • 6000 kPa
IGE 10 light loam • • 19.7 kN • • 0.35 ref
m
3 E • 6000 kPa G • 91173 kPa
silty gray oed
/
•3
layered • 13 kPa
with • • 18 E
ref
• 5776 kPa • 0.7
•
0.291 10 •
oed
tekucheplastichnye
E • 6000 kPa ref
E ur • 18000 kPa K o• 0,691

ref
E 50 • 12000 kPa
IGE 11 sandy loam silty gray with • • 21.4 kN • • 0.35 ref
m
3 E • 12000 kPa G • 136620 kPa
gravel, pebbles, with oed
/
•3
interlayers of loam • 20
with kPa • • 21 E
ref
• 10478 kPa • 0.7 0.248
• 10 •
oed
Plastic
E • 12000 kPa ref
K o•
E ur • 36000 kPa 0.642

ref
E 50 • 16000 kPa
IGE 11a sandy loam silty gray gravel, • • 21.8 kN • • 0.35 ref
m
3 E • 16000 kPa G • 149326 kPa
boulders oed
/
•3
interbedded with loam • 21 kPa
with • • thirty E oed
•
ref
12544 • 0.7 0.258
• 10 •
solid
E • 16000 kPa ref
K o•
E ur • 48000 kPa 0.5

ref
IGE silty loam 13 grayish E 50 • 7000 kPa
• • 21.6 kN • • 0.35 ref
m
3 E • 7000 kPa G • 144098 kPa
oed
/
brown with plant residues •3
• 22
with kPa • • 21 E
ref
• 5966 kPa • 0.7 0.242
• 10 •
oed

tugoplastichnye E • 7000 kPa ref

E ur • 21000 kPa K o• 0.642

ref
E 50 • 5000 kPa
IGE 14 silty loam light brownish • • 19.4 kN • • 0.35 ref
m
3 E • 5000 kPa G • 83074 kPa
oed
/
•3
gray layered •
with 6 kPa • • eight E
ref
• 4453 kPa • 0.7 0.165
• 10 •
oed
myagkoplastichnye
E • 5000 kPa ref
K o•
E ur • 15000 kPa 0.861

ref
IGE 15 silty clay E 50 • 18000 kPa
• • 21.2 kN • • 0.4
bluish-green stationed with m
3 E
ref
• 18000 kPa G • 128411 kPa
oed
/
fragments of sandstone •3
• 177
with kPa • • 27 E oed
ref
• 10731 kPa • 0.7 0.716
• 10 •

solid E • 18000 kPa ref

K o•
E ur • 54000 kPa 0.546

Figure 1: Finite element model for test problem

Sokolova OV Selection of groundwater model parameters in the software package Plaxis 2D
12
 CALCULATIONS Magazine of Civil Engineering, No.4, 2014

Simulation test problem in the LE models, MC and HS

As a criterion for determining correct operation model dirt and sludge characteristics assigned soils resulting from the
calculation of the test problem, compared with a draft, decides in accordance with n. 6.5.31 SP 22.13330.2011 "Foundations of
buildings and structures."

It has been found that for sludge weak soils at a pressure of 100 kPa coincides with calculated values ​of SP only linear
elastic model. For other models, excess rainfall ranged from 30 to 50% - for models Mora - Coulomb, between 100 and 170% - for the
HS model. For certain soils soil destruction occurred in models with plastic deformation after the load application part. Only primers
located in the lower part of the geological section and having higher strength characteristics as compared to other primers (GTE 10,
11, 11a, 13, 15), there was a close correlation precipitate all models other than rainfall Hardening Soil.

