soilworks verification high - midas useren.midasuser.com/.../soilworks_verification... · 01...

V E R I F I C A T I O N S U M M A R Y

SoilWorks

01 SoilWorks_Verification Summary

About MIDAS

midas GTS3 Dimensional geotechnical

analysis modules

Soil+(CTC in Japan)

SoilWorks2 Dimensional geotechnical

analysis modules

Introducing geotechnical finite element programs

a New Paradigm forGeotechnical Engineering Solutions, all in one package

A LEADING GLOBAL Engineering Solutions Provider

KOZO KEIKAKU ENGINEERING

ITOCHU Techno-Solutions

JIP Techno Science

CREA-TEC

Cybernet Systems

Vietnam

MalaysiaChennai

Indonesia

Singapore

Philippines

Shanghai

Shenyang

TaiwanThailand

Guangzhou

Chengdu

USA(New York)

China(Beijing)

India(Mumbai)

Japan(Tokyo)

VenezuelaColombia

Bolivia

Chile

Brazil

Ecuador

MexicoPuerto Rico

Seattle

Italy

TurkeySpainAlgeria

NigeriaPort Harcourt

Tanzania

Egypt

Greece

Lithuania

Russia

Saint Petersburg

NetherlandsSlovenia

MIDAS IT(Seoul)

Sales Offices

Headquarters

Branch Offices

Czech

Being the largest developer of structural and geotechnical engineering softwarewith extensive research in leading technologies in the world,

MIDAS has garnered global recognition through its continuous passionand devotion towards the Advancement in Civil Engineering.

a total of over 30,000 MIDAS software licenses used worldwide in over 120 countries

a global network of engineering software distribution and technical support

over 450 engineers and professionals develop and distribute engineering software

UK(London)

Geotechnical Solution for Practical Design 02

Geotechnical Solutions For Practical Design

SoilWorks

SoilWorksConcept

SoilWorksDevelopmentMotive

About SoilWorks

In the practice of geotechnical design, 2-dimensional analysis is a very practical approach. However, the design

process by and large involves repetitions of simple and complex tasks. SoilWorks has been developed to

address such time-consuming and tedious tasks to drastically improve the efficiency of the design process.

Also SoilWorks has been developed to handle practically all types of geotechnical problems – Tunnels,

Slopes, Rock Soft Grounds, Foundations, Seepage and Dynamic Analysis. Each module has been implemented

to meet the needs of and comply with the design process used by the practicing engineers.

Geotechnical analysis software programs available today generally handle specific types of geotechnical

problems with varying degrees of limitations in functionality. SoilWorks is designed to handle any geotechnical

problems encountered in the practice of soil / rock mechanics.

SoilWorks is designed for structural engineers with a background in geotechnical engineering and geotechnical

engineers with a background in finite elements.

Slope SeepageSoft GroundRock FoundationGround Dynamic

Verification for Tunnel Finite Element Analysis

Theoretical Verification

Real Model Verification

03

SoilWorks_Verification

[Unit Model] [Stresses in X-direction]

Radius of yield zone: Salencon (1969) theoretical method

[Comparison of Solutions]

Analysis Type

Element

BoundaryCondition

Static Nonlinear Analysis

Initial compressive stress of 300MPa is applied tothe right and top sides

4-Node Quadrilateral Plain Stress Element

Left Side

Base

X-Dir. Restrained

Y-Dir. Restrained

LoadingCondition Radius of yield zone 1.735 1.750 0.86

Value Difference (%)Theoretical

SoilWorks

[Real Model] [Comparison of Results]

Static nonlinear analysis for tunnel construction stagesGround material model: Mohr-Coulomb

No. of construction stages: 8

Tunnel displacement (mm)

Avg. difference (%)

Crown displacement (mm)

Construction Stage Results

0.446

-

-0.590

SoilWorks

0.503

9.36

-0.625

FLAC

0.463

6.57

-0.645

PLAXIS

Cro

wn

disp

lace

men

t (m

m)

Tunn

el d

ispl

acem

ent (

mm

)

