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
Table of Contents
» The Plaxis Bulletin is the combined
magazine of Plaxis bv and the Plaxis Users
Association (NL). The Bulletin focuses on the use
03
04
Editorial
New Developments

Page 4
of the finite element method in geotechnical
engineering practise and includes articles on 05 Recommendations on
the practical application of the Plaxis programs,
case studies and backgrounds on the models
the use of FEM for
implemented in Plaxis. Geotechnical Applications
The Bulletin offers a platform where users of 06 Crane Monopile
Plaxis can share ideas and experiences with each
other. The editors welcome submission of papers
Foundation Analysis
for the Plaxis Bulletin that fall in any of these
Page 6

categories. 12 Mohr-Coulomb Parameters

The manuscript should preferably be submitted
for Modelling of Concrete
in an electronic format, formatted as plain text structures
without formatting. It should include the title
of the paper, the name(s) of the authors and
contact information (preferably e-mail) for the 16 Simulation of Soil Nail
corresponding author(s). The main body of
the article should be divided into appropriate Structures using
sections and, if necessary, subsections. If any PLAXIS 2D
Page 12

references are used, they should be listed at the

end of the article.
22 Recent Activities
The author should ensure that the article is
written clearly for ease of reading. 23 Plaxis Asia
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
Page 16

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.
Page 22

Colophon
The Plaxis Bulletin is a publication of Any correspondence regarding the Plaxis For information about Plaxis software contact
Plaxis bv and is distributed worldwide among Bulletin can be sent by e-mail to: your local agent or Plaxis main office:
Plaxis subscribers
bulletin@plaxis.nl Plaxis bv
Editorial Board: P.O. Box 572
Wout Broere or by regular mail to: 2600 AN Delft
Ronald Brinkgreve The Netherlands
Erwin Beernink Plaxis Bulletin
Arny Lengkeek c/o Erwin Beernink info@plaxis.nl
PO Box 572 www.plaxis.nl
Design: 2600 AN Delft
Blemmodesign The Netherlands Tel: +31 (0)15 251 7720
Fax: +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.
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.
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 commun–e–cation.
The Editors

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 3

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
data sets with additional information about the
type of soil, the location and initial conditions.
To simplify this, you can download a special tool
spreadsheet containing the formulas. Your data
also helps us improving the formulas.

available. Other users are more reluctant to from the Plaxis web site and use this to send your We are looking forward to your cooperation in this
use advanced models, since, in general, more data to soildata@plaxis.nl. Your data will then be research initiative.
advanced models require more parameters to be considered (anonymously) in the research. The
selected, whereas in practice soil data is rather more Plaxis users participate, the more we all References
limited. It is not the model that scares these users; benefit from this initiative. 1. Duncan J.M., Byrne P., Wong K.S. & Mabry P.
it is the number of parameters to be selected. (1980). Geotechnical Engineering – Strength,
In addition to data sets for particular soil types, stress-strain and bulk modulus parameters for
What if predefined data sets with model Delft University of Technology and Plaxis bv finite element analyses of stresses and move-
parameters for the Hardening Soil model with are currently validating formulas to derive all ments in soil masses. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg,
small strain stiffness (HSsmall) would be provided HSsmall model parameters on the basis of either USA.
for different soil types or specific soils at particular the Relative Density (for sands) or the Plasticity 2. Brinkgreve R.B.J., Engin H.K. & Engin E. (2009).
locations around the globe? This would definitely Index (for clays). These formulas may be used to Validation of empirical formulas to derive
stimulate the use of the HSsmall model over the get a first estimate of the model parameters or model parameters for sands. First International
simple Mohr-Coulomb model, such that more to check the order of magnitude. A validation Symposium on Computational Geomechanics
users will benefit from its advanced features. of the formulas for sands will be presented at (COMGEO), Juan-les-Pins, France. (in press)
However, it is not a guarantee that accurate results the COMGEO conference in April this year
are automatically obtained. Results can still be (Brinkgreve et al., 2009). Users who submit realistic
wrong by 100% (a factor 2), but probably not by and complete data sets will be rewarded with a
1000%, provided that other modelling issues have
been properly taken into account. Note that the q [kPa]
user always remains responsible if he/she uses 900
Figure 1: Liquefaction
results of numerical modelling in geotechnical 800 drained q in undrained loading;
engineering and design. 700 700 model vs. experimental
data
600 600
In addition to the earlier work by Duncan et al.
500 Experiment 500 drained
(1980), it is the idea to create validated data sets Critical State
400 Simulation 400
for the HSsmall model and to provide them to Line Instability
Plaxis users. Therefore, we will invest in a research 300 300 Line
programme on validation of soil data sets, in 200 200
cooperation with universities and research centres. 100 undrained
undrained
We also ask for your cooperation. If you have 0 0
worked on a project using Plaxis with the HS or 0 5 10 15 20 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
HSsmall model, please send us these material epsyy [%] p' [kPa]

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

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.
www.plaxis.nl l Spring Issue 2009 l Plaxis Bulletin
References
1. Meissner H. (1991). Empfehlungen des
Arbeitskreises “Numerik in der Geotechnik” der
Deutschen Gesellschaft für 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 Verformungs-
berechnungen 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.
5
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
Young’s 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

