簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： Dang Huu Phuoc
Dang - Huu Phuoc
論文名稱： Study of Three-dimensional Excavation Behavior and Adjacent Structure Responses Using Advanced Soil Model and Inverse Analysis Technique
Study of Three-dimensional Excavation Behavior and Adjacent Structure Responses Using Advanced Soil Model and Inverse Analysis Technique
指導教授： 林宏達
Horn-Da Lin
口試委員: 陳正興
Cheng-Hsing Chen
歐章煜
Chang-Yu Ou
謝旭昇
Hsii-Sheng Hsieh
An-Jui Li
An-Jui Li
謝佑明
Yo-Ming Hsieh
學位類別： 博士
Doctor
系所名稱： 工程學院 - 營建工程系
Department of Civil and Construction Engineering
論文出版年： 2014
畢業學年度： 102
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 158
中文關鍵詞： Three-dimensional 、Deep excavation 、Adjacent structure 、Soil modeling 、Inverse Analysis
外文關鍵詞： Three-dimensional, Deep excavation, Adjacent structure, Soil modeling, Inverse Analysis
相關次數： 點閱：323  下載：21 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • In the investigations of the safety of the excavation and the serviceability of the adjacent structure, the structure should be considered simultaneously in conjunction with the excavation analysis. Nonetheless, this issue is rarely addressed. It may be due to the inherent complications of the excavation-structure problem and its three-dimensional (3D) nature. Therefore, this research aims to present a comprehensive study on the responses of excavations and its effects on adjacent structure using 3D simulations. In specific, this research develops an advanced soil model that can capture essential soil characteristics for the excavation analysis. In addition, a robust and comprehensive inverse analysis procedure identifying the model parameters of the advanced soil model is proposed. A novel objective function, namely RIFT (Robust and Interpolation Free Technique) is developed to use in conjunction with the inverse analysis framework. A well documented excavation case history is adopted. The model parameters are calibrated for 2D excavation model. These parameters are then used in the 3D excavation analyses. Regarding the nearby structure, this research utilizes a low rise framed building supported by spread footings. It is simulated together with the 3D excavation model. The inelastic behavior of the structural members is considered.
    The results exhibit that the advanced soil model is able to capture the real soil characteristics including anisotropy, small strain, and its degradation. Moreover, RIFT is robust and correct to be adopted as an objective function. The proposed inverse analysis framework is comprehensive and reasonable to determine soil model parameters. Reasonable agreements between predicted and measured wall and ground deformations are achieved. These model parameters are successfully adopted in the 3D excavation analyses. The 3D numerical excavation responses at different sections approximate well to those from in-situ measurements. Corner effect is found in both directions along the wall height and wall length. Moreover, the 3D excavation-structure modeling results show that the building settlement is larger than greenfiled ground settlement at the same section. The plastic deformation is found in the building. It likely occurs at the position having large angular distortion. In addition, the impact of the building existence on the deviations in wall and ground deformations is pronounced in sections close to the building and become negligible at far sections.

    In the investigations of the safety of the excavation and the serviceability of the adjacent structure, the structure should be considered simultaneously in conjunction with the excavation analysis. Nonetheless, this issue is rarely addressed. It may be due to the inherent complications of the excavation-structure problem and its three-dimensional (3D) nature. Therefore, this research aims to present a comprehensive study on the responses of excavations and its effects on adjacent structure using 3D simulations. In specific, this research develops an advanced soil model that can capture essential soil characteristics for the excavation analysis. In addition, a robust and comprehensive inverse analysis procedure identifying the model parameters of the advanced soil model is proposed. A novel objective function, namely RIFT (Robust and Interpolation Free Technique) is developed to use in conjunction with the inverse analysis framework. A well documented excavation case history is adopted. The model parameters are calibrated for 2D excavation model. These parameters are then used in the 3D excavation analyses. Regarding the nearby structure, this research utilizes a low rise framed building supported by spread footings. It is simulated together with the 3D excavation model. The inelastic behavior of the structural members is considered.
