0 Votes +0 Votes -

57 vues15 pagesGeotechnique

Dec 12, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

Geotechnique

© All Rights Reserved

57 vues

Geotechnique

© All Rights Reserved

- Neuromancer
- Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race
- Fault Lines
- Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
- The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870-1914
- The Wright Brothers
- The Wright Brothers
- The Lean Startup: How Today's Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses
- A Jazzi Zanders Mystery
- Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap...And Others Don't
- The 6th Extinction
- The Great Bridge: The Epic Story of the Building of the Brooklyn Bridge
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- The Right Stuff
- Zero to One: Notes on Start-ups, or How to Build the Future
- A Short History of Nearly Everything
- Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover Microsoft's Soul and Imagine a Better Future for Everyone
- Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die
- The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

234]

Y. P. DONG , H. J. BURD and G. T. HOULSBY

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

calibration exercises, in which the results of finite-element

analyses are compared with field data, may be used to suggest

appropriate numerical procedures to adopt and pitfalls to

avoid.

To obtain a satisfactory numerical model of the performance of a deep excavation, a detailed three-dimensional

(3D) model is typically required (Gourvenec et al., 2002;

Zdravkovic et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2011). Furthermore, the

analysis needs to take account of the small strain nonlinearity of soil (Simpson, 1992; Potts & Zdravkovic, 2001),

potential post-cure thermal effects associated with the floor

slabs that act to support the retaining structures (Whittle

et al., 1993), and the initial stress state in the ground (Potts

& Fourie, 1984). Other issues to be considered include the

choice of element type (i.e. continuum or shell) to model the

retaining wall, and the development of an appropriate approach to model the structural influence of any construction

joints in the retaining wall (Zdravkovic et al., 2005).

This paper describes a detailed analysis of a complex

deep excavation case history (the basement excavation for

Shanghai Xingye Bank building) using Abaqus V611. This

project involved the top-down construction of a deep

excavation, supported by a diaphragm wall. The purpose of

the current study is to investigate the influence of various

modelling approaches and procedures on the computed

behaviour. Studies are conducted on the relative merits of

alternative approaches for modelling the soil, the retaining

wall and the supporting structures. Detailed field measurements are available for this project (Xu, 2007); these data are

used to assess the reliability of the finite-element results.

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

General description

The Shanghai Xingye Bank is a high-rise building (825 m

high) with a three-level deep basement. The structure employs a reinforced concrete frame, founded on bored piles

(Xu, 2007). The basement excavation is approximately

80 m 90 m in plan (Fig. 1). The excavation depth, as

shown in Fig. 2, is 142 m on the west side and 122 m on

the east side. The excavation is adjacent to 15 densely packed

accepted 14 July 2015. Published online ahead of print 14

September 2015.

Discussion on this paper closes on 1 June 2016, for further details see

p. ii.

SingaporeMIT Alliance for Research and Technology, Singapore;

former DPhil student at University of Oxford, UK.

Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford,

Oxford, UK.

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)

Electric power pipeline

Hankou Road

Design Institute

Diaphragm wall

144 m

124 m

Xingye Bank

( 600 mm)

(62 m wide)

Communication Bank

(CB)

HSBC Bank

(ECADI)

Custom House

Middle Sichuan Road

Sanjing Bank

(SJB)

(B3)

(B2)

(B1)

Xincheng building

Sewerage pipeline

Telephone cable

Drainage pipeline

Fuzhou Road

10 15 20 m

14050 m

9450 m

Crab

4950 m

Soil cement

columns

0100 m

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)

3

Diaphragm wall

(08 m thick)

buildings (eight of which have historic significance) and

several existing underground service pipes.

The retaining system, shown in Fig. 2, consists of a diaphragm wall (with thickness varying between 08 m and

10 m), vertical columns and piles (08 m and 09 m in diameter, 60 m deep), three levels of horizontal concrete floor

slabs (015 m thick), a grid of reinforced concrete beams

(05 m 08 m in section) and several temporary struts.

A plan view of the ground floor slab and the grid of supporting beams is shown in Fig. 3. Openings in the floor slab

were designed to facilitate the removal of the excavated soil

and to provide lighting and ventilation to the lower levels.

The excavation was constructed using a typical top-down

approach. The sequence is summarised in Table 1.

Soil modelling procedures

The Xingye Bank is located at a site in Shanghai which is

underlain by thick, relatively soft, quaternary alluvial and

marine deposits known as Shanghai Clay. As described later,

these deposits include various clay and silty clay layers with a

3

9

linear dimensions of the excavation are relatively large (of the

order of tens of metres) and, although some dissipation of

excess pore pressures is likely to occur during the construction process, it is assumed in the current analysis that these

drainage effects are minimal. The analyses described in the

current paper are therefore based on the assumption of

undrained soil behaviour.

