Schweiger (2002) Benchmarking - in - Geotechnics-1 - Part-I PDF

BENCHMARKING IN GEOTECHNICS_1
PART I: RESULTS OF BENCHMARKING

PART II: REFERENCE SOLUTION AND PARAMETRIC STUDY
-70 -65 -60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
depth below surface [m]
12
14
16
18
20
distance from wall [m]

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10
22
reference solution
Rinter = 0.8 (final stage)
24
Rinter = 0.5 (final stage)
Rinter = 0.8 t_virt = 0.01

(final stage)
reference solution
(1. excavation stage)
Rinter = 0.5
Rinter = 0.8 t_virt = 0.01
0
-5
-10
26
28
30
32
-70 -65 -60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5
-15
horizontal displacement [mm]
-20
-25
reference solution
anchor -4m
anchor +8m
-30
Helmut F. Schweiger
Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering

Graz University of Technology, Austria
March 2002 / CGG_IR006_2002
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................ Page 3
1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. Page 3
BENCHMARKING IN GEOTECHNICS ......................................................................... Page 4
PROBLEM SPECIFICATION: DEEP EXCAVATION IN BERLIN SAND ................ Page 5

3.1
Assumptions and geometry .......................................................................... Page 5
3.2
Material parameters ......................................................................................... Page 7
COMMENTS ON SUBMITTED SOLUTIONS ............................................................... Page 8
COMPARISON OF RESULTS ...................................................................................... Page 11

5.1
Comparison of all analyses submitted ..................................................... Page 11
5.2
Comparison of selected results ................................................................. Page 13

5.2.1 Construction stage groundwater lowering to -17.90 m ........................ Page 13
5.2.2 Construction stage first excavation step to -4.80 m.............................. Page 14
5.2.3 Final construction stage .......................................................................... Page 16
5.3
Comparison elastic-plastic vs. elastic-perfectly plastic analyses .... Page 20
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .................................................................................. Page 24
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. Page 24
PART II: REFERENCE SOLUTION AND PARAMETRIC STUDY

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. Page 26
1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... Page 26
PROBLEM DEFINITION ................................................................................................. Page 27

2.1
Geometry, basic assumptions and computational steps .................... Page 27
2.2
Brief description of PLAXIS Hardening Soil model ................................ Page 29
2.3
Material parameters for Hardening Soil model ....................................... Page 31
2.4
Material parameters for structural elements .......................................... Page 31
COMPUTATIONALGEOTECHNICSGROUP
page 1
RESULTS FOR REFERENCE SOLUTION .................................................................. Page 32
INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS ..................................... Page 34

4.1
Influence of groundwater lowering ............................................................ Page 34
4.2
Influence of wall friction ............................................................................... Page 36
4.3
Influence of discretisation ........................................................................... Page 37
4.4
Influence of domain analysed ..................................................................... Page 39
4.5
Influence of modelling ground anchors ................................................... Page 40
4.6
Influence of free anchor length ................................................................... Page 41
4.7
Influence of anchor prestress force .......................................................... Page 43
4.8
Influence of wall thickness .......................................................................... Page 44
4.9
Influence of variation in stiffness and strength parameters of soil .. Page 45
4.10 Wall deflection and anchor forces for all construction stages .......... Page 48
5
INFLUENCE OF CONSTITUTIVE MODEL .................................................................. Page 50

5.1
Elastic analysis ............................................................................................... Page 50
5.2
Elastic - perfectly plastic analyses (Mohr-Coulomb) ............................ Page 53

5.2.1 MC-model 1 and 2 ..................................................................................... Page 53
5.2.2 MC-model 3 and 4 ..................................................................................... Page 55
5.2.3 Parameter variation with MC-model 1 .................................................... Page 57
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .................................................................................. Page 59
page 2

ABSTRACT
In part I of this report the results of a benchmarking exercise are presented. A deep excavation
problem in Berlin sand has been specified by the working AK 1.6 of the German Society for
Geotechnics and sent to various university institutes and consulting companies known to deal with
numerical analysis in practical geotechnical engineering. The results summarized in this report clearly
emphasize the need for these types of exercises in order to improve the reliability and validity of
numerical models. The wide range of results submitted is by no means acceptable and therefore it is
argued that guidelines and recommendations have to be formulated in order to assist numerical
analysts in avoiding unrealistic modelling assumptions, which may lead to consequences the user of a
particular code may not be aware of.
1 INTRODUCTION
The significant progress made in the understanding of the behaviour of geomaterials would not have
been possible without the use of numerical methods. In particular, developments in constitutive
modelling are closely related to advances made in the field of numerical analysis and therefore finite
element (and other) methods have had a significant impact on geotechnical research since the 1970s.
However, numerical methods have not been widely used in practical geotechnical engineering,
possibly with a few exceptions, such as tunnelling, where these methods have a long tradition also in
practice, at least in some parts of the world. But this has changed dramatically over the last decade.
Developments in computer hardware and, more importantly, in geotechnical software enable the
geotechnical engineer to perform very advanced numerical analyses at low cost and with relatively
little computational effort. Commercial codes, fully integrated into the PC-environment, have become
so user-friendly that little training is required for operating the programme. They offer sophisticated
types of analysis, such as fully coupled consolidation analysis with elasto-plastic material models.
However, for performing such complex calculations and obtaining sensible results a strong
background in numerical methods, mechanics and, last but not least, theoretical soil mechanics is
essential. This is sometimes overlooked in practice because glossy brochures give the impression that
achieving reliable results is as easy as operating the programme and this is certainly not true.
The potential problems arising from the situation that geotechnical engineers, not sufficiently trained
for that purpose, perform complex numerical analyses and may produce unreliable results have been
recognized within the profession and some national and international committees have begun to
address this problem, amongst them the working group AK 1.6 "Numerical Methods in Geotechnics" of
the German Society for Geotechnics (DGGT) and working group A "Numerical Methods" of the COST
Action C7 (Co-Operation in Science and Technology of the European Union). One of the main goals of
page 3
AK 1.6 of the DGGT is to provide recommendations for numerical analyses in geotechnical