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

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 Figure 1: Cross-section and plan showing the crane monopile
monopile. To bound the predictions of lateral pile and adjacent basement structure
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
Young’s 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).
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

www.plaxis.nl l Spring Issue 2009 l Plaxis Bulletin 7

Plaxis Practice: Crane Monopile Foundation Analysis

as the key stratum is London clay with an average displacements, bending moments and shear defined at the various depths in the model where
coefficient of consolidation cv of 0.3m2/year. For forces to be output in a convenient manner. This it is known that a change in geometry or structural
drainage paths, D , in the range of 5.5 to 30m and was performed for every workplane defined in element will begin or end.
an out-of-service time, t, of 1 year say, the the model. Workplanes are the horizontal planes
2
dimensionless time factor T^= cv t/D h
is less than 0.01 and Duncan(1996) has suggested
c z c } E y
that the soil can then be considered to behave in K0
kPa MPa - Rinter
kN/m3 o o
an undrained manner under the loading specified.
London Clay 20 1 0 150 0 30 0.495 0.85
With reference to Figure 1, it can be seen that
the crane grillage soffit level is elevated at 9.5m Steel 77 - - - - 2E5 0.3 -
above the top of concrete and tie slab. Thus for a
Concrete 24 - - - - 2.1E4 0.15 -
1m thick crane platform grillage the lever arm will
be 10m - inducing an additional bending moment 20:1 Sand/Cement
20 - - - - 30 0.25 -
equal to the horizontal crane load multiplied by Mix
this lever arm. For the in-service crane loads this Cement-Bentonite
produces an overturning moment of 6642kNm at 24 - - - - 200 0.15 -
Grout
the top of concrete capping and tie slab.
Table 1: Material Properties of the Soil and Pile
Graphs 1 and 2 show the ERCAP predictions of
pile deflection in the London clay for the steel
Outer Inner Young’s Second
tube alone and composite pile respectively under UCS Flexural Rigidity
diameter diameter modulus Moment of
the action of the in-service and out-of-service (MPa) El (kNm2))
(m) (m) (kPa) Area l (m4)
load conditions. It can be seen that the in-service
loads produce slightly higher horizontal pile head Caisson 3.32 3 20 2.100E+07 1.988E+00 4.174E+07
0
displacement. From the deflected pile shapes it 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Cement/Bentonite 3 2.2 2 2.000E+05 2.826E+00 5.652E+05
can be seen that the composite pile is behaving
-2
more like a short rigid pile than the steel tube Steel tube 2.2 2.12 - 2.000E+08 1.584E-01 3.167E+07
alone. The actual crane monopile is a combination
of these two simplifications and so it is expected 20:1-4Sand/Cement Mix 2.12 0 0 3.000E+04 9.915E-01 2.975E+04
that the deflections will fall within the range of
deflection predictions shown for this extreme case Table
-6 2: Material and Physical Properties of the Crane Monopile
without a tie-slab in place. RI = 5.964E + 00 REI = 7.401E + 07
Depth BGL (m)

-8
Graphs 3 and 4 show the ERCAP predictions of In-Service Loads: H=40kN M=6642kNm
bending moment and shear force developed Out-of-Service Loads: H=191kN M=5014kNm
-10
in the pile for these two load conditions. It can
Composite Pile
be seen that the in-service loads induce higher Steel Tube

bending moments and shear forces in the pile. -12

0
0
-0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
-0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
-2
PLAXIS 3D Foundation Analyses -2
-14
The three-dimensional analyses considered -4
-4

two idealisations of the pile: (1) a ‘simplified -16 -6

composite pile’ consisting of a solid circular pile -6
Depth BGL (m)

with a: Young’s modulus of 12.4GPa, diameter -8

Depth BGL (m)

-8 In-Serv
-18
of 3.32m and length of 16.825m (as used in the In-Service Loads: H=40kN M=6642kNm
Out-of-
Bending Moment (kNm) Out-of-Service
-10 Loads: H=191kN, M=5014kNm
ERCAP analyses) and (2) a ‘complex composite -10

pile’ comprising individual concentric elements -12

-12

as summarised in Table 2 (see the next paragraph

-14
for further details on modelling). The horizontal -14

deflections, bending moments and shear force -16

-16

predictions are broadly similar as shown in Graphs

-18
5-7 thus confirming the idealisation approaches -18
Deflection (m)
Deflection (m)
and different analysis methodologies used. Graph 1: Steel Pile Deflection Predictions from ERCAP Graph 2: Composite Pile Deflection Predictions from ERCAP
Modelling the Composite Monopile in PLAXIS 3D Foundation
Modelling of the Complex Composite Pile
The series of concentric elements (Figure 3) 0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
forming the crane monopile were explicitly
-2 -2
modelled in PLAXIS 3D Foundation using the
pile designer. This was achieved by selecting -4 -4

the circular tube pile type which is defined by

its wall thickness and internal diameter. Tubular -6 -6

piles were specified for the concrete caisson,

Depth BGL (m)
Depth BGL (m)

-8 -8
cement-bentonite grout and steel pipe and each In-Service Loads: H=40kN M=6642kNm In-Servi
Out-of-S
of these components were centred on plan at the -10
Out-of-Service Loads: H=191kN M=5014kNm
-10

same ^ x, zhcoordinate. This created a mesh of

solid elements with full connection at the mating -12 -12

boundaries between each concentric component.

