Evaluation of FEM Engineering Parameters From Insitu Tests
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields



Publication Date Range:


Document Data


Document Type:






Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page


Evaluation of FEM Engineering Parameters From Insitu Tests

Filetype[PDF-10.44 MB]

Select the Download button to view the document
This document is over 5mb in size and cannot be previewed
  • English

  • Details:

    • Publication/ Report Number:
    • Resource Type:
    • Geographical Coverage:
    • Abstract:
      The study looked critically at insitu test methods (SPT, CPT, DMT, and PMT) as a means for developing finite element constitutive model input parameters. The first phase of the study examined insitu test derived parameters with laboratory triaxial tests at three sites. These were used to develop baseline input parameters which were verified by simulating the triaxial tests using two finite element codes. Conclusions drawn from these conclusions are: (1) FEM simulations of triaxial test stress-strain curves produced excellent results. (2) the hardening models (PLAXIS-Hardening Soil and PlasFEM-Sandler Dimaggio) simulated the non-linear behavior better than the Mohr-Coulomb or Drucker-Prager models. (3) In general, Esub50 triaxial test modulus values agreed with those estimated from DMT and PMT unloading tests, and (4)FEM simulations of field PMT curves using triaxial test based parameters were unsuccessful. It was necessary to increase the triaxdial Esub50 values by Omega=1.3078e [to the power of 0.0164p[subl]R{squared}=0.8515, where Omega is the triaxial E[sub 50] modulus multiplier and p[sub 1] is the PENCEL limit pressure. The second phase of the study was to predict the deformations of a cantilevered sheet pile wall (unloading case) and the deformations of a 2-m diameter shallow footing (loading case). The third phase was to predict the deformations of a 2-m diameter shallow footing (loading case). Conventional analyses methods were compared with FEM using insitu test derived input parameters. Conclusions were: (1) convential analyses (CWALSHT) under-predicted wall deformations unconservatively, while wall deflections were accurately predicted using the Hardening Soil Model with input parameters estimated from SPT correlations and "curved matched" PMT values. (2) Fundamentally, the stress history of a soil profile, i.e., OCR or preconsolidation pressure, must be known for any settlement prediction either using conventional or finite element methods. (3) Of the conventional methods for estimating settlements (CSANDSET), only the SPT based D'Appolonia, and Peck and Bazaraa methods provided reasonable estimates of the observed settlement. (4) The conventional DMT method, which correlates OCR values, slightly overestimated measured settlements. (5)None of the insitu test derived input parameters (SPT, CPT, DMT and PMT) coupled with FEM Mohr-Coulomb or Hardening Soil models, accurately predicted the shallow footing settlements.
    • Format:
    • Main Document Checksum:
    • File Type:

    Supporting Files

    • No Additional Files

    More +

    You May Also Like

    Checkout today's featured content at rosap.ntl.bts.gov

    Version 3.26