engineering. The group has published general recommendations (Meissner 1991), recommendations
for numerical simulations in tunnelling (Meissner 1996) and recommendations for deep excavations
will be published shortly. In addition benchmark examples are specified and the results obtained by
various users employing different software are compared. It is claimed that these efforts will improve
the validity of numerical models in geotechnics. More recently the problem has also been addressed
by Potts and Zdravkovic (2001), Carter et al. (2000) and an initiative has been started via a bulletin of
a commercial software company by Schweiger (2001).
In this report solutions for a benchmark problem, namely a deep excavation in Berlin sand, specified
by the AK 1.6 of the DGGT, will be presented. The specification was sent to various research
institutions and consulting companies known to be involved in numerical analysis of practical
problems. A number of solutions have been submitted and the results of this exercise are discussed in
part I of this report.
In order to study various modelling assumptions without the influence of code specific
implementational details a comprehensive parametric study has been performed in addition to the
benchmark exercise utilizing one particular code only (see part II of this report).
2 BENCHMARKING IN GEOTECHNICS
Relatively little attention has been paid in the literature on validation and reliability of numerical models
in general and on specific software in particular, although some attempts have been made (e.g.
Schweiger 1991, Schweiger 1998, Schweiger 2000). So far three benchmark examples have been
specified by the working group AK 1.6 of the DGGT and discussed in two workshops. The first two of
them, a tunnel excavation and a deep excavation problem, have been rather idealized problems with
very tight specifications so that little room for interpretation was left to the analysts. Despite that
significant differences in the results were obtained even in cases where the same software has been
utilized by different users (Schweiger 1998). Based on these results and the ones which will be shown
in this report it is argued that there is a strong need for defining guidelines and procedures to arrive at
reliable numerical models in practical geotechnical engineering. Another aspect, equally important but
not addressed in detail here, is the identification of appropriate input parameters from available
experiments.
Benchmarking is therefore of significant importance in geotechnical engineering, probably more so
than in other disciplines such as e.g. structural engineering. The reason for that may be summarized
as follows
-
the domain to be analysed is generally not clearly defined by the structure
it is not always clear whether continuum or discontinuum models are more appropriate for
the problem at hand
page 4
a wide variety of constitutive models exist in the literature but there is no "approved" model
for each type of soil
in most cases construction details cannot be modelled very accurately in time and space
(e.g. 2D-modelling of excavation sequence, anchors etc.) within the financial and time
constraints given in practice
soil/structure interaction is often important and may lead to numerical problems (e.g.
certain types of interface elements)
implementation details and solution procedures may have a significant influence on the
results of certain problems but may not be important for others
there are no approved implementation and solution procedures for commercial codes
(implicit vs. explicit strategies, return algorithms etc.)
All of these aspects leave ample room for personal preferences both on developers and users side
respectively. From a practical point of view this situation is by no means desirable because it proves to
be very difficult to obtain consistent results due to the numerous assumptions involved in establishing
a numerical model for a given practical problem. Modelling techniques vary depending on the personal
experience of the user and, to a certain extent, also on the code utilized.
3 PROBLEM SPECIFICATION: DEEP EXCAVATION IN BERLIN

SAND
3.1 Assumptions and geometry
The example is closely related to an actual project in Berlin. Slight modifications have been introduced
in modelling the construction sequence such as the groundwater lowering which has been performed
in various steps in situ but is modelled here in one step prior to excavation. The choice of constitutive
model to be used has been left to the analysts. Some basic material parameters have been taken from
the literature and additionally results from one-dimensional compression tests on loose and dense
samples have been given together with triaxial tests on dense samples. As it is the aim of this section
to demonstrate the necessity of performing these kind of exercises only the most relevant part of the
specification will be given here (Figure 1).
The main goal of this exercise was to demonstrate potential difficulties in obtaining reliable and
consistent results for a typical problem in engineering practice. Thus the following has been
considered when specifying the problem:
-
limited data on material properties of the soil (Berlin sand in this case) have been provided
(in practice hardly ever all data required for numerical analysis are given in the
geotechnical report)
no analytical solution exists for the problem, i.e. the "true" solution is not known
page 5
the problem is related to a project actually constructed, so the order of magnitude of

horizontal displacements of the wall is known from in situ measurements
no restraints are imposed with respect to the constitutive model, discretisation, element
types etc.
Thus the benchmarking exercise did not aim at the verification of particular software packages for
solving a problem with a known solution but to see what range of numerical solutions for a
geotechnical problem can be expected under conditions typically found in practice. For these reasons
neither programme names nor authors of solutions submitted are disclosed in this report (they are
denoted by B1 to B17 throughout this report).
30 m
0.00m
2 - 3 x width of excavation
GW = -3.00m below surface

excavation step 1 = - 4.80m
27
excavation step 2 = - 9.30m

27
excavation step 3 = -14.35m
27
excavation step 4 = -16.80m
2 - 3 x width of excavation
'='sand
23.
3m
23.
8m
-17.90m
top of hydraulic barrier = -30.00m
19.
8m
8.0
m
8.0
m
8.0
m
-32.00m = base of diaphragm wall