-14 -14
Through the pile designer, interface elements
were specified along the outside boundaries -16 -16

of the monopile to allow for the simulation of

slippage and separation between the soil and -18 -18

Bending Moment (kNm) Shear Force (kN)

monopile. The use of the pile designer creates
an equivalent structural line element along the Graph 3: Pile Bending Moment Distribution Predictions Graph 4: Pile Shear Force Distribution Predictions from ERCAP
centreline of the pile which enables the pile: from ERCAP

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

 Plaxis Practice: Crane Monopile Foundation Analysis

2
Three Dimensional Analyses of Crane Monopile The initial stresses in the ground were computed
deq = d 3 d n /s
& Basement using the K0-procedure with K0=1 for the London 4
In order to predict the interaction of the Clay layer. As the analysis was in terms of total
monopile with the ground and the adjacent stress parameters no pore water was modelled so Where d is the diameter of the pile and s is the
basement structure, a 3D finite element analysis the phreatic level was set below the level of the centre-to-centre pile spacing.
using PLAXIS 3D Foundation was performed. A base of the model. The soil and monopile were modelled using
serviceability limit state analysis (no partial factors 15-noded wedge elements. The horizontal, vertical
applied to materials) was performed with the The basement floors were idealised using 6-noded and moment loads applied to the monopile were
unfactored working loads applied to the pile head triangular plate elements and the basement walls rationalised into equivalent horizontal and vertical
at ground level. The analysis did not consider the were modelled using 8-noded quadrilateral plate pressures acting over the steel pipe cross-section.
detailed stages of excavation and construction elements. The contiguous bored pile wall was Interface elements were inserted between the soil,
of the basement. The following phases were idealised as a continuous plate with a reduced walls, floors and outside surfaces of the monopile
considered: thickness, deq , to account for the spacing of the to simulate the reduced strength between the
piles: soil and these structures. For these analyses an
interface reduction factor of 0.85 was assumed,
Load Case
Horizontal Thrust Vertical Load Overturning Moment resulting in a reduced undrained shear strength of
H (kN) V (kN) M (kNm) 127.5kPa between the soil and non-soil structures.
In-service crane 40 -1622 6242
Four 3D finite element analyses were undertaken
to model the excavation and ‘wished-in-place’
Out-of service crane 191 -1565 3104
construction of the basement and the subsequent
monopile with loading based on the tower crane
Table 3: Loads at the base of the crane
load specifications. The soil-structure interaction
between the monopile, walls and floors was
Phase Description Notes simulated in these analyses. These analyses
considered the in-service load combination
0 In-Service
Generation of initial stresses Loads:
in the H=40kN
virgin M=6642kNm K0-Procedure
ground and the results confirmed that the worst case
0 Wishing in place of the basement structure and contigu- No basement construction details were
corresponded to case 2 of Table 6.
1
-0.002 -0.001 ous pile0 wall 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 available
0.005
Results
-2
2 Installation of the crane monopile Previous displacements reset to zero This section summarises a selection of results from
the PLAXIS 3D Foundation analyses.
-4
3 Application of the crane loads
Plot 1 shows the deformed shape for Model 2
-6
Table 4: Phases for the Analysis of the Crane Monopile & Basement (Table 6) Phase 3 (Table 4) – note that the partial
geometry feature has been used to hide the
Depth BGL (m)

-8
ERCAP Simplified Composite Pile
London clay.
PLAXIS 3DF - Simplified Composite Pile
-10 PLAXIS 3DF - Complex Composite Pile
In-Service Loads: H=40kN M=6642kNm
Plot 2 shows the horizontal deflection of the crane
0 monopile and this was obtained by double-
-12 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
clicking the structural line element representation
-2
of the pile. The shear force and bending moments
-14
-4 developed in the pile were obtained in a similar
manner and these are shown in Plots 3 & 4.
-16 -6
These plots are direct outputs from PLAXIS 3D
Foundation with no additional post-
Depth BGL (m)

-8
ERCAP Simplified Composite Pile
-18
processing made.
PLAXIS 3DF - Simplified Composite Pile
Deflection (m) -10 PLAXIS 3DF - Complex Composite Pile

-12 The resolution of the shear force diagram is a

result of the relatively coarse mesh being used.
-14
However, independent checks described in
-16 paragraph “PLAXIS 3D Foundation” on similar
Figure 3: Schematic showing the cross-section of the mesh refinements of the simplified pile provide
-18
upper portion of the monopile foundation Deflection (m) confidence in the accuracy of these results.

Graph 5: Pile Deflection Comparison between PLAXIS and The deformation pattern of the contiguous pile
ERCAP
In-Service Loads: H=40kN M=6642kNm In-Service Loads: H=40kN M=6642kNm wall is shown in Plot 5. This is to an exaggerated
0 0 scale of 5000x to make the deformations visible.
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100
Predicted deformations are very small with a peak
-2 -2
total displacement of around 0.6mm.
-4 -4

The deformed shape of the floors is shown in Plot

-6 -6
6 – again shown to an exaggerated scale (2000x).
Predicted deformations are very small with a peak
Depth BGL (m)

Depth BGL (m)

-8 -8
ERCAP Simplified Composite Pile ERCAP Simplified Composite Pile
PLAXIS 3DF - Simplified Composite Pile total3DFdisplacement
PLAXIS - Simplified Composite Pile of around 0.7mm.
-10 PLAXIS 3DF - Complex Composite Pile
-10 Complex Composite Pile

-12 -12 The deformed shape of the tie-slab is shown in

Plot 7 to an exaggerated scale of 500x. A peak
-14 -14
total deformation of 3mm is predicted to develop
-16 -16 at the leading edge of the tie-slab.
-18 -18
BM (kNm) SF (kN)

