CURTIN UNIVERSITY

GEOT4002
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN AND MODELLING
ASSIGNMENT 2

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN REPORT

EXCAVATION BEHAVIOUR USING PLAXIS

GROUP 1
DATE OF SUBMISSION
2nd June 2019
Table of Contents
List of Tables...........................................................................................................................................i
List of Figures.........................................................................................................................................ii
1.0 Introduction...............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Engineering context................................................................................................................2
1.2 Scope......................................................................................................................................2
2.0 FEA modelling approach............................................................................................................3
2.1 Geometry Input.....................................................................................................................3
2.1.1 Existing structures..........................................................................................................3
2.1.2 Borehole..........................................................................................................................5
2.1.3 Structures........................................................................................................................7
2.2 Mesh Generation...................................................................................................................11
2.3 Performing Calculations.........................................................................................................12
2.4 Output....................................................................................................................................13
3.0 Design.........................................................................................................................................23
4.0 Discussions..................................................................................................................................24
5.0 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................25
6.0 References..................................................................................................................................26
Appendix A1........................................................................................................................................27

List of Tables
Table 1: Existing Structure Loadings.......................................................................................................5

Table 2: Summary of Loadings...............................................................................................................5

Table 3: Soil and Interface Properties....................................................................................................6

Table 4: Properties of Diaphragm Walls.................................................................................................8

Table 5: Properties of Anchor................................................................................................................9

Table 6: Anchor coordinates for Section A-A.........................................................................................9

Table 7: Anchor coordinates for Section B-B........................................................................................10

Table 8: Properties of Grout.................................................................................................................10

Table 9: Grout coordinates for Section A-A..........................................................................................11

Table 10: Grout coordinates for Section B-B........................................................................................11

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report

List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Plan for Proposed Site......................................................................................................1

Figure 2: Building Elevation View...........................................................................................................4

Figure 3: Building Plan View..................................................................................................................4

Figure 4: Section A-A.............................................................................................................................7

Figure 5: Section B-B..............................................................................................................................8

Figure 6: Safety factor, ΣMsf against displacement, lul of Section A-A’ Hardening Soil Model..............14

Figure 7: Safety factor, ΣMsf against displacement, lul of Section A-A’ Mohr Coulomb Model............14

Figure 8: Safety factor, ΣMsf against displacement, lul of Section B-B’ Hardening Soil Model.............14

Figure 9: Safety factor, ΣMsf against displacement, lul of Section B-B’ Mohr Colomb Model..............15

Figure 10: Section A-A’ Model.............................................................................................................15

Figure 11: Section B-B’ Model.............................................................................................................15

Figure 12: Axial Force Diagram of Section A-A’ Mohr Coulomb Model................................................16

Figure 13: Axial Force Diagram of Section B-B’ Mohr Coulomb Model................................................16

Figure 14: Axial Force Diagram of Section A-A’ Hardening Soil Model.................................................16

Figure 15: Axial Force Diagram of Section B-B’ Hardening Soil Model.................................................17

Figure 16: Shear Force Diagram of Section A-A’ Mohr Coulomb Model..............................................17

Figure 17: Shear Force Diagram of Section B-B’ Mohr Coulomb Model..............................................17

Figure 18: Shear Force Diagram of Section A-A’ Hardening Soil Model...............................................18

Figure 19: Shear Force Diagram of Section B-B’ Hardening Soil Model................................................18

Figure 20: Bending Moment Diagram of Section A-A’ Mohr Coulomb Model.....................................18

Figure 21: Bending Moment Diagram of Section B-B’ Mohr Coulomb Model.....................................19

Figure 22: Bending Moment Diagram of Section A-A’ Hardening Soil Model......................................19

Figure 23: Bending Moment Diagram of Section B-B’ Hardening Soil Model......................................19

Figure 24: Lateral Deformation of Section A-A’ Mohr Coulomb Model...............................................20

Figure 25: Lateral Deformation of Section B-B’ Mohr Coulomb Model................................................20

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report

Figure 26: Lateral Deformation of Section A-A’ Hardening Soil Model................................................20