It is noted that the ground movements that are caused by

deep excavation construction in Shanghai Clay are typically

observed to vary with time. Liu et al. (2005), for example,

report field data relating to a 17 m deep diaphragm wallsupported excavation in Shanghai. These authors conclude

that the observed time-dependency in the measured ground

settlements around the excavation provide evidence that significant dissipation of excess pore pressures occurred during

the construction process. Conversely, Tan & Wei (2012)

suggest, in connection with a separate set of deep excavation

field data in Shanghai Clay, that the time-dependent nature

of the observed post-construction settlements is a consequence of the known tendency of soils in this region to

Reinforced concrete

strut

Reinforced concrete

strut

Steel strut

Fig. 3. Plan view of the ground floor slab and supporting beams (Xu, 2007)

Stages

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

According to the original site investigation report (SGIDI,

1997), the site is located on a flat coastal plain, with ground

elevation between 480 m to 387 m. The water table is

between 05 m and 1 m below the ground surface. The site is

underlain by deposits of Shanghai Clay. The geological

profile and soil properties from the site investigation report

are shown in Fig. 4. The soil profile is divided into nine layers

according to differences in soil characteristics, physical

and mechanical properties. The natural water content of

the clay and the silty clay layers is close to, or in some cases

higher than, the liquid limit, suggesting that the soil is

either normally consolidated or lightly overconsolidated.

The undrained shear strength, su, determined from field vane

shear testing, is significantly higher than the values normally

associated with clay at the liquid limit, suggesting that the

clay is likely to be sensitive.

The data in Fig. 4 are insufficient to calibrate a soil model

in which the small strain non-linearity is included. In addition, the data only provide information on the undrained

shear strength to a depth of about 24 m below the ground

level, but the numerical analysis requires strength data to

a greater depth. To supplement the information provided in

the original site investigation report, additional data were

collected from published soil properties on Shanghai Clay, as

described below.

A set of undrained shear strength data (Dassargues et al.,

1991) measured using shear box tests on soils from the

central zone of Shanghai, and additional undrained shear

strength data determined using the field vane at two separate

sites in Shanghai (Liu et al., 2005; Ng et al., 2012), are

reproduced in Fig. 5. The undrained shear strength data from

the Xingye Bank site investigation (Fig. 4) are also included

in this plot.

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

sandy silt

60 Silty clay, with

silty sand

Note:

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

su: kPa

0

50

100

150

250

Xu (2007)

Ng et al. (2012)

Liu et al. (2005)

Equation (1)

10

Depth below ground level, z: m

200

20

linearly with depth. The following correlation is assumed in

the analyses described later in this paper

G0 20 2z

30

40

50

60

70

separate sites in Shanghai

lightly overconsolidated, it is assumed that the undrained

shear strength increases linearly with depth. The following

variation of shear strength with depth is assumed in the

finite-element analyses described in this paper (where z is

depth in units of metres and su is undrained shear strength in

units of kPa)

su 20 z

paper are based on the use of a multi-surface kinematic

hardening plasticity model (Houlsby, 1999) to represent the

soil. (Two subsidiary analyses, based on the use of an elastic

perfectly plastic model, have also been conducted for comparison purposes.) To calibrate the kinematic hardening

plasticity model, data are required on the small strain stiffness behaviour, that is, the small strain shear modulus, G0,

and the variation of tangent shear modulus with shear strain.

Appropriate values of G0 can be determined from shearwave velocity tests. Relevant data are given in Cai et al. (2000)

(from the Quyang district of Shanghai), Chen et al. (2011)

(from the site of Shanghai Hongqiao station) and Lou et al.

(2007) (from two further sites in Shanghai). Additional data

on characteristic values of shear wave velocity for depths of

up to 100 m in Shanghai are reported by Gao & Sun (2005).

Data from these sources are plotted in Fig. 6.

Gs

1

G0 1 =05

100

150

10

200

05

30

40

350

250

400

Sandy silt, Lu et al. (2005)

Medium sand, Lu et al. (2005)

Huang et al. (2001)

Wang (2004)

Equation (3)

08

07

06

05

04

60

03

70

02

90

09

50

80

1

Ir

10

250

Chen et al. (2011)

Gao & Sun (2005)

Lou et al. (2007)

Lou et al. (2007)

Equation (3)

20

which Gs/G0 05. Similar expressions have been used by

previous researchers (e.g. Hardin & Drnevich, 1972; Stokoe

et al., 1999; Darendeli, 2001; Santos & Correia, 2001). It is

straightforward to show that, for the particular correlation in

equation (3), the reference shear strain is related to rigidity

index by

Gs /G0

50

MPa. Equations (1) and (2) imply a rigidity index of Ir 1000

(where Ir G0/su) that is invariant with depth.

It should be noted that there is a potential difficulty in the

use of the relatively simple model for strength and stiffness

given in equations (1) and (2). As indicated in Fig. 1, the

Xingye Bank site is surrounded by a range of existing buildings; the self-weight of these buildings is likely to have

caused additional consolidation in the soil. This is particularly the case at this site where the soil is normally consolidated or lightly overconsolidated. It would be possible,

in principle, to include the effects of these consolidation

processes (which would tend to increase the strength and

stiffness of the soil beneath the neighbouring buildings) in the

model. However, this has not been attempted in the current

analysis.

Only limited data are available in the literature on the

small strain stiffness properties of Shanghai Clay. Lu et al.

(2005) report the results of resonant column tests and cyclic

triaxial tests on three different types of remoulded soil (sandy

silt, silty clay and medium sand). Huang et al. (2001) give

various data determined from triaxial and resonant column

tests. Wang (2004) presents data from bender element tests.

These data, all in terms of secant shear modulus, Gs, normalised by G0, are reproduced in Fig. 7. The data present a

consistent pattern, with the exception of the data from Wang

(2004), which falls below the general trend.

The data in Fig. 7 may be represented, reasonably well, by

the equation

G0: MPa

0

01

G0 = (20 + 2z) MPa = 1000su

100

Shanghai

0

106

05

105

104

103

102

101

Shear strain,

shear strain

to provide a good fit to the data (with the exception of Wang

(2004)).

