Reference:

H.F. Schweiger
Design of deep excavations with FEM - Influence of constitutive model and comparison of EC7
design approaches
Proc. of the 2010 Earth Retention Conference (Finno,R.J., Hashash, Y.M.A., Arduino, P., eds.)
Bellevue, Washington, USA, 1.-4. August 2010, ASCE, 804-817

Design of deep excavations with FEM - influence of constitutive model and

comparison of EC7 design approaches
H.F. Schweiger
Computational Geotechnics Group, Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Graz University of Technology, Rechbauerstr. 12, 8010 Graz, Austria;
PH (+43316) 873-6234; email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Numerical analyses are performed on a routine basis in practical geotechnical
engineering to assess the deformation behaviour of deep excavations under service
load conditions, but it becomes increasingly common to use results from numerical
analysis for ultimate limit state design (ULS). When doing so, compatibility of the
design with relevant standards and codes of practice, valid in the respective country,
has to be assured but there are no clear guidelines how this can be achieved. In this
paper two aspects are addressed. First the influence of the constitutive model
employed for modelling the mechanical behaviour of the soil on calculated structural
forces of retaining walls is discussed and secondly the possibilities and limitations of
introducing the partial factor concept as established in EC7 in combination with
numerical analysis are highlighted.
INTRODUCTION
Numerical analyses are widely used in practical geotechnical engineering to assess
the deformation behaviour of deep excavations, in particular when the influence on
existing infrastructure such as buildings or adjacent tunnels has to be evaluated. In
addition it becomes increasingly common to use results from numerical analysis as
basis for the design. When doing so, compatibility of the design with relevant
standards and codes of practice, valid in the respective country, has to be assured. In
general this is a well established procedure when employing conventional design
calculations based e.g. on limit equilibrium methods, but there are no clear guidelines
how this can be achieved when numerical methods are used. Thus not much
literature is available on this issue although some attempts have been made (e.g.
Bauduin et al. (2000), Schweiger (2005, 2009), Simpson (2000, 2007)). An
additional difficulty arises, namely the appropriate choice of the constitutive model
for the soil, which has a direct consequence for the design because different
constitutive models will lead to different design forces. Both aspects are addressed in
this paper by means of a benchmark example. Finally, results form the analysis of a
real case history, where a diaphragm wall with prestressed ground anchors is used as
a retaining system are briefly presented. It follows from these examples that the
choice of the constitutive model and the design approach has an influence on the
results, but given the uncertainties inherent in any analysis in geotechnical
engineering the differences due to the different design approaches seem acceptable
provided a suitable constitutive model is employed.

BENCHMARK EXAMPLE - INFLUENCE OF CONSTITUTIVE MODEL

Problem definition and calculation steps
The basic geometry of the investigated deep excavation is depicted in Figure 1. In
order to study the effect of different constitutive models for various ground
conditions two different (homogeneous) soil conditions are assumed, namely dense
sand and a soft soil. For simplicity the wall (EA = 2.53E06 kN/m, EI = 3.02E4
kNm2/m) and the strut (EA = 1.5E06 kN/m) have been assumed the same for both
ground conditions, only the length of the wall and drainage conditions vary. Wall
friction was taken as 2/3 of the friction angle of the soil. The soil parameters have
been determined based on experimental results which can be considered to be
representative for the respective soil.
The following calculation steps have been performed, but only results for the final
stage are presented in the following.
Step 0: Initial stress state ('v = .h, 'h = K0 'v, K0 = 1 - sin')
Step 1: Apply surcharge load (permanent load of 10 kPa)
Step 2: Activate wall (wished-in-place), set displacements to zero
Step 3: Excavation to level -2.0 m
Step 4: Activate strut at level -1.5 m
Step 5: Lowering of GW-Table to -6.0 m inside excavation (only for dense sand)
Step 6: Excavation to level -4.0 m
Step 7: Excavation to level -6.0 m
Step 8: Apply variable load of 15 kPa (only for comparison of design approaches)