Graph 6: Pile Bending Moment Comparison between PLAXIS Graph 7: Pile Shear Force Comparison between PLAXIS and continue on page 10
and ERCAP ERCAP

www.plaxis.nl l Spring Issue 2009 l Plaxis Bulletin 9

Plaxis Practice: Crane Monopile Foundation Analysis

c Thickness m
E y Discussion and Conclusions
kN/m3 MPa -
The user-friendliness of PLAXIS 3D Foundation
enabled a number of sensitivity studies to
Tie-Slab 500 mm thick 24 0.5 21 0.15
be explored in a straightforward and timely
manner which is vital for commercial work.
Floor 400 mm thick 24 0.4 21 0.15 Sensitivity studies were performed to investigate,
mesh density, model extent, load application
approaches and material property variation.
Floor 1000 mm thick 24 1 21 0.15
An investigation was made to explore the effect
of a reduction in the stiffness of the cement-
Contiguous Pile Wall:
0.742 bentonite mix between the concrete caisson and
900 mm diameter piles at 24 21 0.15
(equivalent thickness)
1050 mm c/c spacing steel pipe. The reduction of this from 600MPa
to 200MPa was found to have little effect on the
Table 5: Physical and Material Properties of the Tie-Slab and Basement Floors & Wall
behaviour of the monopile.

The analyses did not consider the detailed stages

Including Tie Slab of excavation and construction of the basement so
Model Description
at ground level
the deformations and loads predicted to develop
Jib load and moment and tailwind applied away from the contiguous pile wall in the basement could not reliably be taken
1 No
without the surface tie-slab into account. To address this, the predictions of
movement and structural forces induced in the
Jib load and moment and tailwind applied away from the contiguous pile wall with basement during this phase were discounted
2 Yes
the surface tie-slab
by zeroing displacements at the start of Phase 2
Jib load and moment and tailwind applied in the direction towards the contiguous and by external post-processing of the structural
3 Yes
pile wall with the surface tie-slab propping against the basement wall in place forces developed between Phase 3 and Phase 1.
Therefore, the structural forces and displacements
Jib load and moment and tailwind applied parallel to the contiguous pile wall with reported are in addition to the existing structural
4 Yes
the surface tie-slab providing restraint forces and displacements due to the wall and floor
loads and live loads applied to the basement.
Table 6: Models Load Conditions Considered
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
Cement Peak Pile Head 6642kNm and shear forces in the range 444kN to
Peak Vertical
Bentonite Horizontal Peak Bending Peak Shear Force Peak Axial Force
Model Displacement 562kN (this is without the tie-slab in place).
Young’s modulus Displacement Moment kNm kN kN
mm
MPa mm

2 600 0.5 -2.7 6960 -928 -1970 The ERCAP analyses identified that the worst
case crane loads were the in-service combination
2 200 0.8 -2.7 6980 -922 -1970 comprising a horizontal thrust, axial load and
overturning moment of 40kN, -1662kN and
Table 7: Worst Case Model 2 – Monopile Displacements and Structural Forces 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,
Cement Bentonite Young’s
Model Tie-Slab Peak Compressive Load kN Tie-Slab Peak Tensile Load kN -1662kN and 6642kNm acting at the top of the
modulus MPa
monopile at ground level.
2 600 -234 776
2 200 -324 942 Plaxis predicted the worst case deflection to be
Table 8: Worst Case Model 2 – Tie-Slab Structural Loads
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
Peak Wall bending moment in the monopile for this case is
Cement Bentonite Peak Wall Cement
Horizontal Peak Axial Load in 6170 kNm which is of the same order of magnitude
Model Young’s modulus Bending Model Bentonite Young’s
Displacement Floor Slab kN as that found in the ERCAP analysis. The results of
MPa Moment kNm modulus MPa
mm the PLAXIS analysis predict that the monopile will
2 600 -0.300 -200 2 600 261 deflect laterally by 0.5-0.8mm with peak bending
2 200 -0.301 -200 2 200 260 moments in the range of 6960kNm to 6980kNm
and shear forces in the range 922kN to 928kN (this
Table 9: Worst Case Model 2 Table 10: Worst Case Model 2 – Floor Axial Load is with the tie slab in place).
Contiguous Pile Wall Displacements and Bending Moments
The maximum horizontal wall deflection is of the
order of 0.3mm which is negligible and the peak
bending moment of 200kNm is generated

The maximum compressive axial load developed

in the 500mm thick tie-slab is 1490kN for the
Plot 1: Deformed Mesh Shown
loading condition in model 3. The maximum
to an Exaggerated Scale (Model 2, Phase 3)
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).

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


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 solu-
tions for soil and rock mechanics, John Wiley,
New York
• Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1980) Pile Founda-
tion Analysis and Design, John Wiley & Sons,
New York
• Potts, D.M. and Zdravković, L. (1999) Finite
element analysis in geotechnical engineering:
theory. Thomas Telford, London.
• Potts, D.M. and Zdravković, L. (2001) Finite
element analysis in geotechnical engineering:
application. Thomas Telford, London.
• Smith, I.M. and Griffiths, D.V. (1988) Program-
ming the finite element method (2nd edition),
John Wiley, Chichester
Plot 2: Horizontal Displacements (Model 2, Phase 3)
Plot 5: Contiguous Pile Wall - Deformed Shape
Shown to an Exaggerated Scale (Model 2, Phase 3)
Plaxis Practice: Crane Monopile Foundation Analysis
• Tomlinson, M.J. (1994) Pile design and construc- • Gaba, A.R., Simpson, B., Powrie, W., Beadman,
tion practice (4th edition), E & FN Spon, London D.R. (2003) Embedded retaining walls – guid-
• Ng, C.W.W., Simons, N. and Menzies, B. (2004) ance for economic design (C580), CIRIA
A Short Course in Soil-Structure Engineering of • BS EN 1997-1:2004 Eurocode 7. Geotechnical
Deep Foundations, Excavations and Tunnels, Design, BSI/CEN
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 Re-
taining Capacity of Piles) Users Manual, Coffey
Geosciences Pty Ltd.
• Duncan, J. M. (1996). State of the art: Limit Equi-
librium 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 3: Shear Forces (Model 2, Phase 3) Plot 4: Bending Moments (Model 2, Phase 3)
Plot 6: Floors - Deformed Shape Shown to an Exaggerated Plot 7:Tie Slab -Deformed Shape Shown to an Exaggerated Scale
Scale (Model 2, Phase 3) (Model 2,Phase 3)
www.plaxis.nl l Spring Issue 2009 l Plaxis Bulletin 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 two-
dimensional 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,
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.

