25 PLAXIS Bulletin TR

Title
Plaxis Bulletin
Issue 25 / Spring 2009
Ed
Crane Monopile Foundation Analysis
Mohr-Coulomb Parameters for Modelling of Concrete Structures
Simulation of Soil Nail Structures using PLAXIS 2D
The Bulletin offers a platform where users of

Plaxis can share ideas and experiences with each
other. The editors welcome submission of papers
for the Plaxis Bulletin that fall in any of these
categories.
The manuscript should preferably be submitted
in an electronic format, formatted as plain text
without formatting. It should include the title
of the paper, the name(s) of the authors and
contact information (preferably e-mail) for the
corresponding author(s). The main body of
the article should be divided into appropriate
sections and, if necessary, subsections. If any
references are used, they should be listed at the
end of the article.
05
Editorial
New Developments
Recommendations on
the use of FEM for
Geotechnical Applications
Crane Monopile
Foundation Analysis
12
Mohr-Coulomb Parameters
for Modelling of Concrete
structures
16
Simulation of Soil Nail

Structures using
PLAXIS 2D
22
Recent Activities
23
Plaxis Asia
Page 22
Page 16
The author should ensure that the article is

written clearly for ease of reading.
In case figures are used in the text, it should
be indicated where they should be placed
approximately in the text. The figures themselves
have to be supplied separately from the text in
a vector based format (eps,ai). If photographs
or scanned figures are used the author should
ensure that they have a resolution of at least 300
dpi or a minimum of 3 megapixels. The use of
colour in figures and photographs is encouraged,
as the Plaxis Bulletin is printed in full-colour.
03
04
06
Page 6
The Plaxis Bulletin is the combined

magazine of Plaxis bv and the Plaxis Users
Association (NL). The Bulletin focuses on the use
of the finite element method in geotechnical
engineering practise and includes articles on
the practical application of the Plaxis programs,
case studies and backgrounds on the models
implemented in Plaxis.
Page 12
Page 4
Table of Contents
Colophon
The Plaxis Bulletin is a publication of
Plaxis bv and is distributed worldwide among
Plaxis subscribers
Editorial Board:
Wout Broere
Ronald Brinkgreve
Erwin Beernink
Arny Lengkeek
Design:
Blemmodesign
Any correspondence regarding the Plaxis

Bulletin can be sent by e-mail to:
For information about Plaxis software contact

your local agent or Plaxis main office:
bulletin@plaxis.nl
Plaxis bv
P.O. Box 572
2600 AN Delft
The Netherlands
or by regular mail to:

Plaxis Bulletin
c/o Erwin Beernink
PO Box 572
2600 AN Delft
The Netherlands
info@plaxis.nl
www.plaxis.nl
Tel:
Fax:
+31 (0)15 251 7720

+31 (0)15 257 3107
Editorial
Editorial
The lay-out of this bulletin has been adapted

to Plaxis new visual identity system. With this
new lay-out, the bulletin will be distributed as an
e-bulletin, in addition to the on-line publication.
For those who have not received this Plaxis
bulletin as an e-bulletin in your inbox, please visit
the Plaxis web site www.e-plaxis.nl and follow the
instructions on how to submit your e-mail address.
By doing so, you will automatically receive the
next issues of the e-bulletin, as well as more useful
information about Plaxis activities and services.
The New Developments column describes a new
initiative to distribute material data sets from
different soils all over the world in order to help
you making a first estimate of model parameters.
For this initiative we need your collaboration.
More information is provided in the next section.
We hope that many Plaxis users will participate.
The subsequent section gives an overview of
various working groups in Europe that work on
recommendations of geotechnical finite element
calculations.
soil properties, special attention was given to

the concrete parameters. The results give an
indication of the tunnel settlement, the stresses in
the lining and the safety factor against soil failure.
In the third article some implications and
recommendations are presented regarding
the use of structural elements to simulate soil
nail structures in PLAXIS 2D. Emphasis is given
to meshing issues and structural properties. A
comparison is made between the use of plate
elements and geogrid elements.
The bulletin concludes with some recent activities
and an agenda of upcoming events. It also brings
our Expert Services to your attention, which is well
appreciated by clients that have benefit from this
so far. All together we trust to have compiled again
an interesting Plaxis bulletin, which hopefully
triggers you to participate in the various activities
and initiatives. We are looking forward to more
interactive communecation.
The Editors
The first application article describes how PLAXIS

3D Foundation was used to check the analysis
of a mono-pile foundation for a tower crane.
Different load cases and sensitivity analyses were
considered. The article shows the results in terms
of pile displacements and structural forces. The
Plaxis results are consistent with those obtained
from another analysis tool.
The second article considers the effects of
the construction of a family house above an
existing tunnel in Barcelona. In addition to the
www.plaxis.nl l Spring Issue 2009 l Plaxis Bulletin
New Developments
Author: Ronald Brinkgreve, Plaxis bv
Over the past 20 years, Plaxis has continuously worked on the implementation of constitutive models to describe more features
of soil behaviour in more detail. This work is generally done in collaboration with researchers and experts at universities and
research institutes. Currently, we are testing the recently implemented and well-known Hoek-Brown model for rock behaviour;
we are working on the implementation of a model for cyclic loading and liquefaction of sands, and we will start working on
an anisotropic creep model for soft soils. We also consider the implementation of the sophisticated MIT S1 model for the real
cracks on soil modelling.
Many users appreciate that an increasing

number of soil features can be taken into
account when more advanced models become
available. Other users are more reluctant to
use advanced models, since, in general, more
advanced models require more parameters to be
selected, whereas in practice soil data is rather
limited. It is not the model that scares these users;
it is the number of parameters to be selected.
What if predefined data sets with model
parameters for the Hardening Soil model with
small strain stiffness (HSsmall) would be provided
for different soil types or specific soils at particular
locations around the globe? This would definitely
stimulate the use of the HSsmall model over the
simple Mohr-Coulomb model, such that more
users will benefit from its advanced features.
However, it is not a guarantee that accurate results
are automatically obtained. Results can still be
wrong by 100% (a factor 2), but probably not by
1000%, provided that other modelling issues have
been properly taken into account. Note that the
user always remains responsible if he/she uses
results of numerical modelling in geotechnical
engineering and design.
In addition to the earlier work by Duncan et al.
(1980), it is the idea to create validated data sets
for the HSsmall model and to provide them to
Plaxis users. Therefore, we will invest in a research
programme on validation of soil data sets, in
cooperation with universities and research centres.
We also ask for your cooperation. If you have
worked on a project using Plaxis with the HS or
HSsmall model, please send us these material
data sets with additional information about the

type of soil, the location and initial conditions.
To simplify this, you can download a special tool
from the Plaxis web site and use this to send your
data to soildata@plaxis.nl. Your data will then be
considered (anonymously) in the research. The
more Plaxis users participate, the more we all
benefit from this initiative.
spreadsheet containing the formulas. Your data

also helps us improving the formulas.
We are looking forward to your cooperation in this
research initiative.
References
1. Duncan J.M., Byrne P., Wong K.S. & Mabry P.
(1980). Geotechnical Engineering Strength,
stress-strain and bulk modulus parameters for
finite element analyses of stresses and movements in soil masses. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg,
USA.
2. Brinkgreve R.B.J., Engin H.K. & Engin E. (2009).
Validation of empirical formulas to derive
model parameters for sands. First International
Symposium on Computational Geomechanics
(COMGEO), Juan-les-Pins, France. (in press)
In addition to data sets for particular soil types,

Delft University of Technology and Plaxis bv
are currently validating formulas to derive all
HSsmall model parameters on the basis of either
the Relative Density (for sands) or the Plasticity
Index (for clays). These formulas may be used to
get a first estimate of the model parameters or
to check the order of magnitude. A validation
of the formulas for sands will be presented at
the COMGEO conference in April this year
(Brinkgreve et al., 2009). Users who submit realistic
and complete data sets will be rewarded with a
q [kPa]
900
800
700
drained
700
600
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Figure 1: Liquefaction
in undrained loading;
model vs. experimental
data
Experiment
500
Simulation
400
300
200
undrained
0
Plaxis Bulletin l Spring Issue 2009 l www.plaxis.nl
drained
Critical State
Line Instability
Line
10
epsyy [%]
15
20
undrained
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
p' [kPa]
Recommendations on the use of FEM for

Geotechnical Applications
Author: Ronald Brinkgreve, Plaxis bv
In Europe, a few committees are working on recommendations on the use of the Finite Element Method for geotechnical
applications. Since 1986 the European Regional Technical Committee ERTC7 has organized conferences on Numerical Methods
in Geotechnics (NUMGE). Conferences have been held in Stuttgart (1986), Santander (1990), Manchester (1994), Udine (1998),
Paris (2002), Graz (2006), and the next conference will be held in Trondheim (2010).
The German DGGT working group 1.6