    The results exhibit that the advanced soil model is able to capture the real soil characteristics including anisotropy, small strain, and its degradation. Moreover, RIFT is robust and correct to be adopted as an objective function. The proposed inverse analysis framework is comprehensive and reasonable to determine soil model parameters. Reasonable agreements between predicted and measured wall and ground deformations are achieved. These model parameters are successfully adopted in the 3D excavation analyses. The 3D numerical excavation responses at different sections approximate well to those from in-situ measurements. Corner effect is found in both directions along the wall height and wall length. Moreover, the 3D excavation-structure modeling results show that the building settlement is larger than greenfiled ground settlement at the same section. The plastic deformation is found in the building. It likely occurs at the position having large angular distortion. In addition, the impact of the building existence on the deviations in wall and ground deformations is pronounced in sections close to the building and become negligible at far sections.

    TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS II TABLE OF CONTENTS III LIST OF FIGURES VI LIST OF TABLES XII Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1. Background 1 1.2. Objectives 2 1.3. Thesis structure 3 Chapter 2. OVERVIEW OF RELEVANT RESEARCH ASPECTS AND NEEDS FOR ENHANCEMENT 5 2.1. Characteristics of wall and ground movements induced by excavation 5 2.2. Study of the excavation-induced structural behavior and serviceability 7 2.2.1. Numerical simulation 7 2.2.2. Building responses 9 2.2.3. Evaluating the performance of a building 10 2.3. Advanced soil models 12 2.3.1. Overview 12 2.3.2. Formulation of the elasto-plastic constitutive matrix 13 2.3.3. Theory of MCC model 15 2.3.4. Theory of S-Clay 1 model 16 2.4. Determination of model constants for soil models 19 2.4.1. Effect of model variations on excavation responses 19 2.4.2. Inverse analysis in geotechnical engineering 22 a. Overview 22 b. Particle swam optimization method 22 c. Multi-objective PSO (MO-PSO) 23 Chapter 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 25 3.1. Overall research procedure 25 3.2. Development of advanced soil models 26 3.3. Development of a robust and comprehensive analytical procedure to identify model parameters 28 3.4. Simulating 3D greenfield excavation, excavation-structure models and examining excavation-structure interactive characteristics 29 Chapter 4. DEVELOPMENT OF ADVANCED SOIL MODELS 32 4.1. Introduction of the advanced soil model 32 4.1.1. Small strain stiffness and stiffness degradation 33 4.1.2. Anisotropy on deviatoric plane 36 4.2. Implementation of the advanced soil model 37 4.2.1. UMAT in ABAQUS 37 4.2.2. Integrating method of elasto-plastic constitutive equations 38 a. Overview 38 b. Two-step integrating method with sub-stepping 39 4.2.3. Loading / unloading criterion 41 4.2.4. Programming procedure 42 4.3. Validations 44 4.3.1. Simplified SC1SS model as conventional MCC and S-CLAY1 44 4.3.2. SC1SS model with laboratory results 48 4.4. Effects of small strain consideration on the laboratory tests and excavation responses 50 4.4.1. Laboratory tests 51 4.4.2. Excavations 53 4.5. Summary 55 Chapter 5. DEVELOPMENT OF ROBUST AND INTERPOLATION-FREE OBJECTIVE FUNCTION FOR GEOTECHNICAL INVERSE ANALYSIS 56 5.1. Introduction 56 5.2. Formulation of RIFT objective function 57 5.3. Validation of RIFT with various data types 58 5.3.1. Validation principle 59 5.4. Results and discussions 63 5.5. Examples of using RIFT with the inverse analysis in geotechnical applications 65 5.5.1. Example 1 - laboratory tests 67 5.5.2. Example 2 - excavations 70 5.6. Summary 74 Chapter 6. DEVELOPMENT OF A ROBUST AND COMPREHENSIVE ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE TO CALIBRATE MODEL PARAMETERS 76 6.1. Overview of the developed analytical procedure 76 6.2. Validation