The data in Fig. 7 relate to the secant modulus, Gs.

However, to calibrate the multi-surface kinematic hardening

plasticity model adopted for the current analysis, data are

required on the tangent shear modulus, Gt. It is straightforward to show that equation (3) implies a variation of tangent

shear modulus with shear strain of the form

400

10 0 m

Gt

1

G0 1 Ir 2

400

constitutive parameters for use in the multi-surface kinematic

hardening plasticity model, as described in a later section.

Roller

boundary

y

Roller

boundary

Fixed

boundary

MODEL

Model description

A finite-element model, developed in Abaqus V611, was

developed to represent the problem at a level of detail that

was judged to be appropriate for the structure and the

various construction processes that were employed in the

project. The geometry and mesh of the model are shown in

Fig. 9. Roller boundary conditions are assigned to the four

vertical sides of the mesh and the bottom is fixed. Initially

a central analysis was established which incorporated best

estimates of the various parameters and procedures that are

needed for the analysis. Subsidiary analyses were then performed to investigate the sensitivity of the results to some of

the assumptions inherent in the central analysis.

The soil is modelled with linear displacement, eightnoded, hexahedral elements with reduced integration

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

the development of a model in which the geometry of the

problem could be represented to a high level of detail,

without exceeding the capability of the available computing

resources. It should be noted, however, that linear elements

typically exhibit an over-stiff response when used to conduct

failure analyses in geotechnical engineering (although this

tendency is reduced by the use of reduced integration). The

analyses presented here, however, focus primarily on deformations, for which locking behaviour of the linear elements

should not be significant. In a practical design situation,

consideration should be given to conducting analyses using

higher order elements.

In the central analysis, the diaphragm wall is modelled

using a mesh of C3D8R elements (Fig. 10) with three

elements through the thickness of the wall. In a subsidiary

analysis, an alternative approach, based on the same mesh

topology but employing shell elements, is employed.

The principal structural elements, shown in Fig. 11,

include vertical piles and columns, horizontal beams and

floor slabs. The piles and beams are modelled with linear

beam elements (B31). The floor slabs are modelled with

four-noded quadrilateral shell elements with reduced integration (S4R).

The finite-element mesh used for the central analysis has a

total of 102 036 elements and 116 756 nodes. All analyses

were conducted assuming undrained conditions using a total

stress analysis. The steps used in the analysis follow closely

the construction sequence specified in Table 1. However, the

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

deviatoric stresses and C is a parameter that defines the size

of the surface and is interpreted as the undrained shear

strength. In addition, the model includes a set of n inner,

kinematic hardening, yield surfaces with the same shape as

the outer von Mises surface.

The model is specified by the small strain shear modulus, G0,

the bulk modulus K and a set of non-dimensional parameters ci

and gi (i 1, n) that are used to specify the size and work

hardening characteristics of each of the inner surfaces. The size

of each inner surface is ciC and the tangent shear modulus

when the ith surface is active is giG0. A total of nine inner yield

Equation (5)

g0 = 10

c3c2

09

c2c1

f 6J2 8C 0

2

10

c1

The Shanghai Clay is represented by a multi-surface

kinematic hardening soil model (Houlsby, 1999) which has

been developed to represent the small strain non-linear

behaviour of undrained soils. This multi-surface model,

formulated within the framework of work-hardening plasticity theory, is able to represent the non-linear behaviour

of soil at small strains. The model is described in detail by

Houlsby (1999); the use of the model to conduct finiteelement analyses of the deformations around shallow tunnels

is described in Burd et al. (2000). For the current analysis, this

model has been implemented in Abaqus by way of a UMAT

(an interface in Abaqus for users to write user-defined

material constitutive models) subroutine (Dong, 2014).

The soil model consists of a fixed outer von Mises surface

defined by

balance between accuracy and computational efficiency.

The parameters for the model are selected to provide a fit

with the stiffness degradation curve given in equation (5).

These parameters are listed in Table 2. Details of the procedure used to determine the numerical values of the model

parameters are given in Dong (2014). A comparison between

the step-wise stiffness degradation curve computed using the

multi-surface kinematic hardening plasticity model, using

the data in Table 2, and equation (5) is shown in Fig. 12.

To illustrate the performance of the kinematic hardening

model, an analysis has been conducted of the shearing

phase of a conventional triaxial compression test. The results

of this analysis are plotted in Fig. 13 in terms of normalised

Gt/G0

for simplicity, and the dewatering process is not modelled (on

the basis that a total stress analysis is being conducted).

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

triaxial shear strain s . Comparison between the results of triaxial

compression tests determined on the basis of equation (3) and the

performance of the kinematic hardening model (including an unload

reload cycle) based on the parameters used in Table 2. The filled

circles indicate intersections with one of the yield surfaces

z

y

x

Piles and columns, 60 m deep

Table 2. Parameters for the nested kinematic hardening model for n = 9

i

gi

ci

10

09

0005

07

00952

05

02264

03

03537

015

05358

0075

06769

003

07678

00075

08708

000058

0942

normalised triaxial shear strain s s Ir (where s is the

increment of triaxial shear strain). In this analysis, the model

is initially loaded to 80% of the failure load (i.e. q 16). The

computed performance of the kinematic hardening model

conforms closely (as expected) to the response computed

using equation (3). At q 16 the model is unloaded and

then re-loaded. The model exhibits a relatively stiff unloading

response and shows typical hysteretic behaviour on reloading.