Construction stage Construction stage

SoilWorks_Verification Summary

04

Verification for Tunnel Finite Element Analysis


Difference (%) - 1.91 0.92

Tunnel Displacement (mm) 0.311 0.304 0.307

Crown Displacement (mm) -0.897 -0.911 -0.902

Construction Stage Results SoilWorks FLAC PLAXIS

[Real Model] [Comparison of Results]

Static nonlinear analysis for tunnel construction stagesGround material model: Mohr-Coulomb

No. of construction stages: 11

8 Real model cases

- 6.08 8.29

2.03 - -

FLAC

15 Theoretical cases

PLAXIS

Difference with theory (%)

No. of casesDifference with other program (%)

Cro

wn

disp

lace

men

t (m

m)

Tunn

el d

ispl

acem

ent (

mm

)

Construction stage Construction stage


Verification Database

[Axial force] [Shear] [Moment]

Non-prismatic Section

Selfweight

Program used

Civil

SoilWorks

Civil

SoilWorks

Civil

SoilWorks

Civil

SoilWorks

Civil

SoilWorks

Civil

SoilWorks

Civil

SoilWorks

Min

-1.01E+02

-1.01E+02

-1.16E+02

-1.16E+02

-6.30E+01

-6.30E+01

-2.38E+03

-2.38E+03

-1.51E+03

-1.51E+03

-2.68E+02

-2.68E+02

-1.19E+01

-1.19E+01

Max

-5.89E+01

-3.54E+01

-2.17E+03

-9.46E+02

-2.50E+02

-5.59E+00

-4.41E+01

-4.41E+01

-5.89E+01

-3.54E+01

-2.17E+03

-9.46E+02

-2.50E+02

-5.59E+00

Min

-3.32E+01

-3.32E+01

-3.66E+01

-3.66E+01

-2.61E+01

-2.61E+01

-7.42E+02

-7.42E+02

-9.62E+02

-9.62E+02

-8.29E+01

-8.29E+01

-1.06E+01

-1.06E+01

Max

3.66E+01

2.61E+01

7.42E+02

5.11E+02

8.29E+01

1.06E+01

3.32E+01

3.32E+01

3.66E+01

2.61E+01

7.42E+02

5.11E+02

8.29E+01

1.06E+01

Min

-5.01E+00

-5.01E+00

-6.56E+00

-6.56E+00

-2.67E+01

-2.67E+01

-3.65E+02

-3.65E+02

-1.36E+03

-1.36E+03

-1.51E+01

-1.51E+01

1.79E+01

1.79E+01

Max

4.00E+01

5.30E+00

8.57E+02

5.92E+02

9.19E+01

4.85E+01

3.30E+01

3.30E+01

4.00E+01

5.30E+00

8.57E+02

5.92E+02

9.19E+01

4.85E+01

Beam load (Vert)

Beam load (Horiz)

Point load (Vert)

Point load (Horiz)

Elementtemperature load

Temperature gradient load

Difference (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Lining analysisChange in thickness: 0.3 - 0.5m, B=1m

No. of loading types: 6

Axial force Shear Moment

Geotechnical Solution for Practical Design


Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for Slopes



05


[Theoretical Values as per Fellenius] FOS=24.959/7.810 = 3.1958

[Calculation of Safety Factor as per Fellenius][Unit Model]

[SoilWorks Safety Factor]

Slice ID dX(m)Height

(m)Weight(kN/m)

1 0.949 1.033

2.533

3.041

2.991

2.699

2.199

1.491

0.541

W × Sin(a)(kN/m)

1.766

4.329

5.474

5.383

4.859

3.959

2.683

0.974

a(degree)

65.320

44.523

30.224

17.558

5.768

-5.768

-17.558

-30.224

1.604

3.036

2.756

1.624

0.488

-0.398

-0.809

-0.490

7.810 24.959

0.949

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Sum

Shear(kN/m2)

1.187

2.338

3.360

3.825

3.777

3.263

2.408

1.420

Length(m)

2.274

1.332

1.157

1.049

1.005

1.005

1.049

1.157

Shear ×Length(kN/m)

2.700

3.114

3.888

4.012

3.796

3.279

2.526

1.643 Theoretical SoilWorks Difference

3.1958 3.1957 0.0001

[SoilWorks]