Numerical Methods in Geotechnics is
active since the early nineties. Over the years,
they have published a number of documents with
recommendations on the size of finite element
meshes, the selection of models and parameters,
and other useful hints for typical applications like
excavations, tunnels and slopes (Meissner 1991,
1996, 2002; Schanz 2006). Also various benchmarks
have been elaborated in collaboration with the
ERTC7, of which the results have been published
in three NUMGE conferences (Schweiger 1998,
2002, 2006).
In France, a new committee was initiated in
2008 by the geotechnical division of LCPC to
consider typical French situations. In particular,
the use of the pressuremeter test as the main
source of soil investigation leads to special
recommendations for model parameter selection.
The recommendations should also consider
reinforced soil structures.
About the same time, another committee was

initiated by NAFEMS in the UK to give a follow
up on an earlier publication in this field (Mar,
2002). NAFEMS is a non-profit organization to
promote the use of the finite element method in
engineering in general.
Plaxis is actively involved in workshops and
meetings organized by all these working groups.
In addition to the committees mentioned here,
there are several other persons, universities and
organizations involved in education and research
with the purpose to stimulate and improve the use
of numerical methods and constitutive models for
geotechnical applications. This short message is
not intended to give a complete overview, but we
are interested to hear about similar initiatives.
Please inform us by sending an e-mail with further
details to info@plaxis.nl.
References
1. Meissner H. (1991). Empfehlungen des
Arbeitskreises Numerik in der Geotechnik der
Deutschen Gesellschaft fr Erd- und Grundbau
e.V. Geotechnik 14. 1-10.
2. Meissner H. (1996). Tunnelbau unter Tage.
Empfehlungen des Arbeitskreises 1.6 Numerik
in der Geotechnik, Abschnitt 2. Geotechnik 19,
Nr. 2. 99-108.
3. Meissner (2002). Baugruben. Empfehlungen des
Arbeitskreises 1.6 Numerik in der Geotechnik,
Abschnitt 3. Geotechnik 25. 44-56.
4. Schanz (2006). Actuelle Entwicklungen
bei Standsicherheits- und Verformungsberechnungen in der Geotechnik.
Empfehlungen des Arbeitskreises 1.6 Numerik
in der Geotechnik, Abschnitt 4. Geotechnik
29. 13-27.
5. Schweiger H.F. (1998). Results from two
geotechnical benchmark problems. Proc. 4th
Eur. Conf. on Num. Meth. in Geotechnical
Engineering. Cividini A. (ed.) Springer. 645-654.
6. Schweiger H.F. (2002). Results from numerical
benchmark exercises in geotechnics. Proc.
5th Eur. Conf. on Num. Meth. in Geotechnical
Engineering. Mestat P. (ed.). Paris: Presses Ponts
et Chaussees. 305-314.
7. Schweiger H.F. (2006). Results from the ERTC7
benchmark exercise. Proc. 6th Eur. Conf. on
Num. Meth. in Geotechnical Engineering.
Schweiger H.F. (ed.) Taylor & Francis.
8. Mar A. (2002). How to undertake Finite
Element based geotechnical analysis. NAFEMS
publication.
Crane Monopile Foundation Analysis

Author: Dr Andrew Mar, Coffey Geotechnics Limited, Atlantic House,
Atlas Business Park, Simonsway, Manchester, M22 5PR, United Kingdom, andrew_mar@coffey.com
This article describes the use of PLAXIS 3D Foundation v2.1 (Plaxis, 2008) to analyse the deformation and stability of a
crane monopile foundation supporting a tower crane in close proximity to an existing two-level basement structure. Coffey
Geotechnics were engaged to carry out a Category 3 check of the crane monopile foundation. As part of our quality assurance
procedures a number of comparisons were made to assess the performance of PLAXIS 3D Foundation for analyzing this
particular problem.
PLAXIS 3D Foundation results on simplified

representations of the pile foundation
were compared with Coffey in-house developed
analytical tools. The crane monopile is a
composite structure composed of concentric
elements and the effect of using the pile designer
in developing such a configuration was explored.
The monopile is a composite structure of
concentric elements and this was modelled using a
combination of volume elements defined using the
pile designer in PLAXIS 3D Foundation. The pile
cross-section for each concentric component was
modelled as a circular tube with the appropriate
diameter and wall thickness.
Description of the Problem Considered
The proposed foundation is a monopile situated
very close to an existing two-level basement
as illustrated in Figure 1. As well as ensuring
that the proposed design of the monopile is
structurally capable of carrying the applied loads
from the tower crane, the close proximity of the
foundation to the basement warrants investigation
of the loads and deformations induced in these
neighboring structures by the activities of the
tower crane. Such predictions would not be
possible via simplistic calculations hence the
recourse to finite element modelling to gain
insight into this three-dimensional soil-structure
interaction problem.
The base of the crane platform grillage (500mm
thick) is elevated at 9.5m above the top of concrete
capping and tie slab. The tower crane is 24.4m
high with a 60m long jib as shown in Figure 2.
The soil parameters used in the analyses were
derived in the first instance from data in a

comprehensive geotechnical investigation
interpretative report. In summary, the site
is underlain by: 2m of made ground, 4m of
weathered London Clay, 14.5m of London clay,
19.5m of Lambeth Clay and 3.5m of Thanet Sands
founded on Upper Chalk.
Given the transitory nature of the crane loading
a short-term undrained response of the ground
was considered appropriate; consequently an
undrained analysis was performed using undrained
soil parameters. A range of soil parameters were
considered for the detailed analysis and because
of the extreme nature of the problem in terms of
the close proximity of the surrounding structures
and uncertainties with regard to soil strength and
stiffness due to construction stage effects; the
final analyses assumed a single London clay layer
with very conservative values for the undrained
Youngs modulus and undrained shear strength of:
30MPa and 150kPa respectively.
Given the transitory nature of the loading and the
characteristics of the surrounding soils the pile/soil
interaction was analysed as an undrained load
case. Therefore the London clay has been
modelled as an undrained, cohesive linear
elastic-perfectly plastic (Tresca) material. The
Plaxis Mohr-Coulomb strength model was used
with the friction and dilatancy angles equal to
zero, ^z = } = 0h cohesion equal to the
undrained strength ^c = suh and the Plaxis default
(zero tensile strength) tension cut-off criterion in
place which restricts the development of tensile
stresses in the soil.
The monopile is a composite structure as shown in

Figure 3 which comprises a 16.825m length of steel
pipe (Outer diameter 2.2m with a wall thickness of
40mm) surrounded by a 6.825m length of concrete
caisson (Inner diameter of 3m with a wall thickness
of 160mm) in the upper portion of the pile where
it is known that the high lateral loads will develop.
The infill between the concrete and steel is a
cement-bentonite grout mixture and the infill in
the steel pipe is a 20:1 sand-cement mixture. The
basement structure comprises three floors and
a contiguous piled wall composed of 28.825m
length; 900mm diameter piles at 1050mm centres.
The horizontal distance between the bored pile
wall and crane monopile centrelines is 3.2m. The
top of the crane monopile is connected to the top
of the basement structure by a 500 thick reinforced
concrete slab as shown in Figure 1.
The material properties used for this problem are
summarised in Table 1.
Interface elements have been used along the
outside surfaces of the monopile for all the finite
element models in this study. These elements are
used to improve the results by allowing for slip
between the monopile and the soil and to model a
possibly reduced strength su,int = aint $ su along the
sides of the monopile to account for reduced soil
strengths due to the effects of pile installation.
continue on page 7
Preliminary Analyses
ERCAP Analyses
The monopile was first analysed using the
boundary element program ERCAP. The program
implements the method described by Poulos
& Davis (1980). This program can analyse a pile
subjected to lateral loading and/or lateral soil
movements. ERCAP (Earth Retention CAPacity
of piles) can analyse the effects of the proximity
of a pile to a slope or cutting in an approximate
manner. It has the facility to enable the assessment
of the stabilising force which a pile or row of
piles can develop in a potentially unstable soil
mass. In this problem it was used to model the
lateral interaction of the monopile with the
surrounding soil when subjected to the horizontal
load and overturning moment at the pile head.
The objective of the preliminary analyses was to
compare results from Plaxis 3D Foundation with
ERCAP.
The ERCAP program restricts the user to a single
uniform pile geometry. For this reason, two
separate analyses were performed with uniform
cross-sectional representations of the actual crane
monopile. To bound the predictions of lateral pile
deflection in the London clay; the performance
of the steel pipe alone and the composite pile
were considered. The first analysis modelled the
steel tubular section whereas the second analysis
modelled the composite pile; each over the full
16.825m length of pile. For the latter, a composite
Youngs modulus of 12.4GPa for a solid circular pile
of 3.32m diameter was calculated on the basis of
REI/R I (see Table 2).
Figure 1: Cross-section and plan showing the crane monopile

and adjacent basement structure
Both the in-service and out-of-service crane

loads were considered (Table 3) to identify the
worst case combination which would develop the
highest deflections, shear forces and bending
moments in the monopile. This was for the
situation without any horizontal restraint offered
by the tie-slab.
Both the in-service and out-of-service load cases
were performed undrained and this is applicable
Figure 2: Schematic of the Tower Crane Structure
Plaxis Practice: Crane Monopile Foundation Analysis
Modelling of the Complex Composite Pile

The series of concentric elements (Figure 3)
forming the crane monopile were explicitly
modelled in PLAXIS 3D Foundation using the
pile designer. This was achieved by selecting
the circular tube pile type which is defined by
its wall thickness and internal diameter. Tubular
piles were specified for the concrete caisson,
cement-bentonite grout and steel pipe and each
of these components were centred on plan at the
same ^ x, zhcoordinate. This created a mesh of
solid elements with full connection at the mating
boundaries between each concentric component.
Through the pile designer, interface elements
were specified along the outside boundaries
of the monopile to allow for the simulation of
slippage and separation between the soil and
monopile. The use of the pile designer creates
an equivalent structural line element along the
centreline of the pile which enables the pile:
z
o
c
kPa
}
o
E
MPa
y
-
Rinter
London Clay
20
150
30
0.495
0.85
Steel
77
2E5
0.3
24
2.1E4
0.15
20
30
0.25
Cement-Bentonite
Grout
24
200
0.15
Table 1: Material Properties of the Soil and Pile

Inner
diameter
(m)
Outer
diameter
(m)
Caisson
3.32
0
1000
Cement/Bentonite
2000
-2
Steel
tube
20:1-4Sand/Cement Mix
3
3000
20
4000
5000
2.2
Second
Moment of
Area l (m4)
Youngs
modulus
(kPa)
UCS
(MPa)
6000
Flexural Rigidity
El (kNm2))
2.100E+07
1.988E+00
4.174E+07
7000
2.000E+05
2.826E+00
5.652E+05
2.2
2.12
2.000E+08
1.584E-01
3.167E+07
2.12
3.000E+04
9.915E-01
2.975E+04
-6 2: Material and Physical Properties of the Crane Monopile