This is a feature of the model; it is able to capture realistically

not only the change of stiffness on unloading, but also

realistic behaviour on reloading. More generally it captures

the effects of immediate past stress history on the stiffness of

the soil.

The diaphragm wall is modelled using a cross anisotropic elastic model. This provides a means of modelling the

structural influence of the construction joints in the wall

(Zdravkovic et al., 2005). The elastic properties of the

1, continuous, anisotropic

2, discontinuous at corners, isotropic

3, continuous but release rotational

DOFs at corner, isotropic

30 GPa, where Ev is the vertical Youngs modulus and

Eh Ev, where Eh is the horizontal Youngs modulus and

specifies the degree of anisotropy. Values of Poisson ratio

are vhv vvh 0.

The horizontal beams and floor slabs are modelled as

isotropic linear elastic materials with Youngs modulus E

30 GPa and Poisson ratio v 02. The floor slabs and beams

act as props for the diaphragm wall. During construction, the

floor slabs are cast against the diaphragm wall. Once a slab

has been cast, however, various complex mechanisms come

into play as the concrete cures (e.g. Kim & Ahn, 2009).

Initially, the concrete will heat up and expand as a consequence of the exothermic curing processes. The slab will

then shrink as it cools. Various other time-dependent shrinkage processes will also occur. This rather complex behaviour

during the curing process has the unfortunate effect that the

precise level of support that the slab provides to the retaining

1. Linear elastic, constant properties

2. Tresca, constant properties

3. Tresca, variable properties

elements, varies

Influence of anisotropic

wall properties

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

K 0t = 077, 10

T = 30 K, 40 K

Parameter or procedure being explored

Nomenclature

Analysis description

Constitutive model

Central analysis

su (20 2z) kPa, G0 1000su

Tresca soil model

Uniform strength and stiffness

su 50 kPa, G 125 MPa, v 049

Tresca soil model

Strength and stiffness vary with depth su (20 2z) kPa,

G 250su, v 049

T 35 K

T 30 K

T 40 K

01

105

10

Eight-noded continuum elements, 01

Four-noded shell elements, 01

Kt0 088

Kt0 077

Kt0 10

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

wall cannot easily be determined. In addition, the floor slabs

may also shrink or expand due to the variation of ambient

temperature (Whittle et al., 1993; Boone & Crawford, 2000;

Hashash et al., 2003).

Avariety of procedures have been used in previous analyses

to incorporate post-cure concrete shrinkage effects in

finite-element models of propped excavations. One approach

is to use a reduced stiffness for the slab (e.g. Simpson, 1992;

St. John et al., 1993). This approach has the disadvantage,

however, that it does not represent, in any meaningful way,

the detailed physics of the concrete curing process being

modelled. An alternative approach is to model shrinkage

effects by prescribing thermal strains to the floor slabs. In this

approach, thermal and post-cure shrinkage effects are effectively lumped together and dealt with in the model by specifying an appropriate set of thermal strains using a combination

of coefficient of thermal expansion and temperature

change, T. This approach is adopted in the current model

with 105/K. The required amount of thermal shrinkage

is specified by way of an appropriate value of T for the

horizontal beams and slabs.

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

A parametric study has been conducted according to the

strategy shown in Fig. 14. The individual calculations that

have been conducted are specified in Table 3. Initially a

central analysis is conducted. For this analysis, appropriate

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

(c)

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

during the wall installation and the dewatering processes.

Since the current model does not include these effects,

deformations associated with these construction processes

are excluded from the field data in the comparisons described

below. It should also be noted that diaphragm wall installation is likely to modify the local horizontal stresses in the

ground; the effect that these adjustments in horizontal

stresses might have on the subsequent incremental wall and

ground movements is not considered in the analysis.

The parametric study generated a very substantial amount

of data and only selected results are summarised in this

paper.

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

A set of analyses, specified in Table 3, has been conducted

to explore the influence of the choice of soil model on the

computed behaviour. The central analysis uses the multisurface kinematic hardening plasticity model, described

earlier, with a linear variation of strength with depth (equation (1)) and a constant value of rigidity index, Ir 1000. Two

additional calculations have been conducted using the

elasticperfectly cohesive model, based on the Tresca yield

criterion, that is available in the Abaqus material library.

Careful consideration is given to the choice of soil parameters to ensure that the analyses are broadly comparable.

For the Tresca 1 model, the soil properties do not vary with

depth of 15 m, roughly half of the wall depth, and the

stiffness G is taken to be equal to the tangent stiffness at 50%

of the shear strength for soil at a depth of 15 m. From

equations (1) and (2) this gives G 025G0 125 MPa. For

the Tresca 2 soil model, the shear strength is assumed to vary

linearly with depth, according to equation (1). The shear

modulus varies with depth as G 250su.

Figure 15 shows the calculated wall deflections (at locations

P9 and P8) and the vertical ground movements (along line 1

and line 2). The central analysis appears to capture the wall

deflection and ground movement reasonably well. The Tresca 2

model, captures the overall pattern of wall deflection reasonably well, although it fails to reproduce the pattern and magnitude of the vertical ground movement. The Tresca 1 model,

however, provides a poor comparison with the field data. These

comparisons suggest that, as expected, the kinematic hardening plasticity model is to be preferred over the simpler Tresca

model. Furthermore, comparing Tresca 1 and Tresca 2, it is

clear that modelling the soil as having constant strength and

stiffness with depth is highly unsatisfactory.

