soilworks verification high - midas useren.midasuser.com/.../soilworks_verification... · 01...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Real Model Verification
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
Real Model Verification
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
SoilWorks_Verification
Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for Slopes
Theoretical Verification
Real Model Verification
05
SoilWorks_Verification
[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
SoilWorks_Verification
Real Model Verification
[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
Verification ConditionsBishop method
Ground water level in rainy seasonNumber of slices: 100
Verification ConditionsBishop method
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
Real Model Verification
07 SoilWorks_Verification Summary
SoilWorks_Verification
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
Geotechnical Solution for Practical Design 08
Foundation Module (P-y) Analysis
Real Model Verification
SoilWorks_Verification
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
Theoretical Verification
Real Model Verification
09 SoilWorks_Verification Summary
SoilWorks_Verification
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
)
Geotechnical Solution for Practical Design 10
1-D Consolidation Analysis Verification for Soft Ground
Verification for Increase in Ground Strength
SoilWorks_Verification
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
TheoreticalTheoretical
Theoretical
TheoreticalTheoretical
Theoretical
TheoreticalTheoretical
[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
11 SoilWorks_Verification Summary
SoilWorks_Verification
Theoretical Verification
Real Model Verification
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]
Geotechnical Solution for Practical Design 12
Verification for Seepage Finite Element AnalysisSoilWorks_Verification
12
Real Model Verification
Real Model Verification
[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)
13 SoilWorks_Verification Summary
SoilWorks_Verification
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]
Geotechnical Solution for Practical Design 14
SoilWorks_Verification
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
SoilWorks Rocplane Difference
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
SoilWorks Rocplane Difference
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
SoilWorks Rocplane Difference
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.552
0.060
[Wet]
Differences
15 SoilWorks_Verification Summary
SoilWorks_Verification
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
SoilWorks Swedge Difference
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
SoilWorks Swedge Difference
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
SoilWorks Swedge Difference
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.210
2.373
0.725
[Wet]
Differences
Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for Rock Slopes
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 (%)
Geotechnical Solution for Practical Design 16
[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
SoilWorks_Verification
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
Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for Rock Slopes
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
17 SoilWorks_Verification Summary
[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
SoilWorks_Verification
Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for Rock Slopes
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
Geotechnical Solution for Practical Design 18
SoilWorks_Verification
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
percent of filling = 100 f/a
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
percent of filling = 100 f/a
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
Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for Rock Slopes
Experimental Verification [Filling Materials]
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]
19 SoilWorks_Verification Summary
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)
percent of filling = 100 f/a
[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]
SoilWorks_Verification
Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for Rock Slopes
Experimental Verification [Filling Materials]
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]
Geotechnical Solution for Practical Design 20
SoilWorks_Verification
[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
Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for Rock Slopes
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_Verification Summary
SoilWorks_Verification
Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for Rock Slopes
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
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