Verification ConditionsBishop method

Ground water level in rainy seasonNumber of slices: 30Unreinforced Slope (Cut Zone)

Rainy season

Dry season

Factor of Safety

1.05

1.93

SoilWorks

1.05 (0.00)

1.93 (0.00)

Slope/W (Difference)

1.07 (0.02)

1.93 (0.00)

Talren (Difference)

[Slope/W] [Talren]

SoilWorks_Verification Summary

06

Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for Slopes

Database of Verifications



[Dry Season] [Rainy Season]

Rainy season

Dry season

Factor of Safety

1.36

2.39

SoilWorks

1.34

2.38

0.02

0.01

Talren Difference

Rainy season

Dry season

Factor of Safety

2.42

3.96

SoilWorks

2.39

3.97

0.03

0.01

Talren Difference


Ground water level in rainy seasonNumber of slices: 100


Ground water level in rainy seasonNumber of slices: 100

Soil Nail Reinforced Slope

Earth Anchor Reinforced Slope

[Dry Season] [Rainy Season]

[Dry Season] [Rainy Season] [Dry Season] [Rainy Season]

[SoilWorks]

[SoilWorks] [Talren]

[Talren]

Soil Nail reinforced

Earth Anchor reinforced

Unreinforced

Classification

14

12

24

No. of Test Cases

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.02

Difference in Safety Factors with Other Programs based on the average of absolute differences for all the cases

Difference with Other Programs

Dry Season Rainy Season

Geotechnical Solution for Practical Design

Finite Element Analysis Verification for Slopes

Strength Reduction Method




Overview of Analysis [Zienkiewicz, 1975]

Factor of Safety (FS) & Strength Reduction Factor (SRF)

Strength reduction factor

Factor of safety

Failure criterion

Classification Constitutive Equations

Cohesion & internal friction angle at failure found while increasing or varying strength reduction factors

Remarks

FS=SRFAnalysis performed until numerical non-convergence takes place

Strength referencene line

Mohr circle at A

Reduced strength reference line

Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion assumed , , : Shear stress in original ground, Cohesion, Internal friction angle , , : Shear strength at failure, Cohesion, Internal friction angle

Rainy season

Dry season

1.06

1.88

SoilWorks

1.03 (0.03)

1.88 (0.00)

FLAC (Difference)

0.96 (0.10)

1.80 (0.08)

PLAXIS (Difference)

Rainy season

Dry season

Factor of Safety

Factor of Safety

1.19

2.06

SoilWorks

1.15 (0.04)

2.07 (0.01)

FLAC (Difference)

1.07 (0.12)

2.04 (0.02)

PLAXIS (Difference)

[SoilWorks] [FLAC] [PLAXIS]

[SoilWorks] [FLAC] [PLAXIS]

Unreinforced Slope

Reinforced Slope


Foundation Module (P-y) Analysis



Unit Test Verification

Maximum displacement

Maximum moment

Maximum shear

Maximum ground reaction

Unit: lbf, in

-5.95e+06

3.13e+04

3.37e+02

-1.69E-01

SoilWorks

-5.97e+06

3.19e+04

3.48e+02

-1.64E-01

Group

0.34

1.92

3.26

2.96

Difference (%)

Deflection(in) Moment(lbs in) Shear Force(lbs)

Layer 1

Layer 2

Layer 3

Dep

th(in

)

Dep

th(in

)

Dep

th(in

)

Maximum displacement

Maximum moment

Maximum shear

Maximum ground reaction

Unit: kN, m

-2.03e+02

-1.31e+02

4.65e+01

6.91E-03

SoilWorks

-1.95e+02

-1.37e+02

4.85e+01

6.68E-03

Group

3.94

4.58

4.30

3.33

Difference (%)

Sand - 1

Sand - 2

Sand - 3

Soft rock - 1

Moment(kNm) Shear Force(kN)Deflection(in) Moment(lbs in) Shear Force(lbs)

Dep

th(in

)

Dep

th(in

)

Dep

th(in

)

