Anda di halaman 1dari 87

Developments in modelling techniques

of soil-water-structure interaction
History, examples and practical applications
Dirk Luger

10 december 2015

Contents
Introduction and main messages
History and lessons learned as a journey through time
Storm Surge Barrier Maeslantkering near Rotterdam (1995)
Palm Deira earthquake deformations (2006)
Incheon bridge ship collision protection (2006)
Earthquake amplification factors (2009)
Windjack spudcan impact study (2012)
Marsrover wheel-soil interaction (2013)
Burgum bridge pier protection (2015)
Closure

10 december 2015

Introduction and main messages


My background: more emphasis on predicting soil structure
behaviour as realistic as possible rather on calculations that
aim to prove that a certain design code or standard is
complied with. That comes later.
Another reason for that comes from my involvement in
forensic geotechnical engineering. Thats an area where
understanding what actually happened is crucial.
This requires selection of parameters fit for the job. Purpose
of the calculation and the mechanisms that develop can
determine to a large extent what the proper set of soil
parameters is.

You will seldom get the proper soil parameters of the


shelf. Youll have to make them consistent with your
engineering problem.
10 december 2015

Introduction and main messages


A voyage through time to put what we can do nowadays into
perspective

Quality and power of the tools at our disposal have increased


enormously
With that the risk that calculation results are taken for granted
has increased as well (they look nice and everything is
modeled, so it has to be OK..)

You have to keep thinking, train your engineering


judgment and learn to trust it. Simple checks can
reveal a lot!
10 december 2015

Introduction and main messages


When extrapolating beyond tested ranges or application areas
verification of our models by feedback from actual behaviour
(monitoring structures) and from model tests is
indispensable.
Whenever youre venturing in an area where you havent been
before, make sure youve done everything to verify that your
calculations are reliable.

Calculation

Physical model

Feedback loops

10 december 2015

Real Structure

Maeslantkering (1996)

10 december 2015

Maeslantkering
Storm Surge Barrier

Where and why


An
alternative
to
dike
reinforcements in South Holland
is a storm surge barrier.
This option turns out to be the
most attractive in terms of cost,
environmental
effects
and
safety.

Delft

In 1987 the Dutch government decides


that the New Waterway Storm surge
barrier should be constructed. The Dutch
government asked building contractors to
produce a design for the storm surge
barrier. Six designs were submitted. The
Bouwkombinatie Maeslant Kering (BMK)
submitted the winning design.

Overview

360 m wide
18.5 m deep

Just for scale..

As high as the
Eiffel tower, but
twice as heavy!!

Main components, North side


Driving unit

North door
Main truss

Control building

Foundation block

Dry dock

Barrier sill

Sea

Primary sheet pile wall

Ball joint

Back-up sheet pile wall

Rotterdam, river

Back-up sheetpile wall


Risk of a ship veering off course and colliding with the
foundation block.
Sand flowing out from under the foundation block would
cause a severe collapse of the structure.
Having a back-up sheetpile wall prevents this and
enables relatively quick repairs.

And actually, during a design meeting on site, in which some people


expressed their doubt regarding this risk we were suddenly warned
that a ship had collided with the main sheetpile wall, fortunately at a
moment and a place which did not lead to flooding of the building
pit..

Geotechnical design calculations


Traditional settlement calcs.
(level of terrain, settlement of foundation block)

2-D FEM calculations


(parallel to main loading direction, perpendicular to
sheetpile wall, before and after ship collision)

BEM calculations
(Stresses under foundation block)

Discrete element dynamic calculations


(Ship collision effects)

Interaction
Asymmetric loading and combined perpendicular and inplane loading of the sheet pile wall, both through soil and
via anchors.

Having to account for


interaction between:

Foundation block
Back-up sheetpile wall
Main sheetpile wall

Parallel modeling (direction of main load)

Displacements

Perpendicular modeling

Loads from parallel


and perpendicular
calculations were
combined to determine
the final dimensions

Displacements

3-D BEM calculations


(Stresses under foundation block)
Surrounding
ballast

Self-weight

Combination of both

-0.1 MPa

0.3 MPa

0.2 MPa

0 MPa

0.2 MPa

-0.1 MPa
0.1 MPa

3-D BEM calculations


(Stresses under foundation block)

0.3 MPa

0.1 MPa

0.2 MPa

0.2 MPa

0.1 MPa
0.3 MPa

Construction of the dock at the South side

Construction of the door in the dock

The main truss


500 mm camber during supported construction
80 mm camber after removal of supports

and closed.