The results of the test problem presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Sludge foundation 2 m wide ground models implemented in software Plaxis complex, at a pressure of 100
kPa soles

number of soil s, mm (PO) s, mm (LE) s, mm (MC) s, mm (HS)

IGE 4 45 46 69 123

IGE 8 48 51 It has reached the limit state

EGE 10 40 42 53.2 103.5
EGE 11 20 21.3 22 41.8
IGE 11a 15 sixteen 16.2 25.2
EGE 13 34 36 37 70
EGE 14 48 50.7 It has reached the limit state
EGE 15 13.4 12.3 12.3 16.6

Serious differences between the values ​of the precipitate for soft soils due to the fact that a predetermined pressure by the
foundation sole 100 kPa greatly exceeds the calculated resistance and leads to the development of a significant proportion of the
precipitate caused by plastic deformation of the soil. Thus, in the graph shown in Figure 2, the fluid loam clearly seen that the vertical
deformations at LE and MC models coincide only in the pressure range of 0-30 kPa, then begin differences between the values ​of
rainfall.

Output Version 2012.0.10011.8315

- 0.01
Chart 2
Elastic
- 0.02 MC HS

- 0.03

- 0.04

- 0.05

- 0.06
uy
[m]

- 0.07

- 0.08

- 0.09

- 0.1

- 0.11

- 0.12

- 0.13
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 one

S Mstage []

Project description Date

Figure Mock
2. Characteristic for all elements
Project filename
16/10/2013
Step User name
Figure 3. The development of
inzhenernogeologicheskih graph constructed according to
Mock five TECHNOPOLIS Ltd plastic points in a ground array modeled
IGE №4 pressure / precipitate for IGE №4. The pressure on the
foundation sole - 100 kPa

Painting of plastic points in a ground area on Figure 3 confirms this conclusion.

Sokolova OV Selection of groundwater model parameters in the software package Plaxis 2D

13
Civil Engineering magazine, №4, 2014 CALCULATIONS

Simulation test problem in the LE models, MC, HS and HSS

Since all regulations for bases and foundations provide for calculation and design considering predominantly linear operation
soil, it was decided to reduce the pressure of the foundation sole to a value at which the quantity of plastic deformation zones at the
edges of the foundation would not exceed the value 0,4b, where b - the width of the foundation. This value corresponds to the zone
of plastic pressure equality condition on the sole of the calculated resistance under the sole consideration for all of IGE cut. Finally,
the pressure on the sole of the modeled basement was taken as ~ 0,5R (but not more than 100 kPa), wherein R - calculated
resistance, the count for each inzhenernogeologicheskogo element according to p.5.6.7 SP 22.13330.2011 "Foundations of buildings
and structures" (Fig. 4).

Figure 4: Development of plastic points in a ground array simulated

for IGE №4. The pressure on the foundation soles ~ 0,5R = 30 kPa

Table 3. The magnitude of the calculated resistance to uniform precoat array

number of soil IGE IGE 4 8 10 GTE GTE 11 IGE 11a GTE GTE 13 14 15 IEG
The magnitude of the design 62 35 86 141 217 153 29 1302
resistance R, kPa

To determine the modulus of deformation odometer used in the model HS soil hardening, results of compression tests were
applied. Compression tests were carried out in the course of geological engineering survey on the standard method in accordance
with GOST 12248-96. Selected soil samples were loaded in series in steps of 50 kPa to the maximum load of 400 kPa. Odometer
module sample was calculated via porosity coefficients in the pressure range 50-200 kPa.

Due to the decrease of pressure on the sole task of further test was performed in the implementation of the model soil
hardening at small deformations (HSS). For Model HSS further initial shear modulus were asked
G 0and the level of shear
strains 0.7 • . which was calculated for a depth corresponding to the reference value
pressure 100 kPa.

Calculation of HS and HSS models was made for two variants of the strain moduli tasks: received by the formula (1) for the
first case and in view of the compression test results for the second.

The simulation results are presented in Table 4.