Figure 27: Lateral Deformation of Section B-B’ Hardening Soil Model.................................................21

Figure 28: Settlement of Section A-A’ Mohr Coulomb Model..............................................................21

Figure 29: Settlement of Section B-B’ Mohr Coulomb Model..............................................................21

Figure 30: Settlement of Section A-A’ Hardening Soil Model...............................................................22

Figure 31: Settlement of Section B-B’ Hardening Soil Model...............................................................22

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report

1.0 Introduction
The local council propose a 12-storeys medical research centre for advance experiments
purpose. The structure includes five underground level for parking which requires 30m by
40m excavation of 25m into the ground.

North of the proposed site is a historical heritage listed Church while a street to the east has
an underground utility tunnel at 10m depth from ground level. The tunnel was built using
cut and cover method using concrete elements of 40mm thick. At south of proposed site,
there is a park while a 8-storey residential building can be found at west. The site plan of the
proposed building and surrounding structures can be further illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Site Plan for Proposed Site

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 1

1.1 Engineering context

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is commonly used in geotechnical engineering to estimate

deformation of soil. In this report, it helps to simulate a sequence of real events during the
excavation of soil. FEA basic linear theory can calculate key variables like displacements,
strains and stresses among existing structures and soil medium as soil is being excavated. By
generating a mesh in PLAXIS 2D, it is possible to calculate the complete state of stress in
each element. Using PLAXIS 2D, geometry can be easily changed to simulate excavation by
removing elements or adding elements to the mesh. Meanwhile, the properties of the soil
can also be easily changed to simulate soil behaviour influenced by the changes of stresses
within the soil mass (“Engineering and Design: GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS BY THE FINITE
ELEMENT METHOD” 1995). Thus, this report includes PLAXIS analysis that illustrate stresses,
strains and movements within the site plan shown in Figure 1.

1.2 Scope

The purpose of this report is to understand geotechnical behaviour during excavation

through FEA modelling using PLAXIS 2D. It includes the assessment of design impacts on
surrounding structures. The scopes of work can be further breakdown into six parts as
shown in the following.

1. Design of Anchors with consideration of existing foundations and structures

2. Evaluation of soil behaviour during excavation with diaphragm walls and anchors

3. Assessment of lateral deformation of the ground

4. Assessment of deformation around the utility tunnel

5. Discussions on necessary safety measures to minimize risks affecting existing

structures.

6. Using PLAXIS to analyse soil properties behaving according to Mohr-Coulomb model

(MC) and Hardening soil model (HS). In addition, discussions on results and impacts of
both models in terms of the excavation behaviour with final recommendations on which
appropriate model to practice with justifications.

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 2

2.0 FEA modelling approach
2.1 Geometry Input

At the beginning of modelling, the model tab sheet is set as default options. The default
options for model is plane strain and for elements is 15-Node as the 6-node triangle gives
good result in standard deformation analyses but is not recommended in problems where
failure plays an important role (Mardia 2014).

2.1.1 Existing structures

The underground excavation construction is surrounded by existing structure as the

structure loading is going to effect on the diaphragm wall. The existing structures are 8
storey residential building, historical heritage church, underground utility tunnel and a
park. The heritage church superstructure loading is assumed as same weight as the Ikuta
church which has 50kN/m2 (Nishizawa 2014). Moreover, it can be assumed that there is one
spire at the center of the heritage church. The weight of one spire can be weighted
750 tonnes (Block 2019). The total load combination of the church is 72.3kN/m 2. The detail
calculations are shown in Appendix.

The park is considered a live load which is 5kPa from AS1170 <Table 3.1 (C4)>.

The 8-storey residential building was located at west beside to the underground excavation
construction. The foundation of the resident building was approximated 2.8m to the
underground excavation. Therefore, the loading of the residential building must be
considered in the PLAXIS 2D analysis design which is going to affect the deformation of the
diaphragm wall. The dimension of the building can be determined for calculate area.
Whereas, there are some assumption need to be considered in order to calculate structure
loading. For instance, the height of the building is assumed 3m each floor and the 8-storey
building super structure are included shear wall and slab.