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

(c)

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

The results in Fig. 16 show that the calculated wall

deflections and ground movements are sensitive to these

induced shrinkage effects. Increasing the magnitude of the imposed temperature change from T 30 K to T 40 K

has the effect of increasing the computed wall displacements,

as would be expected. The use of a thermal shrinkage model

to represent the various post-cure shrinkage effects that

develop in the floor slabs appears to provide a practical and

plausible approach. However, the choice of the appropriate

shrinkage parameter, T, presents a practical difficulty.

In the current analysis, was set to an assumed value

for the coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete and T

was chosen by comparison between the results of the

finite-element analysis and the available field data on a

trial-and-error basis. For routine design situations, in which

previous field data are unavailable, an alternative approach

will need to be devised to determine an appropriate value of

T for use in the model.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

used for the wall ( 10, A2 analysis) the wall deflection

pattern in the finite-element results differs significantly

from the field data at the wall corner, P8, whereas the

moderately anisotropic wall model ( 01, central analysis)

provides a good fit to the field data at this location. As the

anisotropy factor decreases ( 105, A1 analysis), the

magnitude of the wall deflection at P8 increases significantly,

although the bulging pattern is maintained. The deformations at point P9, in the centre of a stretch of wall, are

seen to be less sensitive to the value of than is apparent at

the corner (P8).

The ground settlements along line 1 and line 2, are also

sensitive to the value of . The isotropic wall model ( 10,

A2 analysis) generally underestimates the ground settlement

along line 1 (which is close to the wall corner) while the two

analyses with an anisotropic model for the wall provide a

reasonably good fit to the data. For the ground settlement

along line 2, the settlement close to the wall corner is more

sensitive to the value of than that near the wall centre. This

behaviour is presumably associated with the influence of the

corners in the diaphragm wall.

These observations indicate that the joints between

the wall panels have an important influence on the wall

performance. Careful choice of the anisotropy factor, , is

needed to obtain a satisfactory model. The value 105,

recommended for a contiguous secant piled wall (Zdravkovic

et al., 2005), appears to be too small for the diaphragm wall

Wall depth: m

Wall depth: m

The influence of construction joints in the diaphragm wall

are included in the analysis by using an anisotropic model for

the wall. The value of the anisotropy factor, , adopted in the

central analysis was determined on a trial-and-error basis.

Subsidiary calculations were conducted to investigate the

sensitivity of the analyses to the value of .

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

(c)

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

reasonably well.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

The potential influence of the magnitude of the initial

horizontal stresses in the ground is investigated by conducting subsidiary analyses with different values of the coefficient

of earth pressure at rest, Kt0, based on total stresses. The

central analysis was based on Kt0 088; this value was

determined as follows. For an effective angle of friction of 15

(estimated from the original site investigation data, Fig. 4)

the value of K0 (in terms of effective stresses) determined

from the Jaky formula (K0 1sin) is 0741. This result,

combined with some simple assumptions on the unit weight

of the soil and the pore pressure variation with depth, gives

an estimate of 088 for Kt0. To investigate the sensitivity of the

analysis to variations in the initial horizontal stresses,

subsidiary calculations have been conducted with Kt0 077

and 10 (corresponding to K0 05 and 10). The results are

described below.

The computed wall deflections at P9 and P8 are shown in

Fig. 19. It is clear that changes in Kt0 have an insignificant

influence on the pattern of wall movements. However, the

data indicate that the vertical ground movements along lines

1 and 2 are both sensitive to the value of Kt0. Increasing Kt0

Wall depth: m

Wall depth: m

The central analysis has been repeated using shell elements

to model the diaphragm wall (rather than solid elements).

The shell element wall has the same cross anisotropic properties as the previous central analysis. Results from the

analyses described in Table 3 are shown in Fig. 18.

As shown in Fig. 18, the shell element wall produces wall

deflection patterns that are similar to those computed using

solid elements, but the displacements are typically about

30% greater in magnitude. Figure 18 also indicates that the

shell element wall results in approximately 30% larger ground

settlement along line 1 and line 2 compared to the solid

element wall in the central analysis.

This finding that computed wall displacements tend to

be greater in magnitude when shell elements are used in the

model, rather than continuum elements, is consistent with

the results of Zdravkovic et al. (2005). Note that this is in

spite of the fact that the bending stiffness of the wall was

matched in the two analyses. Vertical acting shear stresses

develop on the soil/structure interface behind the retaining

wall. When these shear stresses act downwards (as is typically

the case) then additional bending moments are set up the

retaining wall that tend to reduce the magnitude of the wall

deflection. Since the geometric thickness of the shell element

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

(c)

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

tends to increase the magnitude of the computed vertical

ground movements.

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.

have a significant influence on the structural interaction

between the slab and the retaining walls. It appears

to be possible to develop a satisfactory model for these

shrinkage processes based on a relatively simple thermal

strain approach. Further work is needed to develop

appropriate procedures to determine appropriate thermal parameters for use in routine design.

(c) When shell elements are used to model the retaining

wall, fewer nodes are employed than is the case for a

model based on continuum elements. In spite of their

relative simplicity, however, the use of shell elements in

this application is not recommended. When the retaining wall is modelled with shell elements, the wall deflection and ground settlement are overestimated (by 30%

in this case study) compared with the model with solid

elements for the wall. This difference is associated with

the beneficial effect of downward-acting shear stresses

acting on the back of the retaining all. The effect of

these shear stresses is not modelled correctly when shell

elements are used.