Sokolova OV Selection of groundwater model parameters in the software package Plaxis 2D

14
CALCULATIONS Magazine of Civil Engineering, No.4, 2014

Table 4. Precipitation foundations obtained in various models

s, mm
number of soil The pressure on the sole, kPa
SP 22.13330.2011 LE MC HS HSS
IGE 4 thirty 7.4 14.1 14.4 28.9 / 19.8 22.9 / 55.8
IGE 8 15 5.16 7.6 7.7 16.4 / 20.3 5.8 / 8.9
EGE 10 50 17.7 21.2 21.7 42.8 / 44.3 28.9 / 30.9
EGE 11 80 15.1 17 17.4 31.2 / 35.2 15.4 / 20.2
IGE 11a 100 15 sixteen 16.2 25.6 / 31.6 13.3 / 20.3
EGE 13 90 30.9 32.7 33.4 60.1 / 69.2 12.8 / 10.6
EGE 14 ten 2.9 5.1 5.2 11.2 / 12.26 6.73 / 8.03
EGE 15 100 13.4 12.3 12.3 17.7 / 29.7 2.6 / 10.7

conclusion
These simulation results confirm the importance of choosing the ground model and calculation parameters for geotechnical
calculations.

We can say that the most correct draft of weak silty clay soils occurring in the upper part of the geological strata, describe a
model Mohr - Coulomb and Hardening Small Soil. However, it should be used with caution model Hardening Small Soil to soil at a
depth of 40 m. Thus, for the geotechnical elements №13, 14, 15, located at a depth of 50-60 m, the sediment was understated.

For more correct behavior groundwater model must have stabilometric tests. Compression tests do not allow to adjust all of
the input parameters.

In the absence stabilometric testing and setting properties of soil in accordance with recommendations Plaxis Hardening Soil
model developers can be used only for the first modeling soil behavior.

When you create a finite element model, solving problems and making design decisions for the problems of "zero cycle" is
necessary to conduct preliminary rough calculations, confirming the correctness of groundwater models.

Literature

1. AB Fadeev The Finite Element Method in Geomechanics. M .: Nedra, 1987. 221 p.

2. Brinkgreve RBJ, Broere W., Waterman D. Plaxis 2D-version 9. Finite Element Codefor Soiland Rock Analyses. User Manual. Rotterdam:
Balkema, 2008.

3. Vermeer PA, Brinkgrive RBJ Manual of Plaxis. Rotterdam, 2001.

4. Shanz T., Vermeer PA, Bonnier PG The hardening soil model: Formulation and verification // Beyond 2000 in Computational
Geotechnics - 10 2014s of Plaxis. P.1-16.

5. Slivets KV Determination of the internal parameters of the model Hardening Soil Model // Geotechnics. Number 2010. 6. pp 55-59.

6. AB Fadeev Parameters of the model program of soil hardening «PLAXIS». SPb .: Publishing house of the Ph, 2012. S. 13-20.

7. Garkavko AA Constructive decisions fixing the walls of deep excavation. Master's diss. St. Petersburg, STU 2011.

8. Paramonov VN Experimental verification of the applicability of certain soil models to calculate fence pits // Bulletin of Tomsk State
University of Architecture and Construction. 2008. №4. S.139-145.

9. Slivets KV Investigation work fencing of pits developed in pylevatoglinistyh soils. Diss. Candidate of Science, St. Petersburg. 2009.

Sokolova OV Selection of groundwater model parameters in the software package Plaxis 2D

15
Civil Engineering magazine, №4, 2014 CALCULATIONS

10. Ter-Martirosyan, AZ, AU Peace, Sidorov VV, Sobolev YS Determination parameters of the model Hardening Soil on the results of
laboratory tests // Geotechnics. Theory and practice. The All-Russian conference of young scientists, researchers and specialists:
Interuniversity thematic collection of works. SPb .: Publishing house of the Ph, 2013. pp 141-146.

11. Wool KE Anchoring the walls of deep excavation. Master's diss. / STU. St. Petersburg,
94, 2011. p.

12. Bezgadov MA, Kaloshina SV Choice of ground model for the numerical simulation of the impact of the development of deep pits on the
existing development // Herald PNIPU. Urban studies. 2012. №2. S. 17-27.