Figure 2: input of the model

Figure 1: Project geometry

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

FE Analysis
The stresses and displacements in the tunnel have Average E c
depth c y { }
been calculated before the construction of the [kN/m3] [kN/m2] [-] [kN/m2] [o] [o]
[m]
housing, during the excavation and at the final
situation. The calculations were performed using
Fill 1.0 17.00 6000 0.30 0.10 22 0
PLAXIS v8 with about 1200 15-noded elements.
Input of the model is showed in Figure 2. Fine sand 2.1 19.00 8000 0.30 0.10 34 0
The main calculations phases are described below:
Silt 4.5 19.00 8000 0.30 5.00 29 0

1. Construction of the tunnel. Because of the Gravel and sand 12.5 20.00 40000 0.30 0.10 34 0
existing buildings above the tunnel, this could
not be done in open-cut procedure. Table 1: Mohr-Coulomb soil parameters
2. Current situation. Uniformly distributed loads
of 20 kN/m2 have been considered to take in
c c { } E50ref Eoedref Eurref m yur pref
account the weight of the existing constructions Rf
[kN/m3] [kN/m2] [o] [o] [kN/m2] [kN/m2] [kN/m2] [-] [-] [kN/m2]
and road traffic.
3. Excavation of the parking floor and execution of
the foundation slab, as retaining walls. Loads of Fill 17.00 0.10 22 0 25912 25912 77737 0.60 0.20 100 0.90
20 kN/m2 are applied.
Fine sand 19.00 0.10 34 0 23268 23268 69804 0.60 0.20 100 0.90
4. Construction of the building. It’s considered as
a uniformly distributed load of 40 kN/m2. Silt 19.00 5.00 29 0 13242 13242 39726 0.70 0.20 100 0.90

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 project’s 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 Mohr-
Gravel and sand 20.00 0.10 34 0 42597 42597 127791 0.50 0.20 100 0.90
Table 2: Hardening-Soil model soil parameters
concrete has been carried out considering several Regarding the plasticity parameters of Mohr-
hypotheses in a conservative way. Coulomb model, these can be obtained from
compressive and tensile strengths according to
In this sense, two hypotheses concerning the the representation of the yield surface as shown
quality of the concrete were considered, given by in Figure 3:
the characteristic compressive strength: fck = 15
MPa and fck = 25 Mpa, from now on “HM-15” and
“HM-25”.
The elastic modulus E was determined through the
formula proposed by the Spanish regulation EHE-
98. According of this, the longitudinal deformation
modulus relates to the compressive strength as
follows:

E = 8500 $ 3 fck + 8 6 Lpa @

Coulomb drained material model.

Even if previous laboratory tests revealed that the Two values of Poisson’s ratio were considered: a
mass concrete is considerably strong, the choice value y = 0.2 according to EHE-98 and a value of
of the elastic parameters ( E and y ) and strength y = 0.0 according to Eurocode-2 Recommendation
parameters (c, z, and tensile strength) of the for fissured concrete. Figure 3: Deduction of Mohr-Coulomb plasticity parameters

www.plaxis.nl l Spring Issue 2009 l Plaxis Bulletin 13

Plaxis Practice: Mohr-Coulomb parameters for modelling of concrete structures

Where vc and vt are compressive and tensile According to P. Jiménez Montoya

strengths. Values of these can be compared to the
Tensile strength
allowable stresses proposed by P. Jiménez Concrete designation Cohesion: c (kN/m2) Friction angle:z (kN/m2)
Montoya (1971) for a mass concrete:
HM-15 712 54.9° 450
vc = 0.30 $ fck
HM-25 1186 54.9° 750
vt = 0.03 $ fck
In addition, the EHE-98 establishes the following
formula to calculate the shear resistance among According to EHE-98
concrete joints:
Tensile strength
Concrete designation Cohesion: c (kN/m2) Friction angle:z (kN/m2)
xmd # b $ fct,d + Ast $ fya,d $ ^ n $ sin a + cos ah
s$p HM-15 365 35.0° 1216
+n $ vcd # 0.25 $ fcd HM-25 513 35.0° 1710

Where vcd is the value of external normal

stress applied to the joint plane. Considering a According to EC-2
reinforcement steel section Ast equal to zero, the
Tensile strength
resulting formula has the same shape than the Concrete designation Cohesion: c (kN/m2) Friction angle:z (kN/m2)
failure criterion of Mohr-Coulomb, with:
HM-15 387 9° 1216
HM-25 500 9° 1710
c = b $ fct,d
n = tgz Table 4: Mohr-Coulomb strength parameters for mass concrete according different methods

f
Where ct, d is the design value of tensile strength
of the concrete given by: HM-15 HM-25
fct,d = 0.30 $ ^ fckh /1.50 6 MPa @
2/3 c [kN/m3] 24 24

