Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
234]
The design of deep excavations requires careful consideration of the influence of various soil/structure
interaction mechanisms and detailed issues relating to the construction processes and the mechanics of
the soil. Finite-element analysis provides a useful design tool for deep excavations, but care needs to
be taken to ensure that an appropriate level of detail is included in the model. This paper describes a
three-dimensional finite-element analysis of a deep excavation supported by a diaphragm wall, recently
constructed in Shanghai. The principal purpose of the study is to investigate the level of detail that is
required in the finite-element model to obtain results that provide a realistic representation of the wall
and ground movements measured during the construction process. Studies are conducted on (a) the
influence of the soil constitutive model on the quality of the results; (b) procedures to model the effect of
post-cure shrinkage in the concrete floor slabs; (c) procedures to model the construction joints in the
diaphragm wall; (d ) the relative merits of using shell and solid elements to model the diaphragm wall;
and (e) the sensitivity of the analysis to the assumed initial horizontal stresses in the soil.
KEYWORDS: case history; excavation; finite-element modelling; retaining walls; soil/structure interaction
INTRODUCTION
The design of deep excavations requires careful consideration
of the strength and stability of the various structural elements
at all stages during the construction process. In addition, the
ground movements induced by the excavation need to be
carefully controlled, to ensure that damage to any nearby
buildings and services is kept within acceptable levels. The
performance of a deep excavation depends on the method of
construction as well as the local ground conditions. Making
reliable predictions of performance often presents a considerable challenge.
A substantial body of field data from previous deep excavation projects is available in the literature, for example,
in the UK (Skempton & Ward, 1952; Wood & Perrin, 1984;
Simpson, 1992), the USA (Finno & Nerby, 1989; Finno
et al., 1989; Finno & Bryson, 2002), and Shanghai, China
(Liu et al., 2005, 2011; Wang et al., 2005; Xu, 2007; Ng et al.,
2012; Tan & Wei, 2012). Case histories of this sort provide
valuable information on the performance of various forms of
retaining system that can be used to calibrate finite-element
modelling procedures; information of this sort may also be
used to establish an appropriate level of confidence in the
results of finite-element analysis when used as part of the
design process for deep excavations.
Rapid recent advances in computing resources open up
new possibilities for the use of finite-element modelling for
the routine design of deep excavations. Considerable care
needs to be taken, however, to ensure that appropriate procedures are employed. If the model is too simplistic then
the results will be unreliable. Alternatively, if an attempt is
made to develop a model with an excessive level of detail,
then difficulties may arise in the selection of material and
construction parameters, or in limitations imposed by the
1
Downloaded by [] on [11/12/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Drainage pipeline
Telephone cable
(B7)
(B6)
Zhongnan
building
(B5)
Lainhe
building
Gas pipeline
(B4)
Hankou Road
Diaphragm wall
144 m
124 m
Xingye Bank
Communication Bank
(CB)
HSBC Bank
(ECADI)
Custom House
Middle Sichuan Road
Sanjing Bank
(SJB)
(B3)
(B2)
(B1)
Xincheng building
Fuzhou Road
10 15 20 m
14050 m
9450 m
Crab
4950 m
Soil cement
columns
0200 m
1
2
Temporary
strut
1350 m
Steel lattice
column
Steel pipe
( 0609 m)
6650 m
7100 m
Temporary
strut
10700 m
1350 m
Temporary
strut
10400 m
Root piles
( 03 m)
3900 m
Bottom slab
12400 m
14400 m
Concrete cushion
(02 m thick)
Soil cement
columns
5 11
5 12
Diaphragm wall
(10 m thick)
Diaphragm wall
(08 m thick)
3
9
Reinforced concrete
strut
Reinforced concrete
strut
Steel strut
Fig. 3. Plan view of the ground floor slab and supporting beams (Xu, 2007)
Period: dates
Interval:
days
02/03/2002
06/10/2002
07/10/2002
19/10/2002
20/10/2002
11/12/2002
12/12/2002
30/12/2002
31/12/2002
27/02/2003
28/02/2003
24/03/2003
25/03/2003
11/05/2003
12/05/2003
10/07/2003
11/07/2003
24/09/2003
25/09/2003
21/10/2003
22/10/2003
11/12/2003
218
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Construction activities
Install diaphragm walls, pile foundations; conduct ground improvement and dewatering
53
Excavate to elevation 15 m first, then excavate to elevation 53 m with slope ratio 1:15; slope