13. Kolybyn IV Lessons of accidents in the construction pits in urban areas // Urban development and geotechnical construction. 2008.
№12. S. 30-66.

14. Chunyuk DY, Yarnykh VF Decrease of geotechnical risks in the construction of the example of calculation and design of deep
excavations in cramped conditions // Herald MGSU cities. 2009. №2. S.168-176.

15. Golubev AI, AV Seletskii On the question of choosing a soil model for geotechnical calculations // Actual scientific and technical problems
of modern geotechnical engineering. Volume 2. SPb .: Publishing house of the Ph,
2009. pp 6-10.

16. Strokova LA Scientifically-methodical bases of numerical prediction of deformation of soil bases. Abstract of diss. for the degree of
Doctor of Science. Tomsk, 2011.

17. Strokova LA Defining the parameters for numerical modeling of soil // Bulletin of the Tomsk Polytechnic University. 2008. T. 313. №1.
S. 69-74.

18. Benz T., Schwab R., Vermeer PA On the practical use of advanced constitutive laws in finite element foundation analysis // Fondsup
2003 International Symposium. 2003. Pp. 8-16.

19. Wheeler SJ, Cudny M., Neher HP, Wiltafsky C. Some developments in constitutive modeling of soft clays // International Workshop on
Geotechnics of Soft Soils-Theory and Practice. 2003. Pp. 101-121.

20. Wiltafsky C., Scharinger F., Schweiger HF Results from a geotechnical benchmark exercise of an embankment on soft clay //
International Workshop on Geotechnics of Soft Soils-Theory and Practice.
2003. Pp. 67-73.

21. Brinkgreve RBJ Selection of sil models and parameters for geotechnical engineering application // Soil Constitutive Models: Evaluation,
Selection, and Calibration / Ed. JAYamamuro, VNKaliakin. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2005. Vol. 128. Pp. 69-98.

22. Calvello M., Finno RJ Selecting parameters to optimize in model calibration by inverse analysis // Computers and Geotechnics. Vol. 31.
Issue 5. Pp. 420-424.

23. Barla M., Barla G. Torino subsoil characterization by combining site investigations and numerical modelling // Geomechanics and
Tunelling. 2012. Vol. 3. Pp. 214-232.

24. Rokonuzzaman M., Sakai T. Calibration of the parameters for a hardening-softening constitutive model using genetic algorithms //
Computers and Geotechnics. 2010. Vol. 37. Issue 4. Pp. 573-579.

25. Hashash YMA, Levasseur S., Osouli A., Finno R., Malecot Y .. Comparison of two inverse analysis techniques for learning deep
excavation response // Computers and Geotechnics. 2010. Vol. 37. Issue 3. Pp. 323-333.

26. Sultan N., Cui Y.-J., Delage P. Yielding and plastic behaviour of Boom clay // Geotechnique. 2010. Vol. 60. Issue 9. Pp. 657-666.

Olga Sokolova, St. Petersburg, Russia

Tel. mob .: +7 (981) 884-22-62; e. mail: falconer87@mail.ru

© Sokolova OV 2014

Sokolova OV Selection of groundwater model parameters in the software package Plaxis 2D

sixteen
 CALCULATIONS Magazine of Civil Engineering, No.4, 2014

doi: 10.5862 / MCE.48.2

The selection of soil models parameters in Plaxis 2D

OV Sokolova
Saint-Petersburg State Polytechnical University, Saint-Petersburg, Russia
+ 79818842262; -mail an e: falconer87@mail.ru

Key words
computational modeling; calibration; model parameters; Mohr - Coulomb model; Hardening Soil model

Abstract
Finite element method is often used to solve complex geotechnical problems. The application of FEM-based programs
demands special attention to setting models parameters and simulating soil behavior.

