International Webinar “Tim 9 Universitas” – Trisakti University

Advance Technology to Mitigate Geotechnical Disaster in the Ring of Fire Area

Saturday, 10 April 2021

Numerical Modelling in Geotechnical Practice

for Urban Infrastructures (An Overview)
Dr. Hartono Wu
Assistant Professor | Engineering Cluster
Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT)

hartono.wu@singaporetech.edu.sg

Page 1
Content

▪ Why Numerical Modelling in Geotechnics?

▪ Basis of Geotechnical Design and Modelling
▪ Numerical Modelling Examples:
▪ Deep Excavation
▪ Tunnel-Pile Interaction

Page 2
Why Numerical Modelling in Geotechnics?

▪ Complexity of projects in urban environment setting

(deformations and impact assessment are of key concern)
▪ Complex geometry and soil geological profile
▪ Simulation of construction sequence and
hydrogeological profile
▪ “real-like” soil constitutive model

▪ Challenges:
▪ “Black-box” tool
▪ Calibration of soil parameters
▪ Validation of the analysis results
▪ Limitations and possibilities
Page 3
Why Numerical Modelling in Geotechnics?

▪ “Numerical analysis: a virtual dream or a practical reality?” – 42nd Rankine Lecture by

Prof. David M. Potts (2003)

▪ Today geotechnical practice: FEM is an indispensable tool in routine geotechnical

analysis and design problems (simple or complex)

Road
Strut/Prop Existing
building
Existing
Excavation building
Strut/Prop
Pipeline
Raft
Strut/Prop

ERSS
Piles Wall
ERSS
MRT
Wall
Tunnel

Rockhead
MRT Page 4
level
Tunnel
Why Numerical Modelling in Geotechnics?

How do you analyse these problems?

Road
Existing
building

MRT
Tunnel
MRT
Tunnel

MRT Tunnel

New MRT
Tunnel New Sewer
Tunnel

New Cable
Courtesy of Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) Tunnel
New MRT
Tunnel Page 5
Why Numerical Modelling in Geotechnics?

How do you analyse these:

✓ Wall deflection and ground movements due to deep excavation
✓ Impact assessment to adjacent structures and existing tunnels
✓ Complex geometry and ground conditions
✓ etc….

Page 6
Why Numerical Modelling in Geotechnics?
Ground Freezing underneath Marina Bay Station

Page 7
 Why Numerical Modelling in Geotechnics?
Ground Freezing underneath Marina Bay Station

Chua, T.S. et al. (2018) Page 8

Why Numerical Modelling in Geotechnics?

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/new-orchard-
stations-underground-passage-is-major-engineering-feat-say-lta

Page 9
Content

▪ Why Numerical Modelling in Geotechnics?

▪ Basis of Geotechnical Design and Modelling
▪ Numerical Modelling Examples:
▪ Deep Excavation
▪ Tunnel-Pile Interaction

Page 10
Basis of Geotechnical Design

▪ Limit states: state beyond which the structure no longer fulfils the relevant design criteria
▪ Ultimate Limit State (ULS): associated with collapse or failure of structures
▪ Serviceability Limit State (SLS): associated with excessive movement / deformation

▪ Geotechnical practice in Singapore adopts Eurocode

to safeguard against limit states
▪ Design Approach 1 (DA1) with two combinations
ie. DA1-C1 and DA1-C2
▪ Partial factors applied at the source
“action and material factor approach”
▪ Characteristic value of a geotechnical parameter
(statistical approach)

Page 11
Basis of Geotechnical Design

STR/GEO partial factors

NA to SS EN 1997-1:2010(2018)

Design Approach 1 (DA1)

- Combination 1 (DA1C1):
A1 + M1 + R1
- Combination 2 (DA1C2):
A2 + M2 + R1

For axially loaded piles and

anchors:
- Combination 1 (DA1C1):
A1 + M1 + R1
- Combination 2 (DA1C2):
A2 + (M1 or M2) + R4
Page 12
Basis of Geotechnical Design

Serviceability Limit States (SLS) for Deep Excavation and Tunnelling Works
(Typical Practice in Singapore)

Ground type A: over-consolidated stiff clays and silts, residual soils, and medium to
dense sands.
Ground type B: soft clays, silts or organic soils extending to or below formation level (e.g.
Kallang Formation) and loose fills.