1-D Consolidation Analysis Verification for Soft Ground





ClassificationPo

(t/m2)ΔP

(t/m2)Consolidation Period

(days) U=90%

Hand calculation

SoilWorks

Difference

1.350

1.350

0.000

20.191

20.190

0.001

71.052

71.071

- 0.019

224

224

5.651m

10.649m

4.0m

Fill embankment (above water level)

Traffic loads

Fill embankment (below water level)

Over-consolidated clay

Total Settlement(cm)

0

X=39.9m

X=39.9m

X=79.0m

X=79.0m

Max difference: 0.19cm / Max convergence error: 0.07cm

Max difference: 0.57cm / Max convergence error: -0.14cm

SoilWorks K-embank

1-D consolidation settlement (cm)

2-D consolidation settlement (cm)1-D consolidation settlement (cm)

2-D consolidation settlement (cm)

197.194

134.157255.801

129.762

197.130

134.050255.940

129.680

0.03

0.080.05

0.06

Check Location Time - Settlement Time - Difference

Classification SoilWorks K-embank Difference (%)

Settlement difference

Settlement difference

Time(day)

Time(day)

Settl

emen

t(cm

)

Settl

emen

t(cm

)

Time(day)

Settl

emen

t(cm

)

Settl

emen

t(cm

)


1-D Consolidation Analysis Verification for Soft Ground

Verification for Increase in Ground Strength


Drainage Verification

Smear Effect Well Resistance

Hansbo (1981)

Proposed by Proposed equation

Barron (1948)

Yoshikuni (1979)

Onoue (1988)

considered

considered

unconsidered

unconsidered

considered

considered

considered

unconsidered

Classification CTC = 1.2m

Proposed Eq.

Hansbo

Barron

Yoshikuni

Onoue

SoilWorks

265.45

202.90

209.81

264.48

Hand calc’s Hand calc’s Hand calc’s

264.95

202.40

209.31

263.98

K-embank

265.44

202.50

209.41

264.48

CTC = 1.6m

SoilWorks

512.06

400.58

412.87

510.25

511.57

400.10

412.38

509.77

K-embank

512.07

400.17

412.44

510.21

CTC = 2.0m

SoilWorks

848.94

674.56

693.75

846.06

848.46

674.08

693.27

845.58

K-embank

848.89

674.09

693.30

846.00

10.0m

20.0m

Fill embankment

Weak layer

PBD method (CTC 1.2m – 2.0m)

Properties

Time (days) Time (days)Time (days)Time (days)

Deg

ree

of c

onso

lidat

ion

(%)

Deg

ree

of c

onso

lidat

ion

(%)

Deg

ree

of c

onso

lidat

ion

(%)

Deg

ree

of c

onso

lidat

ion

(%)

Theoretical

TheoreticalTheoretical

Theoretical


Theoretical


Theoretical


[Hansbo] [Barron] [Yoshikuni] [Onoue]

U=90% Elapsed Time (days)

Sloped zoneMain line zone

Main Line Zone Cohesion (t/m2) Sloped Zone Cohesion (t/m2)Construction

stageS-1

Original ground

1st Banking

2nd Banking

3rd Banking

SoilWorks

3.350

5.184

6.763

7.617

K-embank

3.350

5.200

6.770

7.620

Difference

-

0.016

0.007

0.003

S-2

SoilWorks

3.350

5.081

5.527

5.663

K-embank

3.350

5.110

5.540

5.680

Difference

-

0.029

0.013

0.017

S-3

SoilWorks

3.800

6.304

7.883

8.655

K-embank

3.800

6.300

7.880

8.660

Difference

-

0.004

0.003

0.005

S-4

SoilWorks

3.800

6.052

6.611

6.798

K-embank

3.800

6.050

6.610

6.800

Difference

-

0.002

0.001

0.002

S-1 Over-consolidated clayNormally consolidated clay

S-3S-2S-4

SoilWorks

[Increase in ground strength in Main line zone] [Increase in ground strength in Sloped zone]

Coh

esio

n (t/

m2 )

Coh

esio

n (t/

m2 )