shoulder 10 m on the west and south side, and 8 m on the other two sides
Cast the beams and slabs for the top level of the basement
19
Excavate the berms surrounding the wall remaining from the previous stage to elevation 53 m
59
Cast the 1st level beams and floor slabs and the ground floor slab
25
48
Cast beams and slabs for the 2nd level, and structures for the first floor above ground level
60
Excavate to elevation 107 m first, then excavate to 124 m with slope ratio 1:15; excavate berms
to elevation 113 m
Cast the bottom slab (2 m thick) and add temporary struts for 3rd level; construct the structures
for the 2nd floor above ground level
Excavate the remaining soil to elevation 144 m (west side) and 124 m (east side) respectively
13
76
27
51
Cast the bottom slab on the west side; remove the temporary struts; construct the other structures
of the basement
exhibit creep. It also seems plausible that post-cure mechanisms in any reinforced concrete components (e.g. diaphragm
walls or slabs) will contribute to the tendency of the nearby
ground to exhibit time-dependent movements. Soil creep
effects are excluded in the modelling procedures described
later in this paper, although an attempt is made to incorporate post-cure shrinkage of the floor slabs within the
analysis.
Two alternative soil modelling procedures are available
for the analysis of undrained problems in geotechnical
engineering. One approach, which has been previously used
in the analysis of deep excavations (e.g., Ng & Lings, 1995;
Hashash & Whittle, 1996; Zdravkovic et al., 2005; Kung
et al., 2009), is to adopt an effective stress model for the soil
that is coupled with a nearly incompressible model for the
pore fluid. This approach has the disadvantage, from a practical perspective, that measured data on undrained shear
strength cannot be correlated directly with the model parameters; instead, a separate calibration process is required.
The alternative approach, adopted in the current paper, is to
formulate the soil model as a single phase material in terms
of total stresses. In this case, (approximately) zero volumetric
strains are enforced by way of constraints that are implicit
within the constitutive model. This latter approach has the
considerable advantage, from a practical perspective, that
undrained shear strength is treated as a material parameter;
measured spatial variations of undrained shear strength are
therefore incorporated, in a straightforward way, within the
constitutive model. Moreover, total stress models are in
general more robust computationally than effective stress
models and typically involve significantly less computational
effort. For the detailed analysis presented in this paper,
the robustness of the total stress approach is particularly
advantageous.
Soil layers
0
t: kN/m3
16
18
w n , w l, w p : %
20 20
40
60 05
e
10
Cc
15
05
su: kPa
10
20
40
c: kPa
0
10
Fill
clay
Silty clay
10
Mucky clay
20
Silty clay,
with clay
30
Silty clay,
with clayey
silt
40
wn
wl
50
Sandy silt
wp
t = unit weight, wn = water content, wp = plastic limit, w1 = liquid limit, e = void ratio, Cc = compressive index,
su = field vane shear strength, c = cohesive strength, = internal friction angle
Fig. 4. Geotechnical profile and soil properties from the site investigation (Xu, 2007)
: degrees
0
10
20
30
50
100
150
250
10
Depth below ground level, z: m
200
20
30
40
50
60
70
Gs
1
G0 1 =05
100
150
10
200
05
30
40
350
250
400
08
07
06
05
04
60
03
70
02
90
09
50
80
1
Ir
10
250
20
Gs /G0
50
G0: MPa
0
01
G0 = (20 + 2z) MPa = 1000su
100
0
106
05
105
104
103
102
101
Shear strain,
400
10 0 m
Gt
1
G0 1 Ir 2
400
Roller
boundary
y
Roller
boundary
Fixed
boundary
thi
ck
Wall 4
L01
Wall 5
4m
Wall 7
Line 2
Wall 3
P8
312
8m
10 m thick
y z x
292 m
Wall 9
l2
AA12
Line 1
Xingye Bank
deep excavation
Wall 6
83
5m
0
AA9
P9
Wall 8
7
87
L06
al
W
Wall 1
252 m
Field data
A comprehensive field measurement programme,
described in Xu (2007), was carried out to monitor the
performance of the diaphragm wall and the deformations in
the neighbouring structures, during, and after, the construction process. The numerical calculations presented in the
current paper, are concerned with wall deformations at two
typical points (P8 and P9) (see Fig. 8) where inclinometer
data are available in Xu (2007). Point P9 has been chosen as it
lies at the midpoint of one side of the excavation; point P8 is
located at a re-entrant corner. In addition, computed deformations are presented along two lines on the ground surface
(denoted line 1 and line 2 in Fig. 8) along which settlements,
obtained using optical levels, are reported by Xu (2007).