of the developed analytical approach 77 6.2.1. Laboratory tests 78 6.2.2. Excavation 90 6.3. Application of the analytical procedure in an excavation case history 94 6.3.1. Numerical profile 94 6.3.2. Results and discussions 100 6.4. Summary 103 Chapter 7. INVESTIGATION OF 3D EXCAVATION BEHAVIOR AND STRUCTURE RESPONSES BY 3D SIMULATIONS 104 7.1. Introduction 104 7.2. Three-dimensional greenfield excavation simulation 105 7.2.1. Numerical model 105 7.2.2. Three-dimensional wall and ground deformations 108 7.3. Three-dimensional excavation-structure modeling 115 7.3.1. Structure properties 115 7.3.2. Consideration of structural plastic responses 119 7.3.3. Boundary condition study for excavation-structure problem 124 7.3.4. Mesh size study for footing-soil problem 128 7.4. Three-dimensional excavation-structure simulation 133 7.4.1. Numerical model 133 7.4.2. Excavation-induced structure deformation and effect of structure on excavation responses 133 7.5. Summary 148 Chapter 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 150 8.1. Conclusions 150 8.1.1. Development of the advanced soil model 150 8.1.2. Development of RIFT objective function 150 8.1.3. Development of a comprehensive analytical in identifying model parameters 151 8.1.4. Study of excavation behavior and adjacent building responses 151 8.2. Recommendations 152 REFERENCES 154

    [1] Clough GW, O’Rourke TD. Construction induced movements of insitu walls. Design and performance of earth retaining structures: ASCE, 1990. p. 439-470.
    [2] Ou CY, Hsieh PG, Chiou DC. Characteristics of ground surface settlement during excavation. Can Geotech 1993;30(5):758-767.
    [3] Hsieh PG, Ou CY. Shape of ground surface settlement profiles caused by excavation. Can Geotech 1998;35(6):1004-1017.
    [4] Ou CY. Deep excavation: theory and practice: CRC Press, 2006.
    [5] Kung GT, Juang CH, Hsiao EC, Hashash YM. Simplified model for wall deflection and ground-surface settlement caused by braced excavation in clays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2007;133(6):731-747.
    [6] Schuster M, Kung GT-C, Juang CH, Hashash YM. Simplified model for evaluating damage potential of buildings adjacent to a braced excavation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2009;135(12):1823-1835.
    [7] Ou CY, Chiou DC, Wu TS. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of deep excavations. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1996;122(5):337-345.
    [8] Ou CY, Shiau BY. Analysis of the corner effect on excavation behaviors. Can Geotech 1998;35(3):532-540.
    [9] Finno RJ, Blackburn JT, Roboski JF. Three-dimensional effects for supported excavations in clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2007;133(1):30-36.
    [10] Hsieh PG, Ou CY, Kung TC, Tang YG. Deep excavation analysis with consideration of small strain modulus and its degradation behavior of clay. 12th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. Singapore 2003.
    [11] Potts D, Addenbrooke T. A structure's influence on tunnelling-induced ground movements. Proceedings of the ICE-Geotechnical Engineering 1997;125(2):109-125.
    [12] Dang HP, Lin HD, Kung JH, Wang CC. Deformation behavior analyses of braced excavation considering adjacent structure by user-defined soil models. Journal of geoengineering, Taiwan geotechnical society 2012;7(1):13-20.
    [13] Burd H, Houlsby G, Augarde C, Liu G. Modelling tunnelling-induced settlement of masonry buildings. Proceedings of the ICE-Geotechnical Engineering 2000;143(1):17-29.
    [14] Son M, Cording EJ. Estimation of building damage due to excavation-induced ground movements. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2005;131(2):162-177.
    [15] Laefer DF, Ceribasi S, Long JH, Cording EJ. Predicting RC frame response to excavation-induced settlement. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2009;135(11):1605-1619.
    [16] Woo SM. Effects of excavation on adjacent buildings. Sino-Getechnics 1992;x(40):35-50.
