Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
7, 497513
INTRODUCTION
The construction of tunnels and station boxes in urban areas,
such as London, requires a detailed assessment of the effects
that such construction might have on existing structures.
Sometimes, if there is enough information about previous
similar undertakings, it is possible to make this assessment
on the basis of experience. However, if this is not the case,
then it is necessary to use numerical techniques to make the
necessary predictions.
Current design practice suggests that, in a general rectangular excavation, plane strain two-dimensional (2D) analysis
should be applied to assess the wall and ground movements
in the centre of the excavation (along its longer side),
whereas an axisymmetric analysis should be applied to
assess conditions in the corner and the shorter side of the
excavation (see Fig. 1). To date, full three-dimensional (3D)
analyses have rarely been carried out because of time and
cost constraints.
St John (1975) compared the predictions of ground movements for plane strain, axisymmetric and square excavations
modelled assuming a uniform linear-elastic soil and no wall,
in an attempt to explain the variation of surface ground
movements measured at the Houses of Parliament in London. A number of recent publications describe the 3D
modelling of deep strutted excavations in a variety of soil
conditions and compare the results with those from 2D
497
1137
P1
165
Axisymmetric simulation
for the corner and short
side of excavation
CL
125 P2
P3
230
P4
275
P5
2125
P6
2175
2225 P7
GWT
1137
1100
165
Excavation level
Prop level
Made ground
Terrace gravel
London clay
2220
2270
2330
No out-of-plane
bending stiffness
498
175 m
Lambeth Group
clay
12 m
2400
Thanet sand
Limited horizontal
axial stiffness
Joint
Panel
2530
(a)
Chalk
No out-of-plane
bending stiffness
Pile
Limited horizontal
axial stiffness
Joint
(b)
No out-of-plane
bending stiffness
Pile
No horizontal
axial stiffness
Joint
(c)
15
1137
1100
10
5
25
25
210
Elevation: m
1137
1100
10
165
165
210
Hydrostatic
215
215
220
220
2220
225
225
230
230
235
235
2400
240
2220
2400
240
Underdrained
245
245
250
255
499
250
2530
0
100
200
300
400
Pore water pressure: kPa
(a)
500
255
600
2530
0
02
04
06
K0
(b)
10
08
12
Angle of shearing
resistance, 9: deg
Cohesion,
c9: kPa
Angle of dilation,
: deg
25
35
22
22
32
0
0
0
0
0
12.5
17.5
11
11
16
Youngs modulus,
E: kPa
Small
Small
Small
Small
10 000
strains (see
strains (see
strains (see
strains (see
Table
Table
Table
Table
Poissons
ratio,
2)
2)
2)
2)
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
the plane strain analysis the wall stiffness (in the vertical zdirection) is specified as Ez 28 3 106 kPa, to simulate
properties of concrete. In the axisymmetric analysis the same
value is specified for the axial wall stiffness (Ez ), but zero
stiffness is prescribed in the circumferential direction (E ),
to account for a discontinuous wall in this direction.
The analyses with the wall modelled with solid elements
are performed first, and the horizontal wall movements after
the complete construction sequence (i.e. excavation to a
depth of 40.7 m) are shown in Fig. 8. As expected, the
axisymmetric analysis predicts smaller movements, and for
this case the maximum value (at 21.0 mOD) is about 70%
of that predicted in the plane strain analysis. The two
analyses are also repeated with the wall modelled with beam
elements, placed on the excavation side of the solid elements
(see Fig. 6). The relative difference between the two wall
deflections is similar to the analyses with solid elements;
however, in each of the analyses the wall deflection is larger
than when the wall is modelled with solid elements. This is
a consequence of the lack of the beneficial action of shear
stresses mobilised on the back of the wall. In the case of
solid elements this shear stress acts downward at a certain
500
Table 2(a). Small-strain soil properties: coefficients for elastic shear modulus
Layer
Terrace gravel
London clay
Lambeth clay
Thanet sand
C 3 104 : %
Ed,min 3 104 : %
1104
1400
1400
930
1035
1270
1270
1120
5
1
1
2
0.974
1.335
1.335
1.100
0.940
0.617
0.617
0.700
8.83346
8.66025
8.66025
3.63731
Ed,max : %
0.3464
0.6928
0.6928
0.1645
Gmin : kPa
2000
2667
2667
2000
Table 2(b). Small-strain soil properties: coefficients for elastic bulk modulus
Layer
T 3 103 : %
Terrace gravel
London clay
Lambeth clay
Thanet sand
275
686
686
190
225
633
633
110
2
1
1
1