(d) The performance of the retaining wall is influenced by

the presence of construction joints, particularly near the

corners. The current analyses suggest that satisfactory

results can be achieved using anisotropic elasticity to

represent the wall, provided that an appropriate value of

the anisotropy factor, , is adopted. For the diaphragm

wall investigated in the current study a value of 01

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

reproduce the observed patterns of displacement, even

when the strength and stiffness parameters were allowed

to vary with depth. In contrast, the multi-surface

kinematic hardening plasticity model adopted to represent the soil in the central analysis gave results that

conformed closely to the field data. These observations

are consistent with much of the previous work in this

area and confirm the fundamental importance of

adopting a model that is capable of representing small

strain non-linear soil behaviour in order to obtain

realistic results for soil/structure interaction problems of

this sort.

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

(c)

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

that are appropriate for other forms of construction

need to be verified by way of analysis of case histories.

(e) The magnitude of the horizontal stresses in the ground

influences the excavation behaviour. The computed

results indicate that the wall deflection pattern is

insensitive to changes in the value of Kt0. However, the

value of Kt0 does have a significant influence on the

computed ground surface settlements.

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

surface

non-dimensional normalised parameters in soil model

to define size and stiffness associated with each inner

yield surface

Youngs modulus in horizontal direction

Youngs modulus in vertical direction

shear modulus

shear modulus at very small strain

secant shear modulus

tangent shear modulus

rigidity index

ith inter yield surface of the soil model

second invariant of deviatoric stresses

bulk modulus in soil model

coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest in effective

stress expression

coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest in total stress

expression

number of yield surfaces used in soil model

deviator stress

normalised deviator stress

undrained shear strength of soil

depth below ground

coefficient of thermal expansion

degree of anisotropy of diaphragm wall

temperature change

increment of triaxial shear strain

normalised triaxial shear strain

effective friction angle of soil

engineering shear strain

reference shear strain at Gs/G0 05

Poisson ratio

stress tensor

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.

properties of the Quaternary sediments in Shanghai. Engng

Geol. 31, No. 1, 7190.

Dong, Y. (2014). Advanced finite element analysis of deep excavation

case histories. DPhil thesis, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Finno, R. J. & Bryson, L. S. (2002). Response of building adjacent

to stiff excavation support system in soft clay. J. Perf. Constr.

Facilities 16, No. 1, 1020.

Finno, R. J. & Nerby, S. M. (1989). Saturated clay response

during braced cut construction. J. Geotech. Engng 115, No. 8,

10651084.

Finno, R. J., Atmatzidis, D. K. & Perkins, S. B. (1989). Observed

performance of a deep excavation in clay. J. Geotech. Engng 115,

No. 8, 10451064.

Gao, F. & Sun, X. (2005). Characteristic analysis of Shear wave

velocity of foundation ground in Shanghai region. Shanghai

Geol. 94, No. 2, 2729.

Gourvenec, S., Powrie, W. & De Moor, E. K. (2002).

Three-dimensional effects in the construction of a long

retaining wall. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs Geotech. Engng

155, No. 3, 163173, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geng.2002.155.

3.163.

Hardin, B. O. & Drnevich, V. P. (1972). Shear modulus and damping

in soils: measurement and parameter effects. ASCE J. Soil

Mech. Found. Div. 98, No. SM6, 603624.

Hashash, Y. M. A. & Whittle, A. J. (1996). Ground movement

prediction for deep excavations in soft clay. J. Geotech.

Geoenviron. Engng 122, No. 6, 474486.

Hashash, Y. M. A., Marulanda, C., Kershaw, K. A., Cording, E. J.,

Druss, D. L., Bobrow, D. J. & Das, P. K. (2003). Temperature

correction and strut loads in Central Artery excavations.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 129, No. 6, 495505.

Houlsby, G. T. (1999). A model for the variable stiffness of

undrained clay. Proceedings of the international symposium on

pre-failure deformations of soil, Torino, Italy, pp. 443450.

Huang, Y., Brown, S. F. & McDowell, G. R. (2001). Dynamic

coupled analysis for rutting in flexible pavement foundations

under cyclic loading. Yantu Gongcheng Xuebao/Chin. J.

Geotech. Engng 23, No. 6, 757.

Kim, H. & Ahn, H. (2009). Shrinkage stress analysis of concrete

slabs in a multi-storey building considering internal and

external restraints. Struct. Des. Tall Special Buildings 18,

No. 5, 525537.

Kung, G. T. C., Ou, C. Y. & Juang, C. H. (2009). Modeling

small-strain behavior of Taipei clays for finite element analysis of

braced excavations. Comput. Geotech. 36, No. 12, 304319.

Lee, F. H., Hong, S., Gu, Q. & Zhao, P. (2011). Application of

large three-dimensional finite-element analyses to practical

problems. Int. J. Geomech. 11, No. 6, 529539.

Liu, G. B., Ng, C. W. W. & Wang, Z. W. (2005). Observed

performance of a deep multistrutted excavation in Shanghai

soft clays. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 131, No. 8, 10041013.

Liu, G. B., Jiang, R. J., Ng, C. W. W. & Hong, Y. (2011).

Deformation characteristics of a 38 M deep excavation in soft

clay. Can. Geotech. J. 48, No. 12, 18171828.

Lou, M., Li, Y. & Li, N. (2007). Analyses of the seismic responses of

soil layers with deep deposits. Frontiers Archit. Civ. Engng in

China 1, No. 2, 188193.

Lu, X., Li, P., Chen, B. & Chen, Y. (2005). Computer simulation

of the dynamic layered soil-pile-structure interaction system.

Can. Geotech. J. 42, No. 3, 742751.

Ng, C. W. W. & Lings, M. L. (1995). Effects of modeling

soil nonlinearity and wall installation on back-analysis of

deep excavation in stiff clay. J. Geotech. Engng 121, No. 10,

687695.

Ng, C. W. W., Hong, Y., Liu, G. B. and Liu, T. (2012). Ground

deformations and soilstructure interaction of a multi-propped

excavation in Shanghai soft clays. Gotechnique 62, No. 10,

907921, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.10.P.072.

Potts, D. & Zdravkovic, L. (2001). Finite element analyisis in

geotechnical engineering: application, vol. 2. London, UK:

Thomas Telford.

Potts, D. M. & Fourie, A. B. (1984). Behaviour of a propped

retaining wall: results of a numerical experiment. Gotechnique

34, No. 3, 383404, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1984.34.3.

383.

Santos, J. A. & Correia, A. G. (2001). Reference threshold

shear strain of soil. Its application to obtain an unique

strain-dependent shear modulus curve for soil. Proceedings

of the 15th international conference on soil mechanics and

geotechnical engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, vol. 13,

pp. 267270.

SGIDI (Shanghai Geotechnical Investigation & Design Institute)

(1997). Geotechnical site investigation report of Shanghai Xingye

Bank Building, Report no. 97-G-047. Shanghai, China:

Shanghai Geotechnical Investigation & Design Institute.

Simpson, B. (1992). Retaining structures: displacement and design.

Gotechnique 42, No. 4, 541576, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/

geot.1992.42.4.541.

Skempton, A. W. & Ward, W. H. (1952). Investigations concerning a

deep cofferdam in the Thames Estuary clay at Shellhaven.

Gotechnique 3, No. 3, 119139, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.

1952.3.3.119.

St John, H. D., Potts, D. M., Jardine, R. J. & Higgins, K. G. (1993).

Prediction and performance of ground response due to

construction of a deep basement at 60 Victoria Embankment.

Predictive soil mechanics. Proceedings of the Wroth memorial

symposium, Oxford, UK, pp. 581608.

Stokoe, K. H., Darendeli, M. B., Andrus, R. D. & Brown, L. T.

(1999). Dynamic soil properties: laboratory, field and correlation studies. Earthquake geotechnical engineering. Proceedings

15

engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, vol. 3, pp. 811845.

Tan, Y. & Wei, B. (2012). Observed behaviors of a long and

deep excavation constructed by cut-and-cover technique in

Shanghai soft clay. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 138, No. 1,

6988.

Wang, Z. W. (2004). Research on deformation and earth pressure of

deep metro excavation in soft clay based on time and small strain.

PhD thesis, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.

Wang, Z. W., Ng, C. W. W. & Liu, G. B. (2005). Characteristics

of wall deflections and ground surface settlements in Shanghai.

Can. Geotech. J. 42, No. 5, 12431254.

Whittle, A. J., Hashash, Y. M. A. & Whitman, R. V. (1993). Analysis

of deep excavation in Boston. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE 119,

No. 1, 6990.

Wood, L. A. & Perrin, A. J. (1984). Observations of a strutted

diaphragm wall in London Clay: a preliminary assessment.

Gotechnique 34, No. 4, 563579, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/

geot.1984.34.4.563.

Xu, Z. H. (2007). Deformation behaviour of deep excavations

supported by permanent structure in Shanghai soft deposit.

PhD thesis, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.

Zdravkovic, L., Potts, D. M. & St. John, H. D. (2005). Modelling

of a 3D excavation in finite element analysis. Gotechnique 55,

No. 7, 497513, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.2005.55.7.497.

- 1 Introduction soil mechanicsTransféré parloonieteh
- types of problematic soilsTransféré parSalvatory Lyakurwa
- Tunnel StabilityTransféré parমহঃনূরমাওলা
- S2 Cyclic BehaviourTransféré parTorpir
- Seepage Analysis through Foundation using F.E.M. and FlownetTransféré paryandipu
- CE Forenoon-Final NewTransféré parAshok Pradhan
- Kosiakov EgorTransféré parSyafiqah Nur Fatin
- In-Situ Measurement of Pipe-Soil Interaction in Deep WaterTransféré parrivasandr
- 47_153Transféré parRenugopal
- Phase2_SlopeStabilityVerification_Part2Transféré parMarcos Ma
- C_CORE PRCI Extended Model PSI Rpt (1).pdfTransféré parMarioCaballero
- M28.pdfTransféré parHồ Thắng
- Note to Designer 11.06.16Transféré parRamesh Kumar
- Andrew Merritt PhD Cambridge 2004Transféré parCarlos Conde
- Hans-Detlef Krey and the Experimental Approach to Soil Mechanics- SchultzeTransféré parAlfredo López Hernández
- Seabed and Sub Seabed Data RequirementsTransféré parAyman64
- 10 Full PaperTransféré parEhsan Ghaffari
- NUS CE & TE ModulesOffered 2013-14Transféré parLinus Tan
- Rig 2011-1-049bellezzadalberto 0Transféré parajanlahh
- SHEAR STRENGTH OF SOILSTransféré parAnkit Nagpal
- 2008 05 DD 41 Manhole FlotationTransféré parPedrin Cha Olivos
- LECTURE 8.pdfTransféré parjohn banda
- Geotechnical Report of Hotel Building at Bishanpur, Spatari.pdfTransféré parSaunak Sharma
- histogram porositasTransféré parAndreas Joelio Nembo
- Lit Review ExampleTransféré parKobie Drysdale
- A Structured Cam Clay ModelTransféré parK H V V MADUSHANKA
- 123Transféré parNguyen Bien
- Manual on Design of DamsTransféré parTamilselvan
- New Word 2007 Document (4)Transféré parAla Thajil
- Pile_Fixity - Updated -Transféré parMuhammad Bilal