E [kN/m2] 24173 27264

Where b and n are coefficients that depend on
the degree of roughness of the joint as shown in y 0.2 0.2
table 3. c [kN/m2] 365 513

z [o] 35 35
Type of surface
Tensile strength for tension
Low roughness High roughness 450 750
cut off [kN/m2]

b 0.2 0.4 Table 5: Material properties of mass concrete

n 0.6 0.9
HM-15 y=0.00 HM-15 y=0.20 HM-25 y=0.20
Table 3:b and n values according to EHE-98
Average values of b= 0.3 and n = 0.7 were adopted. 1.13 / 1.13 1.13 / 1.13 1.16 / 1.16

The values of Mohr-Coulomb strength parameters Table 7: Msf values of calculations. Material models for soils are [Mohr-Coulomb / Hardening-Soil]
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: The formula for the tensile strength from EC-2 is Outputs after phi-c reduction phases shows that
VRd,c = 6CRd,c k^100t y fckh1/3 + k1 vcp @ bw d
identical to the shown formula from EHE-98. failure mechanism is produced on soil below
tunnel side walls. Some plastic points appears on
With a minimum of: Table 4 summarizes the Mohr-Coulomb the tunnel, but doesn’t seem to be related to the
strength parameters according to the explained failure, as shown in Figure 6:
VRd,c = ^vmin + k1 vcph bw d
methodologies:
From here on we can establish: Conclusions
The final set of parameters considered to model Tunnel structure was modelled using two-
xRd,c = VRd,c /bw d = vmin + k1 vcp , which has the form the tunnel material are shown in Table 5: dimensional elements and a Mohr-Coulomb
of the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterium with: material model was used for modelling mass
Results of Calculations concrete.Mohr-Coulomb strength parameters
x = xRd,c Table 6 shows synthetic results. The first for concrete were estimated using two different
c = vmin values corresponds to Mohr-Coulomb and the methodologies. Concerning a mass concrete of
tgz = k1 second ones to Hardening-Soil, both models about 15-25 MPa of characteristic compressive
vcp = v' for characterizing soils. Some of the calculated strength, the values obtained were: cohesion of
stresses are shown in Figure 4. 365-513 kN/m2, friction angle of 35º, and tensile
where according to EC-2: strength of 450-750 kN/m2. In the example
To evaluate the obtained deformations 5 points presented, many calculations were done to test
vmin = 0, 035xk3/2 xfck1/2 , where fck is in MPa where selected for curve representation. These parameter sensitivity. Results show that this
are shown in Figure 5: approach gives realistic results for complex
k = 1+ 200 # 2, 0 where d is in mm structures where the use of plate elements is not
d
Displacement were reset to zero once constructed suitable.
so for this structure will be k = 2,0 and k1 the existing tunnel and before the application
recommended value is 0,15 of the loads. Results shows that building load Other methodologies for evaluating shear
counteracts previous excavation, so stresses strength of concrete are proposed by Rui Vaz
Therefore: remains similar than in the actual conditions Rodrigues (2007). This article encourages Plaxis
6 MPa @
c = 0.035# 23/2 # fck1/2 c
fck phases. Finally, a phi-c reduction phase was done users who want to follow the same approach.
100 in each model to determine safety factors. Results
tgz = 0.15, soz = 9% are summarized on Table 7: continue on page 15

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

 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

HM-15 y=0.00 HM-15 y=0.20 HM-25 y=0.20

Actual
Plastic points (%) 22.4 / 24.9 25.1 / 22.1 23.2 /25.3
Conditions

Tension cut off points (%) 0.07 / 00 0.15 / 0.00 0.00 / 0.00

Max horiz. compressive

1880 / 1930 1880 / 1940 2670 / 2690
stress [kN/m2]

Max vertical
compressive stress 2360 / 2450 2450 / 2390 3440 / 3090
[kN/m2]

Max shear stress [kN/m2] 954 / 1050 915 / 1030 1250 / 1370 Figure 5: Points for curves

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

Excavation Plastic points (%) 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

Max horiz. compressive

1710 / 1850 1740 / 1850 2060 / 2030
stress [kN/m2]

Max vertical
compressive stress 1960 / 2160 2080 / 2100 2870 / 2540
[kN/m2]

Max shear stress [kN/m2] 978 / 969 821 / 985 1150 / 1290 Figure 6: Plastic points on phi-c reduction phase. This shows
the calculation with HM-15 y=0.20 concrete and Mohr-Coulomb
Settlement on C (mm) 4/9 4 / 10 1.5 / 8 material model for soils.

Convergence B-D (mm) 1/1 1/1 1/1

References
• Brinkgreve et al. (2004). Plaxis Reference
Convergence A-E (mm) 17 / 9 16 / 9 14 / 9
Manual. Plaxis bv., The Netherlands.
• Comisión Permanente del Hormigón (1998).
Building Plastic points (%) 17.3 / 22.4 17.2 / 21.9 14.5 / 4.4
Instrucción del Hormigón Estructural. Ministerio
de Fomento, Centro de Publicaciones, Madrid.
Tension cut off points (%) 0.15 / 0.00 0.00 / 0.07 0.00 / 0.00
• P. Jiménez Montoya (1971). Hormigón Armado.
Tomo 1. Editorial Gustavo Gili, S.A., Barcelona.
Max horiz. compressive
1920 / 1840 1900 / 1860 2600 / 2390 • Rui Vaz Rodrigues (2007). Shear strength of
stress [kN/m2]
reinforced concrete bridge deck slabs. Thèse
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, no
Max vertical
compressive stress 2400 / 2420 2430 / 2370 3420 / 3020
3739, Lausanne.
[kN/m2]