0.998
2.069
2.069
0.975
1.044
0.420
0.420
1.010
v,min 3 103 : %
2.1
5.0
5.0
1.1
v,max : %
Kmin : kPa
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.20
5000
5000
5000
5000
Coefficients in Tables 2(a) and 2(b) are material constants used in the following equations to give a variation of tangent shear and bulk
stiffness with both stress and strain level:
1
Ed
(
(
p
) B log10
)
3G
Ed
Ed
C 3
p
p
A B cos log10
sin
log
10
p9
2:303
C 3
C 3
(
K
jv j
R S cos log10
p9
T
)
jv j
T
2:303
1
S log10
(
sin log10
jv j
T
)
2500
500
Terrace gravel
London clay &
Lambeth clay
Thanet sand
2000
400
1500
K/p
3G/p
300
1000
200
500
100
0
00001
0001
001
01
Deviatoric strain, Ed: %
(a)
0001
001
01
Volumetric strain, v: %
(b)
Fig. 5. Non-linear stiffness used in the analyses: (a) shear stiffness; (b) bulk stiffness
501
12 m
1137
Made ground
Terrace gravel
165
125
230
London clay
275
2125
2175
2225
2270
Lambeth group
clay
Wall:solid elements
2330
Wall:beam elements
z
Thanet sand
x
2530
1000
35 m
35 m
Plane of symmetry
y
x
Corner
1137
1000
Wall: solid elements
Wall: shell elements
z
y
2530
0
1000
Plane of symmetry
502
Ex : kPa
Plane strain
Axisymmetric
3D isotropic
3D anisotropic
28
28
28
28
3
3
3
3
106
106
106
106
E y : kPa
Ez : kPa
N/A
28 3 101
28 3 106
28 3 101
28
28
28
28
3
3
3
3
Poissons ratio:
Wall thickness: m
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
106
106
106
106
E: kPa
Plane strain
Axisymmetric
3D isotropic
3D anisotropic
28
28
28
28
3
3
3
3
106
106
106
106
t: m
Vertical axial
stiffness: %(EA)
Vertical bending
stiffness: %(EI)
Horizontal axial
stiffness: %(EA)
Horizontal bending
stiffness: %(EI)
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
N/A
0.01
100
20
N/A
0.01
100
1
A is the cross-sectional area of the wall per metre length of wall; I is the second moment of inertia of the wall per metre length of wall.
10
Elevation: m
25
210
215
220
225
230
235
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
Horizontal wall displacement: m
503
15
Plane strain
Axisymmetric
10
10
25
25
Elevation: m
Elevation: m
210
210
215
215
220
220
225
225
230
230
235
235
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
Horizontal wall displacement: m
(a)
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
Horizontal wall displacement: m
(b)
Fig. 9. Horizontal wall movements in square excavation (solid element wall): (a) in centre; (b) in corner
0
2001
2002
2003
Plane strain
Axisymmetric
3D, anisotropic wall
3D, isotropic wall
2004
2005
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Horizontal distance from wall: m
(a)
80
90
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Horizontal distance from wall: m
(b)
80
90
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Fig. 10. Surface settlements behind the wall in square excavation (solid element wall): (a) in centre; (b) in corner
504
15
15
10
M1
M1
25
25
Elevation: m
210
215
210
215
1500
1000
500
22500
1500
1000
500
2500
21000
235
21500
235
22000
230
22500
230
2500
225
21000
225
220
21500
Plane strain
Axisymmetric
3D, anisotropic wall
3D, isotropic wall
220
22000
Elevation: m
10
Fig. 11. Wall bending moments in square excavation (solid element wall): (a) in centre; (b) in corner
6000
3D, anisotropic wall
3D, isotropic wall
4500
3000
M2
1500
0
21500
Corner
23000
18
Centre
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
Horizontal distance along wall: m
(a)
0
21000
M1
22000
23000
M2
A2
24000
A1
y
x
A2
25000
Corner
26000
18
16
Centre
14
12
10
8
6
4
Horizontal distance along wall: m
(b)
15
10
10
25
25
505
Elevation: m
Elevation: m
210
215
220
220
225
225
230
230
235
235
2008
2006
2004
2002
Horizontal wall movement: m
(a)
210
215
2010
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
Horizontal wall movement: m
(b)
Fig. 13. Effect of modelling assumptions in square excavation on horizontal wall movements (shell element wall): (a) in
centre; (b) in corner
0
20005
20010
20015
20020
20025
20030
20035
20040
20045
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Horizontal distance from wall: m
(a)
80
90
0
20005
20010
20015
20020
20025
20030
20035
20040
20045
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Horizontal distance from wall: m
(b)
80
90
Movements
Figure 13 shows the horizontal wall movements in the
centre and corner of the excavation. In the centre, the
isotropic shell wall with the full moment connection (a1)
results in the smallest deflection, as expected from the
similar analyses with the solid element wall in Fig. 9(a).