0.8m
Specification for anchors:
prestressed anchor force: 1. row: 768KN
2. row: 945KN
3. row: 980KN
distance of anchors:
1. row: 2.30m
2. row: 1.35m
3. row: 1.35m
cross section area: 15 cm2

Young's modulus E = 2.1 e8 kN/m2
sand
Fig. 1 Geometry of benchmark example deep excavation in Berlin sand
General assumptions postulated:

-
plane strain
influence of diaphragm wall construction is neglected, i.e. initial stresses without wall, then
wall "wished-in-place" (weight of wall e.g. as difference to soil weight)
diaphragm wall modelling: beam or continuum elements
page 6
interface elements between wall and soil (wall friction is specified as /2)
domain to be analysed (suggested: see Figure 1)
horizontal hydraulic cut off at -30.00 m not to be considered as structural support

(same mechanical properties as surrounding soil)
given anchor forces are design loads
The following computational stages had to be performed in order to simulate construction:

stage 0:
initial stress state is given by v = z, h = Koz

(wall "wished-in-place", deformations = 0)
stage 1:
groundwater-lowering to -17.90 m
stage 2:
excavation step 1 (to level -4.80 m)
stage 3:
activation of anchor 1 at level -4.30 m and prestressing
stage 4:
stage 5:
stage 6:
stage 7:
stage 8:
excavation step 4 (to level 16.80 m)
Distance and prestressing loads for anchors follow from Figure 1.
3.2 Material parameters

Some reference values for stiffness and strength parameters from the literature, frequently used in the
design of excavations in Berlin sand, were given (z = depth below surface):
Es 20 000 z kPa
for 0 < z < 20 m
Es 60 000 z kPa
for z > 20 m
= 35
(medium dense)
= 19 kN/m3
' = 10 kN/m3
Ko = 1 sin
The given (one-dimensional) compression moduli Es may be used to arrive at approximate values for
the Young's modulus for calculations with linear elastic - perfectly plastic material models (MohrCoulomb) assuming an appropriate Poisson's ratio.
In addition to these values from literature, results from oedometer tests (on loose and dense samples)
and triaxial tests (confining pressures 3 = 100, 200 and 300 kPa) have been provided. It was not
possible to include a significantly large number of test results and thus the question arose whether the
stiffness values obtained from the oedometer test have been representative. If, for example, the
constitutive model requires a tangential oedometric stiffness at a reference pressure of 100 kPa as an
page 7
input parameter, a value of only Es 12 000 kPa was found based on these experiments. If a secant
modulus for a pressure range beyond 200 kPa is determined a value of about 40 000 kPa is obtained.
This was considered as too low by many authors and indeed other test results from Berlin sand in the
literature indicate higher values. For example from Ohde (1951) values of about 35 000 to 45 000 kPa
could be estimated as reference loading modulus of a medium dense sand at a reference pressure of
100 kPa. However, sample disturbance and uncertainties in laboratory testing cannot be neglected, at
least not in standard procedures usually performed for practical purposes, and therefore it has to be
carefully judged whether stiffness values obtained in the laboratory should be used in numerical
analysis without correction. These problems of determining appropriate stiffness parameters for
numerical analyses are by no means desirable, but unfortunately it represents the situation in practice
where geotechnical investigations and geotechnical reports often do not satisfy the requirements for
numerical analysis. It can be anticipated however that more refined experimental investigations,
including the measurement of stiffness at very small strains, will be employed increasingly for practical
purposes and thus provide more reliable data for numerical analysis.
Properties for the diaphragm wall (linear elastic):