- strut & tie modelTransféré parahmed adel
- Kh Provision of Bfa Facilities at Public Walkways PlanningTransféré parshifuka
- Burdet00.pdfTransféré parshifuka
- BSTR-PN-002D - Flood Warning System in Subways & UnderpassesTransféré parshifuka
- Sciencegroup Tradepub ComTransféré parAnonymous 6OPLC9U
- Guidelines for Pumping Station DesignTransféré parshifuka
- Fillable MEA_CEO Agreement 2016Transféré parshifuka
- m-25report(pipedeflection)_rev08-05-15.pdfTransféré parshifuka
- Integrity Management Manual - Summary of Req't (English)Transféré parshifuka
- Finite-element analysis of a deep excavation case historyTransféré parshifuka
- Work Experience OverviewTransféré parmaxi_mike
- Get hiredTransféré parbrownbear123
- ICE Civil Engineering Issue 169Transféré parshifuka
- 2016 04 28 a Eco Hydraulics WorkshopTransféré parshifuka
- 2016-04-18 C - Pipe Flows & Open Channel Flows - ExamplesTransféré parshifuka
- 2016-04-18 B - Open Channel FlowsTransféré parshifuka
- 2016-04-18 A - Pipe FlowsTransféré parshifuka
- 2016-04-14 Rainfall Runoff ModellingTransféré parshifuka
- 2016-04-07 Fundamental Principles of Hydrology & ApplicationsTransféré parshifuka
- 2016-03-31 Fundamental Principles of Hydraulics & Applications (Part 2)Transféré parshifuka
- 2016-03-31 Fundamental Principles of Hydraulics & Applications (Part 1)Transféré parshifuka
- http _pusatgratis.tradepub.com_ p=w_carc14&w=d&email=slamet.abdullah@gmail.com&key=r44d0WwIPge9Z5v9AAQ6&ts=64310&u=0392102020861431364207&e=c2xhbWV0LmFiZHVsbGFoQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ==Transféré parAbdullah Slamsmart
- MBR Technology - V5Transféré parshifuka
- Unsteady Flow Set 2 MS GhidaouiTransféré parshifuka
- Notes for Preparing Project Start & Completion DatesTransféré parshifuka
- 我的前半生Transféré parAnthony Hao
- Six thinking hatsTransféré parEeshal Mirza
- Weddingsuperfile.xlsTransféré parshifuka

- Accident _ Incident InvestigationTransféré parAdeel Ahmed
- Indometacin JournalTransféré parQonita Nita
- Financial ManagementTransféré parNaagaarzzuna Kesana
- www.grabthenew.com_COLLEGE_BE_2010_2010NOV_MECH_ME 2305 — APPLIED HYDRAULICS AND PNEUMATICSTransféré par9600257003
- Pso Ratios & Industry AnalysisTransféré parmustafakarim
- VLAN1Transféré parbil2
- Schizophrenia Case StudyTransféré parRichard Sy
- HOW FEED AND NUTRITION CAN COMBAT HEAT STRESSTransféré parMilling and Grain magazine
- Document.rtf 2Transféré parAnirudh
- 3575614440 Internal or Accounting ControlsTransféré parSijo Muthukad M
- Raspberry Pi - Hardware (eLinux)Transféré parsher123
- boi duong HSG TA 10.docTransféré parVânAnh
- Mid-Semester presentations & Reflections (2).pptxTransféré parCharlieScheftic
- 16404857 Digital Image Processing 07 Image Restoration Noise RemovalTransféré parlakshmi2612
- 1992 Modeling of Cylindrical Objects by Circular Comments)Transféré parBob Smith
- Brief Profile of ALC IndiaTransféré parGv Krishnagopal
- drypix_2000Transféré parMeraki Daniel
- World Class Activity BookTransféré parAlina Radoias
- Samsung Camera ST66 English User ManualTransféré parSamsung Camera
- Min Had 2017Transféré parPAULSELVI
- 3.7 Types of Protein LPTransféré parjnfjngsdj
- AP Chemistry, Kinetics Lab ReportTransféré parSebatHian Santiago
- MIL-B-81820-4 BRG SELF LUB SELF ALIGN LOW OSCILLATIONMil-b-81820-4 Brg Self Lub Self Align Low OscillationTransféré parjohn_gouveia_8
- Operation and Maintenance Manual-AGGTransféré parAya Jibo
- Soap API Guide DocuSignTransféré parmaxdesa
- RouterOS Reference Manual v2.9Transféré pargmijic@yahoo.com
- Stations 2Transféré par9048605
- AAC_SPEC_377008Transféré parJakes
- Medium Pressure Instrumentation Valves BFD89Transféré parNilesh Mistry
- maximus,minimusTransféré parVinod Saini

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.