Comparison with this figure also shows that the shell wall
predicts slightly larger horizontal movements than the solid
element wall, which was explained earlier as a consequence
of the zero thickness of the shell wall in the finite element
mesh. A similar result will be seen when comparing surface
settlement behind the wall for these two analyses (Figs 10
and 14).
The remaining four analyses predict almost identical
maximum horizontal wall displacement. It appears that the
release of the full moment connection in the corner of the
isotropic wall (a2) is sufficient to give a reasonable prediction of wall deflection in the centre of the excavation, and in
particular the maximum value. The addition of the capping
beam (a5) only restricts the movement of the top part of the
wall; it doesnt affect the rest of it. All analyses, apart from
a1, also predict almost identical maximum horizontal wall
displacement to that of the anisotropic solid element wall in
Fig. 9(a). Although the conditions in the corner for this
analysis are similar to those of no moment connection, this
wall also has negligible horizontal axial stiffness (compared
with the shell element wall for which this stiffness is 20%
of the vertical axial stiffness). This difference in the magnitude of the horizontal axial stiffness in shell and solid
element wall analyses does not appear to affect the maximum wall deformation in the centre. However, wall movements in the corner of the excavation (Fig. 13(b)) are all
negligibly small compared with that of the anisotropic solid
element wall in Fig. 9(b). This appears to be the conse-
506
15
15
10
10
M1
M1
5
25
25
Elevation: m
Elevation: m
210
210
215
2000
1500
1000
22500
2000
1500
1000
500
2500
21000
235
21500
235
22000
230
22500
230
500
225
225
220
2500
21000
220
21500
22000
215
Fig. 15. Effect of modelling assumptions in square excavation on wall bending moments (shell element wall): (a) in centre;
(b) in corner
10000
8000
M2
6000
4000
2000
0
22000
Corner
24000
18
Centre
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Distance along wall from centre to corner: m
Structural forces
Figure 15 presents the bending moments M1 in the centre
and corner of the excavation. Whereas all five analyses give
similar predictions in the centre of the wall (Fig. 15(a)), the
picture is quite different in the corner (Fig. 15(b)). Analyses
(a4) and (a5), apart from the top part of the wall, give almost
identical bending moment diagrams, whose magnitude is
almost half of that in the centre. This result is also similar to
that of the anisotropic solid element wall in Fig. 11(b).
Analysis (a2) gives smaller bending moments, but of the
same sign as the previous two analyses. This again demonstrates that, although the wall is isotropic, the moment-free
connection in the corner is sufficient to give a more realistic
prediction of the bending moment M1 . In analysis (a3),
although the wall has appropriate anisotropic properties (the
same as in the (a4) analysis), the full moment connection in
the corner causes a change of sign of the bending moment
M1 , similar to that in (a1). These are comparable to the
isotropic solid element wall analysis in Fig. 11(b).
Figure 16 shows the distribution of the out-of-plane
moment M2 along the horizontal y-axis, at 24 mOD, which
is the same level as in the solid element wall analyses. All
three of the anisotropic shell walls (a3, a4 and a5) show that
a negligible M2 moment is transmitted in this direction. Both
of the isotropic shell walls (a1 and a2) transmit a significant
Movements
The horizontal wall movements in the centre of the long
and short wall sides, together with those from the square,
axisymmetric and plane strain analyses, are shown in Fig.
18. The movements in all three stages are bounded by the
axisymmetric prediction on the lower side, and the plane
strain prediction on the upper side. In this, the maximum
movements of the short side of the wall and that of the
square excavation are grouped towards the axisymmetric
value, whereas those of the long side are grouped towards
the plane strain value. The maximum deflection of the long
side of the wall, for the first two stages of excavation, is
smaller than the deflection of the wall in plane strain
conditions by 8% and 3% for L/B 2 and 4 respectively.
This difference increases with depth of excavation, but at
stage 3 it is still only 12% and 5% for L/B 2 and 4
respectively. In all stages the maximum movement of the
long side of the wall is for L/B 4, followed by L/B 2
and then L/B 1 (i.e. square excavation). However, the
excavation depth appears to have a greater effect on the
maximum movement of the short side of the wall, which
does not show a clear pattern of deformation dependence on
plan geometry.