E = 30 000 x 103 kPa
= 0.15
= 24 kN/m3
4 COMMENTS ON SUBMITTED SOLUTIONS

A wide variety of programmes and constitutive models has been employed to solve this problem.
Simple elastic-perfectly plastic material models such as the Mohr-Coulomb or Drucker-Prager failure
functions (B1, B4, B5, B6, B7, B9, B12 and B16), still widely used in practice have been chosen by a
number of authors. Several entries utilized the computer code PLAXIS (Brinkgreve & Vermeer 1998)
with the so-called Hardening Soil model. This constitutive model is based on the well known
formulation by Duncan & Chang (1970), but formulated within the theory of plasticity. It incorporates
shear hardening and volumetric hardening, a stress dependent stiffness for primary loading and
unloading/reloading and the stress dilatancy theory by Rowe (1962). One submission used a similar
plasticity model with a simplified small strain stiffness formulation for the elastic range (B14). Three
entries employed a hypoplastic formulation (B3, B3a and B13), B3 without and B3a and B13 with
considering intergranular strains (Niemunis & Herle 1997).
Only marginal differences exist in the assumptions of strength parameters (everybody trusted the
experiments in this respect), the angle of internal friction was taken as 36 or 37 and a small
cohesion was assumed to increase numerical stability by some authors. A significant variation was
observed however in the assumption of the dilatancy angle , ranging from 0 to 15.
page 8
For reasons mentioned earlier only a limited number of analysts used the provided laboratory test
results to calibrate their material model. Most of the analysts used data from the literature from Berlin
sand or their own experience to arrive at input parameters for their analysis assuming an increase with
depth either by introducing some sort of power law similar to the formulation presented by Ohde
(1951) which in turn corresponds to the formulation by Janbu (1963), or by defining different layers
with different (constant) Young's moduli. However the choice of the reference moduli for primary
loading and unloading/reloading varied significantly. Table 1 summarizes the input parameters and
other details of the numerical models for all analyses submitted. Some entries sent two calculations
with different parameter sets or constitutive models, they are denoted by e.g. B3 and B3a respectively.
The table clearly demonstrates how differently various authors interpreted the information provided in
order to arrive at input parameters. It is apparent that most of them did not trust the low stiffness
values from the oedometer test and increased the values, giving various reasons based on their
experience. Some argued that the values are too low but still used them in the analysis (e.g. B17).
Additional variation (see also Table 1) was introduced through different formulations for interface
elements (zero thickness, finite thickness), element types (linear, quadratic), domains analysed (the
width of meshes varied from 80 to 160 m, the depth from 50 to 160 m), modelling of the prestressed
anchors, implementation details of constitutive models and the solution procedure with respective
convergence criteria. The latter aspect is commonly ignored in practice but it can be easily shown that
it may have a significant influence not only for stress levels near failure but also for working load
conditions (Potts and Zdravkovic, 1999).
Some of the analyses ignored parts of the specification given, e.g. B15 performed a stepwise lowering
of the groundwater table inside the excavation, which yields about 10 mm less horizontal
displacements as compared to a one-step lowering. Furthermore, some small errors with respect to
the unit weight have been discovered when examining the results and more importantly the
prestressing of the anchors has not been modelled correctly by some of the authors. Despite that
findings it was not possible to clarify all details of the analyses submitted from the information provided
and thus the discrepancies in results could not be fully explored. In addition it turned out that some of
the assumptions made in a model could be counteracted by another one made, and therefore it was
not possible to isolate specific assumptions leading to a particular result.
In view of these comments one may argue that due to the different numerical models employed for
solving this problem a comparison of these results is not meaningful at all. However, one cannot
ignore the fact that this is the reality in practice. It is by no means acceptable that the results of an
analysis for a given problem show a "user dependent" scatter of 100% and more.
It is the main purpose of this report to increase awareness that results from numerical analyses are
very sensitive not only to the constitutive model and material parameters but also to modelling and
implementation details, the user may not consider important. Again the strong need for guidelines and
recommendations is emphasized.
page 9
Table 1 Summary of all analyses submitted

reference stiffness
analysis
constitutive model
stiffness
(loading / unloading)
[kPa]
B1
B2 / B2a
B3 / B3a
elastic-perfectly plastic
stress dependent
z < 20 m: 14 900
z > 20 m: 44 700
stress dependent
elastic-perfectly plastic (z > 40 m)
B6
z < 40 m: 60 000 / 180 000 (B2a)
35
100 x 64
quadratic
36
100 X 100
quadratic
161 x 162
linear
B7
constant, but
z < 2 m: 10 500
43 layers > increase with depth
102 < z < 107 m: 457 000
constant, but
z < 5 m: 32 600
32 < z < 60 m: 303 000
constant, but
z < 20 m: 20 000 z
z > 20 m: 44 700 z
constant
60 000
B8
elastic-plastic
stress dependent
constant, but
z < 20 m: 39 400
B9
z > 40 m: 310 000
B9a
elastic-plastic
stress dependent
25 000 / 100 000
B10
elastic-plastic
stress dependent
60 000 / 180 000
B11
elastic-plastic
stress dependent
B12
B13
hypoplastic with intergran. strains

elastic-plastic with small strain
stiffness
wall
9 noded
continuum
interface
note
yes
beam
yes
yes
error in prestress force
z > 40 m: 253 000 (B2), 227 000 (B2a)
z < 20 m: 20 000 / 74 400

z > 20 m: 60 000 / 120 000
z < 20 m: 20 000 / 100 000

z > 20 m: 60 000 / 300 000
constant, but 9 layers > increase
z < 5 m: 23 000
with depth
42 < z < 92 m: 365 000
stress / strain dependent
elastic-plastic (0-20 m)
elastic-plastic (>20 m)
stress dependent
constant, but
5 layers > increase

with depth
B17
soil
hypoplastic without (B3)
B5
B16
domain analysed element type element type

width x depth [m]
with intergranular strains (B3a)