    [17] Bjerrum L. Allowable settlement of structures. Proceedings European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Weisbaden, Germany 1963. p. 35-137.
    [18] Boscardin MD, Cording EJ. Building response to excavation-induced settlement. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1989;115(1):1-21.
    [19] Juang CH, Schuster M, Ou CY, Phoon KK. Fully probabilistic framework for evaluating excavation-induced damage potential of adjacent buildings. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2010;137(2):130-139.
    [20] Burland JB, Wroth C. Settlement of buildings and associated damage. 1975.
    [21] Boone SJ. Ground-movement-related building damage. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1996;122(11):886-896.
    [22] Burland JB, Broms BB, De Mello VFB, Establishment BR. Behaviour of foundations and structures: Building Research Establishment, 1978.
    [23] Finno RJ, Voss Jr FT, Rossow E, Blackburn JT. Evaluating damage potential in buildings affected by excavations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2005;131(10):1199-1210.
    [24] Helwany S. Applied soil mechanics with ABAQUS applications: John Wiley & Sons, 2007.
    [25] Roscoe KH, Burland JB. On the generalized stress-strain behaviour of wet clay. Eng Plast, Cambridge Uni. Press 1968:553-609.
    [26] Wheeler SJ, Naatanen A, Karstunen M, Lojander M. An anisotropic elastoplastic model for soft clays. Can Geotech 2003;40(2):403-418.
    [27] Whittle AJ, Kavvadas MJ. Formulation of MIT-E3 constitutive model for overconsolidated clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1994;120(1):173-198.
    [28] Pestana JM, Whittle AJ. Formulation of a unified constitutive model for clays and sands. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 1999;23(12):1215-1243.
    [29] Potts DM, Zdravkovic L, Zdravković L. Finite element analysis in geotechnical engineering: theory: Thomas Telford, 1999.
    [30] Abed AA. Numerical modeling of expansive soil behavior. IGS, 2008.
    [31] Karstunen M, Koskinen M. Plastic anisotropy of soft reconstituted clays. Can Geotech 2008;45(3):314-328.
    [32] Ling HI, Yue D, Kaliakin VN, Themelis NJ. Anisotropic elastoplastic bounding surface model for cohesive soils. Journal of engineering mechanics 2002;128(7):748-758.
    [33] Ou CY, Liao JT, Lin HD. Performance of diaphragm wall constructed using top-down method. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1998;124(9):798-808.
    [34] Kung TC. Surface settlement induced by excavation with consideration of small strain behavior of Taipei silty clay. Ph.D. dissertation. Nat. Taiwan Uni. of Sci. and Tech., 2003.
    [35] Dang HP, Lin HD, Juang CH. Evaluation of soil variability influence on deep excavation analysis–Simplified approach. Geotechnical special publication, ASCE 2012;225(2895-2903.
    [36] Dang HP, Lin HD, Juang CH. Analyses of braced excavation considering parameter uncertainties using a finite element code. Journal of the Chinese institute of engineers 2014;37(2):141-151.
    [37] Zentar R, Hicher P, Moulin G. Identification of soil parameters by inverse analysis. Comput Geotech 2001;28(2):129-144.
    [38] Calvello M, Finno RJ. Selecting parameters to optimize in model calibration by inverse analysis. Comput Geotech 2004;31(5):410-424.
    [39] Sadoghi Yazdi J, Kalantary F, Sadoghi Yazdi H. Calibration of soil model parameters using particle swarm optimization. Int J Geomech 2011;12(3):229-238.
    [40] Finno RJ, Calvello M. Supported excavations: observational method and inverse modeling. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2005;131(7):826-836.
    [41] Rechea C, Levasseur S, Finno R. Inverse analysis techniques for parameter identification in simulation of excavation support systems. Comput Geotech 2008;35(3):331-345.
    [42] Hashash Y, Levasseur S, Osouli A, Finno R, Malecot Y. Comparison of two inverse analysis techniques for learning deep excavation response. Comput Geotech 2010;37(3):323-333.