Earthquake induced displacements

A method developed in the context of the


Palm Deira development

10 december 2015

Question
How to verify that my
embankment
structure
remains within acceptable
deformation limits if the
design earthquake occurs?

+0.6
+0.4

+0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6

Seismic Risk 2008

26

Sliding Block Analysis


By means of a slip circle approach one determines for which
acceleration the factor of safety falls below 1.0.
This is the so-called yield-acceleration: ayield

ayield

For a ayield one finds F.S. 1.0


Seismic Risk 2008

27

Sliding Block
Use published graphs or
perform own integration of
selected time-histories to
determine earthquakeinduced displacement.

Seismic Risk 2008

28

Sliding block
Advantage:
Simple easy to evaluate for many time histories
Disadvantage:
Only one displacement value (for the sliding block)
Not accounting for water next to the slope

Ayield

PGA
Seismic Risk 2008

29

Sliding block
Advantage:
Simple easy to evaluate for many time histories
Disadvantage:
Only one displacement value (for the sliding block)
Not accounting for water next to the slope
Not accounting for failure in overlying layers

ay=0.2
g g
a =0.25
y

ay=0.1 g

PGA = 0.4 g
Seismic Risk 2008

30

Dynamic FE analysis

Actual acceleration time history as


boundary condition at the base of
the mesh.
+
Seismic Risk 2008

31

Continuous deformation field


CPU intensive
One time-history is not sufficient
Free water causes problems

Deforming Continuum Method


Apply a constant horizontal acceleration at the base of the model
and observe what acceleration level can be transferred to
the different parts of the embankment

Each line represents 0.2 m/s2 = 0.02 g

Seismic Risk 2008

32

Excess pore pressures

Estimate on basis of standard procedures: Cyclic shear stress level and


relative density of the soil.
At the onset of the earthquake excess pore pressures a zero, by the end
they have reached their maximum value.
Current approach: use the average..

Entering excess pore pressures in


the model by reduction of the
material strength: at 50% excess
pore pressure we introduce a
material that has 50% of its original
strength:

+0.6
+0.4
+0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4

new = atan(0.5 tan(org ))

-0.6

Seismic Risk 2008

33

Sample
Mesh

Hor. acceleration
Vert. acceleration

Shear strains

Seismic Risk 2008

34

Accelerations and displacements


Verpl-hor [cm]

Ayield-hor [g]
-0,035 ; -0,005

1 cm
-0,04; -0,02

-0,11 ; -0,04

10 cm

-0,07 ; -0,04

Ayield-vert [g]
-0,12 ; -0,065

Verpl-vert [cm]

Seismic Risk 2008

35

In short:
A nice method filling the gap?

Seismic Risk 2008

36

Incheon Bridge Ship collision prevention

10 december 2015

Incheon bridge overview

10 december 2015

Idealized prototype 20 m diameter

10 december 2015

The dolphin model

10 december 2015

Modelling the sheetpile

10 december 2015

Set-up of the model


dolphin

moving mass actuator

mounting plate

sand filled
container

water basin
assembly plate

10 december 2015

Set-up of the model

10 december 2015

After the test

10 december 2015

Forces derived from ship slowdown

10 december 2015

10 december 2015

10 december 2015

Earthquake amplification factors

10 december 2015

Earthquake amplification factors

Limits to PGA
and amplification

10 december 2015

Limit to acceleration -

preliminary analysis
CP stand 0.5g...

Acceleration
4,0
Point A -394.4
Point B -397.1
Point C -399.7
Point D -401.5
2,0

Point E -404.7
Point F -410.6
Point G -427.0
Point H -441.7

0,0

Point I -456.7
Point J -464.0

-2,0

-4,0

Demonstrated mechanism but needed clearer presentation


-6,0

1,0

2,0

3,0
Dynamic time [s]

10 december 2015

4,0

5,0

Mechanism
M1
| Peak acceleration | < Su1 / M1
So in the top layer 2 values

Su1

M2
Su2
M3

| Peak acceleration | < (Su1 Su2) / M2


So for an intermediate layer 4 values

10 december 2015

Try out for simple signal

Input at base 1g at 1Hz

10 december 2015

Velocities make it clear


Time_vx
Vx [m/s]
2,0
Point A
Point J
1,5
Point I
Point H
1,0

Point G
Point F

0,5

Point E
Point D

0,0

Point C
Point B

-0,5

-1,0

-1,5

-2,0

1,0

2,0

3,0
Dynamic time [s]

10 december 2015

4,0

5,0

Velocities make it clear


Time_vx
Vx [m/s]
2,0
Point A
Point J
1,5
Point I
Point H
1,0

Point G
Point F

0,5

Point E
Point D

0,0

Point C
Point B

-0,5

-1,0

-1,5

-2,0

1,0

2,0

3,0
Dynamic time [s]

10 december 2015

4,0

5,0

Amplification at 1g base acc.