Figure 1. Geometry of benchmark problem for sand and clay layer

For the excavation in the sand layer a deep hydraulic barrier is assumed at the level
of the base of the wall and thus no seepage flow is considered (see Figure 1). The
analysis considering the soft soil layer has been performed under undrained
conditions and it has been assumed that the water is excavated simultaneously with

the soil and no modifications to the groundwater conditions are made. The original
GW-table is assumed to be at -3.5 m for the sand and at -2.0 m for the clay (Figure
1). The clay above the water table has been modelled as drained material.
CONSTITUTIVE MODELS AND PARAMETERS
Sand layer
For the excavation in the sand layer three different constitutive models have been
employed, namely the simple Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion (MC), the standard
Plaxis Hardening Soil model (HS), which is a double hardening plasticity model, and
the Hardening Soil Small model (HSS), which is the extension of the latter to
account for small strain stiffness (Benz, 2007). The parameters are listed in Table 1.
Strength parameters are the same for all models but stiffness parameters are different.
They are stress dependent in the HS and HSS model (values in Table 1 are reference
values) but constant in the Mohr-Coulomb model. The average value of loading and
unloading stiffness which follows from the HS model at the base of the retaining
wall has been assigned as stiffness in the latter.

Table 1. Parameters for dense sand for Hardening Soil Small Model (HSS)
Parameter
[kN/m]

[kN/m]
r
[]

c
[kPa]
[]

[-]
ur
[kPa]
E50ref
Eoedref
[kPa]
ref
Eur
[kPa]
m
[-]
[kPa]
pref

Meaning
Unit weight (unsaturated)
Unit weight (saturated)
Friction angle
Cohesion
Angle of dilatancy
Poissons ratio unloading-reloading
Secant modulus for primary triaxial loading
Tangent modulus for oedometric loading
Secant modulus for un- and reloading
Exponent of the Ohde/Janbu law
Reference stress for the stiffness parameters

K0nc
Rf
Tension
G0

Coefficient of earth pressure at rest (NC)

Failure ratio
Tensile strength
Small-strain shear modulus
Reference shear strain where Gsec=0.7G0

0,7

[-]
[-]
[kPa]
[kPa]
[-]

Value
18
20
41
0
15
0.20
30 000
30 000
90 000
0.55
100
1-sin()
0.90
0
112 500
0.0002

Clay layer
For the clay layer the Plaxis Soft Soil model (SS) has been used in addition to the
Hardening Soil models and the Mohr-Coulomb model. The Soft Soil model is a
modification of the well known Modified-Cam-Clay model incorporating a Mohr-

Coulomb failure criterion and allowing for a modification of the volumetric yield
surface in order to improve K0-predictions. The parameters for the HSS model and
the SS model are listed in Tables 2 and 3. All models are implemented into the finite
element code Plaxis (Brinkgreve et al. 2006), which is used for all analyses presented
in this paper. For the MC-model the same assumption with respect to the Young's
modulus has been made as for the dense sand.

Table 2. Parameters for soft clay for Hardening Soil Small Model (HSS)
Parameter
[kN/m]

[kN/m]
sat
[]
'

Meaning
Unit weight (unsaturated)
Unit weight (saturated)
Friction angle (Mohr-Coulomb)

Value
15
16
27

ur
E50ref
Eoedref
Eurref
m
pref

[kPa]
[]
[-]
[kPa]
[kPa]
[kPa]
[-]
[kPa]

Cohesion (Mohr-Coulomb)
Angle of dilatancy
Poissons ratio unloading-reloading
Secant modulus for primary triaxial loading
Tangent modulus for oedometric loading
Secant modulus for un- and reloading
Exponent of the Ohde/Janbu law
Reference stress for the stiffness parameters

15
0
0.20
4 300
1 800
14 400
0.90
100

K0nc
Rf
t
G0
0.7

[-]
[-]
[kPa]
[kPa]
[-]

Coefficient of earth pressure at rest (NC)

Failure ratio
Tensile strength
Small-strain shear modulus
Reference shear strain where Gsec=0.7G0

1-sin()
0.90
0
25 000
0.0003

Table 3. Parameters for soft clay for Soft Soil Model (SS)
Parameter
[kN/m]

[kN/m]
r
[]

c
[kPa]
[]

[-]
ur
[-]
*
[-]
*
nc
[-]
K0

Meaning
Value
Unit weight (unsaturated)
15
Unit weight (saturated)
16
Friction angle
27
Cohesion
15
Angle of dilatancy
0
Poissons ratio
0.20
Modified swelling index
0.0125
Modified compression index
0.0556
Coefficient of earth pressure at rest 1-sin()