    [43] Papon A, Riou Y, Dano C, Hicher PY. Single-and multi-objective genetic algorithm optimization for identifying soil parameters. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2012;36(5):597-618.
    [44] Schanz T, Zimmerer M, Datcheva M, Meier J. Identification of constitutive parameters for numerical models via inverse approach. Felsbau 2006;24(11-21.
    [45] Meier J, Schaedler W, Borgatti L, Corsini A, Schanz T. Inverse parameter identification technique using PSO algorithm applied to geotechnical modeling. J Artif Evol Appl 2008;49(1-14.
    [46] Knabe T, Datcheva M, Lahmer T, Cotecchia F, Schanz T. Identification of constitutive parameters of soil using an optimization strategy and statistical analysis. Comput Geotech 2013;49(143-157.
    [47] Reyes-Sierra M, Coello CC. Multi-objective particle swarm optimizers: A survey of the state-of-the-art. Int J Comput Intell Res 2006;2(3):287-308.
    [48] Kennedy J, Eberhart R. Particle swarm optimization. In: Proc. IEEE int. conf. on neural networks 1995:1942-1948.
    [49] Mulia A. Identification of soil constitutive model parameters using multiobjective particle swarming optimization. Master thesis. Nat. Taiwan Uni. of Sci. and Tech., 2012.
    [50] Reddy MJ, Kumar DN. An efficient multi-objective optimization algorithm based on swarm intelligence for engineering design. Eng Opt 2007;39(1):49-68.
    [51] Pastor M, Zienkiewicz O, Chan A. Generalized plasticity and the modelling of soil behaviour. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 1990;14(3):151-190.
    [52] Callisto L, Rampello S. Shear strength and small-strain stiffness of a natural clay under general stress conditions. Geotechnique 2002;52(8):547-560.
    [53] Gao Z, Zhao J, Yao Y. A generalized anisotropic failure criterion for geomaterials. International Journal of Solids and Structures 2010;47(22):3166-3185.
    [54] Hsieh PG, Kung TC, Ou CY. Simulation of stress-strain curve under undrained condition with small strain stiffness of clay considered. Journal of Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society 2005;36(1):91-95.
    [55] Teng FC. Prediction of ground movement induced by excavation using the numerical method with the consideration of inherent stiffness anisotropy. Ph.D. dissertation. Nat. Taiwan Uni. of Sci. and Tech., 2010.
    [56] Hsieh PG, Ou CY. Analysis of nonlinear stress and strain in clay under the undrained condition. Journal of Mechanisms 2011;27(2):201-213.
    [57] Hsieh PG, Ou CY. Analysis of deep excavations in clay under the undrained and plane strain condition with small strain characteristics. Journal of the Chinese institute of engineers 2012;35(5):601-616.
    [58] Bolton M, Dasari G, Britto A. Putting small strain non-linearity into Modified Cam Clay model. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on computer methods and advances in geomechanics, Morgantown, West Virginia1994. p. 537-542.
    [59] Chakraborty T, Salgado R, Loukidis D. A two-surface plasticity model for clay. Comput Geotech 2013;49(170-190.
    [60] ABAQUS Documentation.
    [61] Anandarajah A. Computational methods in elasticity and plasticity: solids and porous media: Springer, 2011.
    [62] Sloan S. Substepping schemes for the numerical integration of elastoplastic stress–strain relations. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1987;24(5):893-911.
    [63] Nyssen C. An efficient and accurate iterative method, allowing large incremental steps, to solve elasto-plastic problems. Computers & Structures 1981;13(1):63-71.
    [64] Chen W-F, Mizuno E. Nonlinear analysis in soil mechanics. 1990.
    [65] Navarro V, Candel M, Barenca A, Yustres A, Garcia B. Optimisation procedure for choosing Cam clay parameters. Comput Geotech 2007;34(6):524-531.
    [66] Hashash Y, Whittle A. Integration of the modified Cam-Clay model in non-linear finite element analysis. Comput Geotech 1992;14(2):59-83.