Allowable tunnel movement: 15mm

Pile debonded within influence zone
Allowable wall deflection: 0.5 – 1.0% H

Page 13
Numerical Modelling

VS

Ground “Truths” Modelling “Fiction”

REAL PROBLEM IDEALISED PROBLEM

Mathematical Model (conceptual model)

Page 14
Practical Considerations

REAL PROBLEM ➔ IDEALISED PROBLEM

MODELLING  IDEALISATION
WHAT do you idealised? and HOW?
▪ Geometric idealisation & mesh discretisation
▪ Soil “particulate” material ➔ Continuum “mesh” elements & effective stress principle
▪ Soil properties ➔ Constitutive models (stress-strain relationship)
▪ Structural elements and properties and Interface element
▪ Boundary conditions
▪ Construction sequence
▪ Imposed loads and/or displacements
▪ etc…

Page 15
Practical Considerations

▪ Geometric: 2D or 3D?
▪ 2D model: Plane strain and Axisymettric

True 3D geometry 2D plane strain model 3D geometry assumed by

2D plane strain model

Page 16
Soil Constitutive Model

A theoretical solution must satisfy :

Observed and idealised shearing behavior of soil for

settlement and bearing capacity calculations

Constitutive models trying to reproduce more of the actual nonlinearity

of pre-failure soil response
Page 17
Practical Considerations

REAL SOIL BEHAVIOUR vs IDEALISED (CONSTITUTIVE) MODEL ???

Page 18
Calibration of Soil Parameters

Calibration of Soil Parameters

▪ Shear Strength (effective vs total stress)
▪ Pore pressure (undrained) response
▪ Volumetric (drained) response
▪ Strain and stress dependency stiffness:
▪ Very small strain stiffness
▪ Large or engineering strain stiffness
▪ G/Gmax reduction curve
▪ In-situ stress state: K0 and OCR
▪ Consolidation response
Drained test Undrained test
▪ Dynamic response

IMPORTANT TO RECOGNISE THE LIMITATIONS AND POSSIBILITIES OF SOIL CONSTITUTIVE MODEL

(NO ONE SIZE FITS ALL) Page 19
Calibration of Soil Parameters

Typical real soil behavior under Results from undrained tests using
undrained shear tests for clay simple and advanced soil models

BECAREFUL OF UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH PREDICTED BY THE SOIL MODEL

DO NOT USE METHOD A WITH MOHR COULOMB FOR SOFT CLAY
Page 20
Calibration of Soil Parameters
Calibration of soil parameters

▪ Effective shear strength (𝑐′ and 𝜙′) ➔ Triaxial CU, CD tests

▪ Undrained (total) shear strength (𝑠𝑢 ) ➔ Triaxial UU, SPT, CPT, PMT

▪ Small strain to engineering strain stiffness (𝐸50 , 𝐸𝑢𝑟 , 𝑚) ➔ Triaxial CD, PMT, SPT, CPT

▪ Very small strain stiffness (𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝛾0.7 ) ➔ Bender element, Resonant column test

▪ Consolidation properties (𝐶𝑐 , 𝐶𝑠 , 𝐶𝛼 , 𝑚𝑣 , 𝑐𝑣 , 𝐸𝑜𝑒𝑑 , OCR, 𝐾0𝑁𝐶 , 𝑘) ➔ 1-D Oedometer test

▪ Index tests (LL, PL, PI, 𝑒𝑜 , 𝛾𝑠 , 𝑑50 , 𝐷𝑟 ) ➔ various correlations to soil mechanical properties

Calibration at
elemental level
and/or global level

Page 21
Calibration of Soil Parameters

Page 22
Nicoll Highway Collapse (2004)
SOUTH NORTH
20 m
103 1st strut
2nd
3
4
5
28m
6
33.5 m 7
8
9
D-Wall
10 0.8m

Page 23
Nicoll Highway Collapse (2004)

Two critical design errors

(COI, 2005):
1. Use of an inappropriate soil
model (over-estimate soil
strength and under-estimate
wall forces)
2. Error in design of the strut-waler
support

Undrained shear South Wall

strength profile Deflection
Page 24
Nicoll Highway Collapse (2004)

Under design of strut-waler connection

Plate stiffener
(level 1 to 6)

Channel stiffener
(level 7 to 10)

Page 25
Courtesy of Prof. Chiew Sing Ping
Content

▪ Why Numerical Modelling in Geotechnics?