RESULTS
Sand layer
Figure 2 (left) shows the lateral displacement of the sheet pile wall for the final
excavation stage. It is observed that the MC model predicts the smallest maximum
displacement but of course this strongly depends on the chosen elasticity modulus.
HS and HSS model show similar behaviour but including small strain stiffness
effects reduces the maximum displacement slightly. It should be mentioned at this
stage that the results from the HSS model may be quite sensitive on the choice of the
parameter 0.7 (which is the shear strain at which the maximum small strain shear
modulus is reduced to 70%) but reasonable values based on literature data have been
chosen in this study. A similar trend is observed for bending moments (Figure 2,
right). The notable difference between the simple and the advanced models become
apparent when examining surface settlements behind the wall (Figure 3). The MC
model shows unrealistic heave whereas the advanced models show the expected
settlement, the maximum values being approx. 50% of the maximum horizontal
displacement. Although this is not an issue from a design point of view it emphasizes
the well known fact that simple elastic perfectly plastic models are not capable of
representing the stress strain behaviour of soils correctly and therefore it remains
questionable whether they should be used for design purposes. Strut forces obtained
are -78 kNm/m for the MC model and -102 and -107 kNm/m for the HS and HSS
model respectively.
horizontal wall displacement [mm]
12

-3

bending moments [kNm/m]

-6

-80

-60

0
HS
HSS
MC

20

40

depth below surface [m]

-20

0
HS
HSS
MC

-40

depth below surface [m]

15

Figure 2. Comparison of wall deflection and bending moments - sand layer

surface displacement [mm]

distance from wall [m]

6

12

16

20

24

4
2
0
-2
HS
HSS
MC

-4
-6
-8

Figure 3. Comparison of surface displacements - sand layer

Clay layer
Figure 4 depicts lateral wall displacements and bending moments for the wall, now
11 m long, in the soft soil. The difference between HS and HSS models are similar as
in the previous case but again this depends to a large extent on the value chosen for
0.7. The SS model gives the smallest displacements and the MC model shows a
different shape of wall deflection, namely an almost parallel movement of the bottom
half of the wall, which is in contrast to the other models. This behaviour also leads to
differences in the bending moments.
horizontal wall displacement [mm]
50

40

30

20

10

bending moments [kNm/m]

-10

-150

-120

-90

-30

30
0

HS
HSS
MC
SS

depth below surface [m]

HS
HSS
MC
SS

-60

10

10

11

11

depth below surface [m]

60

Figure 4. Comparison of wall deflection and bending moments - clay layer

For the settlement trough behind the wall (Figure 5) the same can be observed as in
the previous section, namely that the MC model produces significant heave adjacent
to the wall and in this case due to undrained conditions settlements in the far field
(the lateral model boundary for this analysis was placed at a distance of 75 m from
the wall). The calculated settlement troughs can be generally considered as too wide
with the exception of the HSS model which is a consequence of taking into account
small strain stiffness effects.

surface displacement [mm]

distance from wall [m]

60
50
40
30

10

20

30

40

50

60

70
HS
HSS
MC
SS

20
10
0
-10
-20
-30

Figure 5. Comparison of surface displacements - clay layer

BENCHMARK EXAMPLE - INFLUENCE OF EC7 DESIGN APPROACH

EC7 design approaches
The same examples as discussed in the previous section is used to demonstrate the
applicability of using the finite element method for ULS-design in accordance with
Eurocode7. In Eurocode7 the partial factor of safety concept is introduced replacing
the global factor of safety concept employed until now. Three different design
approaches DA1 to DA3 have been specified which differ in the application of the
partial factors of safety on actions, soil properties and resistances. They are given in
Tables 4 and 5 for all three approaches. It is noted that 2 separate analyses are
required for design approach 1. The problem which arises for numerical analyses is
immediately apparent because DA1/1 and DA2 require permanent unfavourable
actions to be factored by a partial factor of safety, e.g. the earth pressure acting on
retaining structures. This is of course not possible because in numerical analyses the
earth pressure is not an input but a result of the analysis. However, EC7 allows for
the alternative of putting the partial factor on the effect of the action instead on the
actions itself, e.g. bending moments or strut forces. This is commonly referred to as
DA2*. In this way finite elements can be used because the analysis is performed with
characteristic loads and characteristic parameters introducing the relevant partial
factor at the end of the analysis. It is beyond the scope of this contribution to
elaborate on the advantages and disadvantages of each of the approaches in detail but
some discussion can be found e.g. in Simpson (2000, 2007), Bauduin et al. (2003)

and Schweiger (2005). However the differences in results with special emphasis on
the constitutive model will be shown.

Table 4. EC7 partial factors for actions

design
permanent
variable
approach unfavourable
DA1/1
1.35
1.50
DA1/2
1.00
1.30
DA2
1.35
1.50
DA3-Geot.
1.00
1.30

Table 5. EC7 partial factors for soil strength properties and resistances
design
undrained
passive
c'
tan'
approach
shear strength resistance
DA1/1
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
DA1/2
1.25
1.25
1.40
1.00
DA2
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.40
DA3-Geot.
1.25
1.25
1.40
1.00
The calculation steps are the same as in the previous section but an additional
variable load of 15 kPa extending to a width of 5 m is added as a final calculation
step in order to have the influence of a variable load taken into account (Figure 1).
Again a sand and a clay layer are considered, but only two constitutive models, the
HSS-model and the MC-model are compared. The (characteristic) parameters are the
same as listed in Tables 1 and 2. For the clay layer an additional aspect is addressed,
namely the consequences of performing the undrained analysis in terms of effective
strength parameters ' and c, or in terms of the undrained shear strength cu because
this does not only involve a difference in the method of analysis but different partial
factors apply to effective strength parameters and the undrained shear strength
respectively (Table 5), namely 1.25 versus 1.4. For the analysis in terms of undrained
shear strength cu, the following assumptions have been made. The distribution of cu
with depth has been worked out based on the Mohr-Coulomb criterion and this
distribution has been also used for the HSS-model. It is noted at this stage that by
doing so, some of the advanced features of the HSS-model are lost. It should also be
mentioned that in the analysis in terms of effective strength parameters the undrained
shear strength obtained from the HSS-model depends on a number of input
parameters (not only strength) and is therefore different to the undrained shear
strength in the MC-model. This approach yields the following distribution of
characteristic undrained shear strength as used in DA2:
cu at depth -2.0 m below surface: 23.9 kPa with an increase of 2.1 kPa/m
For DA3 the strength parameters have to be reduced by the partial factors listed in
Table 5 resulting in values for the effective friction angle, the effective cohesion and

the undrained shear strength as given in Table 6. The dilatancy angle is also
reduced by the partial factor which is however not explicitly mentioned in EC7.
Finally a decision with respect to initial stresses has to be made. Here the value for
K0 has been kept the same for DA2 and DA3, i.e. it is based on the characteristic
value for the friction angle (1 - sin'char) although an alternative would be to have it
based on the design value in DA3. (For certain conditions K0 based on 'char may
however violate the yield function).

Table 6. Strength parameters used in DA3 (partial factors applied)

Parameter
[]
sand
csand
[kPa]
[]
sand
[]
clay
[kPa]
cclay
[]
clay
[kPa]
cu,clay
cu,clay [kPa/m]

Meaning
Value
Friction angle
34.8
Effective cohesion
0
Angle of dilatancy
12
Friction angle
22.2
Effective cohesion
12
Angle of dilatancy
0
Undrained shear strength at 2.0 m depth 17.1
Increase of undrained shear strength
1.5

RESULTS
In this section the differences in design strut forces and bending moments obtained
from utilizing design approaches DA2 and DA3 (DA1 is basically a combination of
the two) are presented.
Sand layer
Figure 6 shows a comparison of design bending moments (envelope over all
construction stages) obtained for the two constitutive models for DA2 and DA3. The
design moments for DA2 are obtained by the following procedure: characteristic
bending moments are calculated without (M1) and with (M2) the variable load applied
and from these the design bending moments are calculated by applying the
appropriate partial factors. The same procedure is used for calculating design strut
forces. It should be noted that this is an approximation only, due to the nonlinear
behaviour of the soil.
Mdesign, DA2 = M1 x 1.35 + (M2 M1) x 1.5
In DA3 results from the analysis are directly design values because the partial factors
on soil strength and the variable load (15 kPa > 19.5 kPa) are taken into account in
the input of the analysis.
It follows from Figure 6 that differences coming from the different design
approaches are more pronounced for the MC-model than for the more advanced
HSS-model. DA3 leads to significantly higher design moments for the MC-model

whereas for the HSS-model very similar values are obtained. The same holds for
strut forces where for the HSS-model actually a slightly lower design force is
obtained from DA3 (Table 7). The reason for this behaviour is that a reduction in
strength has a different effect in a linear elastic-perfectly plastic model than in an
advanced hardening plasticity model due to the different stress paths followed.
bending moments [kNm/m]
-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

20

40

60
0

HSS-DA3
MC-DA3
HSS-DA2
MC-DA2

depth below surface [m]

Figure 6. Comparison of design bending moments - sand layer

Table 7. Comparison of design strut forces - sand layer

Strut force after
Strut force
Design strut
DA2
excavation
due to load
force
MC
78
21.6
138
HSS
108.6
23.1
181
DA3
MC
HSS

Strut force after

excavation
122
140

Strut force
due to load
39
36

Design strut
force
161
176

Clay layer
Figure 7 shows design bending moments for both design approaches and both
constitutive models for analyses in terms of effective strength parameters (denoted
"A" in Figure 7) and undrained shear strength parameters (denoted "B"). The
following can be observed: for the HSS-model again DA2 and DA3 yield similar
results (DA2 slightly higher in this case) for analyses with effective strength
parameters. For the MC-model the difference is higher and in contrary to the
excavation in dense sand DA2 design bending moments are higher than the ones
obtained from DA3. For analyses in terms of undrained strength parameters (cu) it is
different because the partial factor on undrained strength is higher than for drained
strength parameters. Thus DA3 results in higher bending moments than DA2 for both
models. For the MC-analysis with characteristic parameters (DA2) the differences in
method A and B are negligible, which can be expected. For the HSS-model this is
not the case because the analysis in terms of effective parameters will lead to a
different undrained strength as the one specified in method B. Strut forces are
summarized in Table 8.

design bending moments [kNm/m]

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

50
0

HSS_DA2-A
MC_DA2-A
HSS_DA2-B
MC_DA2-B
HSS_DA3-A
MC_DA3-A
HSS_DA3-B
MC_DA3-B

depth below surface [m]

10

11

Figure 7. Comparison of design bending moments - clay layer

Table 8. Comparison of design strut forces - clay layer

strut force after
strut force
design
DA2
excavation
due to load strut force
MC
95.7
13.7
150
HSS
121
19.6
193
MC_B
100.6
15.3
159
HSS_B
121.4
19.4
193
DA3
MC
HSS
MC_B
HSS_B

strut force after

excavation
101.4
140.2
116.7
161.9

strut force
due to load
21.1
35.3
35.1
43.8

design
strut force
123
176
152
206

PRACTICAL EXAMPLE
The benchmark examples presented in the sections above indicate that both design
approaches DA2 and DA3 and consequently also DA1 can be applied in combination
with the finite element method. It also follows from these examples that the
differences in results due to the choice of the constitutive model are at least in the
same order (or larger) than differences coming from the design approaches.
However, for real practical problems details of the design may have more severe
consequences for the choice of the design approach as compared to the simplified
examples presented above. This will be illustrated as an example by considering a
diaphragm wall with three rows of prestressed anchors. The excavation is about 17 m
deep in a reasonably homogeneous layer of medium dense sand (Figure 8). The
details of the analysis will not be discussed here because the goal of this section is
only to highlight a particular aspect, namely the resulting design anchor forces. As
described in the previous section, analyses were performed with characteristic soil
strength parameters (DA2) and with design strength parameters (DA3). The
permanent action is the earth pressure, there are no variable loads. Again DA2 is
used in form of DA2*, i.e. the partial factor is applied to effects of actions rather than
on the action itself. The resulting design anchor forces obtained from the two
approaches are summarized in Table 9 and it can be seen that DA3 leads to
significantly lower forces. The reason for this difference is the following: if anchors
are highly prestressed, as it is the case here, a reduction in soil strength does not
change calculated anchor forces significantly as compared to the analysis with
characteristic soil strength. Thus in DA2 the result is multiplied by the partial factor
for actions (= 1.35) whereas in DA3 the calculated forces are already design forces.
It should be pointed out that in DA2 the effects of the water pressure are fully
factored whereas they are not in DA3. It is acknowledged that, strictly speaking, an

uncertainty in the water table should be considered in DA3 as a "geometric" factor,

but this would not bring forces near the values obtained for DA2.

Figure 8. Layout of practical example

Table 9. Comparison of design anchor forces - practical example

anchor force anchor force anchor force
layer 1
layer 2
layer 3
(kN/m)
(kN/m)
(kN/m)
characteristic

334

756

755

DA2*
(= char. x 1.35)

451

1021

1020

DA3

358

805

766

CONCLUSION
In the first part of this contribution the influence of the constitutive model on the
results of finite element analyses of deep excavations has been demonstrated. The
results clearly emphasize the well known fact that elastic-perfectly plastic
constitutive models such as the Mohr-Coulomb model are not well suited for
analysing this type of problems and more advanced models are required to obtain
realistic results. Although reasonable lateral wall movements may be produced with
simple failure criteria with appropriate choice of parameters, vertical movements
behind the wall are in general not well predicted, obtaining heave in many cases
instead of settlements. Strain hardening plasticity models including small strain
stiffness behaviour are in general a better choice and produce settlement troughs
being more in agreement with expected behaviour. As the goal of the study presented
here was to qualitatively highlight the differences in results with respect to the
constitutive model no quantitative comparison with in situ measurements has been
provided.
The second part of the paper addressed the ULS-design of deep excavations by
means of numerical methods. It has been shown that the concept of partial factors of

safety as established in Eurocode7 can be applied, but differences have to be

expected depending on how this is done in the respective design approaches.
Although more experience is needed in performing such analyses for practical
examples, it emerges from this study that the differences in results depending on the
design approach used are less pronounced for more advanced constitutive models as
compared to simple elastic-perfectly plastic failure criteria. On first sight this seems
to be in contradiction to practical experience but can be explained by different stress
paths soil elements follow when different models are used. Postulating that advanced
models are more reliable in describing the stress strain behaviour of soils for stress
levels ranging from working load conditions up to failure it could be argued that
advanced models have advantages not only for predicting displacements and stresses
for working load conditions but have their merits also in ULS-design. Finally it
should be mentioned that the models used in this study should be seen as
representatives for certain classes of models and conclusions can be transferred to
other constitutive models of similar type.

REFERENCES
Bauduin, C., De Vos, M. and Simpson, B. (2000). "Some considerations on the use
of finite element methods in ultimate limit state design." Proc. Int. Workshop
on Limit State Design in Geotechnical Engineering, Melbourne.
Bauduin, C., De Vos, M. and Frank, R. (2003). "ULS and SLS design of embedded
walls according to Eurocode 7." Proc. XIII ECSMGE, Prague (Czech
Republic), Vol. 2, 41-46.
Benz, T. (2007). "Small-Strain Stiffness of Soils and its Numerical Consequences."
Publication No. 55, Institute for Geotechnical Engineering, University of
Stuttgart.
Brinkgreve, R.B.J., Broere, W. and Waterman, D. (2006). "Plaxis, Finite element
code for soil and rock analyses, users manual." The Netherlands.
Schweiger, H.F. (2005). "Application of FEM to ULS design (Eurocodes) in surface
and near surface geotechnical structures." Proc. 11th Int. Conference of
IACMAG, Turin, Italy, 19-24 June 2005. Bologna: Patron Editore. 419-430.
Schweiger, H.F. (2009). "Influence of constitutive model and EC7 design approach
in FEM analysis of deep excavations." Proc. ISSMGE Int. Seminar on Deep
Excavations and Retaining Structures (Mahler & Nagy, eds.), Budapest, 99114.
Simpson, B. (2000). "Partial factors: where to apply them?" Proc. Int. Workshop on
Limit State Design in Geotechnical Engineering, Melbourne, 145-154.
Simpson, B. (2007). "Approaches to ULS design The merits of Design Approach 1
in Eurocode 7." First International Symposium on Geotechnical Safety & Risk,
Oct. 18-19, 2007, Shanghai, Tongji University, China.