Construction stageOriginal ground 1st Banking 2nd Banking 3rd Banking

Construction stageOriginal ground 1st Banking 2nd Banking 3rd Banking

Verification for Seepage Finite Element Analysis





TheoreticalPLAXFLOW SoilWorks

Value Value Difference (%)

Line BC 0.500 0.497 0.60 0.500 0.00

Analysis Type

Analysis Model

Element

Property

Boundary Condition

2D Plane Element (Steady Flow)

Total Flux: Line AB: n=s & qn = qs , qv = 0 Line CD: qx = k/2, Total fluxQx= k/2 x L Line AC: qn = k x s/2L, Total flux Qx = k/2 x L Line BC: qs = k x n/2L, Total flux Qx = k/2 x L

Boundary Condition:

3-Node triangle element

Width 2 m

1 mHeight

Permeability coefficient k = 1.0 m/day

Water level at dam left

Other nodes

Total water head 1 m

No flow

[Unit Model]

[Theoretical Solution]

[Efflux]m3/day/m

AC face – constant pressure water head (= constant)AB face: No normal flow, qv =0CB face: Seepage h=y

Difference (%)

Steady Flow Seepage Analysis

[Real Model]

[Comparison of Seepage Analysis Results]

[Total Water Head] m3/day/m

SoilWorks Seep/WMinimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Total water head

Pressure water head

14.000

-1.768

17.900

17.845

14.000 17.900

-1.870 17.841

Minimum Maximum

0.00 0.00

5.77 0.02

Unit: m

Difference (%)

[Phreatic Line]


Verification for Seepage Finite Element AnalysisSoilWorks_Verification

12



[Seep/W – Pressure Water Head at 14400sec]

[Real Model]

[Water Level Drop Function] [Pressure Water Head Results]

[SoilWorks – Pressure Water Head at 14400sec] [Water Head Results at Water Level Drop]

Unit: m

Transient Flow Seepage Analysis - Saturated Soil

SoilWorks Seep/WMin. Max. Min Max

Total water head

Pressure water head

17.190

17.117

14.970

-5.311

17.19014.970

17.114-5.357

Difference (%)Min Max

0.00 0.00

0.020.87

Hei

ght(m

)

Pres

sure

Hea

d(m

)

Time(sec)Time(sec)

[Rain Intensity Function] [Unsaturated Property Function] [Pressure Water Head Results]

[Water Level Drop Function] [Real Model]

SoilWorks Soil +Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Total water head

Pressure water head

0.000

-0.750

0.481

1.750

0.000 0.479

-0.750 1.750

Difference (%)Minimum Maximum

0.00 0.42

0.00 0.00

Unit: m

Transient Flow Seepage Analysis - Saturated Soil

Percentage of Volume Water Content(%)

Pre

ssur

e H

ead(

P)

Pre

ssur

e H

ead(

P)

Per

mea

bilit

y co

effic

ient

ratio

(Kr)

Pressure Head

Permeability coefficient ratio

Time(hr) Time (hr)

Rai

nfal

l(m3 /

hr/m

2 )

Hei

ght(m

)

Time(hr)



Theoretical Verification [Wedge Failure]

60m

50°

35°

y t

z

a

x

Height(H) 60m

Slope Dip(α) 50˚

Joint Dip(β) 35˚

Sesimic Coeff.(sc) 0.08g

Unit Weight(γr) 2.7 tonf/m3

Unit Weight(γw) 1 tonf/m3

Water Percent(%) 90% * z

Cohesion(c) 10 tonf/m2

Friction Angle(θ) 35˚

[Input Data][Unit Model]

[Theoretical Equation] [Factor of safety]

[Theoretical Equation] [Factor of safety]

Dip direction(J1) Dip(J1) Dip direction(J2) Dip(J2) θ

141 45 219 45 35

[Input Data]

[Unit Model]

z Weight (W) Area (A) z U V a x y t

14.0092 2484.39 80.1826 12.60828 505.482 79.4843 45.9908 65.6817 50.346 15.3357

Theoretical SoilWorks Difference

1.0654738 1.06547 0.000

Theoretical SoilWorks Difference

1 1.0061 0.0061

67.53 67.53 37.8524

ω1 ω2 p

Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for Rock Slopes

Theoretical Verification [Plane Failure]