B15
R
[o ]
z < 40 m: 15 000 / 39 000 (B2)
elastic-plastic (z < 40 m)
B4
B14
n
[o ]
elastic-plastic
stress dependent
Gmin = 30 000
Gsmall strain = 240 000
105 x 107
linear
35
15
80 x 60
beam
no
35
15
122 x 90
40.5
13.5
90 x 60
quadratic
continuum
yes
35
10
90 x 70
quadratic
beam
yes
35
150 x 100
quadratic
beam
yes
36
100 x 72
quadratic
beam
yes
35
150 x 120
quadratic
beam
yes
35
90 x 92
quadratic
beam
yes
100 x 100
linear
beam
yes
anchor fixed at boundary
120 X 100
quadratic
yes
95 x 50
quadratic
yes
no
yes
35
z < 20 m: 32 000 / 96 000
35
41
14
35
11.7
120 x 122
quadratic
35
130 x 100
quadratic
0 < z < 3 m: 13 000
20 000 / 47 000
4 noded
35
z > 20 m: 192 000 / 384 000
92 < z < 122 m: 456 000
4 noded
continuum
p a g e 10
continuum
8 noded
continuum
beam
8 noded
continuum
continuum +
beam
c = 2.5 kPa
capillary cohesion
5 COMPARISON OF RESULTS
5.1 Comparison of all analyses submitted
Figure 2 shows the deflection curve of the diaphragm wall for the final excavation stage for all
solutions submitted and it follows that the results scatter in a range which is by no means acceptable.
The horizontal displacement of the top of the wall varies between -229 mm and +33 mm (-ve means
displacement towards the excavation).
-250
-225
-200
-175
-150
-125
-100
-75
-50
-25
25
50
0
2
4
6
8
12
14
B1
B2
B2a
B3
B3a
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B9a
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
B17
16
18
20
10
22
24
26
28
30
32
-250
-225
-200
-175
-150
-125
-100
-75
-50
-25
25
50

Fig. 2 Wall deflection at final excavation stage for all analyses submitted
p a g e 11
Looking into more detail of Figure 2 it can be observed that entries B2, B3, B3a, B9a, B7 and B17 are
extremely off the "mainstream" of results. B2, B3, B3a, B9a and B17 are the ones which derived there
input parameters mainly from the provided oedometer tests, which however showed very low stiffness
as compared to values given in the literature. B7 was the only analysis using a constant Young's
modulus together with a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. As mentioned previously, some of the
analysis did not show the correct prestress force in the respective construction stage, but not all of
these showed a similar trend in behaviour. It was not possible to identify groups of analyses showing a
similar deformation pattern with comparable input assumptions. Some others had small errors in the
specific weight but these cannot account for the large differences. Even if the aforementioned six
analyses are ignored the differences in magnitude of horizontal displacements and shapes of the
deflection curves are striking.
Figure 3 shows the vertical displacements of the ground surface behind the wall. B7 calculates a
surface heave of more than 40 mm, confirming the well known fact that elastic-perfectly plastic
constitutive models with constant Young's modulus are not suitable for predicting the correct pattern of
deformations for these types of problems, in particular with respect to settlements behind the wall. On
the contrary B3, a hypoplastic solution without consideration of intergranular strains, calculates
settlements of approximately 275 mm.
Because the aforementioned six analyses were significantly out of the ranges as compared to all other
solutions they are no longer considered in the further examination of the results.

50
10
20
30
vertical displacement of surface [mm]
25
0
-25
-50
-75
-100
-125
-150
-175
-200
-225
-250
-275
-300
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
B1
B2
B2a
B3
B3a
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B9a
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
B17
Fig. 3 Vertical displacements of surface at final excavation stage for all analyses submitted
p a g e 12
5.2 Comparison of selected results

5.2.1
Construction stage groundwater lowering to -17.90 m
Figure 4 depicts lateral displacements of the diaphragm wall due to lowering of the groundwater level
inside the excavation pit to -17.90 m below surface. Again no clear trend e.g. with respect to the
constitutive model could be identified, B6 is an elastic-perfectly plastic model but so is B16, both on
the opposite sides of the range of results. Observing this variety of results already in the first
construction stage, it is of course not surprising that the scatter increases with further calculation steps
as shown in Figure 2.
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
5
0
2
4
6
8
12
14
16
18
20
B1
B2a
B4
B5
B6
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B16
10
22
24
26
28
30
32
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5

Fig. 4 Wall deflection after groundwater lowering
p a g e 13
It should be emphasized at this stage that not only the assumption of the constitutive model and the
parameters have a significant influence on the result of this construction stage but also the way the
groundwater lowering is simulated in the numerical analysis. Again programme specific
implementation details, the commercial user of a particular software may not be aware of, will
contribute to the differences shown in Figure 4. The corresponding surface displacements depicted in
Figure 5 show differences in settlements behind the wall from approximately 2 to 30 mm.
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-5
B1
B2a
B4
B5
B6
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B16
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
Fig. 5 Surface settlements after groundwater lowering
5.2.2
Construction stage first excavation step to -4.80 m
Because of possible differences in modelling the groundwater lowering depending on the software
used, it was investigated whether a more clear picture would evolve if a construction stage without the
influence of the groundwater lowering is considered. For that purpose the wall deflection for
excavation step 1 (to -4.80 m below surface) was plotted setting displacements to zero before this
construction stage. The result follows from Figure 6 and the significant scatter already at this stage is
obvious. Although most of the differences can be attributed to the stiffness parameters chosen as
input, a few additional conclusions can be drawn. The largest horizontal displacement is obtained from
the hypoplastic analysis, which was not the case in the previous construction stage (groundwater
lowering). This indicates the strong response of these models on the stress paths, which are obviously
quite different for these two construction steps. The effect of different stress paths is also observed in
the other models but by far not to the same extent. The elastic-plastic models with stress dependent
p a g e 14
stiffness (B2a, B8, B10 and B14) tend to give smaller displacements compared to the elastic-perfectly
plastic models. Exceptions are B5 and B16, which show a distinctly different deflection curve although
the Young's modulus chosen is similar to other entries. Most probably is due to the fact that they did
not use an interface element for modelling the soil/wall interaction.
-60
-55
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
0
2
4
6
8
12
14
16
18
20
B1
B2a
B4
B5
B6
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B16
10
22
24
26
28
30
32
-60
-55
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
10