Max shear stress [kN/m2] 966 / 1040 882 / 1030 1240 / 1360

Settlement on C (mm) 18 / 13 18 / 14 15 / 12

Convergence B-D (mm) 3/2 3/2 2/1

Convergence A-E (mm) 14 / 7 13 / 8 11 / 7

Table 6: Results on tunnel using Mohr-Coulomb material model for concrete. Material models for soils are
[Mohr-Coulomb / Hardening-Soil]

www.plaxis.nl l Spring Issue 2009 l Plaxis Bulletin 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%).
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
user’s 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

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

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 Mohr-
Coulomb material model can be used. Facings and
nails can be modeled as elastic materials.
Figure 1: Mesh boundaries and fixity conditions (Briaud and Lim 1997)
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
www.plaxis.nl l Spring Issue 2009 l Plaxis Bulletin
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 (1)
A A
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 @ =
Eeq rD2 DH
c m (2)
Sh 4
Bending stiffness EI 6 kNm2 /m @ = eq c rD DH m
E 4
(3)
Sh 64
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).
12 c EI m
deq =
EA p
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
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.
Updated Mesh Analysis
(4)
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.
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.

Parameters Using plate elements Using geogrid elements Both the walls are simulated using PLAXIS
2D following the procedure and preliminary
Normal Updated mesh Normal Updated mesh suggestions stated earlier. Two series of
analysis analysis analysis analysis
simulations are performed, one with the use
Global factor of of plate structural elements to simulate soil
1.59 1.60 1.57 1.59 nails and the other with the use of geogrid
safety
structural elements to simulate soil nails. At each
Max. lateral
discplacement 22.82 22.28 23.86 21.31 construction stage of both the walls, observations
(mm) are made with regard to the global factors of
safety, maximum lateral (horizontal) displacement
Max. axial force
74.82 73.29 85.44 83.80 of walls, maximum axial tensile developed and
(kN/m)
development of bending moment and shear force
Table 1: ‘Update Mesh Analysis’ of soil nail wall simulation (H = 10 m) in nails (for plate elements only).

Figure 2 shows the PLAXIS 2D models for both 10

Parameter Value m and 18 m high soil nail walls. Various material
properties and other parameters used for
Vertical height of walls H [m] 10.0 and 18.0
simulation are as indicated in Table 2. “P” and
Nailing type grouted “G” in the plots of the analysis correspond to the
Simulation model plane strain
observations made for simulations using plate and
geogrid structural elements respectively.
Element type 15- node

In-situ soil Figure 3 shows the trend of variation of global

factor of safety of the soil nail walls with
Material model Mohr-Coulomb
construction stage. It is evident from Figure 3
Cohesion c [kPa] 4.0 that for fully constructed soil nail walls (i.e. 100%
Internal friction angle z[deg] 31.5 construction), consideration of bending stiffness
of nails in the analysis have negligible influence on
Unit weight c [kN/m3] 17.0
the global stability. In other words, both plate and
Elasticity modulus Es [MPa] 20.0 geogrid structural elements are able to capture
similar response and hence, either of the two can
Poison’s ratio of soil ys 0.3
be used. However, it is worth noting from Figure
Grouted nails and facing 3 that consideration of bending stiffness of nails
Material model elastic in the analysis has significant influence during
the construction stage. Geogrid elements results
Yield strength of reinforcement fy [MPa] 415.0 in significantly less factors of safety for global
stability in comparison to the plate elements.
Elasticity modulus of reinforcement En [GPa] 200.0 Alternatively, it can be interpreted that bending
stiffness plays important role in the stability of
Elasticity modulus of grout (concrete) Eg [GPa] 22.0 soil nail walls during the construction stage. This
aspect is overlooked if geogrid elements are used
Diameter of reinforcement d [mm] 20.0 (25.0)
to simulate soil nail in the finite element analysis of
Drill hole diameter DDH [mm] 100.0 soil nail walls.
Length of nail L [m] 7.0 (13.0)
Figure 4 shows the trend of maximum lateral
Declination wrt horizontal i [deg] 15.0
displacements of the soil nail walls with
Spacing Sh x Sv [m] 1.0 x 1.0 construction stage. It is evident from Figure 4 that
Facing thickness t [mm] 200.0 displacement response captured by both geogrid
elements and plate elements closely resembles
Table 2: Parameters adopted for numerical simulations using PLAXIS 2D and hence, results in negligible influence on the
Note: Figures in bracket correspond tot he 18 m high soil nail wall; all other parameteres are same
analysis of soil nail walls.
for both 10 m ad 18 m soil nail walls.

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


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
Figure 2: Simulated soil nail walls using PLAXIS 2D
Figure 3: Trend of global factor of safety with construction stage
Plaxis Practice: Simulation of Soil Nail Structures using PLAXIS 2D
maximum bending moment and maximum shear
force developed in soil nails with construction
stages are considerable.
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.
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
www.plaxis.nl l Spring Issue 2009 l Plaxis Bulletin
is advisable that use of plate structural elements
shall be preferred over geogrid structural element
for simulating soil nails.
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.
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.
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
19
Plaxis Practice: Simulation of Soil Nail Structures using PLAXIS 2D

Figure 5: Development of maximum axial force with construction stage

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 7: Development of maximum bending moment with construction stage

Figure 8: Development of maximum shear force with construction stage Figure 9: Variation of shear force and bending moment along nail length
(10 m high soil nail wall)