The concrete tunnel is 40 mm thick built through cut and cover method. The tunnel
properties are calculated as shown in Appendix A: A3.

The figure below shows the building structure layout, Figure 2: Elevation view and Figure 3:
Plan view. Table 1 shows the assumed dimensions while Table 2 summarized the loadings to
be input into PLAXIS.

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 3

 Figure 2: Building Elevation View

Figure 3: Building Plan View

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 4

 Table 1: Existing Structure Loadings

Assumption Unit Loading

Area m2 1218.0
Height per floor m 3.0
Shear wall thickness m 0.2
Slab thickness m 0.15
Concrete density kN/m3 24.0
Slab self-weight kPa 3.6
Shear wall self-weight kPa 7.46
Dead load kPa 9.9
Live load (AS1170 <Table 3.1 C5>) kPa 2.0
Load combination kPa 1.2G+1.5Q
Total loading kPa 120.0

Table 2: Summary of Loadings

Existing Structure Location from site Loadings Unit

Heritage Church North 72.3 kPa
Park South 7.5 kPa
8-storey Residential Building West 120 kPa

2.1.2 Borehole

Soil consists of four layers. The top layer is 5m fill layer followed by 15m clay underneath it.
The next layer consists of 11m depth silty sand. The underlying layer is bedrock and lies to a
large depth of 15m in the FEA model. The water table is 7.5m from the top layer. Only one
borehole will be created since there is no slope needed in this model. Three data sets of soil
and a set of bedrock are defined with soil properties as tabulated in Table 3.

Other assumptions made for the soil properties are:

 γ unsat = γt - 4

 γ t = γsat

 - Ψ'= Φ'-30 according to Sooriya Narayanan and Jeyapriya (2015)

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 5

  E’= Eur’ according to data provided by Tjie (2014)

 kx = ky

 Rinter of the soils are assumed according to data provided by Tjie (2014)

 Bedrock is assumed as an elastic isotropic material

Table 3: Soil and Interface Properties

Properties Fill Clay Silty Sand Bedrock Unit

General
Type of material behavior Undrained -
Drained Drained Non-Porous
(A)
γunsat 15.0 16.0 16.0 23.6 kN/m3
γsat 19.0 20.0 20.0 23.6 kN/m3
Initial void ratio 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 -
Parameters
E’ 100E3 100E3 165E3 2.8E4 kN/m2
v' (nu) 0.2 0.1 0.25 0.15 -
E50 20 25 50 - MPa
EUR 100E3 100E3 165E3 - MPa
m 0.5 1.0 0.5 - -
Cohesion (constant) 25 5 0 - kN/m2
Friction angle 34 32 40 - °
Dilatancy angle 4 2 10 - °
Groundwater
Permeability in horizontal
3.0 0.0005 0.1 0.01 m/day
direction
Permeability
3.0 0.0005 0.1 0.01 m/day
in vertical direction
Interfaces
Interface Strength Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid -
Strength Reduction Factor -
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Inter.
Initial
K0 determination Manual Manual Manual Manual -
k0x=k0z k0x=k0z k0x=k0z k0x=k0z
Over-consolidation ratio 0.4 0.8 1.0 1.0 -
Pre-overburden pressure 0.4 0.8 1.0 1.0 -
For Mohr-Coulomb Model, the input parameters used are E and ν for soil elasticity, φ and c
for soil plasticity and ψ as an angle of dilatancy. For Hardening Soil Model, the input
parameters used are three different input of stiffness which are the triaxial loading
stiffness (E50), the triaxial unloading stiffness (Eur) and the odometer loading
stiffness (Eoed). For many soil types, it can be assumed that Eoed ≈ E50 (Mardia 2014).

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 6

For clay layer, Undrained (A) is selected as the material behaviour. This setting is defined for
saturated soils where no pore water is freely flowed through the soil strata. The pore water
is usually ignored due to clay or high rate loadings. It is understood that setting Undrained
(A) behaviour in PLAXIS will consider undrained behaviour even if the layer is above phreatic
level (Mardia 2014). Pore water pressure will provide shear strength to the soil body.