    [67] Leoni M, Karstunen M, Vermeer P. Anisotropic creep model for soft soils. Geotechnique 2008;58(3):215-226.
    [68] Zentar R, Karstunen M, Wheeler S. Influence of anisotropy and destructions on undrained shearing of natural clays. 5e Conference Europeenne Methodes Numeriques en Geotechnique: Presses des Ponts, 2002. p. 21.
    [69] Deng M, Ge L. Effectiveness of objective functions in soil model calibration through numerical optimization. In: Proc. the Geo-Frontiers conf. 2011:3878-3886.
    [70] Tang YG, Kung GTC. Application of nonlinear optimization technique to back analyses of deep excavation. Comput Geotech 2009;36(1):276-290.
    [71] Duncan JM, Chang C-Y. Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soils. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 1970;96(5):1629-1653.
    [72] Schanz T, Vermeer P, Bonnier P. The hardening soil model: formulation and verification. Beyond 2000 in computational geotechnics 1999:281-296.
    [73] Yin ZY, Hicher PY. Identifying parameters controlling soil delayed behaviour from laboratory and in situ pressuremeter testing. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2008;32(12):1515-1535.
    [74] Rangeard D, Y Hicher P, Zentar R. Determining soil permeability from pressuremeter tests. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2003;27(1):1-24.
    [75] Zhao B, Zhang L, Jeng D, Wang J, Chen J. Inverse analysis of deep excavation using differential evolution algorithm. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2014:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nag.2287.
    [76] Levasseur S, Malecot Y, Boulon M, Flavigny E. Soil parameter identification using a genetic algorithm. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2008;32(2):189-213.
    [77] Wang L, Juang CH, Atamturktur S, Gong W, Khoshnevisan S, Hsieh H-S. Optimization of design of supported excavations in multi-layer strata. Journal of GeoEngineering 2014;9(1):1-12.
    [78] Deb K, Gupta S. Understanding knee points in bicriteria problems and their implications as preferred solution principles. Eng Opt 2011;43(11):1175-1204.
    [79] Lin HD, Wang CC. Stress-strain-time function of clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1998;124(4):289-296.
    [80] Kung TC, Ou CY. Stress-strain characteristics of the Taipei silty clay at small strain. Journal of the Chinese institute of engineers 2004;27(7):1077-1080.
    [81] Ou CY, Shiau BY, Wang IW. Three-dimensional deformation behavior of the Taipei National Enterprise Center (TNEC) excavation case history. Can Geotech 2000;37(2):438-448.
    [82] Ou CY, Lai CH. Finite-element analysis of deep excavation in layered sandy and clayey soil deposits. Can Geotech 1994;31(2):204-214.
    [83] Pestana JM, Whittle AJ, Salvati LA. Evaluation of a constitutive model for clays and sands: Part I–sand behaviour. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2002;26(11):1097-1121.
    [84] Pestana JM, Whittle AJ, Gens A. Evaluation of a constitutive model for clays and sands: Part II–clay behaviour. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2002;26(11):1123-1146.
    [85] Ou CY, Liao JT, Cheng WL. Building response and ground movements induced by a deep excavation. Geotechnique 2000;50(3):209-220.
    [86] Lin YL. Effect of cross walls on the movements of excavation in clay. Ph.D. dissertation. Nat. Taiwan Uni. of Sci. and Tech., 2010.
    [87] Lin HD, Dang HP, Hsieh YM. Assessment of ground and building responses due to nearby excavations using 3D simulation. The 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. Paris2013.
    [88] Lin HD, Truong HM, Dang HP, Chen CC. Assessment of 3D excavation and adjacent building’s reponses with consideration of excavation-structure interaction. Geotechnical special publication, ASCE 2014;242(256-265.
    [89] XTRACT - Cross Sectional Analysis of Structural Components Manual.
    [90] Sung Y-C, Liu K-Y, Su C-K, Tsai I-C, Chang K-C. A study on pushover analyses of reinforced concrete columns. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 2005;21(1):35-52.

    QR CODE