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

 Plaxis Practice: Simulation of Soil Nail Structures using PLAXIS 2D

References
• Babu, G. L. S. and Singh, V. P. (2007). “Plaxis Elements per Global factor
Max. lateral
Mesh density displacement Total calculation time (min)
practice - Stabilization of vertical cut using soil unit volume of safety
(mm)
nailing.” Plaxis Bulletin, October, No. 22, 6-9.
• Briaud, J.-L. and Lim, Y. (1997). “Soil nailed wall Very coarse 0.39 1.610 20.93 1.13
under piled bridge abutment: simulation and
guidelines.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
123(11), 1043–1050. Coarse 0.60 1.598 22.31 1.51
• Fan, C. C. and Luo, J. H. (2008). “Numerical
study on the optimum layout of soil nailed
slopes.” Comput. Geotech., 35(4), 585–599.
Medium 0.98 1.592 22.86 2.45
• FHWA. (2003). “Geotechnical engineering
circular No. 7 - soil nail walls.” Report FHWA0-
IF-03-017, U. S. Department of Transportation, Fine 2.08 1.553 24.79 5.51
Federal Highway Administration, Washington
D. C.
Very fine 4.14 1.521 28.35 15.15
• Jewell, R. A. and Pedley, M. J. (1992). “Analysis
for soil reinforcement with bending stiffness.” J.
Geotech. Eng., 118(10), 1505–1528. Table 3: Influence of mesh density on finite element simulation
• Joshi, B. (2003). “Behaviour of calculated nail Note: (1.) FS values correspond to the fully constructed wall. (2.) If FS is to be determined
head strength in soil-nailed structures.” J. Geo- after each construction stage, calculation time may increase even more drastically.
tech. Geoenviron. Eng., 129(9), 819–828.
• Juran, I., Baudrand, G., Farrag, K. and Elias, V.
(1990). “Kinematical limit analysis for design of
soil-nailed structures.” J. Geotech. Eng., 116(1),
54–72.
• 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 Univer-
sity of Technology & Plaxis bv The Netherlands.
• Schlosser, F. (1991). “Discussion – The mul-
ticriteria 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. Geo-
tech. Geoenviron. Eng., 128(1), 92-94.

www.plaxis.nl l Spring Issue 2009 l Plaxis Bulletin 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 reduc-
tion 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 pre-
processor. 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 Plaxis Bulletin l Spring Issue 2009 l www.plaxis.nl
geometry and calculation phases. The Output University of Cantabria. The course was fully
program is a postprocessor, used to inspect the booked which we believe is partially due to the
results of calculations in a three-dimensional view fact that the course was completely in Spanish.
or in cross sections, and to plot graphs (curves) As a result of the large amount of registrations
of output quantities of pre-selected geometry an identical course was held at the same location
points. in Barcelona in February 2009 and just like in
October 2008 the course was again fully booked in
For more information about the specific features spite of global economic recession.
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 client’s 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
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
Asia culture of Malaysia but also the knowledge
which our three experienced professors have
imparted during the 4 days course.
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.
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
www.plaxis.nl l Spring Issue 2009 l Plaxis Bulletin 23
Title

Activities 2009
April 3, 2009 June, 2009 November 18 – 20, 2009
Plaxis Seminar Russian Plaxis Users Meeting Standard Course on Computational
HCMC, Vietnam St. Petersburg, Russia Geotechnics
Hongkong SAR, China
April 6 – 8, 2009 July 14 – 17, 2009
International Course for Experienced Standard Course on Computational November 25 – 27, 2009
Plaxis Users Geotechnics Standard Course on Computational
Delft, The Netherlands Chicago, USA Geotechnics
Paris, France
April 15 – 17, 2009 July 15, 2009
Standard Course on Computational Plaxis Seminar December 2 – 3, 2009
Geotechnics Manila, Philippines IS on Geotechnical Engineering Ground
Beijing, China Improvement and Geosynthetics for
August 16 – 18, 2009 Sustainable Mitigration and Adaption to
April 29 – May 1, 2009 Standard Course on Computational Climate Change
Com Geo I Geotechnics Bangkok, Thailand
Juan-les-Pins, France Tapei, Taiwan
December 9 – 11, 2009
May 23 – 28, 2009 August 24 – 26 IS on Ground Improvement Technologies
WTC2009, Advanced Course on Computational and Case Histories (1SG109)
Budapest, Hungary Geotechnics Singapore
Glasgow, United Kingdom
May 25 – 27, 2009
IS on Prediction and Simulation Methods September 9 – 11, 2009
for Geohazard Mitigation EURO TUN 2009,
Kyoto, Japan Bochum, Germany

May 27 – 29, 2009 October 5 – 9, 2009

Standard Course on Computational 17th ISSMGE
Geotechnics Alexandria, Egypt
Bangalore, India
November 5, 2009
June 15 – 18, 2009 Geotechniekdag
IS on Performance-Based Design in The Netherlands
Earthquake Geotecnical Engineering
Tokyo, Japan November 11 – 13, 2009
16th European Plaxis User Meeting
June 23 – 25, 2009 Karlsruhe, Germany
Standard Course on Computational
Geotechnics
Manchester, United Kingdom

Plaxis bv P.O. Box 572 www.plaxis.nl Plaxis Asia 16 Jalan Kilang Timor
Delftechpark 53 2600 AN Delft Tel +31 (0)15 2517 720 Singapore #05-08 Redhill Forum
2628 XJ Delft The Netherlands Fax +31 (0)15 2573 107 Tel +65 6325 4191 159308 Singapore