g1
08
07
06
g2
g3
05
04
Area = 10
in linear plot
g4
c4c3
03
02
01
0
103
102
101
g5
c5c4
Equation (5)
g0 = 10
c3c2
09
c2c1
f 6J2 8C 0
2
10
c1
Gt/G0
100
101
102
Ir
Fig. 12. Plot of Gt/G0 against Ir for equation (5) and also for the
kinematic hardening model based on parameters in Table 2
Superstructures
20
Kinematic hardening model
18
Normalised deviator stress, q
Floor slabs
and beams
Equation (3)
16
14
12
10
08
06
04
02
0
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
z
y
x
Piles and columns, 60 m deep
gi
ci
10
09
0005
07
00952
05
02264
03
03537
015
05358
0075
06769
003
07678
00075
08708
000058
0942
Central analysis
Soil: multiple-yield surface model
G0 and su increase with depth
= 185 kN/m3, K 0t = 088
Wall: solid element, anisotropic properties,
best = 01
Slab, beam: linear elastic, shrinkage,
= 1 105/K, Tbest = 35 K
Nomenclature
Analysis description
Constitutive model
Central analysis
Tresca 1
Tresca 2
Thermal modelling of slab and beams
Degree of anisotropy of diaphragm wall model
Element type to model diaphragm wall
Horizontal stress distribution
Central analysis
T1
T2
Central analysis
A1
A2
Central analysis
S1
Central analysis
H1
H2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
40 30 20 10
values of (the wall anisotropy factor) and T (the temperature change required to model post-cure shrinkage in the
horizontal beams and slabs) need to be selected. The values
adopted in the current analysis (chosen on a trial-and-error
basis to provide a reasonable comparison with the field data)
are 01 and T 35 K. All other parameters adopted
in the central analysis were based directly on the available
geotechnical and structural data.
Once the central analysis had been completed, separate
subsidiary calculations were conducted to investigate the
influence of certain key aspects of the model. This process
provides an indication of the sensitivity of the analysis to the
calculation parameters and modelling procedures adopted in
the central analysis.
INTEPRETATION OF RESULTS
Xu (2007) provides a substantial database of field data
that may be compared with the results of the finite-element
analysis. In conducting these comparisons, various issues
need to be considered. First, the horizontal wall movements
reported by Xu (2007) were based on inclinometer readings
and reported on the basis that the displacement at the base
of the inclinometer is zero. To compare these data with the
finite-element results, the computational results have been
shifted to match the zero displacement condition that is
assumed at the base of the inclinometers. In addition, the
data in Xu (2007) indicate that measureable ground
P9
Field data
Central analysis
Tresca 1
Tresca 2
Wall depth: m
Wall depth: m
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
40 30 20 10
P8
Field data
Central analysis
Tresca 1
Tresca 2
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
100
60
90
40
Field data
Central analysis
Tresca 1
30
Tresca 2
Line 1
50
Vertical ground movement: mm
10
Wall deflection: mm
(b)
Wall deflection: mm
(a)
20
10
0
10
Line 2
Field data
Central analysis
80
70
Tresca 1
Tresca 2
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
20
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
30
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Horizontal distance: m
(d)
Fig. 15. Wall deflections and ground settlements (effects of soil models): wall deflection at (a) P9 and (b) P8; vertical ground movement along
(c) line 1 and (d) line 2
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
Concrete shrinkage
Two subsidiary analyses with different values of imposed
temperature change T, as indicated in Table 3, have been
used to investigate the influence of induced shrinkage in the
concrete floor slabs and beams on the computed behaviour.