Fig. 6 Wall deflection for first excavation step
p a g e 15
5.2.3
Final construction stage
Limited in situ measurements are available for this project and although some simplifications
compared to the actual construction have been introduced for this benchmark exercise in order to
facilitate the calculations, the order of magnitude of displacements can be assumed to be known.
Figure 7 shows the measured wall deflection for the final construction stage together with calculated
values.
measurement
(corrected)
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
10
0
2
4
6
8
12
14
16
18
B1
B2a
B4
B5
B6
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
measurement
(corrected)
20
10
22
24
26
28
30
32
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
10

Fig. 7 Wall deflection for final excavation step
It should be mentioned that measurements have been taken by inclinometer readings, fixed at the
base of the wall, but unfortunately no geodetic survey of the wall head is available. It is very likely that
the wall base moves horizontally and a parallel shift of the measurement of about 5 to 10 mm is
p a g e 16
thought to reflect the in situ behaviour with reasonable accuracy, and therefore the measurement
readings have been shifted by 10 mm in Figure 7. This is confirmed by other measurements under
similar conditions.
The calculated maximum horizontal wall displacement for all results considered varies between
approximately 10 to 65 mm (exception B6). The shape of the deflection curves is also quite different.
Some results indicate the maximum displacement slightly above the final excavation level, others
show the maximum value at the top of the wall. When comparing the results of the calculations with
the measurements it has to be pointed out that the simplification introduced in modelling the
groundwater lowering (one step lowering instead of step-wise lowering according to the excavation
progress) leads to higher horizontal displacements. Further studies revealed that the difference in
calculated horizontal displacements due to the difference in modelling the groundwater lowering is
strongly dependent on the constitutive law employed and ranges in the order of 5 to 15 mm (see also
part II of this report). This may be one of the reasons why B15, which is an elastic-plastic analysis with
stepwise groundwater lowering, is close to the measurement, but it also means that all solutions
predicting less than 30 mm of horizontal displacement are far off reality.
Figure 8 depicts the calculated surface settlements. Settlements of 45 mm (B11) have to be compared
with a heave of about 15 mm (B4). Considering the fact that calculation of surface settlements is one
of the main goals of such an analysis these results are not very encouraging.
20
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10
-10
B1
B2a
B4
B5
B6
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
-20
-30
-40
-50
Fig. 8 Vertical displacements of surface for final excavation step
p a g e 17
Bending moments are presented in Figure 9 and again a significant scatter in maximum bending
moments is observed, but also some rather peculiar distribution of bending moments over the length
of the wall (in particular B13 and B16). B13 could be due to the fact that the anchors were fixed to the
lateral boundary of the mesh and in B16 the reason could be an incorrect calculation of bending
moments based in the stresses calculated in continuum elements. The consequences for design are
obvious, with bending moments varying in the range of several 100%.
-1400 -1200 -1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
600
B1
B2a
B4
B5
B6
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B15
B16
800
0
2
4
6
8
12
14
16
18
20
10
22
24
26
28
30
-1400 -1200 -1000 -800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
600
32
800
bending moment [kNm/m]

Fig. 9 Bending moments for final excavation step
p a g e 18
Figure 10 compares calculated anchor forces at the final construction stage for all anchor rows. The
significant differences cannot be attributed to the previously mentioned errors in defining the prestress
forces only but are a result of all modelling assumptions made.
Figure 11 shows the development of anchor forces in the first row of anchors with progressing
excavation. Three entries took the given prestress force as kN/m instead of kN, i.e. they had a
significantly higher prestress force in their anchors (B4, B11, B12). One would assume that their
calculated horizontal displacements of the wall would be small. However, that this is not necessarily
true follows from examination of Figure 7. Another problem became apparent, namely the way the
different programmes handle the prestressing of anchors. In some of the analyses part of the
prestressing force is lost due to deformations occurring in this particular construction stage thus the
design prestress force is not correctly taken into account in the analysis (B1, B5 and B6).
1100
1000
900
anchor force [kN/m]
800
700
B1
B2a
B4
B5
B6
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1
anchor row
Fig. 10 Anchor force at the final construction stage for all three anchor rows
p a g e 19
1100
B1
B2a
B4
B5
B6
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
1000
force in anchor [kN/m]
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1
prestress force specified

in step 3 = 334 kN/m
computational step
Fig. 11 Development of anchor force in the first anchor row
5.3 Comparison elastic-plastic vs. elastic-perfectly plastic analyses

