soilworks verification summary

MIDAS Information Technology Co., Ltd.

a new paradigm for Integrated Geotechnical Solutions

Verification Summary

01

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

UK

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

02

Geotechnical Solutions For Practical Design

SoilWorks

Slope SeepageSoft Ground FoundationGround Dynamic

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, 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.

http://en.midasuser.com

[Unit Model]

[Real Model] [Comparison of Results]

[Stresses in X-direction]

Radius of yield zone: Salencon (1969) theoretical method

[Comparison of Solutions]

03

Verification for Tunnel Finite Element Analysis


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

No. of construction stages: 8

Ground

Theoretical Verification

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

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

SoilWorks Verification Summary

Real Model Verification

Cro

wn

disp

lace

men

t (m

m)

Tunn

el d

ispl

acem

ent (

mm

)

Construction stage Construction stage

04

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

Verification for Tunnel Finite Element Analysis


Ground

8 Real model cases

- 6.08 8.29

2.03 - -

FLAC

15 Theoretical cases

PLAXIS

Difference with theory (%)

No. of casesDifference with other program (%)


[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



Verification Database

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

No. of loading types: 6

Axial force Shear Moment

Cro

wn

disp

lace

men

t (m

m)

Tunn

el d

ispl

acem

ent (

mm

)

Construction stage Construction stage

[Theoretical Values as per Fellenius]

[SoilWorks]

FOS=24.959/7.810 = 3.1958

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

[SoilWorks Safety Factor]

Verification ConditionsBishop method

Ground water level in rainy seasonNumber of slices: 30

Slope

Unreinforced 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)

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

05



Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for SlopesSoilWorks Verification Summary

[Slope/W] [Talren]


Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for SlopesSoilWorks Verification Summary

[Dry Season] [Rainy Season]

06

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

SoilWorks

Talren Difference

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

Slope

Soil Nail Reinforced Slope

Earth Anchor Reinforced Slope

[Dry Season] [Rainy Season]

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

[SoilWorks]

[Talren]


Database of Verifications

Difference with Other Programs

Dry Season Rainy Season


Slope

Unreinforced Slope

Reinforced Slope

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)


07 a new paradigm for Integrated Geotechnical Solutions

Overview of Analysis [Zienkiewicz, 1975]

[SoilWorks] [FLAC] [PLAXIS]

[SoilWorks] [FLAC] [PLAXIS]

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

FS=SRFAnalysis performed until numerical non-convergence takes place

Remarks

Strength Reduction Method


Finite Element Analysis Verification for Slopes

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

08

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 (%)

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

Difference (%)


Foundation Module (P-y) AnalysisFoundation

Unit Test Verification


Sand - 1

Sand - 2

Sand - 3

Soft rock - 1


Moment(kNm) Shear Force(kN)

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

Layer 1

Layer 2

Layer 3

Dep

th(in

)

Dep

th(in

)

Dep

th(in

)

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

Dep

th(in

)

Dep

th(in

)

Dep

th(in

)

1-D Consolidation Analysis Verification for Soft GroundSoft Ground

Classification

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

Po(t/m2)

P(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



SoilWorks

5.651m

10.649m

4.0m

Fill embankment (above water level)

Traffic loads

Fill embankment (below water level)

Over-consolidated clay

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 (%)

Total Settlement(cm)

0

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

)

Sloped zoneMain line zone

10


1-D Consolidation Analysis Verification for Soft GroundSoft Ground

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 calcs Hand calcs Hand calcs

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

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 K-Program

10.0m

20.0m

Fill embankment

Weak layer

PBD method (CTC 1.2m 2.0m)

Drainage Verification

Verification for Increase in Ground Strength

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]

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

[Barron] [Yoshikuni] [Onoue]

U=90% Elapsed Time (days)

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 AnalysisSeepage

Steady Flow Seepage 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]

[Real Model]

[Comparison of Seepage Analysis Results]

[Total Water Head]

[Efflux]m3/day/m

m3/day/m

4PJM8PSLT 4FFQ8Minimum 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

Unit: m

Theoretical Veification


Difference (%)

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

[Phreatic Line]

Difference (%)

[Seep/W Pressure Water Head at 14400sec]

12


Verification for Seepage Finite Element Analysis

[Real Model]

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

[Water Level Drop Function] [Real Model]

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

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

4PJM8PSLT 4PJMMinimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Total water head

Pressure water head

Difference (%)Minimum Maximum

Unit: m

Unit: m

Seepage

Transient Flow Seepage Analysis - Saturated Soil

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



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

)

Pres

sure

Hea

d(m

)

Time(sec)Time(sec)

Hei

ght(m

)

Time(hr)

13

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

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.

E-mail Technical Support

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]


M E M O

Geotechnical Solutions for Practical Design

SoilWorks

$PQZSJHIU4JODF.*%"4*OGPSNBUJPO5FDIOPMPHZ$P-UE"MMSJHIUTSFTFSWFE http://en.midasuser.comfor detail functionality

[email protected]


SoilWorks

soilworks verification summary

Documents