Input at base 1g at 0.4 Hz

10 december 2015

Amplification at 0.01 g base acc

Input at base 0.01g at 0.4 Hz

10 december 2015

WindJack

Spudcan-seabed impact interaction

10 december 2015

The WindJack JIP

Soil-Structure Interaction Modelling

06-Feb-14

59

The WindJack JIP

Soil-Structure Interaction Modelling

06-Feb-14

61

The WindJack JIP

Soil-Structure Interaction Modelling

06-Feb-14

62

The WindJack JIP

Soil-Structure Interaction Modelling

06-Feb-14

63

The WindJack JIP

Forces have to be
corrected for inertia
effects.

Note the force to set


the spudcan in motion
and the force to stop it
again.

Soil-Structure Interaction Modelling

06-Feb-14

64

The WindJack JIP

Initial analytical spudcanseabed interaction model


performance.
Still without hydrodynamic effects, inertia
and rate effects.

Soil-Structure Interaction Modelling

06-Feb-14

65

The WindJack JIP

Soil-Structure Interaction Modelling

06-Feb-14

66

The WindJack JIP


MPM calculation results

Soil-Structure Interaction Modelling

06-Feb-14

67

Marsrover wheel-soil interaction

10 december 2015

Previous work: Finite elements


Lagrangian (or ALE) based approach for wheel and soil.
disadvantage: limited to wheels without grousers and curved edge

69

Previous work: Discrete Element Method (DEM)


advantage: grousers possible, numerical stability
disadvantages:
often 2D, unrealistic soil transport (impossible to go sideways)
parameters for particles difficult to relate to physical quantities
less suitable for compactive geomaterials (powder like)

70

Example of coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian FEM


Eulerian soil model and rigid (Lagrangian) wheel.
Wheel/soil is half because of symmetry

71

Flexible wheel modeling


Diameter 25 cm, width 11.2 cm.

shell

grousers

Deformable
body
Only half of the wheel is
modeled (symmetry in FEM
model)

Rigid wheel modeling


Diameter 25 cm, width 11.2 cm.
Same features as flex
wheel, in rigid body
constraint

Only half of the wheel is


modeled (symmetry in FEM
model)

Rigid wheel 60% slip

Burgum bridge pier protection

10 december 2015

Analysis of bridge pier

10 december 2015

Little effect of meshing

10 december 2015

Soil parameters

Dr

sat

eini

E50_ref

Eoed_ref

Eur_ref

G0_ref

0.7

(*)

[kN/m3]

[-]

[kPa]

[kPa]

[kPa]

[kPa]

[%]

[degr]

[degr]

50

17.0

0.60

35000

35000

105000

94000

0.0150

34.3

4.3
(2.15)

75

18.0

0.52

50000

50000

150000

111000

0.0125

37.4

7.4
(3.7)

65

17.6

0.55

44000

44000

132000

104200

0.0135

36.1

6.1
(3.05)

10 december 2015

Parameters for larger strains

10 december 2015

Interface strength @ sheetpiles


a part where soil-soil or concreteconcrete friction is mobilized and
a strength reduction factor of 1.0
applies and
a part where soil-steel or
concrete-steel friction is
mobilized where typically a
strength reduction factor of 0.67
is applied.

Rinter = (422/1160)*0.67 + ((1160-422)/1160)*1.0 = 0.88

10 december 2015

Effect of lower dilatancy

10 december 2015

Still room for optimisation: from 22m to 18m

10 december 2015

Effect of the bridge

10 december 2015

10 december 2015

10 december 2015

Movement of the bridge

10 december 2015

Results

10 december 2015

10 december 2015

Closure main messages


Train your engineering judgment and learn to trust it.
Simple checks can reveal a lot!
Select proper soil parameters, consistent with your
engineering problem.
Verify models by feedback from actual behaviour
(monitoring of structures) and by performing model
tests.

10 december 2015

Closure - thanks

For further info on Deltares or this presentation feel free to contact:


In the Netherlands:

Dirk Luger

dirk.luger@deltares.nl

M:+31 6 2049 1414

geoff.toms@deltares.nl

M:+971 4 337 8353

In Dubai:

Geoff Toms

10 december 2015