Wall depth: m
Wall depth: m
P9
Field data
Central analysis
T1
T2
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
50
P8
Field data
Central analysis
T1
T2
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Wall deflection: mm
(b)
Wall deflection: mm
(a)
5
0
Line 2
0
5
10
15
Line 1
20
Field data
Central analysis
T1
T2
25
30
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Field data
Central analysis
T1
T2
10
15
20
25
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Horizontal distance: m
(d)
Fig. 16. Wall deflections and ground movements (thermal effects): wall deflection at (a) P9 and (b) P8; vertical ground movement along (c) line 1
and (d) line 2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
Wall depth: m
Wall depth: m
P9
Field data
Central analysis
A1
A2
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
11
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
50
P8
Field data
Central analysis
A1
A2
10
15
Wall deflection: mm
(a)
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Wall deflection: mm
(b)
0
Line 2
0
5
10
15
Line 1
20
Field data
Central analysis
A1
A2
25
30
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Field data
Central analysis
A1
A2
10
15
20
25
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Horizontal distance: m
(d)
Fig. 17. Wall deflections and ground movements (effects of joints): wall deflection at (a) P9 and (b) P8; vertical ground movement along (c) line 1
and (d) line 2
12
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
Wall depth: m
Wall depth: m
is zero, these additional bending moments are not incorporated in the analysis when shell elements are used. As a consequence, the wall deforms in a more flexible manner when
shell elements are used in the analysis.
P9
Field data
Central analysis
S1
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
50
P8
Field data
Central analysis
S1
10
15
Wall deflection: mm
(a)
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Wall deflection: mm
(b)
0
Line 2
0
5
10
15
Line 1
Field data
20
Central analysis
S1
Field data
Central analysis
S1
10
15
20
25
30
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
25
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Horizontal distance: m
(d)
Fig. 18. Wall deflections and ground movements (effects of shell elements): wall deflection at (a) P9 and (b) P8; vertical ground movement along
(c) line 1 and (d) line 2
CONCLUSIONS
The case study described in this paper suggests that 3D
finite-element analysis is capable of providing realistic data
on the performance of a complex deep excavation. Careful
consideration needs to be given, however, to various aspects
of the model, to ensure that satisfactory results are obtained.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the analyses
presented in this paper.
P9
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
Field data
Central
H1
H2
Wall depth: m
Wall depth: m
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
50
P8
Field data
Central
H1
H2
10
15
20
25
35
40
45
50
0
Line 2
0
Vertical ground movement: mm
30
Wall deflection: mm
(b)
Wall deflection: mm
(a)
5
10
15
Line 1
Field data
Central analysis
H1
H2
20
25
30
13
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Field data
Central analysis
H1
H2
10
15
20
25
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Horizontal distance: m
(d)
Fig. 19. Wall deflections and ground movements (Kt0 effects): wall deflection at (a) P9 and (b) P8; vertical ground movement along (c) line 1 and
(d) line 2
14
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The first author was supported by the China Scholarship
Council to study at Oxford University. The field measurements were conducted by Dr Z. H. Xu, who also analysed the
initial data. The calculations were conducted at the Oxford
Supercomputing Centre.
NOTATION
C
ci, gi
Eh
Ev
G
G0
Gs
Gt
Ir
i
J2
K
K0
Kt0
n
q
q
su
z
T
s
s
05
, hv, vh
REFERENCES
Boone, S. J. & Crawford, A. M. (2000). Braced excavations: temperature, elastic modulus, and strut loads. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Engng 126, No. 10, 870881.
Burd, H. J., Houlsby, G. T., Augarde, C. E. & Liu, G. (2000).
Modelling tunnelling-induced settlement of masonry buildings.
Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs Geotech. Engng 143, No. 1, 1729.
Cai, H., Zhou, J. & Li, X. (2000). Plastoelastic response of
horizontally layered sites under multi-directional earthquake
shaking. Tongji Daxue Xuebao/J. Tongji University 28, No. 2,
177182.
Chen, Q. S., Gao, G. Y. & Yang, J. (2011). Dynamic response of deep
soft soil deposits under multidirectional earthquake loading.
Engng Geol. 121, No. 12, 5565.
Darendeli, M. B. (2001). Development of a new family of normalized
modulus reduction and material damping curves. PhD thesis,
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
15