The paper considers the problem of the model selection to describe the behavior of soils when calculating soil settlement in
the check task, referring to complicated geotechnical conditions of Saint Petersburg. The obtained settlement values ​in Linear Elastic
model, Mohr - Coulomb model, Hardening Soil model and Hardening Soil Small model were compared.

The paper presents results of calibrating parameters for a geotechnical model obtained on the data of compression testing.
The necessity of prior calculations to evaluate the accuracy of a soil model is confirmed.

References
1. Fadeyev AB Metod konechnykh elementov v geomekhanike [ Finite element method in geomechanics].
Moscow: Nedra, 1987. Pp. 1-221. (Rus)

2. Brinkgreve RBJ, Broere W., Waterman D. Plaxis 2D-version 9. Finite Element Codefor Soiland Rock
Analyses. User Manual. Rotterdam: Balkema, 2008.

3. Vermeer PA, Brinkgrive RBJ Manual of Plaxis. Rotterdam, 2001.

4. Shanz T., Vermeer PA, Bonnier PG The hardening soil model: Formulation and verification. Beyond
2000 in Computational Geotechnics - 10 years of Plaxis. Pp. 1-16.

5. Slivets KV Opredeleniye vnutrennikh parametrov modeli Hardening Soil Model [Definition of the internal parameters of Hardening Soil
Model]. Geotekhnika. 2010. No. 6. Pp. 55-59. (Rus)

6. Fadeyev AB Parametry modeli uprochnyayushchegosya grunta programmy «PLAXIS» [ Parameters of

Hardening Soil Model realised in program PLAXIS]. Saint-Petersburg: Izd-vo SPbGASU, 2012. Pp. 13-20. (Rus)

7. Garkavko AA Konstruktivnyye resheniya krepleniya sten glubokogo kotlovana [ Construction solutions of

deep excavation support suystems]. Master's thesis. Saint-Petersburg: SPbGPU, 2011. (rus)

8. Paramonov VN Eksperimentalnaya proverka primenimosti nekotorykh modeley grunta dlya rascheta ograzhdeniya kotlovanov
[Experimental verification of the adaptability of some soil models for calculation of retaining walls]. Vestnik Tomskogo
gosudarstvennogo arkhitkturno-stroitelnogo universiteta. 2008. No.
4. Pp.139-145. (Rus)

9. Slivets KV Issledovaniye raboty ograzhdeniy kotlovanov, razrabatyvayemykh v pylevato-glinistykh

gruntakh [ Investigation of retaining walls developed in silty and clayey soils]. PhD theis. Saint-Petersburg,
2009. (rus)

10. Ter-Martirosyan AZ, Mirnyy A.Yu., Sidorov VV, Sobolev Ye.S. Opredeleniye parametrov modeli Hardening Soil po rezultatam
laboratornykh ispytaniy [Determination of parameters of Hardening Soil model by the results of laboratory soil testing]. Geotekhnika.
Teoriya i praktika. Obshcherossiyskaya konferentsiya molodykh uchenykh, nauchnykh sotrudnikov i spetsialistov: mezhvuzovskiy
tematicheskiy sbornik trudov [ Geotechnics. Theory and practice. All-Russian Conference of Young Scientists, researchers and
professionals: interuniversity thematic collection of works]. Saint-Petersburg: Izd-vo SPbGASU, 2013. Pp. 141-146. (Rus)

11. Sherstyanykh KE Ankernoye krepleniye sten glubokogo kotlovana [ Ground-anchor fencing of excavation
support]. Master's thesis. Saint-Petersburg: SPbGPU, 2011. 94 p. (Rus)

12. Bezgadov MA, Kaloshina SV Vybor modeli grunta pri chislennom modelirovanii vliyaniya razrabotki glubokikh kotlovanov na
sushchestvuyushchuyu zastroyku [Selecting a soil model for computational
Sokolova OV The selection of soil models parameters in Plaxis 2D

91
Civil Engineering magazine, №4, 2014 CALCULATIONS

modeling of the influence of deep excavation on existing buildings]. Vestnik PNIPU. Urbanistika. 2012. No. 2. Pp. 17-27. (Rus)