Table
RI = 5.964E + 00
REI = 7.401E + 07
-8
In-Service Loads: H=40kN M=6642kNm
Out-of-Service Loads: H=191kN M=5014kNm
-10
Composite Pile
Steel Tube
-12
0
-0.002
-0.001
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0
-0.002
0.007
-0.001
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
-2
-2
-14
-4
-4
-16
-6
-6
Depth BGL (m)
PLAXIS 3D Foundation Analyses

The three-dimensional analyses considered
two idealisations of the pile: (1) a simplified
composite pile consisting of a solid circular pile
with a: Youngs modulus of 12.4GPa, diameter
of 3.32m and length of 16.825m (as used in the
ERCAP analyses) and (2) a complex composite
pile comprising individual concentric elements
as summarised in Table 2 (see the next paragraph
for further details on modelling). The horizontal
deflections, bending moments and shear force
predictions are broadly similar as shown in Graphs
5-7 thus confirming the idealisation approaches
and different analysis methodologies used.
K0
-8
-18
-8
In-Serv
Bending Moment (kNm)
-10
Out-of-
Out-of-Service
Loads: H=191kN, M=5014kNm
-10
-12
-12
-14
-14
-16
-16
-18
-18
Deflection (m)
Deflection (m)
Graph 2: Composite Pile Deflection Predictions from ERCAP

Modelling the Composite Monopile in PLAXIS 3D Foundation
Graph 1: Steel Pile Deflection Predictions from ERCAP
0
-700
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
-2
-2
-4
-4
-6
-6
Depth BGL (m)
Graphs 3 and 4 show the ERCAP predictions of

bending moment and shear force developed
in the pile for these two load conditions. It can
be seen that the in-service loads induce higher
bending moments and shear forces in the pile.
c
kN/m3
Concrete
Depth BGL (m)
Graphs 1 and 2 show the ERCAP predictions of

pile deflection in the London clay for the steel
tube alone and composite pile respectively under
the action of the in-service and out-of-service
load conditions. It can be seen that the in-service
loads produce slightly higher horizontal pile head
displacement. From the deflected pile shapes it
can be seen that the composite pile is behaving
more like a short rigid pile than the steel tube
alone. The actual crane monopile is a combination
of these two simplifications and so it is expected
that the deflections will fall within the range of
deflection predictions shown for this extreme case
without a tie-slab in place.
defined at the various depths in the model where

it is known that a change in geometry or structural
element will begin or end.
20:1 Sand/Cement
Mix
Depth BGL (m)
With reference to Figure 1, it can be seen that

the crane grillage soffit level is elevated at 9.5m
above the top of concrete and tie slab. Thus for a
1m thick crane platform grillage the lever arm will
be 10m - inducing an additional bending moment
equal to the horizontal crane load multiplied by
this lever arm. For the in-service crane loads this
produces an overturning moment of 6642kNm at
the top of concrete capping and tie slab.
displacements, bending moments and shear

forces to be output in a convenient manner. This
was performed for every workplane defined in
the model. Workplanes are the horizontal planes
Depth BGL (m)
as the key stratum is London clay with an average

coefficient of consolidation cv of 0.3m2/year. For
drainage paths, D , in the range of 5.5 to 30m and
an out-of-service time, t, of 1 year say, the
2
dimensionless time factor T^= cv t/D h
is less than 0.01 and Duncan(1996) has suggested
that the soil can then be considered to behave in
an undrained manner under the loading specified.
-8
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
100
200
300
-8
In-Servi
Out-of-S
Out-of-Service Loads: H=191kN M=5014kNm

-10
-10
-12
-12
-14
-14
-16
-16
-18
-18
Bending Moment (kNm)
Graph 3: Pile Bending Moment Distribution Predictions

from ERCAP
Shear Force (kN)
Graph 4: Pile Shear Force Distribution Predictions from ERCAP
deq = d 3 d n /s
4
The initial stresses in the ground were computed

using the K0-procedure with K0=1 for the London
Clay layer. As the analysis was in terms of total
stress parameters no pore water was modelled so
the phreatic level was set below the level of the
base of the model.
Three Dimensional Analyses of Crane Monopile

& Basement
In order to predict the interaction of the
monopile with the ground and the adjacent
basement structure, a 3D finite element analysis
using PLAXIS 3D Foundation was performed. A
serviceability limit state analysis (no partial factors
applied to materials) was performed with the
unfactored working loads applied to the pile head
at ground level. The analysis did not consider the
detailed stages of excavation and construction
of the basement. The following phases were
considered:
The basement floors were idealised using 6-noded

triangular plate elements and the basement walls
were modelled using 8-noded quadrilateral plate
elements. The contiguous bored pile wall was
idealised as a continuous plate with a reduced
thickness, deq , to account for the spacing of the
piles:
Load Case
Horizontal Thrust
H (kN)
Vertical Load
V (kN)
Overturning Moment
M (kNm)
In-service crane
40
-1622
6242
Out-of service crane
191
-1565
3104
Four 3D finite element analyses were undertaken

to model the excavation and wished-in-place
construction of the basement and the subsequent
monopile with loading based on the tower crane
load specifications. The soil-structure interaction
between the monopile, walls and floors was
simulated in these analyses. These analyses
considered the in-service load combination
and the results confirmed that the worst case
corresponded to case 2 of Table 6.
Table 3: Loads at the base of the crane

Phase
Description
0
-0.002
-2
-4
Notes
In-Service
Loads:
H=40kN
M=6642kNm K0-Procedure
Generation of initial stresses
in the
virgin
ground
Wishing in place of the basement structure and contiguous pile0 wall

0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
No basement construction details were

available
0.005
Installation of the crane monopile
Previous displacements reset to zero
Application of the crane loads
-0.001
Results
This section summarises a selection of results from
the PLAXIS 3D Foundation analyses.
-6
Depth BGL (m)
Table 4: Phases for the Analysis of the Crane Monopile & Basement
-8
ERCAP Simplified Composite Pile

PLAXIS 3DF - Simplified Composite Pile
PLAXIS 3DF - Complex Composite Pile
-10
0
-0.002
-12
-0.001
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
-2
-14
-4
-16
Depth BGL (m)
-6
-18
Deflection (m)
-8
-10
-14
-16
-18
Deflection (m)
Graph 5: Pile Deflection Comparison between PLAXIS and

ERCAP

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0
-600
8000
-2
-4
-4
-6
-6
Depth BGL (m)
Depth BGL (m)
0
-2
-8
-10
-400
-300
-200
-100
-8
ERCAP
Simplified Composite Pile
-12
-14
-14
-16
-16
Plot 2 shows the horizontal deflection of the crane

monopile and this was obtained by doubleclicking the structural line element representation
of the pile. The shear force and bending moments
developed in the pile were obtained in a similar
manner and these are shown in Plots 3 & 4.
These plots are direct outputs from PLAXIS 3D
Foundation
with no additional postERCAP Simplified Composite Pile
processing
made.
100
The deformation pattern of the contiguous pile

wall is shown in Plot 5. This is to an exaggerated
scale of 5000x to make the deformations visible.
Predicted deformations are very small with a peak
total displacement of around 0.6mm.
The deformed shape of the floors is shown in Plot
6 again shown to an exaggerated scale (2000x).
Predicted deformations are very small with a peak
ERCAP Simplified Composite Pile
PLAXIS
- Simplified Composite Pile of around 0.7mm.
total3DFdisplacement

-10
-12
-18
-500
Plot 1 shows the deformed shape for Model 2

(Table 6) Phase 3 (Table 4) note that the partial
geometry feature has been used to hide the
London clay.
The resolution of the shear force diagram is a

result of the relatively coarse mesh being used.
However, independent checks described in
paragraph PLAXIS 3D Foundation on similar
mesh refinements of the simplified pile provide
confidence in the accuracy of these results.
-12
Figure 3: Schematic showing the cross-section of the

upper portion of the monopile foundation
Where d is the diameter of the pile and s is the

centre-to-centre pile spacing.
The soil and monopile were modelled using
15-noded wedge elements. The horizontal, vertical
and moment loads applied to the monopile were
rationalised into equivalent horizontal and vertical
pressures acting over the steel pipe cross-section.
Interface elements were inserted between the soil,
walls, floors and outside surfaces of the monopile
to simulate the reduced strength between the
soil and these structures. For these analyses an
interface reduction factor of 0.85 was assumed,
resulting in a reduced undrained shear strength of
127.5kPa between the soil and non-soil structures.
Complex Composite Pile
The deformed shape of the tie-slab is shown in

Plot 7 to an exaggerated scale of 500x. A peak
total deformation of 3mm is predicted to develop
at the leading edge of the tie-slab.
-18
BM (kNm)
Graph 6: Pile Bending Moment Comparison between PLAXIS

and ERCAP
SF (kN)
Graph 7: Pile Shear Force Comparison between PLAXIS and

ERCAP
continue on page 10
c
kN/m3
Thickness m
E
MPa
y
-
Tie-Slab 500 mm thick
24
0.5
21
0.15
Floor 400 mm thick
24
0.4
21
0.15
Floor 1000 mm thick
24
21
0.15
Contiguous Pile Wall:

900 mm diameter piles at
1050 mm c/c spacing
24
0.742
(equivalent thickness)
21
0.15
Table 5: Physical and Material Properties of the Tie-Slab and Basement Floors & Wall
Model
Including Tie Slab

at ground level
No
Jib load and moment and tailwind applied away from the contiguous pile wall
without the surface tie-slab
Yes
Jib load and moment and tailwind applied away from the contiguous pile wall with
the surface tie-slab
Yes
Jib load and moment and tailwind applied in the direction towards the contiguous
pile wall with the surface tie-slab propping against the basement wall in place
Yes
Jib load and moment and tailwind applied parallel to the contiguous pile wall with
the surface tie-slab providing restraint
Description
Discussion and Conclusions

The user-friendliness of PLAXIS 3D Foundation
enabled a number of sensitivity studies to
be explored in a straightforward and timely
manner which is vital for commercial work.
Sensitivity studies were performed to investigate,
mesh density, model extent, load application
approaches and material property variation.
An investigation was made to explore the effect
of a reduction in the stiffness of the cementbentonite mix between the concrete caisson and
steel pipe. The reduction of this from 600MPa
to 200MPa was found to have little effect on the
behaviour of the monopile.
The analyses did not consider the detailed stages
of excavation and construction of the basement so
the deformations and loads predicted to develop
in the basement could not reliably be taken
into account. To address this, the predictions of
movement and structural forces induced in the
basement during this phase were discounted
by zeroing displacements at the start of Phase 2
and by external post-processing of the structural
forces developed between Phase 3 and Phase 1.
Therefore, the structural forces and displacements
reported are in addition to the existing structural
forces and displacements due to the wall and floor
loads and live loads applied to the basement.
Table 6: Models Load Conditions Considered
Model
Cement
Bentonite
Youngs modulus
MPa
Peak Pile Head

Horizontal
Displacement
mm
Peak Vertical
Displacement
mm
Peak Bending
Moment kNm
Peak Shear Force

kN
Peak Axial Force

kN
600
0.5
-2.7
6960
-928
-1970
200
0.8
-2.7
6980
-922
-1970
Table 7: Worst Case Model 2 Monopile Displacements and Structural Forces
Model
Cement Bentonite Youngs

modulus MPa
Tie-Slab Peak Compressive Load kN
Tie-Slab Peak Tensile Load kN
600
-234
776
200
-324
942
Table 8: Worst Case Model 2 Tie-Slab Structural Loads
Model
Cement Bentonite
Youngs modulus
MPa
Peak Wall
Horizontal
Displacement
mm
Peak Wall
Bending
Moment kNm
600
-0.300
-200
600
261
200
-0.301
-200
200
260
Table 9: Worst Case Model 2

Contiguous Pile Wall Displacements and Bending Moments
Model
Cement
Bentonite Youngs
modulus MPa
Peak Axial Load in

Floor Slab kN
Table 10: Worst Case Model 2 Floor Axial Load
The results of the ERCAP analyses predict that the

monopile will deflect laterally between 4-6mm
with bending moments in the range of 5014kNm to
6642kNm and shear forces in the range 444kN to
562kN (this is without the tie-slab in place).
The ERCAP analyses identified that the worst
case crane loads were the in-service combination
comprising a horizontal thrust, axial load and
overturning moment of 40kN, -1662kN and
6242kNm respectively and these were assumed
to act at the crane base, which is 10m above
ground level. This resulted in a horizontal thrust H,
axial load V and overturning moment M of 40kN,
-1662kN and 6642kNm acting at the top of the
monopile at ground level.
Plaxis predicted the worst case deflection to be
5.4mm horizontal (model 1 without tie-slab) and
this results in a pile head rotation at ground level
of 0.000831 radians (which would result in a 29
mm deflection 34.4m above ground level). The
bending moment in the monopile for this case is
6170 kNm which is of the same order of magnitude
as that found in the ERCAP analysis. The results of
the PLAXIS analysis predict that the monopile will
deflect laterally by 0.5-0.8mm with peak bending
moments in the range of 6960kNm to 6980kNm
and shear forces in the range 922kN to 928kN (this
is with the tie slab in place).
The maximum horizontal wall deflection is of the
order of 0.3mm which is negligible and the peak
bending moment of 200kNm is generated
Plot 1: Deformed Mesh Shown

to an Exaggerated Scale (Model 2, Phase 3)
10
The maximum compressive axial load developed

in the 500mm thick tie-slab is 1490kN for the
loading condition in model 3. The maximum
tensile axial load developed is 942kN for the
loading condition in model 2. The structural
capacity of the monopile and tie-slab system is
adequate under the action of these structural
loads (well within the 20MPa compressive strength
of the concrete and the 275MPa yield stress of the
steel).
Acknowledgement
The Author would like to express thanks to his
colleague Dr Caesar Merrifield for his feedback
regarding this article.
References
Mar, A. (2002) How To Undertake Finite Element
Based Geotechnical Analysis, NAFEMS (The
International Association for the Engineering
Analysis Community)
Wood, D.M. (2005) Geotechnical Modelling,
Spon Press
Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1974) Elastic solutions for soil and rock mechanics, John Wiley,
New York
Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1980) Pile Foundation Analysis and Design, John Wiley & Sons,
New York
Potts, D.M. and Zdravkovi, L. (1999) Finite
element analysis in geotechnical engineering:
theory. Thomas Telford, London.
Potts, D.M. and Zdravkovi, L. (2001) Finite
element analysis in geotechnical engineering:
application. Thomas Telford, London.
Smith, I.M. and Griffiths, D.V. (1988) Programming the finite element method (2nd edition),
John Wiley, Chichester
Tomlinson, M.J. (1994) Pile design and construction practice (4th edition), E & FN Spon, London
Ng, C.W.W., Simons, N. and Menzies, B. (2004)
A Short Course in Soil-Structure Engineering of
Deep Foundations, Excavations and Tunnels,
Thomas Telford, London
Potts, D., Axelsson, K., Grande, L.., Schweiger,
H. and Long, M. (eds.) (2002) Guidelines for the
use of Advanced Numerical Analysis, Thomas
Telford, London
Poulos, H.G. (1992) Program ERCAP (Earth Retaining Capacity of Piles) Users Manual, Coffey
Geosciences Pty Ltd.
Duncan, J. M. (1996). State of the art: Limit Equilibrium and Finite-Element Analysis of Slopes,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 122,
No.7, July, pp. 557-596
Brinkgreve, R.B.J. and Swolfs, W.M. (eds.) (2007)
PLAXIS 3D Foundation version 2 User Manual,
Plaxis bv, The Netherlands
Atkinson, J.H. (2007) The Mechanics of Soils and
Foundations (2nd edition), Taylor and Francis
Group
Elson, W.K. (1984) Design of laterally loaded
piles, CIRIA Report 103
Matlock, H. and Reese, L.C. (1960) Generalised
solutions for laterally loaded piles, Proc. ASCE,
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. Vol 86 (SM5), pp. 63-91
Plot 2: Horizontal Displacements (Model 2, Phase 3)
Plot 3: Shear Forces (Model 2, Phase 3)
Plot 5: Contiguous Pile Wall - Deformed Shape

Shown to an Exaggerated Scale (Model 2, Phase 3)
Plot 6: Floors - Deformed Shape Shown to an Exaggerated

Scale (Model 2, Phase 3)
Gaba, A.R., Simpson, B., Powrie, W., Beadman,

D.R. (2003) Embedded retaining walls guidance for economic design (C580), CIRIA
BS EN 1997-1:2004 Eurocode 7. Geotechnical
Design, BSI/CEN
Plot 4: Bending Moments (Model 2, Phase 3)
Plot 7:Tie Slab -Deformed Shape Shown to an Exaggerated Scale

(Model 2,Phase 3)
11
Mohr-Coulomb Parameters for Modelling of

Concrete Structures
Author: Dusko Hadzijanev Ardiaca. MOST Enginyers S.L., dha@most.es
The usual procedure for modelling structures in PLAXIS v8 is to introduce plates, which are one-dimensional beam
elements. This way, the results are beam deformations and cross-section forces that will allow the calculation
of stresses with post-Plaxis procedures. However, the introduction of one-dimensional elements within twodimensional soil elements requires the assumption of simplifying hypothesis. As recommended in PLAXIS v8
Reference Manual, this approach should only be used to model the behaviour of slender walls, plates or thin shells.
An alternative procedure for modelling

more complex structures is to introduce
these elements as clusters of the model which will
be discretized in two-dimensional mesh elements.
Some examples where this can be applied are
plates with variable cross-sections, non slender
structures or models where the structure weight
has to be determined accurately. The difficulty of
this procedure is to set up the material model for
these clusters. This article gives an example of a
calculation that was made using this approach on

concrete modelled as a Mohr-Coulomb material.
Project Description
The example shown in this article relate to the
construction of a family house in Barcelona. The
building will be constructed on a spot where
the subway passes 9 m below the street level,
as shown in Fig. 1. The tunnel belongs to the
extension of the first line of Barcelona subway,
Figure 2: input of the model

Figure 1: Project geometry
12
which was made about 40 years ago. At the

present, an old building exists in the same spot
where the housing will be constructed, so previous
demolition and excavation of the basement will be
necessary. New building will have one basement
and three floors. The existing construction and its
neighbours are two or three floors high.
Our research is intended to determine the
influence of this construction to the tensional and
deformational conditions of the existing tunnel.
FE Analysis
The stresses and displacements in the tunnel have
been calculated before the construction of the
housing, during the excavation and at the final
situation. The calculations were performed using
PLAXIS v8 with about 1200 15-noded elements.
Input of the model is showed in Figure 2.
The main calculations phases are described below:
1. Construction of the tunnel. Because of the
existing buildings above the tunnel, this could
not be done in open-cut procedure.
2. Current situation. Uniformly distributed loads
of 20 kN/m2 have been considered to take in
account the weight of the existing constructions
and road traffic.
3. Excavation of the parking floor and execution of
the foundation slab, as retaining walls. Loads of
20 kN/m2 are applied.
4. Construction of the building. Its considered as
a uniformly distributed load of 40 kN/m2.
Soil Properties
Two sets of calculations were made using
two different material models on soils: the
Mohr-Coulomb model and the Hardening Soil
model. The soil parameters are summarized
in Tables 1 and 2: Regarding the presence of
water, no phreatic levels were detected during
ground testing and had not been considered in
calculations.
Concrete Parameters
The existing tunnel was built about 1970.
According to the projects history, the structure
does not have a tunnel invert and the vault is
constituted by mass concrete.
The concrete of the tunnel was characterized
having elastoplastic behaviour using the MohrCoulomb drained material model.
Even if previous laboratory tests revealed that the
mass concrete is considerably strong, the choice
of the elastic parameters ( E and y ) and strength
parameters (c, z, and tensile strength) of the
Average
depth
[m]
c
[kN/m3]
E
[kN/m2]
y
[-]
c
[kN/m2]
{
[o]
}
[o]
Fill
1.0
17.00
6000
0.30
0.10
22
Fine sand
2.1
19.00
8000
0.30
0.10
34
Silt
4.5
19.00
8000
0.30
5.00
29
Gravel and sand
12.5
20.00
40000
0.30
0.10
34
Table 1: Mohr-Coulomb soil parameters
Fill
c
[kN/m3]
c
[kN/m2]
{
[o]
}
[o]
E50ref
[kN/m2]
Eoedref
[kN/m2]
Eurref
[kN/m2]
m
[-]
yur
[-]
pref
[kN/m2]
Rf
17.00
0.10
22
25912
25912
77737
0.60
0.20
100
0.90
Fine sand
19.00
0.10
34
23268
23268
69804
0.60
0.20
100
0.90
Silt
19.00
5.00
29
13242
13242
39726
0.70
0.20
100
0.90
Gravel and sand
20.00
0.10
34
42597
42597
127791
0.50
0.20
100
0.90
Table 2: Hardening-Soil model soil parameters
concrete has been carried out considering several

hypotheses in a conservative way.
In this sense, two hypotheses concerning the
quality of the concrete were considered, given by
the characteristic compressive strength: fck = 15
MPa and fck = 25 Mpa, from now on HM-15 and
HM-25.
Regarding the plasticity parameters of MohrCoulomb model, these can be obtained from
compressive and tensile strengths according to
the representation of the yield surface as shown
in Figure 3:
The elastic modulus E was determined through the

formula proposed by the Spanish regulation EHE98. According of this, the longitudinal deformation
modulus relates to the compressive strength as
follows:
E = 8500 $ 3 fck + 8 6 Lpa @
Two values of Poissons ratio were considered: a

value y = 0.2 according to EHE-98 and a value of
y = 0.0 according to Eurocode-2 Recommendation
for fissured concrete.
Figure 3: Deduction of Mohr-Coulomb plasticity parameters
13
Plaxis Practice: Mohr-Coulomb parameters for modelling of concrete structures
Where vc and vt are compressive and tensile

strengths. Values of these can be compared to the
allowable stresses proposed by P. Jimnez
Montoya (1971) for a mass concrete:
According to P. Jimnez Montoya

Cohesion: c (kN/m2)
Friction angle:z
Tensile strength
(kN/m2)
HM-15
712
54.9
450
HM-25
1186
54.9
750
Concrete designation
Cohesion: c (kN/m2)
Friction angle:z
Tensile strength
(kN/m2)
HM-15
365
35.0
1216
HM-25
513
35.0
1710
Cohesion: c (kN/m2)
Friction angle:z
Tensile strength
(kN/m2)
HM-15
387
1216
HM-25
500
1710
vc = 0.30 $ fck
vt = 0.03 $ fck
In addition, the EHE-98 establishes the following
formula to calculate the shear resistance among
concrete joints:
According to EHE-98
xmd # b $ fct,d + Ast $ fya,d $ ^ n $ sin a + cos ah

s$p
+n $ vcd # 0.25 $ fcd

Where vcd is the value of external normal
stress applied to the joint plane. Considering a
reinforcement steel section Ast equal to zero, the
resulting formula has the same shape than the
failure criterion of Mohr-Coulomb, with:
c = b $ fct,d
n = tgz
According to EC-2
Table 4: Mohr-Coulomb strength parameters for mass concrete according different methods
Where ct, d is the design value of tensile strength

of the concrete given by:
fct,d = 0.30 $ ^ fckh /1.50 6 MPa @

2/3
Where b and n are coefficients that depend on

the degree of roughness of the joint as shown in
table 3.
Type of surface
Low roughness
High roughness
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.9
HM-15
HM-25
c [kN/m3]
24
24
E [kN/m2]
24173
27264
0.2
0.2
c [kN/m2]
365
513
z [o]
35
35
Tensile strength for tension

cut off [kN/m2]
450
750
Table 5: Material properties of mass concrete
Table 3:b and n values according to EHE-98

Average values of b= 0.3 and n = 0.7 were adopted.
HM-15 y=0.00
HM-15 y=0.20
HM-25 y=0.20
1.13 / 1.13
1.13 / 1.13
1.16 / 1.16
The values of Mohr-Coulomb strength parameters

can also be obtained according to the Eurocode-2.
The following formula is given for the shear
resistance for members not requiring design shear
reinforcement:
Table 7: Msf values of calculations. Material models for soils are [Mohr-Coulomb / Hardening-Soil]
With a minimum of:
Table 4 summarizes the Mohr-Coulomb

strength parameters according to the explained
methodologies:
VRd,c = 6CRd,c k^100t y fckh1/3 + k1 vcp @ bw d
VRd,c = ^vmin + k1 vcph bw d
The formula for the tensile strength from EC-2 is

identical to the shown formula from EHE-98.
From here on we can establish:
xRd,c = VRd,c /bw d = vmin + k1 vcp , which has the form

of the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterium with:
The final set of parameters considered to model

the tunnel material are shown in Table 5:
Results of Calculations
Table 6 shows synthetic results. The first
values corresponds to Mohr-Coulomb and the
second ones to Hardening-Soil, both models
for characterizing soils. Some of the calculated
stresses are shown in Figure 4.
x = xRd,c
c = vmin
tgz = k1
vcp = v'
where according to EC-2:
vmin = 0, 035xk3/2 xfck1/2 , where fck is in MPa

k = 1+
200 # 2, 0 where
d
d is in mm
so for this structure will be k = 2,0 and

recommended value is 0,15
Therefore:
c = 0.035# 23/2 # fck1/2 c
tgz = 0.15, soz = 9%
14
To evaluate the obtained deformations 5 points

where selected for curve representation. These
are shown in Figure 5:
fck
6 MPa @
100
k1
Displacement were reset to zero once constructed

the existing tunnel and before the application
of the loads. Results shows that building load
counteracts previous excavation, so stresses
remains similar than in the actual conditions
phases. Finally, a phi-c reduction phase was done
in each model to determine safety factors. Results
are summarized on Table 7:
Outputs after phi-c reduction phases shows that

failure mechanism is produced on soil below
tunnel side walls. Some plastic points appears on
the tunnel, but doesnt seem to be related to the
failure, as shown in Figure 6:
Conclusions
Tunnel structure was modelled using twodimensional elements and a Mohr-Coulomb
material model was used for modelling mass
concrete.Mohr-Coulomb strength parameters
for concrete were estimated using two different
methodologies. Concerning a mass concrete of
about 15-25 MPa of characteristic compressive
strength, the values obtained were: cohesion of
365-513 kN/m2, friction angle of 35, and tensile
strength of 450-750 kN/m2. In the example
presented, many calculations were done to test
parameter sensitivity. Results show that this
approach gives realistic results for complex
structures where the use of plate elements is not
suitable.
Other methodologies for evaluating shear
strength of concrete are proposed by Rui Vaz
Rodrigues (2007). This article encourages Plaxis
users who want to follow the same approach.
continue on page 15
Plaxis Practice: Mohr-Coulomb parameters for modelling of concrete structures
Figure 4. Stresses on the HM-25 type concrete.

These outputs are from the building loading phase and Hardening-Soil model for soils
Actual
Conditions
HM-15 y=0.00
HM-15 y=0.20
HM-25 y=0.20
22.4 / 24.9
25.1 / 22.1
23.2 /25.3
0.07 / 00
0.15 / 0.00
0.00 / 0.00
Max horiz. compressive

stress [kN/m2]
1880 / 1930
1880 / 1940
2670 / 2690
Max vertical
compressive stress
[kN/m2]
2360 / 2450
2450 / 2390
3440 / 3090
Max shear stress [kN/m2]
954 / 1050
915 / 1030
1250 / 1370
Settlement on C (mm)
17 / 14
17 / 14
16 / 12
Convergence B-D (mm)
-3 / -2
-3 / -2
-3 / -1
Convergence A-E (mm)
6/6
6/7
4/6
4.6 / 9.7
4.9 / 9.8
4.1 / 4.4
Tension cut off points (%)
0.00 / 0.07
0.00 / 0.22
0.00 / 0.00

stress [kN/m2]
1710 / 1850
1740 / 1850
2060 / 2030
Max vertical
compressive stress
[kN/m2]
1960 / 2160
2080 / 2100
2870 / 2540
978 / 969
821 / 985
1150 / 1290
4/9
4 / 10
1.5 / 8
1/1
1/1
1/1
17 / 9
16 / 9
14 / 9
Plastic points (%)
17.3 / 22.4
17.2 / 21.9
14.5 / 4.4
0.15 / 0.00
0.00 / 0.07
0.00 / 0.00

stress [kN/m2]
1920 / 1840
1900 / 1860
2600 / 2390
Max vertical
compressive stress
[kN/m2]
2400 / 2420
2430 / 2370
3420 / 3020
966 / 1040
882 / 1030
1240 / 1360
18 / 13
18 / 14
15 / 12
3/2
3/2
2/1
14 / 7
13 / 8
11 / 7
Plastic points (%)

Excavation
Plastic points (%)
Building
Figure 5: Points for curves
Figure 6: Plastic points on phi-c reduction phase. This shows

the calculation with HM-15 y=0.20 concrete and Mohr-Coulomb
material model for soils.
References
Brinkgreve et al. (2004). Plaxis Reference
Manual. Plaxis bv., The Netherlands.
Comisin Permanente del Hormign (1998).
Instruccin del Hormign Estructural. Ministerio
de Fomento, Centro de Publicaciones, Madrid.
P. Jimnez Montoya (1971). Hormign Armado.
Tomo 1. Editorial Gustavo Gili, S.A., Barcelona.
Rui Vaz Rodrigues (2007). Shear strength of
reinforced concrete bridge deck slabs. Thse
cole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne, no
3739, Lausanne.
Table 6: Results on tunnel using Mohr-Coulomb material model for concrete. Material models for soils are
[Mohr-Coulomb / Hardening-Soil]
15
Simulation of Soil Nail Structures using PLAXIS 2D

Authors: G.L. Sivakumar Babu (Associate Professor), Vikas Pratap Singh (Research Scholar)
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, Karnataka, India.
E-mail: gls@civil.iisc.ernet.in, vikasps@civil.iisc.ernet.in
Soil nailing is an in-situ earth retaining technique and it has been excessively used all over the world for the various
slope stability applications. The efficiency of soil nail structures is the resultant of complex soil-structure interaction
among its various components, namely, in-situ soil, stiff reinforcement (i.e nails) and the facing. Often rigorous
computational techniques based on finite element or finite difference methods are employed to study the complex
soil-structure interaction and to assess the performance and stability of soil nail structures. PLAXIS 2D has been
comprehensively used for the study of soil nail structures (e.g. Shiu et al. 2006; Fan and Luo 2008).
Soil nailing is an in-situ earth retaining

technique and it has been excessively used
all over the world for the various slope stability
applications. The efficiency of soil nail structures is
the resultant of complex soil-structure interaction
among its various components, namely, in-situ
soil, stiff reinforcement (i.e nails) and the facing.
Often rigorous computational techniques based
on finite element or finite difference methods are
employed to study the complex soil-structure
interaction and to assess the performance and
stability of soil nail structures. PLAXIS 2D has been
comprehensively used for the study of soil nail
structures (e.g. Shiu et al. 2006; Fan and Luo 2008).
Incorporation of bending and shear resistances
of nails in the analysis and design of soil nail walls
had been a much debatable issue reported in the
literature. For example, Juran et al. (1990) reported
that inclined nails (10-15 0) would tend to undergo a
local rotation to approach the horizontal direction
of maximum soil extension, and therefore, the
effect of bending stiffness has significant effect on
the development of nail forces. Schlosser (1991),
based on his multicriteria theory in soil nailing
and observations from the extensive experiments
(such as national research project Clouterre)
and other works related to soil nailed retaining
structures in France over 10 years, stated that, at
failure bending and shear resistances of grouted
nails are mobilised, however, the influence of
bending stiffness and shear on the global safety
factor is small (less than 15%).
16
Jewell and Pedley (1992) concluded that the

effects of bending and shear resistances can be
ignored in the design and analysis of soil nailing
with marginal conservatism. In practice, ignoring
the effects of shear and bending resistances of
soil nails, soil nailing analysis and design has been
radically simplified and this approach is commonly
accepted (e.g. FHWA 2003).
It has been noted from the literature related to
the use of PLAXIS 2D for the study of soil nail
structures that users are using both geogrid
(e.g. Plaxis 2002; Liew and Khoo 2006) and plate
(e.g. Babu and Singh 2007; Fan and Luo 2008)
structural elements to simulate nails. It is to be
noted that the use of geogrid structural elements
completely ignores the bending stiffness the soil
nails, on the other hand, plate structural elements
accounts for the same. This article provides an
insight into the implications of the analysis of
the soil nail structures by the use of geogrid (or
plate) structural elements for simulation of nails.
Additionally, a few suggestions are being made
for the proper simulation of soil nail walls using
PLAXIS 2D, which may be beneficial to the soil
nailing practitioners.
Simulations of Soil Nail Structures
using PLAXIS 2D
Simulation of soil nail structures using PLAXIS
2D is time efficient and relatively easy due to the
user friendly environment. However, given the
capability of the computational tool, the accuracy
of the analysis is significantly dependant on the
users understanding about the computational
tool and the problem itself. Following are some
of the suggestions based on the literature and

authors experiences related to the use of PLAXIS
2D for simulations and analyses of soil nail
structures.
Connection of Soil Nails to the Wall Facing
In practice, a soil nail is rigidly connected to the
wall facing (FHWA 2003; Joshi 2003) by means of
bearing plate and hexagonal nut to the temporary
facing which in turn is connected with permanent
facing using headed studs via bearing plate
forming a rigid connection with the continuous
reinforced concrete permanent facing. In PLAXIS
2D, connection between two plate structural
elements by default represents a rigid connection.
Therefore, use of plate structural elements to
simulate soil nails and wall facing is recommended
to account for the rigid nail-facing connection.
Mesh Density, Boundaries and Fixity Conditions
15-node triangular elements can be used for
generating finite element mesh. PLAXIS 2D
offers choice of mesh density ranging from very
coarse to very fine. A detailed discussion on the
implications of mesh density on the analysis of soil
nail structures has been presented in the later part
of the article.
Briaud and Lim (1997) provided information
about where to place the boundaries so that their
influence on the results of the numerical simulation
of soil nail wall can be minimised. They suggested
that bottom of the mesh is best placed at a depth
where soil becomes notably harder (say at a depth
D below the bottom of the excavation). Based on
the studies of Briaud and Lim (1997), if D is not
exactly known, D can be taken as two to three

times the vertical depth of excavation H .
Further, for known values of D and H , width of
excavation We can be taken equal to three to four
times D and the horizontal distance from wall face
to the end of mesh boundary Be can be chosen
equal to three to four times ( H + D ). Figure 1
shows the mesh boundaries and fixity conditions.
Material Models
Most commonly used material model to simulate
in-situ soil for excavation and retaining structures
applications is the HS-model (Hardening soil
model). However, if all the input parameters for
HS-model are not available, alternatively MohrCoulomb material model can be used. Facings and
nails can be modeled as elastic materials.
Use of Interface Elements

It has been reported in the literature that the
coefficient of soil-reinforcement interaction
obtained from field pullout tests (e.g. Wang and
Richwein 2002) is found to be significantly more
than unity. Therefore, use of interface elements
between nail and soil can be eliminated and
default setting of Rigid Interface in material sets
menu for soil and interfaces can be used in the
simulation process.
Equivalent Nail Parameters
Soil nail structures are modeled as plane strain
problem in PLAXIS 2D. As stated earlier, plate (or
geogrid) structural elements can used to simulate
nails. The most important input material
parameters for plate elements are the flexural
rigidity (bending stiffness) EI and the axial

stiffness EA (for geogrid structural element only
the axial stiffness EA is required). Both plate and
geogrid structural elements are rectangular in
shape with width equal to 1 m in out-of-plane
direction.
Since, the soil nails are circular in cross-section
and placed at designed horizontal spacing, it
is necessary to determine equivalent axial and
bending stiffnesses for the correct simulation of
circular soil nails as rectangular plate or geogrid
elements. A detailed discussion on the suitability
of plate or geogrid structural elements to model
soil nails is presented later, given below is the
general procedure to determine equivalent
material parameters.
For the grouted nails, equivalent modulus of
elasticity Eeq shall be determined accounting for
the contribution of elastic stiffnesses of both grout
cover as well as reinforcement bar. From the
fundamentals of strength of materials, Eeq can be
determines as:
A
Eeq = En ` An j + Eg ` g j
A
A
(1)
where: Eg is the modulus of elasticity of grout

material; En is the modulus of elasticity of nail;
Eeq is the equivalent modulus of elasticity of
2
grouted soil nail; A = 0.25rD DH
is the total cross-sectional area of grouted soil nail;
Ag = A - An is the cross-sectional area of grout
cover; An = 0.25rd2 is the cross-sectional area of
reinforcement bar and DDH is the diameter of drill
hole. If, Sh is horizontal spacing of soil nails,
knowing the equivalent modulus of elasticity
Eeq (equation 1) for the grouted soil nail, the axial
and bending stiffnesses can be determined using
equations (2) and (3) respectively.
Axial stiffness EA 6 kN/m @ =
Figure 1: Mesh boundaries and fixity conditions (Briaud and Lim 1997)
Eeq rD2 DH
c
m
Sh
4
4
E
Bending stiffness EI 6 kNm2 /m @ = eq c rD DH m
Sh 64
(2)
(3)
17
Plaxis Practice: Simulation of Soil Nail Structures using PLAXIS 2D
Substituting, EA and EI values in the material

properties menu for Plate elements, PLAXIS
automatically determines the equivalent plate
thickness in meter deq using equation (4).
deq =
12 c EI m
EA p
plate or geogrid elements) and facing (modeled as

plate element) shall be activated. This procedure
can be followed till finish livel of the soil nail wall is
reached.
(4)
Procedure for Numerical Simulations

PLAXIS (2006) and the information available in
leterature (e.g. Shiu et al. 2006; Fan and Luo
2008) may be referred for the understanding
of simulations of soil nail walls with complex
geometry and loading conditions.
Staged construction option shall be used to
simulate the infuence of construction sequence of
soil nail walls (indicated as E1 , E2 , En , in Figure
1). In each excavation stage, soil cluster
representing excavation lift (defined in input
program) is deactivated and nails (modeled as
Parameters
Updated Mesh Analysis

In order to take into account the effects of large
deformations, PLAXIS 2D provides an optional
Updated Mesh analysis to perform basic types
of calculations (Plastic calculation, Consolidation
analysis, Phi-c reduction). Results of the finite
element simulation of the 10 m high soil nail wall
using Updated Mesh Analysis are indicated in
Table 1. Material properties and other soil nail wall
parameters adopted are given in Table 2.
It may be observed from Table 1 that the use of
Updated Mesh results in marginal influence on
the soil nail wall simulation results. Additionally,
updated mesh analysis increases the calculation
time significantly. Similar observations are made
for the 18 m high soil nail wall.
Using plate elements
Using geogrid elements
Normal
analysis
Updated mesh
analysis
Normal
analysis
Updated mesh
analysis
Global factor of
safety
1.59
1.60
1.57
1.59
Max. lateral
discplacement
(mm)
22.82
22.28
23.86
21.31
Max. axial force

(kN/m)
74.82
73.29
85.44
83.80
Table 1: Update Mesh Analysis of soil nail wall simulation (H = 10 m)
Parameter
Vertical height of walls H [m]
Nailing type
Simulation model
Element type
Value
10.0 and 18.0
grouted
plane strain
15- node
In-situ soil
Material model
Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion c [kPa]
4.0
Internal friction angle z[deg]
31.5
Unit weight c [kN/m3]
17.0
Elasticity modulus Es [MPa]
20.0
Poisons ratio of soil ys
0.3
Grouted nails and facing

Material model
elastic
Yield strength of reinforcement fy [MPa]
415.0
Elasticity modulus of reinforcement En [GPa]
200.0
Elasticity modulus of grout (concrete) Eg [GPa]
22.0
Diameter of reinforcement d [mm]

Drill hole diameter DDH [mm]
Length of nail L [m]
Declination wrt horizontal i [deg]
Spacing Sh x Sv [m]
Facing thickness t [mm]
20.0 (25.0)
100.0
7.0 (13.0)
15.0
1.0 x 1.0
200.0
Table 2: Parameters adopted for numerical simulations using PLAXIS 2D

Note: Figures in bracket correspond tot he 18 m high soil nail wall; all other parameteres are same
for both 10 m ad 18 m soil nail walls.
18
Study on the use of plate or geogrid

Elements for Simulating Soil Nails
As brought out earlier, in practice, both plate
and geogrid structural elements are being used
to simulate soil nails in modelling of soil nail
structures using PLAXIS 2D. In the light of fact that
consideration of bending and shear resistance of
soil nails is conservatively ignored in the analysis
and design of soil nail structures, suitability of
using plate or geogrid structural element in
modelling soil nails has been examined.
Two soil nail walls of 10 m and 18 m vertical height
designed conventionally with reference to FHWA
(2003) are considered for the study. Two different
heights of soil nail walls are selected for the
analysis so that a comparison can be made based
on the trends observed. Prime objective being
to highlight the implications of the use of plate
or geogrid elements to simulate soil nails, similar
geometry and same in-situ soil conditions have
been used throughout the analysis.
Both the walls are simulated using PLAXIS
2D following the procedure and preliminary
suggestions stated earlier. Two series of
simulations are performed, one with the use
of plate structural elements to simulate soil
nails and the other with the use of geogrid
structural elements to simulate soil nails. At each
construction stage of both the walls, observations
are made with regard to the global factors of
safety, maximum lateral (horizontal) displacement
of walls, maximum axial tensile developed and
development of bending moment and shear force
in nails (for plate elements only).
Figure 2 shows the PLAXIS 2D models for both 10
m and 18 m high soil nail walls. Various material
properties and other parameters used for
simulation are as indicated in Table 2. P and
G in the plots of the analysis correspond to the
observations made for simulations using plate and
geogrid structural elements respectively.
Figure 3 shows the trend of variation of global
factor of safety of the soil nail walls with
construction stage. It is evident from Figure 3
that for fully constructed soil nail walls (i.e. 100%
construction), consideration of bending stiffness
of nails in the analysis have negligible influence on
the global stability. In other words, both plate and
geogrid structural elements are able to capture
similar response and hence, either of the two can
be used. However, it is worth noting from Figure
3 that consideration of bending stiffness of nails
in the analysis has significant influence during
the construction stage. Geogrid elements results
in significantly less factors of safety for global
stability in comparison to the plate elements.
Alternatively, it can be interpreted that bending
stiffness plays important role in the stability of
soil nail walls during the construction stage. This
aspect is overlooked if geogrid elements are used
to simulate soil nail in the finite element analysis of
soil nail walls.
Figure 4 shows the trend of maximum lateral
displacements of the soil nail walls with
construction stage. It is evident from Figure 4 that
displacement response captured by both geogrid
elements and plate elements closely resembles
and hence, results in negligible influence on the
analysis of soil nail walls.
Figure 5 shows the development of maximum axial

force in nails with construction stage. From Figure
5, it can be observed that on an average the
maximum axial force developed in nails simulated
using geogrid elements is found to be 15% more
in comparison to that developed in nails using
plate elements. In other words, lesser axial force
developed in nails simulated using plate elements
is credited to the contribution of bending stiffness
of the nails.
This observation is in good agreement with the
literature. Figure 6 shows the variation of axial
force along the nail length for nails at different
levels in 10 m high soil nail wall. Very close
resemblance among the axial forces variation
along nail length is evident from Figure 6 for the
nails simulated using geogrid and plate elements.
Similar observations were made for 18 m high soil
nail wall.
Development of maximum bending moment and
maximum shear force in nails with construction
stages are shown in Figures 7 and 8 respectively.
It is evident from Figures 7 and 8 that bending and
shear capacities of soil nail start mobilising with
increasing construction stages. For soil nail walls
of greater heights such as 18 m, the magnitude of
maximum bending moment and maximum shear

force developed in soil nails with construction
stages are considerable.
is advisable that use of plate structural elements

shall be preferred over geogrid structural element
for simulating soil nails.
Figure 9 shows the variation of bending moments

and shear forces along the nail length for nails
at different levels in 10 m high soil nail wall.
Similar observations were made for 18 m high
soil nail wall. It is interesting to note that bending
moments and shear forces are concentrated near
the face of the wall. This provides an insight into
the facing failure modes of the soil nail walls. As
mentioned previously, in practice, soil nail are
rigidly connected with the facing (FHWA 2003;
Joshi 2003) and therefore, it may be desirable
to appraise the facing design. Improper design
may lead to the bending and/or shear failures
of soil nails at or near the facing. Use of geogrid
elements for simulating soil nails may lead to the
complete negligence of this aspect of the soil nail
wall analysis.
Influence of Mesh Density on the Soil Nail

Structures Simulations
Another important aspect of the numerical
simulation of any structure is the density of finite
element mesh adopted for the analysis. PLAXIS
2D provides option to the users to select mesh
density in the range from very coarse to very fine.
Influence of mesh density on the analysis of the
soil nail wall and the results corresponding to the
analysis of 10m high soil nail wall are presented
in Table 3. From Table 3, it can be observed
that global factor of safety varies significantly
from 1.61 for very coarse mesh to 1.52 for very
fine mesh. Also, maximum lateral displacement
varied from 20.93mm for very coarse mesh to
28.35mm for very fine mesh. Similar trends are
observed for the stress parameters in nails such
as development of axial force, bending moment
and shear force. Though, denser mesh may result
in more accurate analysis, it is important to note
that increasing the mesh density results in drastic
increase in the overall calculation time (Table 3).
Thus, appropriate mesh density shall be used
depending upon the degree of accuracy required
and the capacity of the computing machine. In
general, coarse mesh density globally and fine
mesh density in the vicinity of the soil nail wall can
be used.
Thus, from the above discussions it is apparent

that the use of plate elements provides better
insight into the analysis of soil nail walls using
finite element simulations. Hence, when PLAXIS
2D is used to investigate the cause of failure or
to assess the performance of soil nail structure, it
Concluding Remarks
In this article, an attempt has been made to bring
out implications of the use of plate and geogrid
structural elements for simulating soil nails on
the analysis of soil nail structures using PLAXIS
2D. Based on the observations from the analyses,
use of plate structural elements in comparison to
geogrid structural element is advised to simulate
soil nails. Further, influence of mesh density on
the analysis of soil nail structures is highlighted.
Preliminary suggestions made regarding
numerical simulations of the soil nail structures
that may be useful for the Plaxis user community in
general and soil nailing practitioners in particular.
Figure 2: Simulated soil nail walls using PLAXIS 2D
Acknowledgements
The work presented in this article is a part of
the research project Guidelines for Soil Nailing
Technique in Highway Engineering (R-86) financed
by the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and
Highways, India. The authors express thanks to
the Ministry for funding and providing necessary
support for the project.
continue on page 21
Figure 3: Trend of global factor of safety with construction stage
19
Figure 4: Trend of lateral displacements with construction stage
Figure 6: Variation of axial force along nail length (10 m high soil nail wall)
Figure 8: Development of maximum shear force with construction stage
20
Figure 5: Development of maximum axial force with construction stage
Figure 7: Development of maximum bending moment with construction stage
Figure 9: Variation of shear force and bending moment along nail length
(10 m high soil nail wall)
References
Babu, G. L. S. and Singh, V. P. (2007). Plaxis
practice - Stabilization of vertical cut using soil
nailing. Plaxis Bulletin, October, No. 22, 6-9.
Briaud, J.-L. and Lim, Y. (1997). Soil nailed wall
under piled bridge abutment: simulation and
guidelines. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
123(11), 10431050.
Fan, C. C. and Luo, J. H. (2008). Numerical
study on the optimum layout of soil nailed
slopes. Comput. Geotech., 35(4), 585599.
FHWA. (2003). Geotechnical engineering
circular No. 7 - soil nail walls. Report FHWA0IF-03-017, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington
D. C.
Jewell, R. A. and Pedley, M. J. (1992). Analysis
for soil reinforcement with bending stiffness. J.
Geotech. Eng., 118(10), 15051528.
Joshi, B. (2003). Behaviour of calculated nail
head strength in soil-nailed structures. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 129(9), 819828.
Juran, I., Baudrand, G., Farrag, K. and Elias, V.
(1990). Kinematical limit analysis for design of
soil-nailed structures. J. Geotech. Eng., 116(1),
5472.
Liew, S. S. and Khoo, C. M. (2006). Soil nail
stabilisation for a 14.5m Deep excavation at
uncontrolled fill ground. Proc. 10th Int. Conf.
On Piling and Deep Foundations, 31st May 2nd
June, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Plaxis (2002). Plaxis practice I. Plaxis Bulletin,
June, No. 12, 14-17.
PLAXIS. (2006). Plaxis user manual, Delft University of Technology & Plaxis bv The Netherlands.
Schlosser, F. (1991). Discussion The multicriteria theory in soil nailing. Groun. Eng.,
November, 30-33.
Shiu, Y. K. and Chang, G. W. K. (2006). Effects
of inclination, length pattern and bending
stiffness of soil nails on behavior of nailed
structures. GEO Report No.197. Geotchnical
Engineering Office. Hong Kong.
Wang, Z. and Richwien, W. (2002). A study of
soil-reinforcement interface friction. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 128(1), 92-94.
Mesh density
Elements per
unit volume
Global factor
of safety
Max. lateral
displacement
(mm)
Total calculation time (min)
Very coarse
0.39
1.610
20.93
1.13
Coarse
0.60
1.598
22.31
1.51
Medium
0.98
1.592
22.86
2.45
Fine
2.08
1.553
24.79
5.51
Very fine
4.14
1.521
28.35
15.15
Table 3: Influence of mesh density on finite element simulation

Note: (1.) FS values correspond to the fully constructed wall. (2.) If FS is to be determined
after each construction stage, calculation time may increase even more drastically.
21
Recent Activities
Plaxis Products
Since the last bulletin we officially released PLAXIS
2D v9.01 and Plaxis-GiD. PLAXIS 2D v9.01 contains
new features and some bugfixes;
Apart from the English language pack, PLAXIS
2D v9.01 introduces the Chinese and Japanese
language packs.
The issues with the report genarator has been
fixed.
During a phi/c reduction in PLAXIS 2D v9.0 the
strength of wall elements will also be reduced.
In PLAXIS 2D v9.01 only the soil strength reduction is taken into account.
Improvements on the Automatic Regeneration
of Stage Settings.
Improvements on the change of multiple point
loads .
A new groundwaterflow kernel is included which
solves problems with some combinations of well
properties, soil permeabilities and model sizes.
For more detailed information please visit the
secure download page on our website.
Plaxis-GiD
The PLAXIS-GiD program is a special purpose
three-dimensional finite element program used for
very complex geotechnical analysis. The modelling
of the geometry is done by the GiD program,
which is based on CAD (Computer Aided Design).
The program is capable of generating structured
and unstructured meshes and consists of a preprocessor. In addition to the GiD pre-process
program to model a geometry, a Plaxis data tree
is available to define materials, structures, loads,
fixities, prescribed displacements, interfaces and
calculation stages. The program will use the Plaxis
material models as well as the Plaxis 3D kernel.
As a post-processor the Plaxis Output program is
used.
The user interface consists of two sub-programs:
the GiD program with the Plaxis data tree and the
Plaxis Output program. The GiD program is used
as a pre-processor, used to define the problem
22
geometry and calculation phases. The Output

program is a postprocessor, used to inspect the
results of calculations in a three-dimensional view
or in cross sections, and to plot graphs (curves)
of output quantities of pre-selected geometry
points.
For more information about the specific features
of Plaxis-GiD please contact us at info@plaxis.nl
Increasing Interest in PLAXIS Expert Services
In 2008 a new service was introduced for clients
who would like to obtain advanced support
on their numerical modelling: PLAXIS Expert
Services. In the past 6 months we have helped
clients with numerical modelling issues, we have
given in-house courses with special requests,
we have mentored new Plaxis users and we have
reviewed documents in which Plaxis models and
results were used and described. These are just
some examples of the types of projects that we
can do in the framework of the Expert Services.
The idea behind the Expert Services is to combine
our clients expertise in geotechnical engineering
with Plaxis expertise in numerical modelling
for geotechnical applications in order to create
synergy and to improve efficiency and reliability.
We intend to create added value to our client, the
Plaxis user, such that he/she can better serve his/
her end-client.
More information about the PLAXIS Expert
Services can be found on the Plaxis web site. We
are looking forward to receive more requests for
this service.
Plaxis Courses
Besides the release of products we had also some
memorable highlights on our activities of Courses
and Expert Services.
Late in October 2008 the well-known course on
Computational Geotechnics was held for the first
time in Spain with lectures of, among others, prof.
Antionio Gens of the Polytechnical University
of Catalunia and prof. Cesar Sagaseta of the
University of Cantabria. The course was fully

booked which we believe is partially due to the
fact that the course was completely in Spanish.
As a result of the large amount of registrations
an identical course was held at the same location
in Barcelona in February 2009 and just like in
October 2008 the course was again fully booked in
spite of global economic recession.
Plaxis Asia
Plaxis Asia took part in the 12 th International

conference of IACMAG in Goa, India from 1st
to 6th October 2008. This conference, which is held
every 3 years, address recent developments and
relevant issues in computer methods, constitutive
models and applications to different areas of
Geomechanics, and emerging and important
topics, and future needs, documented case
studies with integration of theory, laboratory
and field tests, and validation procedures. Our
exhibition booth which is situated just outside the
conference hall, attracted many interested parties.
Some of them even have hands-on experience
on our latest Plaxis software at the booth.
Due to the political situation in Thailand we had
to cancel the planned 3rd Asia Plaxis Advanced
course on Computational Geotechnics and

Agent Meeting in Chiang Mai scheduled in
December 2008. Instead we had held the agent
meeting with the Asian and Australian agents in
Singapore. We had a good discussion on topics
ranging from sales & marketing strategies to
new products demonstration. This meeting also
provide opportunity for agents to network among
themselves.
Asia culture of Malaysia but also the knowledge

which our three experienced professors have
imparted during the 4 days course.
The 3rd Asia Advanced course on computational

Geotechnics was successfully held in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia from 23 rd to 26th February 2009
with more than 40 participants from Singapore,
Malaysia, Hong Kong, Iran, Germany and
Netherlands. The participants have not only
brought back with them the experience of rich
23
Title
Activities 2009
April 3, 2009
Plaxis Seminar
HCMC, Vietnam
June, 2009
Russian Plaxis Users Meeting
St. Petersburg, Russia
April 6 8, 2009
International Course for Experienced
Plaxis Users
Delft, The Netherlands
July 14 17, 2009

Standard Course on Computational
Geotechnics
Chicago, USA
April 15 17, 2009

Geotechnics
Beijing, China
July 15, 2009

Plaxis Seminar
Manila, Philippines
April 29 May 1, 2009

Com Geo I
Juan-les-Pins, France
May 23 28, 2009
WTC2009,
Budapest, Hungary
May 25 27, 2009
IS on Prediction and Simulation Methods
for Geohazard Mitigation
Kyoto, Japan
May 27 29, 2009
Geotechnics
Bangalore, India
June 15 18, 2009
IS on Performance-Based Design in
Earthquake Geotecnical Engineering
Tokyo, Japan
June 23 25, 2009
Geotechnics
Manchester, United Kingdom
November 18 20, 2009

Geotechnics
Hongkong SAR, China
August 16 18, 2009

Geotechnics
Tapei, Taiwan
August 24 26
Advanced Course on Computational
Geotechnics
Glasgow, United Kingdom

Geotechnics
Paris, France
December 2 3, 2009
IS on Geotechnical Engineering Ground
Improvement and Geosynthetics for
Sustainable Mitigration and Adaption to
Climate Change
Bangkok, Thailand
December 9 11, 2009
IS on Ground Improvement Technologies
and Case Histories (1SG109)
Singapore
September 9 11, 2009

EURO TUN 2009,
Bochum, Germany
October 5 9, 2009
17th ISSMGE
Alexandria, Egypt
November 5, 2009
Geotechniekdag
The Netherlands
16th European Plaxis User Meeting
Karlsruhe, Germany
Plaxis bv
Delftechpark 53
2628 XJ Delft
P.O. Box 572

2600 AN Delft
The Netherlands
www.plaxis.nl
Tel +31 (0)15 2517 720
Fax +31 (0)15 2573 107
Plaxis Asia
Singapore
Tel +65 6325 4191
16 Jalan Kilang Timor

#05-08 Redhill Forum
159308 Singapore

25 PLAXIS Bulletin TR

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

25 PLAXIS Bulletin TR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title

The Bulletin offers a platform where users of

Simulation of Soil Nail

The author should ensure that the article is

The Plaxis Bulletin is the combined

Any correspondence regarding the Plaxis

For information about Plaxis software contact

or by regular mail to:

+31 (0)15 251 7720

The lay-out of this bulletin has been adapted

soil properties, special attention was given to

The first application article describes how PLAXIS

www.plaxis.nl l Spring Issue 2009 l Plaxis Bulletin

Many users appreciate that an increasing

data sets with additional information about the

spreadsheet containing the formulas. Your data

In addition to data sets for particular soil types,

Plaxis Bulletin l Spring Issue 2009 l www.plaxis.nl

Recommendations on the use of FEM for

The German DGGT working group 1.6

About the same time, another committee was

www.plaxis.nl l Spring Issue 2009 l Plaxis Bulletin

Crane Monopile Foundation Analysis

PLAXIS 3D Foundation results on simplified

derived in the first instance from data in a

Plaxis Bulletin l Spring Issue 2009 l www.plaxis.nl

The monopile is a composite structure as shown in

Figure 1: Cross-section and plan showing the crane monopile

Both the in-service and out-of-service crane

Figure 2: Schematic of the Tower Crane Structure

www.plaxis.nl l Spring Issue 2009 l Plaxis Bulletin

Plaxis Practice: Crane Monopile Foundation Analysis

Modelling of the Complex Composite Pile

Table 1: Material Properties of the Soil and Pile

-6 2: Material and Physical Properties of the Crane Monopile

Depth BGL (m)

PLAXIS 3D Foundation Analyses

In-Service Loads: H=40kN M=6642kNm

Bending Moment (kNm)

Graph 2: Composite Pile Deflection Predictions from ERCAP

Graph 1: Steel Pile Deflection Predictions from ERCAP

Depth BGL (m)

Graphs 3 and 4 show the ERCAP predictions of

Depth BGL (m)

Graphs 1 and 2 show the ERCAP predictions of

defined at the various depths in the model where

Depth BGL (m)

With reference to Figure 1, it can be seen that

displacements, bending moments and shear

Depth BGL (m)

as the key stratum is London clay with an average

In-Service Loads: H=40kN M=6642kNm

Out-of-Service Loads: H=191kN M=5014kNm

Graph 3: Pile Bending Moment Distribution Predictions

Plaxis Bulletin l Spring Issue 2009 l www.plaxis.nl

Shear Force (kN)

Graph 4: Pile Shear Force Distribution Predictions from ERCAP

Plaxis Practice: Crane Monopile Foundation Analysis

The initial stresses in the ground were computed

Three Dimensional Analyses of Crane Monopile

The basement floors were idealised using 6-noded

Out-of service crane

Four 3D finite element analyses were undertaken

Table 3: Loads at the base of the crane