Comparison of different soil models for excavation using retaining walls

International Journal of Civil Engineering

© 2017 by SSRG - IJCE Journal

Volume 4 Issue 3

Year of Publication : 2017

Authors : Arjun Gaur, Ankit Sahay

10.14445/23488352/IJCE-V4I3P110

How to Cite?

Arjun Gaur, Ankit Sahay, "Comparison of different soil models for excavation using retaining walls," SSRG International Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 4,  no. 3, pp. 40-45, 2017. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/23488352/IJCE-V4I3P110

Abstract:

This research work is carried out various effects of different soil models for excavation, using retaining wall. There are two types of material models namely Mohr-Coulomb model (MC) and Hardening Soil (HS) model are used. For both these models Plaxis software is being used for analysis. This paper describes the study of dry excavation & retaining wall using tie back wall. We know there is risk to human life,natural resources and also on infrastructure due to landslide. These slope failures causes huge loss of life and property along with many inconveniences and problems such as disturbances, deviation of traffic along highways and damage to the roads. This study involves the comparasion between dry construction of an excavation with retaining wall by using MC model and HS model. PLAXIS allows for a complete modelling of this given type of problem. It explains modelling of anchoed retaining wall and prestressing condition. More over, the dry excavation also involves the calculation of groundwater flow, displacements, stresses and phi-c reduction etc. which finds the new water pressure distribution, deformations, and obtained new forces. A fully comparison between the results from Mohr-Couloumb and Hardening Soil cases yields some important differences which are presented in this paper.

Keywords:

Excavation, Retaining wall, Tie back wall, Plaxis, Hardening soil model, Mohr coulomb model.

References:

[1] Effects of rarely analyzed soil parameters for FEM analysis of embedded retaining structures - V. Józsa1
[2] Plaxis V.9 Material Models Manual, 2010
[3] Addenbrooke, T., Potts, D., and Puzrin, A. The influence of pre-failure soil stiffness.
[4] The numerical analysis of the tunnel construction. Géotechnique, 47(3):693–712, 1997.
[5] Obrzud R.F, The Hardening Soil model – a practical guidebook. Technical report
[6] “The Changing Model of Soil” Revisited - Daniel deB. Richter
[7] R. Szepesházi, Modern Soil models (web note) p.4-6
[8] Displacement-Based Design for Deep Excavations W. Allen Marr and Martin Hawkes
[9] Z. Czap, G. Varga, Cuttings and fillings, Methods of the FE analysis, MTM (2003/5. okt.)
[10] Schanz, T., Vermeer, P., and Bonier, P. (1999). Formulation and verification of the Hardening Soil model. In Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1999.
[11] Truty A. Hardening soil model with small strain stiffness. Technical Report 080901, Zace Services Ltd., Lausanne, 2008.
[12] Schweiger H.F. Benchmarking in geotechnics. part i: Results of benchmarking. part ii: Ref-erence solution and parametric study.
[13] Brinkgreve R.B.J., Vermeer P.A. On the use of Cam-Clay models. Proc. 4th Int Symp on Num Mod in Geomech – NUMOG IV, Swansea, UK, 24-27 August, 1992.
[14] On the use of the Hardening Soil Small Strain model in geotechnical practice - Rafał F. Obrzud
[15] Mohr–Coulomb Failure Criterion -Joseph F. Labuz and Arno Zang
[16] The Analysis of Geotechnical Properties of Soils improved by Different Nanomaterials (SSRG-IJCE) – volume 4 Issue 2 – February 2017, Dr. Zaid Hmaeed Majeed, Mrs Zahraa Jabbar Hussein.