It has been mentioned before that a number of assumptions have to be made when setting up a
numerical model for a given problem. This not only involves obvious decisions such as the choice of
the constitutive model and their input parameters but also the domain to be analysed, the element
type used for representing soil and structural elements and so on. These latter modelling details are
often considered to be of minor influence, at least in practice, where in general the suggestions of the
user's manual are followed. However, the sum of all these details may have a significant influence on
the results as has been shown in the previous sections. In order to attempt to categorize results at
least roughly, results from analyses employing elastic-perfectly plastic and elastic-plastic constitutive
models are plotted separately.
In Figure 12 horizontal displacements of the diaphragm wall are shown for the final construction stage
for all analyses assuming elastic-perfectly plastic material behaviour for the sand (Mohr Coulomb: B1,
B5, B6, B9 and B12, Drucker Prager: B4 and B16). It follows from this diagram that not even in the
shape of the deflection curves similarities between the individual solutions can be observed. It can be
concluded that the assumptions made with respect to the increase of Young's modulus with depth,
which in these models is somewhat arbitrarily done by introducing a number of soil layers with
constant stiffness in each layer, significantly influence not only the magnitude of calculated
p a g e 20
displacements but also the shape of the deflection curve. Of course other assumptions such as choice
of interface elements, domain considered play a role too.
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
10
0
2
4
6
8
12
14
16
18
20
10
22
24
B1
B4
B5
B6
B9
B12
B16
26
28
30
32
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
10

Fig. 12 Wall deflection for final excavation step elastic-perfectly plastic analyses
Figure 13 reveals that significant surface settlements are obtained only from analyses B1, B9 and B12
whereas the others show only marginal settlements or significant heave behind the wall. With the
exception of B16, which shows large horizontal settlements but heave of the surface, the predicted
heave corresponds to small lateral displacements. Interesting is the fact that by comparison of
analyses B1 and B12 one can see that they produce very similar settlement troughs behind the wall
but have significantly different shapes of the deflection curve with a large difference in the maximum
horizontal displacement. The latter can be explained by the fact that B1 used much lower values for
the Young's modulus and B12 had much too high anchor forces. This again emphasizes that a
p a g e 21
number of modelling details have significant influence on displacements, but these effects vary
whether horizontal or vertical displacements are looked at.
20
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10
-10
-20
-30
B1
B4
B5
B6
B9
B12
B16
-40
Fig. 13 Vertical displacements of surface for final excavation step elastic-perfectly plastic analyses
Figure 14 summarizes results obtained from elastic-plastic analysis, utilizing the same software and
the same constitutive law. In this case at least the shape of the deflection curves is similar, with
exception of B11, which can be explained by an error in the prestressing force (too high). B10
assumed one homogeneous layer of soil whereas the others introduced 2 layers of soil. Again it is
interesting to see that B2a and B8 produce very similar horizontal displacements although the stiffness
parameters introduced are quite different. However the domain considered in the analysis also differs
(in particular the depth of the mesh) and the combination of these assumptions lead to very similar
results. However, B2a and B8 produce quite different surface settlements. None of the elastic-plastic
solutions leads to the unrealistic heave at the surface behind the wall as observed in some of the
elastic-perfectly plastic analyses (Figure 15).
p a g e 22
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
10
0
2
4
6
8
12
14
16
18
20
10
22
24
26
B2a
B8
B10
B11
B15
28
30
32
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
10
Fig. 14 Wall deflection for final excavation step elastic-plastic analyses
20
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10
-10
-20
-30
-40
B2a
B8
B10
B11
B15
-50
Fig. 15 Vertical displacements of surface for final excavation step elastic-plastic analyses
p a g e 23
6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Results from a geotechnical benchmark exercise have been presented. A typical problem of a deep
excavation in Berlin sand, formulated by the working group 1.6 of the German Society for
Geotechnics, has been solved by a number of geotechnical engineers from universities and consulting
companies utilizing different finite element codes and constitutive models. Only limited results from
standard laboratory experiments and typical material properties for the sand were provided. Thus it is
claimed that the situation one faces in practice has been addressed where in most cases insufficient
and sometimes not very reliable data, at least as far as stiffness parameters are concerned, are
available and it was part of the game to see how this was handled. Indeed most of the analysts did not
rely on these values and chose stiffness parameters based on their experience resulting in a wide
scatter of input parameters representing the stiffness in the various models. Strength parameters did
not vary significantly.
Thus the comparison of the solutions submitted showed a wide scatter in results and only the most
extreme solutions on the far end of the range could be explained with respect to assumptions of input
parameters made in the analysis. It is clearly evident that matching laboratory experiments with a
particular constitutive model and corresponding material parameters is no guarantee at all to arrive at
a sensible solution for a complex boundary value problem where the soil experiences significantly
different stress paths as compared to the experiments. Some of the results showed obvious errors
such as incorrect prestress forces of anchors but most analyses made reasonable assumptions for
parameters, discretisation and other modelling details.
This benchmark exercise demonstrates the strong need for guidelines and recommendations how to
model typical geotechnical problems in practice. Pitfalls and unrealistic modelling assumptions, the
commercial user may not be aware of, have to be pointed out and procedures have to be developed to
identify these. A strong demand is also put on software developers to thoroughly check their codes
and to clearly document their solution procedures, implementation of constitutive models, structural
and interface elements and other code specific details.
7 REFERENCES
Brinkgreve, R.B.J. & P.A. Vermeer 1998. PLAXIS: Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analyses,
Version 7. Balkema.
Carter, J.P, Desai, C.S., Potts, D.M., Schweiger, H.F. & S.W. Sloan 2000. Computing and Computer
Modelling in Geotechnical Engineering. Proc. GeoEng2000, Melbourne, Technomic
Publishing, Lancaster. (Vol. 1: invited papers), 1157-1252.
Duncan, J.M. & C.Y. Chang 1970. Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soils. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division 56, 1629-1653.
p a g e 24
Janbu, N. 1963. Soil compressibility as determined by oedometer and triaxial tests. Proceedings
European Conf. On Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Wiesbaden, Germany, 1925.
Meissner, H. 1991. Empfehlungen des Arbeitskreises 1.6 "Numerik in der Geotechnik", Abschnitt 1,
Allgemeine Empfehlungen. Geotechnik, 14, 1-10. (in German)
Meissner, H. 1996. Empfehlungen des Arbeitskreises 1.6 "Numerik in der Geotechnik", Abschnitt 2,
Tunnelbau unter Tage. Geotechnik, 19, 99-108. (in German)
Niemunis, A. & I. Herle 1997. Hypoplastic model for cohesionless soils with elastic strain range.
Mechanics of cohesive-frictional materials, 2, 279-299.
Ohde, J. 1951. Grundbaumechanik (in German), Huette, BD. III, 27. Auflage.
Potts, D.M & L. Zdravkovic (1999). Finite element analysis in geotechnical engineering Theory.
Thomas Telford
Potts, D.M & L. Zdravkovic (2001). Finite element analysis in geotechnical engineering Application.
Thomas Telford
Rowe P.W. 1962. The stress-dilatancy relation for static equilibrium of an assembly of particles in
contact. Proc. Roy. Soc. A269, 500-527.
Schweiger, H.F. 1991. Benchmark Problem No. 1: Results. Computers and Geotechnics, 11, 331-341.
Schweiger, H. F. 1998. Results from two geotechnical benchmark problems. Proc. 4th European Conf.
Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Cividini, A. (ed.), Springer, 645-654.
Schweiger, H. F. 2000. Ergebnisse des Berechnungsbeispieles Nr. 3 "3-fach verankerte Baugrube".
Tagungsband Workshop "Verformungsprognose fr tiefe Baugruben", Stuttgart, 7-67. (in
German)
Schweiger, H.F. 2001. Benchmarking A new regular section in the bulletin. PLAXIS Bulletin No.11.
p a g e 25