Dry : Factor of safety with different failure plane angle Wet : Factor of safety with different filled of water

RockBolt Capacity : 200 tonf/m

SoilWorks Rocplane Water Pressure

SoilWorks Rocplane Water Pressure

5

9

25

37

40

45

FailurePlane angle

9.317

5.211

1.961

1.552

1.602

2.198

9.317

5.211

1.961

1.552

1.602

2.198

SoilWorks Rocplane Difference

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

[Dry]

10

37

55

75

78

100

WaterPercent(%)

1.546

1.320

1.025

0.566

0.491

0.017

1.546

1.320

1.025

0.566

0.000

0.000


0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.491

0.017

[Wet]

5

9

25

37

40

45

Failure plane angle

11.131

5.769

2.981

2.065

1.698

1.644

11.131

5.769

2.981

2.065

1.698

1.644


0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

[Dry]

10

37

55

75

78

100

WaterPercent(%)

1.630

1.399

1.098

1.630

1.399

1.098

0.630

0.552

0.060

0.630

0.000

0.000


0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.552

0.060

[Wet]

Differences



RockBolt Capacity : 2000 tonf

10

20

30

40

50

60

Failure plane1 angle

4.526

2.664

2.279

2.574

3.183

4.894

4.526

2.664

2.279

2.574

3.183

4.894

SoilWorks Swedge Difference

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

[Dry]

SoilWorks Swedge Water Pressure

SoilWorks Swedge Water Pressure

10

50

60

70

80

100

WaterPercent(%)

3.180

2.806

2.532

2.150

1.641

0.176

3.180

2.806

1.463

0

0

0


0.000

0.000

1.069

2.150

1.641

0.176

[Wet]

10

20

30

40

50

60

Failure plane1 angle

4.567

2.735

2.425

2.99

4.101

8.161

4.567

2.735

2.425

2.99

4.101

8.161


0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

[Dry]

10

50

60

70

80

100

WaterPercent(%)

4.098

3.679

3.372

2.943

2.373

0.725

4.098

3.679

3.372

1.733

0

0


0.000

0.000

0.000

1.210

2.373

0.725

[Wet]

Differences


Real Model Verification [Wedge Failure]

Unreinforced Slope

Reinforced Slope

Dry : Factor of safety with different failure plane angle Wet : Factor of safety with different filled of water

Possible to calculate the factor of safety within certain range of water percent (%)

Possible to figure out the reinforcing effect within certain range of water percent (%)


[Variation of F.S. with Failure Plane Angle]

Bench(Slope Berms)

Slope Angle

Slope Angle-2

Slope Angle-5

Slope Angle-7

Classification

0.846

0.816

0.824

0.838

0.849

40

0.766

0.722

0.733

0.754

0.771

45

0.731

0.656

0.674

0.708

0.740

50

0.779

0.624

0.656

0.728

0.805

55

0.965

0.943

0.949

0.959

0.967

35


Comparison between modeling slope berms and standard angle Check the effect of slope berms modeling with different failure plane angle

Bench(Slope Berms)

Slope Angle

Slope Angle-2

Slope Angle-5

Slope Angle-7

Classification

1.147

1.066

1.098

1.170

1.247

50

1.064

1.014

1.031

1.066

1.098

55

1.017

0.981

0.993

1.014

1.031

60

0.987

0.959

0.967

0.981

0.993

65

[Variation of F.S. with Slope Angle]

30m

30m

35°

50 48 45 43

55°

70°

50°

0.965

0.943

0.949

0.959

0.967

70


Real Model Verification [Plane Failure with Slope Berms]

Slope Angle

Failure Plane Angle

Comparison between modeling slope berms and standard angle Check the effect of slope berms modeling with different slope angle

Error of safety factor ranged from 10 to 30% depending on the size of wedge

- Possible to estimate more accurate safety factor with modeling slope bermsDifferences


[Variation of F.S. with Slope Angle]

[Variation of F.S. with Failure Plane Angle]

Bench(Slope Berms)

Slope Angle

Slope Angle-2

Slope Angle-5

Slope Angle-7

Classification

1.160

1.062

1.091

1.140

1.179

55

1.229

1.079

1.123

1.202

1.266

65

1.486

1.197

1.280

1.440

1.583

75

1.801

1.342

1.470

1.732

1.976

80

1.181

1.108

1.129

1.164

1.191

45

Bench(Slope Berms)

Slope Angle

Slope Angle-2

Slope Angle-5

Slope Angle-7

Classification

1.618

1.461

1.533

1.675

1.805

50

1.446

1.328

1.375

1.461

1.533

55

1.331

1.235

1.269

1.328

1.375

60

1.247

1.164

1.191

1.235

1.269

65

1.181

1.108

1.129

1.164

1.191

70



Real Model Verification [Wedge Failure with Slope Berms]

Slope Angle

Failure Plane Angle

Comparison between modeling slope berms and standard angle Check the effect of slope berms modeling with different slope angle

Comparison between modeling slope berms and standard angle Check the effect of slope berms modeling with different failure plane angle

Differences Error of safety factor ranged from 10 to 30% depending on the size of wedge

- Possible to estimate more accurate safety factor with modeling slope berms



Marble dust

Kaolinite

Filling Material

1.3

1.3

Shear Strength

0.6

0.37

Strength of Filling

3

12

m

0~250%

0~250%

f/a (%)

[Input Data]

Experimental Verification [Filling Materials]

She

ar s

treng

th(k

g/cm

2 )

She

ar R

atio

(τ /

σ)

[Papaligans, 1990]

[Variation of Shear Strength with Percent of Filling / SoilWorks] [Goodman, 1970]

6 1.3 1 0~150%

Thickness Raito (t/a)

Stre

ss R

atio

(τ /

σ)

0.00.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

She

ar s

treng

th(k

g/cm

2 )

percent of filling = 100 f/a

Strength of filling materials


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160


0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

0 50 100 150 200 250

Differences

Marble dust

Kaolinite

Marble dust

KaolinitePredicted



Comparison between analysis results and experiment results

The larger coefficient of m represents the more weak of filling material

m : Strength reduction coefficient according to the type of filling material

In case that m is equal to 1, the results are coincident with the model experiment data.

Differences

[Equivalent Shear Strength with Filling Material, Kim Yong Jun, et al (2006)]

Shear Strength Strength of Filling m f/a (%)

[Variation of Shear Strength with Percent of Filling / SoilWorks]


Real Model Verification [Plane Failure]

Sand ~ Silty Sand

Clay

Filling Material

1.3

1.3

Shear Strength

0.7

0.7

Strength of Filling

1~1.5

2

m

0~300%

0~300%

f/a (%)

0

1

2

3

1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

She

ar R

atio

(τ /

σ)


[Variation of Shear Strength with Percent of Filling / SoilWorks]

[Input Data]

[Output Data]

[Unit Model]

percent filled(%)

She

ar s

treng

th

percent filled(%)

Fact

or o

f Saf

ety

She

ar s

treng

th(k

g/cm

2 )

0.00.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Thickness Ratio = 100 t/a

3.0

Joint Dip(β)

Unit Weight(γr)

Cohesion of Joint(c)Friction Angleof Joint(θ)

Slope Dip(α)

35˚

2.5 tonf/m3

5 tonf/m2

25˚

50˚

Strength of Filling

Shear Strength

2.51 tonf/m2

7.68 tonf/m2

Friction Angle of Filling Material(θ)Type of Filling Material

m

f/a (%)

Cohesion of Filling Material(c)

5˚

Sand~Clay

1~1.5

0~300%

2 tonf/m2

Comparison between analysis results and experiment results

The larger coefficient of m represents the more weak of filling materialDifferences

[Kim Yong Jun. et al, 2006]




Differences Perform stability analysis according to the shear strength of filling material

and percent of filling

[Variation of Shear Strength with Percent of Filling] [Variation of F.S. with Percent of Filling]



[Input Data]

[SoilWorks]

Weight(W)

34.8698

Area(A) θ

294.524 15

Type

[Input Data]

Tensile Force

Theoretical

1.38083

SoilWorks

1.38082

Difference

0.000

Tensile & Shear Force 1.45956 1.45954 0.000

[ Tensile Only ]

[ Tensile & Shear ]

Theoretical Equation

[Rocplane]

Fact

or o

f Saf

ety

Reinforcement Angle

Unreinforced

-20

-10

0

10

20

40

60

80

90

F.S. (Tensile Force)

1.285

1.467 (max.)