▪ Basis of Geotechnical Design and Modelling
▪ Numerical Modelling Examples:
▪ Deep Excavation
▪ Tunnel-Pile Interaction

Page 26
 FE Modelling of Deep Excavation
Surcharge 20 kPa
Strut EA=1.33E6 kN/m 120.5mRL
S1 @ 119.5mRL FILL 117.7mRL
Construction Stages:
S2 @ 115.5mRL
S3 @ 111.5mRL GVI (N=10)
S4 @ 107.5mRL
D-Wall 105.2mRL
1000mm
FEL @ 103.5mRL GV (N=40)
95.0mRL

Toe level GV (N=100)

@ 92.0mRL
83.0mRL

GIII Rock

Page 27
Practical Considerations

2D plane strain: half-model or full model?

Half-model
- Homogeneous soil stratigraphy
- Flat ground surfaces at both
retained sides
Full-model
- Non-homogeneous soil stratigraphy
- Unbalanced forces
- Uneven ground levels at both retained sides
Page 28
Modelling of Groundwater Pressure

𝟏𝟕. 𝟓 𝒎 Steady State

Seepage Analysis
𝟐𝟖. 𝟓 𝒎

Groundwater Flow

PASSIVE SIDE ACTIVE SIDE

On active side, pwp accounts for about 60 – 70% of total pressure (𝜎𝑎 )
acting on the wall Groundwater Head
Page 29
 Modelling of Groundwater Pressure
2. Steady-state pwp with allowance for GWT drawdown:
- Use steady-state groundwater flow option
- Resulting phreatic surface is based on hydraulic boundary
conditions
- Relevant for drained soil layers & long-term seepage

𝑯𝒃
Constant
Phreatic surface
GWT drawdown
𝑯𝒂
(boundary dependent!) Constant

CLOSED flow
boundary
pwp equilbrium
Groundwater Head at the wall toe
Page 30
 Modelling of Groundwater Pressure
3. Steady-state pwp with NO allowance for GWT drawdown:
- Use steady-state groundwater flow option
- Resulting phreatic surface is based on hydraulic boundary conditions
- Relevant for drained soil layers
- Avoid GWT drawdown with the use of recharge wells in practice

𝑯𝒂
𝑯𝒃 Constant
Phreatic surface
Constant NO GWT drawdown

𝑯𝒂
Constant

CLOSED flow
boundary
pwp equilbrium
Groundwater Head at the wall toe
Page 31
Modelling of Groundwater Pressure
GWT Modelling – Effect on the wall and strut forces (envelopes)

S1@119.5mRL

S2@115.5mRL

S3@111.5mRL

S4@107.5mRL

FEL @ 103.5mRL

Page 32
Modelling of Groundwater Pressure
GWT Modelling – Effect on the wall and strut forces (envelopes)

S1 @ 119.5mRL

S2 @ 115.5mRL

S3 @ 111.5mRL

S4 @ 107.5mRL

FEL @ 103.5mRL

Page 33
Modelling of Groundwater Pressure
4. Mixed condition (drained and undrained soil layers): Global water table
- Relevant for mixed drained and undrained soil layers FILL G
- Use hydrostatic / steady-state seepage pwp for drained
layers and interpolation pwp for undrained layers
Cluster water table GVI (N=10) G
FILL C

I Marine Clay G
GVI (N=10)
Interpolation
G GV (N=40) G

Marine Clay
Interpolation G GV (N=100) G

GV (N=40)

G = Global water table

GV (N=100) C = Cluster water table
I = Interpolation Page 34
 Design Approach in FEM
DA1-C1* = All parameters design = characteristic (unfactored)
𝒒𝒅 = 𝟏. 𝟓Τ𝟏. 𝟑𝟓 𝒒𝒌 = 𝟏. 𝟏𝟏𝒒𝒌
Strut force
The analysis results are
characteristic action effects.
𝜸𝒅 = 𝟏. 𝟎𝜸𝒌
𝒄′𝒅 = 𝒄′𝒌 Τ𝟏. 𝟎
𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝝓′𝒅 = 𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝝓′𝒌 Τ𝟏. 𝟎
To obtain final ULS design
Bending
moment 𝒄𝒖;𝒅 = 𝒄𝒖;𝒌 Τ𝟏. 𝟎 action effects for DA1-C1,
profile partial factor of 𝜸𝑬 = 𝟏. 𝟑𝟓 is
apply to the characteristic
𝜸𝒅 = 𝟏. 𝟎𝜸𝒌 values of action effects, eg:
𝒄′𝒅 = 𝒄′𝒌 Τ𝟏. 𝟎
𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝝓′𝒅 = 𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝝓′𝒌 Τ𝟏. 𝟎
𝑭𝒅 = 𝟏. 𝟑𝟓𝑭𝒌
𝒄𝒖;𝒅 = 𝒄𝒖;𝒌 Τ𝟏. 𝟎 𝑴𝒅 = 𝟏. 𝟑𝟓𝑴𝒌
Page 35
 Design Approach in FEM
DA1-C2
𝒒𝒅 = 𝟏. 𝟑𝟎𝒒𝒌
Strut force
Factored material properties
used in the analysis
𝜸𝒅 = 𝟏. 𝟎𝜸𝒌
𝒄′𝒅 = 𝒄′𝒌 Τ𝟏. 𝟐𝟓
𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝝓′𝒅 = 𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝝓′𝒌 Τ𝟏. 𝟐𝟓
The analysis results are
Bending
moment 𝒄𝒖;𝒅 = 𝒄𝒖;𝒌 Τ𝟏. 𝟒 already design action effects.
profile

𝜸𝒅 = 𝟏. 𝟎𝜸𝒌 No further partial factors

𝒄′𝒅 = 𝒄′𝒌 Τ𝟏. 𝟐𝟓 required.
𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝝓′𝒅 = 𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝝓′𝒌 Τ𝟏. 𝟐𝟓
𝒄𝒖;𝒅 = 𝒄𝒖;𝒌 Τ𝟏. 𝟒

Page 36
Design Approach in FEM
SLS – Wall deflection, shear force and bending moment

118.5mRL

114.5mRL

110.5mRL

106.5mRL

103.5mRL

Page 37
Design Approach in FEM

SLS, ULS DA1-C1 &

DA1-C2, OSF Envelopes
of shear force and
bending moment

Page 38
Design Approach in FEM
Strut Force – SLS, ULS DA1-C1, ULS DA1-C2, OSF

S1 @ 119.5mRL

S2 @ 115.5mRL

S3 @ 111.5mRL

S4 @ 107.5mRL

Page 39
Overall Stability Failure

Elastic wall & struts

▪ ULS verification of global stability
SF = 2.49
▪ Can be done using FEA such as Plaxis
phi-c’ reduction to calculate the factor of
safety.

▪ Plaxis reduces soil shear strength until

the most critical failure mechanism
occurs.
Plastic
hinges
Elastoplastic wall & struts
SF = 2.18
▪ Elastic assumption for structural
elements could yield misleading FoS.

▪ Important to input structural capacity,

ie. max. bending moment (𝑀𝑝 ) for wall
and max. strut force (𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 ).
Page 40
Ground Movements

▪ MC soil model tends to predict a wider and

shallower settlement trough.

▪ Advanced soil model (eg. Hardening Soil)

predicts a narrower and deeper settlement
trough – More realistic
Page 41
Content

▪ Why Numerical Modelling in Geotechnics?

▪ Basis of Geotechnical Design and Modelling
▪ Numerical Modelling Examples:
▪ Deep Excavation
▪ Tunnel-Pile Interaction

Page 42
Tunnel-Pile Interaction

C704 North East Line (NEL) MRT Tunnel in Singapore

6.5
m

Page 43
Tunnel-Pile Interaction

▪ 6.5 m diamater EPB tunnel. The tunnel axis was 21 m. The distance of SB and NB tunnel was
16 m. SB tunnel was advancing first and later followed by NB tunnel
▪ 1.9 km viaduct was being constructed along the twin tunnels of Contract 704. The viaduct was
supported by piers seating on bored piles

1623 of 6-noded triangular elements

329,872 of 10-noded tetrahedron elements
(Plaxis 2D v9.2.)
(Plaxis 3D General 2011)
Page 44
Tunnel-Pile Interaction

Challenges:

Well established that simple

soil models (e.g., MC) are
y/i
unable to predict correct 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ground movements and Range of results

0.2
advanced soil models with for non-linear
elastic, perfectly
stiffness nonlinearity improve 0.4
plastic soil model

S/Smax
significantly the result. Gunn, 1993
0.6
Back-analysis of settlement
0.8 Gaussian trough using FE
curve

1.0
Page 45
Tunnel-Pile Interaction
sat Eoed c’ ’ HSSmall soil model. Basic soil parameters were
Soil  Ko
(kN/m3) (MPa) (kPa) (kPa)
obtained from Pang (2005).
G4a (0 < N < 15) 18 0.30 8.7 20 28 1.0
G4b (15 < N < 30) 19 0.30 40 30 30 1.0
G4c (30 < N < 60) 20 0.30 65 30 30 1.0
G4d (60 < N <100) 20 0.30 86.7 30 30 1.0

ref
Eoed E50ref Eurref G0ref Pref
Soil ur 0.7 m
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (kPa)
G4a (0 < N < 15) 0.20 8.7 8.7 26.1 179 2.10-5 0.5 100
G4b (15 < N < 30) 0.20 40 40 120 534 2.10-5 0.5 250
G4c (30 < N < 60) 0.20 65 65 195 907 2.10-5 0.5 350
G4d (60 < N <100) 0.20 86.7 86.7 260 1523 2.10-5 0.5 500

Stiffness, E50 (MPa) Stiffness, Eoed (MPa) Stiffness, Eur (MPa) Stiffness, Go (MPa)
0 40 80 120 0 40 80 120 0 75 150 225 300 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
0
HS - HSSmall
10 MC

20
30
Depth (m)

40
50
60
70
80
Page 46
Tunnel-Pile Interaction

C704 North East Line (NEL) MRT Tunnel in Singapore

Settlement trough FEA vs Field Measurement

Page 47
Tunnel-Pile Interaction

C704 North East Line (NEL) MRT Tunnel in Singapore

Distance from SB tunnel centre line (m) Lateral displ. (mm)

-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
0 0

10
10
Settlement (mm)

20
20
30

Depth (m)
30
40

Measurement - SB+NB (at pier P20) 40

50
3D-FE-SB+NB tunnels
3D-FE-Tunnel-pile (SB + NB)
60 50

60 Measurement (SB)
Loganathan & Poulos (1998)
FE-SB Tunnel
FE-SB+NB Tunnels
70
Page 48
Tunnel-Pile Interaction

C704 North East Line (NEL) MRT Tunnel in Singapore

Tunnel induced ground

movements (surface and
sub-surface)
Dragload on the piles
(hence additional pile
movement)
Additional axial load and
bending moment

Page 49
Conclusions

THREE REMARKS
1. Geotechnical engineering is complex. It is NOT because you’re using the FEM that it becomes
simpler. (Don’t be tricked by the nice colourful outputs!)
2. The quality of a tool is important, yet the quality of a result also (mainly) depends on the user’s
understanding of both the problem and the tool.
3. The design process involves considerably more than analysis.

THREE REQUIREMENTS
1. Sound understanding of soil mechanics and finite element theory
2. In-depth understanding and appreciation of the limitations of the various constitutive models.
3. Fully conversant with the manner in which the software you are using works.

Page 50
 Don’t try to create one in your next projects!

Nicoll Highway Collapse (2004)

Page 51
… QUESTIONS?

Page 52