Schweiger (2002) Benchmarking - in - Geotechnics-1 - Part-I PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schweiger (2002) Benchmarking - in - Geotechnics-1 - Part-I PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schweiger (2002) Benchmarking - in - Geotechnics-1 - Part-I PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the main topic of the document?

What is the main topic of the document?

What modelling assumptions are discussed in Part II?

What modelling assumptions are discussed in Part II?

BENCHMARKING IN GEOTECHNICS_1

PART I: RESULTS OF BENCHMARKING

depth below surface [m]

distance from wall [m]

Rinter = 0.5 (final stage)

Rinter = 0.8 t_virt = 0.01

horizontal displacement [mm]

Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering

March 2002 / CGG_IR006_2002

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. Page 3

BENCHMARKING IN GEOTECHNICS ......................................................................... Page 4

PROBLEM SPECIFICATION: DEEP EXCAVATION IN BERLIN SAND ................ Page 5

Assumptions and geometry .......................................................................... Page 5

Material parameters ......................................................................................... Page 7

COMMENTS ON SUBMITTED SOLUTIONS ............................................................... Page 8

COMPARISON OF RESULTS ...................................................................................... Page 11

Comparison of all analyses submitted ..................................................... Page 11

Comparison of selected results ................................................................. Page 13

Comparison elastic-plastic vs. elastic-perfectly plastic analyses .... Page 20

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .................................................................................. Page 24

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. Page 24

PART II: REFERENCE SOLUTION AND PARAMETRIC STUDY

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... Page 26

PROBLEM DEFINITION ................................................................................................. Page 27

Geometry, basic assumptions and computational steps .................... Page 27

Brief description of PLAXIS Hardening Soil model ................................ Page 29

Material parameters for Hardening Soil model ....................................... Page 31

Material parameters for structural elements .......................................... Page 31

RESULTS FOR REFERENCE SOLUTION .................................................................. Page 32

INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS ..................................... Page 34

Influence of groundwater lowering ............................................................ Page 34

Influence of wall friction ............................................................................... Page 36

Influence of discretisation ........................................................................... Page 37

Influence of domain analysed ..................................................................... Page 39

Influence of modelling ground anchors ................................................... Page 40

Influence of free anchor length ................................................................... Page 41

Influence of anchor prestress force .......................................................... Page 43

Influence of wall thickness .......................................................................... Page 44

Influence of variation in stiffness and strength parameters of soil .. Page 45

INFLUENCE OF CONSTITUTIVE MODEL .................................................................. Page 50

Elastic analysis ............................................................................................... Page 50

Elastic - perfectly plastic analyses (Mohr-Coulomb) ............................ Page 53

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .................................................................................. Page 59

PART I: RESULTS OF BENCHMARKING

AK 1.6 of the DGGT is to provide recommendations for numerical analyses in geotechnical

the domain to be analysed is generally not clearly defined by the structure

3 PROBLEM SPECIFICATION: DEEP EXCAVATION IN BERLIN

the problem is related to a project actually constructed, so the order of magnitude of

GW = -3.00m below surface

excavation step 2 = - 9.30m

top of hydraulic barrier = -30.00m

-32.00m = base of diaphragm wall

cross section area: 15 cm2

Fig. 1 Geometry of benchmark example deep excavation in Berlin sand

General assumptions postulated: