Recent advances in numerical

modelling of deep-stabilized soil

Minna Karstunen, University of Glasgow, Scotland

Harald Krenn, Donaldson Associates Ltd, Glasgow, Scotland
Asko Aalto, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Acknowledgements

Marie Curie RT Network on

Advanced Modelling of
Ground Improvement on Soft
Soils funded by the EC
4-year project that started in
February 2005 with a budget
of 1.38M
Coordinated by Dr Minna
Karstunen (GU)
6 core academic partners +
PLAXIS BV and over 40
associated academic and
industrial partners

http://civil.gla.ac.uk/amgiss
Acknowledgements
The experimental programme was funded by the Academy
of Finland (Grant No 53936)
The research programme on deep-stabilization was funded
by TEKES (the National Technology Agency in Finland);
deep-stabilization contractors: Rakennus Oy Lemminkinen,
YIT-Rakennus Oy and Rakentajat Piippo & Pakarinen Oy; the
developers: City of Helsinki, City of Espoo, City of Vantaa, Finnish
Road Enterprise, Finnish Rail Administration; the binder
producers: Nordkalk Oy Ab, Finnsementti Oy and the
consultancy: SCC Viatek Oy.
The work by the second author was sponsored by
Donaldson Associates Ltd and the Faculty of Engineering
at the University of Glasgow.
Deep-stabilized columns
under embankment fill
c

z Improve stability

z Reduce settlements

z Reduce the time for

Embankment settlements
Column
 Why numerical modelling?

Current design methods are simplistic and limited

(based on work by Broms & Boman in 1970s)
Soft soils are very complex non-linear materials,
exhibiting features such as anisotropy, bonding
and creep
Mechanics of in situ stabilized soils is complex and
unfortunately (yet) not very well understood
The problem has a complex 3D geometry
 FE modelling
Equilibrium, compatibility, stress-strain relationship
and boundary conditions fulfilled
Enables adapting realistic constitutive models for
the materials (natural soil and stabilized soil)
Possible to model realistically soil-structure
interaction
Now also possible to use 3D modelling
Numerical benchmark simulations and
parametric studies can be used as tools to
develop design guidelines
Soft soil modelling
4 different constitutive models:
Modified Cam Clay (isotropic hardening model)
Soft-Soil-Creep model (MCC type of model that
comes as standard in PLAXIS), with creep set
(effectively) to zero
S-CLAY1 (accounts for initial and plastic-strain
induced anisotropy)
S-CLAY1S (accounts for anisotropy and bonding,
and degradation of bonds)
S-CLAY1/S-CLAY1S
Idealised soil profile
Vanttila clay (Finland)
Dry crust (0-1m depth)
over-consolidated (POP 30kPa)
Limited lab data available
WT at 1 m depth
Soft Vanttila clay (1-12 m
depth)
Lightly over-consolidated (POP
10 kPa)
Plenty of lab data available
Stabilized columns (Vanttila)

180
160
140
120

q [kPa]
100
80
60
40
CADC C29
20
HS-model
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
Axial strain, 1, %

Hardening Soil Model (in PLAXIS)

Soil parameters
Initial values for state parameters
Soil Depth e0 POP [kPa] x
Dry crust 0-1 1.7 30 0.63 90
Vantilla clay 1 - 11 3.2 10 0.46 20

Conventional soil constants

Soil M kx= ky
[kN/m3] [m/day]
Dry crust 13.8 0.029 0.2 0.25 1.6 -

Vantilla 13.8 0.032 0.2 0.88 1.2 6.9E-5

clay

Additional soil constants for S-CLAY1 and S-CLAY1S

Soil i a b

Dry crust 1.07 15 0.07 11 0.2

Vantilla 0.76 40 0.27 11 0.2

clay
Deep-stabilized columns
Laboratory tests (by Aalto, 2003)
laboratory-mixed and in-situ mixed samples of
stabilized Vanttila clay
Drained and undrained triaxial tests
Stiffness is highly non-linear and dependent on
confining pressure
Hardening Soil model (in PLAXIS)
E50ref Eoedref Eurref ur m c

kPa kPa kPa - - kPa [] kN/m3

12000 12000 27000 0.35 0.8 27 36 15

Reference stress for stiffness, pref=100kPa

2D Numerical modelling

2D model
PLAXIS 2D v8.2 finite
element code
Axisymmetric unit cell
Radii of the unit cell
dependent on the c/c
spacing
c
R=

Restriction:
Not a true geometric
representation
3D Numerical modelling

3D model
Advanced version
PLAXIS 3D Tunnel (with
gravity rotated by 90 deg.)
True unit cell
All calculation phases
fully drained

Restrictions:
Idealisation of columns in
square grid under the
centreline of an
embankment
Predicted Settlements

2D MCC
2D S-CLAY1
-0.2 2D S-CLAY1S
3D SS
-0.3
Displacements [m]

-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
-0.9
-1.0
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

c/c - spacing [m]

 Vertical stress distributions

2D MCC 2D MCC 2D MCC

0 2D S-CLAY1 2D S-CLAY1 2D S-CLAY1
0 2D S-CLAY1S 2D S-CLAY1S
2D S-CLAY1S 3D SS
3D SS 3D SS
0
-2
-2
-2
-4 Columns
Soil -4
Depth [m]

Soil Columns -4

Depth [m]
Soil

Depth [m]
-6
-6
-6

-8 -8
-8

-10 -10 -10

Columns

-12 -12 -12

0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250

d'v [kN/m] d'v [kN/m] d'v [kN/m]

1 m c/c 1.2 m c/c 1.4 m c/c

Principal stress directions
 Conclusions
2D unit cell
Anisotropy and destructuration have a
noticeable effect on the predicted
settlements
minor effect on the predicted vertical
stresses

3D model (true unit cell) vs. 2D model

Settlements predicted by the 3D model
significantly larger than those by the 2D model
Is it real or could it be due to creep effects?
 Future work
Implement S-CLAY1S to the 3D version of
PLAXIS (automatically then gives you S-
CLAY1S and MCC)
Perform systematic parametric studies (also
on a true 3D model)
Investigate the applicability of so-called
volume averaging methods (enhanced 2D
technique)
Apply the modelling techniques for real field
problems