For fill and silty sand layer, Drained is selected as the material behaviour. From soil mechanic
perspective, soil in a drained condition means the pore water pressure has been removed
because the loading rate is low enough for the water have enough time to dissipate. In this
condition, no excess pore water pressure is considered which mean the soil skeleton will
take the loading by itself.

For bedrock layer, Non-Porous behaviour is selected in PLAXIS. This setting does not take
initial or excess pore pressure into considerations for non-porous materials or rock. This
setting is often combined with linear elastic model (Mardia 2014).

2.1.3 Structures

The excavation consists of three structural element which are diaphragm walls, anchors and
grouts. As the proposed site is isolated from the existing buildings, the diaphragm slurry
concrete wall will be supported by 3 to 6 prestressed rock anchors as shown in Figure 4 and
5.

Figure 4: Section A-A

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 7

 Figure 5: Section B-B

2.1.3.1 Diaphragm Walls

Diaphragm walls are modelled as plates passing through (53,46)-(53,14) and (93,46)-
(93,14) for Section A-A and (43,46)-(43,14) and (73,46)-(73,14) for Section B-B. Summarized
properties of diaphragm wall are listed in Table 4. The slurry wall will be constructed in a
series of 6 metres long panels each extending a minimum of 0.6 metres into the underlying
bedrock. Calculation of properties can be found in Appendix A: A2.
Table 4: Properties of Diaphragm Walls

Properties Value Unit

Material type Elastic; Isotropic -
Prevent punching No -
Normal stiffness, EA 3.13E+07 (kN/m)
Flexural rigidity, EI 2.11E+06 (kNm2/m)
Unit Weight, w 21.6 (kN/m/m)
Poisson’s ratio, v 0.15 -

2.1.3.2 Anchors

In PLAXIS, the anchor is modelled by node-to-node anchor as it simulates the free length.
Failure plane is taken from the lowest point of the silty sand layer align with the diaphragm

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 8

walls (Jasmine Nisha and Muttharam 2017). Calculation of failure plane can be seen in
Appendix A: A4 at which the critical failure plane is 61 degrees. Table 5 shows the properties
of the anchor while Table 6 and 7 shows the input for Section A-A and Section B-B
respectively in PLAXIS. The requirements for each anchor are minimum fixed lengths of 6
meter at an inclination of 45 degrees and horizontal spacing of anchors shall be in a range
from 1.8 metres to 3 metres.

Table 5: Properties of Anchor

Parameter Value Unit

Type of Behaviour Elastic -
Normal Stiffness 1.2 x 105 kN
Axial Force 850 kN/m
Spacing out-of-plane Minimum 1.8 m

Table 6: Anchor coordinates for Section A-A

Anchor location First Point Second Point Length

First Row Left (53.0,41.0) (43.8,31.8) 13.1
Right (93.0,41.0) (102.2,31.8) 13.1
Second Row Left (53.0,38.5) (44.7,30.2) 11.9
Right (93.0,38.5) (101.3,30.2) 11.9
Third Row Left (53.0,34.0) (46.3,27.3) 9.6
Right (93.0,34.0) (99.7,28.3) 9.6
Forth Row Left (53.0,30.0) (47.7,24.7) 7.6
Right (93.0,30.0) (98.3,24.7) 7.6
Fifth Row Left (53.0,28.0) (48.4,23.4) 6.6
Right (93.0,28.0) (97.6,23.4) 6.6
Sixth Row Left (53.0,26.0) (49.1,22.1) 5.6
Right (93.0,26.0) (96.9,22.1) 5.6

Table 7: Anchor coordinates for Section B-B

Anchor location First Point Second Point Length

First Row Left (43.0,41.0) (33.8,31.8) 13.1
Right - -
Second Row Left (43.0,38.5) (34.7,30.2) 11.9
Right - -
Third Row Left (43.0,34.0) (36.3,27.3) 9.6
Right - -

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 9

 Forth Row Left (43.0,30.0) (37.7,24.7) 7.6
Right (73.0,30.0) (78.3,24.7) 7.6
Fifth Row Left (43.0,28.0) (38.4,23.4) 6.6
Right (73.0,28.0) (77.6,23.4) 6.6
Sixth Row Left (43.0,26.0) (39.1,22.1) 5.6
Right (73.0,26.0) (76.9,22.1) 5.6

2.1.3.3 Grout

In PLAXIS, the grout is modelled by an embedded beam as it simulates grouted part of the
anchor. Table 8 shows the properties of the grout body while Table 9 and 10 shows the
input for Section A-A and Section B-B respectively in PLAXIS. Calculation for skin resistance
can be found in Appendix A: A5. The bore diameter (d b) is calculated by db = 1.4dc in cohesive
soil (Kokona and Kokona 2016). The length of grout is fixed at 8m with reference to the case
study from (Jasmine Nisha and Muttharam 2017)

Table 8: Properties of Grout

Parameter Name Value Unit

Material type Type Elastic -
Stiffness E 211E+06 kN/m2
Beam type Type Predefined -
Predefined beam type Type Massive circular beam -
Diameter D 0.2 m
Pile spacing Lspacing 1.8 m
Skin resistance
In Clay Tskin 190 kN/m
In Silty Sand Tskin 550 kN/m
Interface stiffness factor - Default values -

Table 9: Grout coordinates for Section A-A

Grout location First Point Second Point Length (m)

First Row Left (43.8,31.8) (38.1,26.1) 8.0
Right (102.2,31.8) (107.9,26.1) 8.0
Second Row Left (44.7,30.2) (39.0,24.5) 8.0
Right (101.3,30.2) (107.0,24.5) 8.0
Third Row Left (46.3,27.3) (40.6,21.6) 8.0
Right (99.7,28.3) (105.4,21.6) 8.0
Forth Row Left (47.7,24.7) (42.0,19.0) 8.0
Right (98.3,24.7) (104.0,19.0) 8.0
Fifth Row Left (48.4,22.1) (42.7,17.7) 8.0
Right (97.6,23.4) (103.3,17.7) 8.0

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 10

 Sixth Row Left (49.1,22.1) (43.4,16.4) 8.0
Right (96.9,22.1) (102.6,16.4) 8.0

Table 10: Grout coordinates for Section B-B

Grout location First Point Second Point Length (m)

First Row Left (33.8,31.8) (28.1,26.1) 8.0
Right - - -
Second Row Left (34.7,30.2) (29.0,24.5) 8.0
Right - - -
Third Row Left (36.3,27.3) (30.6,21.6) 8.0
Right - - -
Forth Row Left (37.7,24.7) (32.0,19.0) 8.0
Right (78.3,24.7) (84.0,19.0) 8.0
Fifth Row Left (38.4,23.4) (32.7,17.7) 8.0
Right (77.6,23.4) (83.3,17.7) 8.0
Sixth Row Left (39.1,22.1) (33.4,16.4) 8.0
Right (76.9,22.1) (82.6,16.4) 8.0

2.2 Mesh Generation

After geometry is complete, the finite element mesh is generated where geometry is
classified into volume elements and suitable structure elements based on robust
triangulation principle. It automatically transforms geometry input data to the finite element
mesh where element are nodes are made. This is part of an important role in dynamic
analysis to obtain realistic result. A coarse mesh fails to capture subtle stress changes at
points where stress concentrations are expected while a fine mesh has a longer execution
time resulting in less economical (Dey 2011). The mesh selected for this design report is
medium mesh to obtain an accurate solution.
2.3 Performing Calculations

Once the mesh has been generated, the finite element model is complete and calculation
stages begin to be defined. The first calculation phase will be automatically created as initial
phase and all structural elements and loads presented in the geometry are automatically
switched off. After initial conditions are defined, the stages of excavation can be modelled as
shown.

Initial Phase

All structural components and loadings are deactivated at this phase.

Phase 1: Activation of wall and load

Diaphragm wall and loadings are activated at this phase.

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 11

Phase 2: First excavation

5m depth of fill layer is excavated.

Phase 3: First anchor row

First row of ground anchors are installed into the diaphragm wall.

Phase 4: Second excavation

2.5m depth of clay layer before the water level is excavated.

Phase 5: Second anchor row

Second row of ground anchors are installed into the diaphragm wall.

Phase 6: Third excavation

4.5m depth of clay layer is excavated and the water table lowers down to the same level.

Phase 7: Third anchor row

Third row of ground anchors are installed into the diaphragm wall.

Phase 8: Fourth excavation

4m depth of clay layer is excavated and the water table lowers down to the same level.

Phase 9: Fourth anchor row

Fourth row of ground anchors are installed into the diaphragm wall.

Phase 10: Fifth excavation

2m depth of clay layer is excavated and the water table lowers down to the same level.

Phase 11: Fifth anchor row

Fifth row of ground anchors are installed into the diaphragm wall.

Phase 12: Sixth excavation

2m depth of clay layer is excavated and the water table lowers down to the same level.

Phase 13: Sixth anchor

Sixth row of ground anchors are installed into the diaphragm wall.

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 12

Phase 14: Final excavation

Last 4m depth of clay layer is excavated and the water table lowers down to the same level.

Two types of finite-element calculations were used which are plastic calculation for elastic-
plastic deformation analysis and safety analysis. Elastic-plastic deformation analysis includes
the vertical and horizontal displacements of soil during excavation while safety analysis
includes the phi-c reduction to calculate safety factor (Mardia, 2014). After defining the
phases, calculation begins for each phase which takes several minutes to perform.

2.4 Output

Once the calculation is completed, the results are extracted to PLAXIS Output Program
where displacement and stresses are shown. The output generated for the excavation of the
proposed are shown in the following pages.

Figure 6: Safety factor, ΣMsf against displacement, lul of Section A-A’ Hardening Soil Model

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 13

 Figure 7: Safety factor, ΣMsf against displacement, lul of Section A-A’ Mohr Coulomb Model

Figure 8: Safety factor, ΣMsf against displacement, lul of Section B-B’ Hardening Soil Model

Figure 9: Safety factor, ΣMsf against displacement, lul of Section B-B’ Mohr Colomb Model

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 14

 Figure 10: Section A-A’ Model

Figure 11: Section B-B’ Model

Figure 12: Axial Force Diagram of Section A-A’ Mohr Coulomb Model

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 15

 Figure 13: Axial Force Diagram of Section B-B’ Mohr Coulomb Model

Figure 14: Axial Force Diagram of Section A-A’ Hardening Soil Model

Figure 15: Axial Force Diagram of Section B-B’ Hardening Soil Model

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 16

 Figure 16: Shear Force Diagram of Section A-A’ Mohr Coulomb Model

Figure 17: Shear Force Diagram of Section B-B’ Mohr Coulomb Model

Figure 18: Shear Force Diagram of Section A-A’ Hardening Soil Model

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 17

 Figure 19: Shear Force Diagram of Section B-B’ Hardening Soil Model

Figure 20: Bending Moment Diagram of Section A-A’ Mohr Coulomb Model

Figure 21: Bending Moment Diagram of Section B-B’ Mohr Coulomb Model

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 18

 Figure 22: Bending Moment Diagram of Section A-A’ Hardening Soil Model

Figure 23: Bending Moment Diagram of Section B-B’ Hardening Soil Model

Figure 24: Lateral Deformation of Section A-A’ Mohr Coulomb Model

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 19

 Figure 25: Lateral Deformation of Section B-B’ Mohr Coulomb Model

Figure 26: Lateral Deformation of Section A-A’ Hardening Soil Model

Figure 27: Lateral Deformation of Section B-B’ Hardening Soil Model

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 20

 Figure 28: Settlement of Section A-A’ Mohr Coulomb Model

Figure 29: Settlement of Section B-B’ Mohr Coulomb Model

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 21

 Figure 30: Settlement of Section A-A’ Hardening Soil Model

Figure 31: Settlement of Section B-B’ Hardening Soil Model

Geotechnical Modelling Design Report 22