Comparing the maximum horizontal movements from
each analysis at the three stages it can be seen that, in the
first 20 m of excavation (stages 1 and 2), although the
position of the maximum deflection moves down with
excavation and propping, its magnitude increases only marginally (by less than 10%). However, with further excavation
the magnitude of the maximum deflection increases dramatically, such that after another 20 m of excavation (stage 3) it
is 70% higher than in stage 2.
The horizontal wall movements in the corner of the
excavation are very small, and similar to those presented in
Fig. 13(b): consequently they are not shown here.
The settlement troughs in the central sections behind the
short and long sides of the walls in the rectangular excavations, together with the plane strain, axisymmetric and
square predictions, are shown in Fig. 19 for all three stages
Plane of symmetry
1000
1137
2330
2530
0
4000
0
Plane of symmetry
y
x
508
15
15
10
10
10
25
25
25
210
Elevation: m
Elevation: m
L/B 5 2, shortside
L/B 5 2, long side
Axisymmetric
Plane strain
L/B 5 4, short side
L/B 5 4, long side
Square
Elevation: m
15
210
210
215
215
215
220
220
220
225
225
225
230
230
230
235
235
2010 2008 2006 2004 2002
Horizontal wall movement: m
(a)
235
Fig. 18. Comparison of wall movements at different stages of excavation (shell element wall): (a) stage 1; (b) stage 2; (c) stage 3
of excavation. Similar to the wall deflections, the axisymmetric prediction provides a lower bound, and the plane
strain prediction an upper bound to the results. Even for L/B
4, the maximum surface settlement behind the long side
of the wall at the end of excavation (stage 3) is about 10%
smaller than that of the plane strain prediction, whereas for
L/B 2 it is some 30% smaller. The L/B 4 prediction on
the long side appears to be closer to the plane strain
prediction at shallower depths of excavation.
Contrary to the wall deflections in Fig. 18, the changes in
the maximum surface settlement with depth of excavation
are more pronounced. For each analysis the maximum settlement at stage 2 is about 35% larger than that in stage 1,
whereas in stage 3 it is about 70% larger than in stage 2.
Surface settlements in the corner of the excavation are
shown in Fig. 20, for all three stages. Note that for clarity
the plane strain prediction for stage 3 is not presented, as its
magnitude is higher than the adopted scale. These settlements also increase with depth of excavation, but for shallow
depths (stage 2) the maximum settlements are close to the
axisymmetric prediction. However, the shapes of settlement
troughs, especially in the first 10 m from the wall, are
different from the axisymmetric prediction, as the corner of
the excavation does not appear to be affected by the
propping system in the same way as the centre of the
excavation (Fig. 19), or plane strain and axisymmetric
geometries.
Figure 21 shows the contours of ground surface settlements at the end of excavation (i.e. stage 3) for the 3D
analyses with L/B 1, 2 and 4. The L/B ratio has a
significant effect on the displacements adjacent to the long
side of the excavation, but it has a much smaller effect on
the short side. In addition, as noted above for the wall
movements, whereas there is a clear dependence of surface
settlements behind the long side of the wall on plan geometry (i.e. L/B 4 is the maximum, followed by L/B 2 and
then L/B 1) for any excavation depth, this pattern is not
so clear for surface settlements behind the short side of the
wall.
Bending moments
Bending moments M1 in the centre of both short and long
sides of the wall are shown in Fig. 22, for all three stages of
excavation. Again, because of the similar curvatures of the
0005
20005
20010
20020
20025
20030
20035
20040
20010
20020
20050
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Horizontal distance from wall: m
(a)
80
20015
20045
90
20025
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Horizontal distance from wall: m
(a)
80
90
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Horizontal distance from wall: m
(b)
80
90
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Horizontal distance from wall: m
(c)
80
90
0005
Vertical movement behind wall: m
0005
Vertical movement behind wall: m
20005
20015
20005
20010
20005
20015
20020
20010
20025
20030
20015
20035
20040
20020
20045
20050
20025
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Horizontal distance from wall: m
(b)
80
90
0005
Vertical movement behind wall: m
0005
Vertical movement behind wall: m
509
20005
20010
20005
20015
20020
20010
20025
20030
20015
20035
20040
20020
20045
20050
20025
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Horizontal distance from wall: m
(c)
80
90
Fig. 20. Comparison of surface settlements in corner at different stages of excavation (shell element wall): (a) stage 1; (b)
stage 2; (c) stage 3
CONCLUSIONS
The objective of this paper is to investigate possible ways
of modelling a retaining wall in square and rectangular
excavations, and provide guidance for the most appropriate
approach to be used in any 3D finite element analysis. The
paper also shows how the 3D predictions compare with
those obtained from equivalent plane strain and axisymmetric analyses, and gives guidance for practical use of
these results.
The following main conclusions can be drawn from the
study.
510
Settlement: mm
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
100
75
125
150
175
200
225
(a)
Settlement: mm
75
50
25
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
100
75
125
150
175
(b)
Settlement: mm
125
100
75
50
25
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
125
100
75
150
175
200
225
(c)
Fig. 21. Comparison of surface settlement contours at end of excavation (shell element
wall): (a) L/B
1; (b) L/B
2; (c) L/B
4
15
10
10
10
25
25
25
1500
500
1000
22500
1500
500
1000
2500
21500
235
21000
235
22500
235
22000
230
1500
230
500
230
1000
225
225
2500
225
21500
220
21000
220
22000
220
2500
215
21500
215
210
21000
215
210
511
22000
210
Elevation: m
15
Elevation: m
15
22500
Elevation: m
Fig. 22. Comparison of wall bending moments in centre at different stages of excavation (shell element wall): (a) stage 1; (b)
stage 2; (c) stage 3
0010
15
10
0
20005
20010
20015
20020
20025
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Horizontal distance from wall: m
(a)
80
90
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Horizontal distance from wall: m
(b)
80
90
210
0010
215
220
225
230
235
Elevation: m
25
0005
0005
0
20005
20010
20015
20020
20025
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
0
Horizontal wall movement for same excavation depth: m
(centre of excavation)
512
15
10
5
0
Elevation: m
25
210
215
220
225
230
235
22000
21000
0
1000
Bending moment: kNm/m
(centre of excavation)
2000
202
201
0
01
02
03
High stif
Low
fness
nes
stiff
At distance of maximum
surface settlement
04
05
06
07
08
Fig. 26. Ground surface settlements due to excavation in front of wall in stiff clay (from Gaba
et al., 2003) (BP: bored piles; BPW: bored pile wall; CPW: contiguous bored pile wall; DW:
diaphragm wall; KP: king post wall; SPW: secant bored pile wall)
NOTATION
A1
A2
B
c9
D
Ed
Ex , Ey , Ez
E
G
K
K0
L
M1
M2
p9
t
v
j9
513
REFERENCES
Cabarkapa, Z., Milligan, G. W. B., Menkiti, C. O., Murphy, J. &
Potts, D. M. (2003). Design and performance of a large diameter
shaft in Dublin Boulder Clay. Foundations: innovations, observations, design and practice: Proc. BGA Int. Conf. (ed. T. A.
Newson), pp. 176185. London: Thomas Telford
Gaba, A. R., Simpson, B., Powrie, W. & Beadman, D. R. (2003).
Embedded retaining walls: guidance for economic design, CIRIA C580 Report. London: CIRIA.
Jardine, R. J., Potts, D. M., Fourie, A. B. & Burland, J. B. (1986).
Studies of the influence of nonlinear stressstrain characteristics
in soilstructure interaction. Geotechnique 36, No. 3, 377396.
Moormann, C. & Katzenbach, R. (2002). Three-dimensional effects
of deep excavations with rectangular shape. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf.
SoilStructure Interaction, Zurich 1, 135142.
Ou, C. Y. & Shiau, B. Y. (1998). Analyses of the corner effect on
excavation behaviour. Can. Geotech. J. 35, 532540.
Ou, C. Y., Chiou, D. C. & Wu, T. S. (1996). Three-dimensional
finite element analysis of deep excavations. ASCE J. Geotech.
Engng 122, No. 5, 337345.
Potts, D. M. (2003). Numerical analysis: a virtual dream or practical
reality? 42nd Rankine Lecture. Geotechnique 53, No. 6,
535573.
Potts, D. M. & Zdravkovic, L. (1999). Finite element analysis in
geotechnical engineering: Theory. London: Thomas Telford.
Schroeder, F. C. (2002). The influence of bored piles on existing
tunnels. PhD thesis, Imperial College, University of London.
St John, H. D. (1975). Field and theoretical studies of the behaviour of ground around deep excavations in London Clay. PhD
thesis, Cambridge University.
Torp-Petersen, G. E., Zdravkovic, L., Potts, D. M. & St John, H. D.
(2003). The prediction of ground movements associated with the
construction of deep station boxes. (Re)Claiming the underground space: Proc. ITA World Tunnelling Cong. (ed. J. Saveur),
pp 10511058. Lisse: Balkema.