13. Kolybyn IV Uroki avariynykh situatsiy pri stroitelstve kotlovanov v gorodskikh usloviyakh [Experience of emergency accidents during the
excavations in urban conditions]. Razvitiye gorodov i geotekhnicheskoye stroitelstvo. 2008. No 12. Pp. 30-66. (Rus)

14. Chunyuk D.Yu., Yarnykh VF Snizheniye geotekhnicheskikh riskov v stroitelstve na primere rascheta i proyektirovaniya glubokikh
kotlovanov v stesnennykh usloviyakh megapolisov [Reducing geotechnical risks in construcrion on the example of calculation and
design of deep excavations in cramped conditions megacities]. Vestnik MGSU. 2009. No 2. Pp.168-176. (Rus)

15. Golubev AI, Seletskiy AV K voprosu o vybore modeli grunta dlya geotekhnicheskikh raschetov [On the selection of soil model for
geotechnical calculations]. Aktualnyye nauchno-tekhnicheskiye problemy sovremennoy geotekhniki. 2 Tom [ Actual scientific and
technical problems of modern geotechnics. Vol. 2]. Saint-Petersburg: Izd-vo SPbGASU, 2009. Pp. 6-10. (Rus)

16. Strokova LA Nauchno-metodicheskiye osnovy chislennogo prognoza deformirovaniya gruntovykh

osnovaniy [ Scientific and methodical principles of computational modeling of deformation soils]. Abstract of doctoral thesis. Tomsk,
2011. (rus)

17. Strokova LA Opredeleniye parametrov dlya chislennogo modelirovaniya gruntov [Determination of parameters for computational
modeling of soils]. Bulletin of Tomsk Polytechnic University. 2008. Vol. 313. No. 1. Pp. 69-74. (Rus)

18. Benz T., Schwab R., Vermeer PA On the practical use of advanced constitutive laws in finite element foundation analysis. Fondsup
2003 International Symposium. 2003. Pp. 8-16.

19. Wheeler SJ, Cudny M., Neher HP, Wiltafsky C. Some developments in constitutive modeling of soft clays. International Workshop on
Geotechnics of Soft Soils-Theory and Practice. 2003.

20. Wiltafsky C., Scharinger F., Schweiger HF Results from a geotechnical benchmark exercise of an embankment on soft clay. International
Workshop on Geotechnics of Soft Soils-Theory and Practice.
2003. Pp. 67-73.

21. Brinkgreve RBJ Selection of sil models and parameters for geotechnical engineering application. Soil
Constitutive Models: Evaluation, Selection, and Calibration. Ed. JAYamamuro, VNKaliakin. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2005.
Vol. 128. Pp. 69-98.

22. Calvello M., Finno RJ Selecting parameters to optimize in model calibration by inverse analysis.
Computers and Geotechnics. 2004. Vol. 31. Issue 5. Pp. 420-424.

23. Barla Marco; Barla Giovanni. Torino subsoil characterization by combining site investigations and numerical modelling. Geomechanics
and Tunelling. 2012. Vol. 3. Pp.214-232.

24. Rokonuzzaman M., Sakai T. Calibration of the parameters for a hardening-softening constitutive model using genetic algorithms. Computers
and Geotechnics. 2010. Vol. 37. Issue 4. Pp. 573-579.

25. Hashash YMA, Levasseur S., Osouli A., Finno R., Malecot Y. Comparison of two inverse analysis techniques for learning deep
excavation response. Computers and Geotechnics. 2010. Vol. 37. Issue 3. Pp. 323-333.

26. Sultan Y.-J.Cui, P.Delage. Yielding and plastic behaviour of Boom clay. Geotechnique. 2010. Vol. 60. Issue 9. Pp. 657-666.

Full text of this article in Russian: pp. 10-16

Sokolova OV The selection of soil models parameters in Plaxis 2D

92