1.466

1.458

1.445

1.427

1.381

1.326

1.272 (less than unreinforced F.S.)

1.246 (less than unreinforced F.S.)

F.S. (Tensile & Shear Force)

1.285

1.462

1.479

1.489

1.492 (max.)

1.488

1.46

1.411

1.352

1.321

Slope Dip(α)

Joint Dip(β)

Height(H)

50˚

35˚

2.5 tonf/m2

20m

Unit Weight(γr)

Cohesion(c)

Friction Angle(θ)

Tensile Force

Shear Force

3 tonf/m2

25˚

20 tonf/m

10 tonf/m

Tensile onlyTensile & shearNo reinforcement


Theoretical Verification [Shear Force]

Theoretical Verification [Shear Force]

Tensile force only can result in unreasonable safety factor within certain range of reinforcement angle

Take account of shear force for design optimization Differences

[Unit Model]

[Variation of F.S. with Reinforcement Angle]




21

[SoilWorks]

[SoilWorks] [Input Data]

[Total Reinforcing Force]

SoilWorks

79.452 tonf/m

Rocplane

100 tonf/m

Difference

20.548 tonf/m

[Factor of Safety]

Theoretical

1.34196

SoilWorks

1.34196

Rocplane

1.43981

Difference

0.098

[Rocplane]

[Rocplane]

Tensile Force(tonf)

Bored Diameter

Frictional Resistance

Length

Vertical Spacing

Horizontal Spacing

No. of Reinforcement

20 tonf

0.05 m

50 tonf/m2

10 m

2 m

2 m

10

Grouted Length(m )

Fact

or o

f Saf

ety

Anchored Length(m)

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Tensile Force(tonf)

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

vs

<

<

<

<

<

Pullout Force(tonf)

3.93

7.85

11.78

15.71

19.63

23.56

27.49

31.42

35.34

39.27

Factor of Safety

>

>

>

>

>

1.286

1.292

1.298

1.304

1.310

1.311

1.311

1.311

1.311

1.311

[Variation of F.S. with Anchored Length]

The smaller value between tensile force and pullout force takes effect on the safety factorDifferences

Differences Tensile force only cannot consider the effect of reinforcement length

Take account of reinforcement spacing and position automatically

Real Model Verification [Pullout Force]

SoilWorks eliminates significant efforts to learn various different software programs of different user interfaces to solve a wide range of geotechnical problems. One user interface is common to all the analysis modules to handle any type of geotechnical problems. SoilWorks streamlines the technical support and the maintenance of the software, and further, data exchange and management are consistent because one company has developed all the modules.

SoilWorks is designed to cater to geotechnical engineers as well as structural engineers, which provides the opportunity to expand the areas of solving geotechnical problems. It also enables the engineers to address soil-structure interaction.

Upon request of the user, an arrangement will be made to guide/instruct/demonstratethe use of the software onlinethrough a web session.

Online Technical Support

Regularly scheduled webinars are provided to cover various subjects of geotechnical and/or structural problems in interaction. Recordings will be made available for those who wish to review or missed the sessions.

Technical Webinars

Various subjects on technical materials and tutorials are provided to help the user become familiar with technical subjects and the use of the software.

Technical Materials

e-Learning Webinars & Fast Technical Supporta total satisfaction support system

For any enquiries on the functionality and sales support,contact: [email protected]

The user may send anytechnical questions [email protected] will be provided within 24 hours.

E-mail Technical Support

http://en.midasuser.comfor detail functionality

[email protected]

SoilWorksV E R I F I C A T I O N S U M M A R YGEOTECHN ICAL SOLUT ION FOR PRACT ICAL DES IGN

soilworks verification high - midas useren.midasuser.com/.../soilworks_verification... · 01...

Documents