In the center of Amsterdam there are historic quay walls that are more than 100 years old. Over the years, the load-bearing capacity of the quay walls decreased, and it is currently an important topic on how to strengthen these quay walls, but it is important as well to know which quay walls should be given preference for rehabilitation.

The engineering department of the municipality of Amsterdam, in collaboration with other parties, has drawn up a document Toetskader Amsterdamse Kademuren (TAK 3.2), which includes various aspects that contribute to the assessment of historic quay walls. In TAK 3.2, attention has of course been paid to the geotechnical aspects, whereby material model parameters have been determined for the Hardening Soil small strain model and the Soft Soil model. This study examines how the current parameter set in TAK 3.2 can be improved by selection of material model parameters and taking the material models into consideration as well in which the anisotropic Sekiguchi-Ohta model and the anisotropic S-Clay1 model are examined additionally.

Material model parameter sets have been compiled (with expected values) for the most influencing Holocene soil layers, such as Geulopvulling, Hollandveen and Oude zeeklei. These parameter sets have been validated and further optimized with the use of Plaxis SoilTest. The available laboratory results come from isotropically consolidated triaxial tests on Geulopvulling and Oude zeeklei, Direct simple shear (DSS) tests on Hollandveen and oedometer tests. Validation of the anisotropic models has therefore not been entirely possible for Geulopvulling and Oude zeeklei, but in the case of Hollandveen the assumption is made on K0-consolidation in the DSS test simulations, where the anisotropic models yield promising results.

Furthermore, according to the approach of TAK 3.2 in the staged construction of historic quay walls, various simulations are conducted for the assessment of historical quay walls with the Hardening Soil small strain model, Soft Soil model and S-Clay1 model, with different parameter sets. From these simulations, some good prospects are noted, such as the improvement in output results with the optimized parameter set compared to the parameter sets gathered from all laboratory data and TAK 3.2. In simulations in which the S-Clay1 model is considered in combination with the Hardening Soil small strain model and Soft Soil model, a significant decrease was noticed as well in the output results compared to simulations with exclusively the Hardening Soil small strain and/or Soft Soil model.

This study shows that the Hardening Soil small strain model as an isotropic model gives better results and fewer/no difficulties in the finite element method calculations compared to the Soft Soil model. It is further confirmed that calculating the initial phase with the K0-procedure with horizontal soil layers and surface is the best method in the case of the assessment of historic quay walls.

By understanding which differences are observed with different material models and parameter sets, this study contributes to sharpening future research to adequately analyze and assess historic quay walls in the center of Amsterdam.