Evaluation of Constitutive Soil Models

for Predicting Movements Caused by a

Deep Excavation in Sands

Bin-Chen Benson Hsiung and Sy-Dan Dao*

Department of Civil Engineering, National Kaohsiung University of Applied
Sciences, 415Chien-Kung Road, Kaohsiung City, 807, Taiwan
*Corresponding author; e-mail: sydandao@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
The objective of this paper is to evaluate the performance of three constitutive soil models,
i.e. Morh-Coulomb model (MC model), Hardening soil model (HS model) and Hardening soil
model with small strain stiffness (HSS model), implanted in PLAXIS software, for predicting
movements induced by a deep excavation in sands. A case history of deep excavation in thick
layers of sand, which is well documented in Kaohsiung city, Taiwan, was adopted as a basic
for the numerical analyses in this study. The back analysis method was used to determine
input parameters that cannot be directly obtained from tests or reliably empirical equations. In
addition, parametric studies were also conducted to evaluate the sensitivity of important input
parameters of the MC, HS and HSS models, which were obtained by the back analysis
method. Results pointed out that the HSS model yields the best predictions of the wall
deflections and ground surface settlements, and the MC model gives the worst results. This
study can be helpful to engineers and researches to perform numerical analyses using the
constitutive soil models more confidently.
KEYWORDS: Deep excavation; constitutive soil models; sand; back analysis;
parametric study.

INTRODUCTION
Deep excavations are often located very close to existing buildings in urban areas. As a result,
they usually cause uncomfortable movements, which can influence safety of the adjacent
buildings. Movements of the retaining wall and ground induced by deep excavations have been
studied by many researches, for example Peck (1969), Clough and O'Rourke (1990), Ou et al.
(1993), Hsieh and Ou (1998), Hsieh et al. (2003), Ou (2006), Kung et al. (2009), Hsiung (2009),
Lim et al. (2010), Likitlersuang et al. (2013) and Khoiri and Ou (2013). However, these
researches mainly analyzed excavations in clays rather than excavations in sands.
Nowadays, commercial FEM programs, written mainly for geotechnical problems such as Plaxis,
Flac and Misdas GTS, have been commonly used to analyze the behaviors caused by deep
excavations. Many constitutive soil models, from a linear elastic model to non-linear elasto-
plastic models, have been developed in the last decades. However, it is still a problem with
predicting movements induced by deep excavations using numerical analyses. The accuracy of a

- 17325 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z5 17326

numerical analysis depends on the appropriate selections of many factors such as the simplicity of
geometry and boundary conditions, mesh generation, constitutive models, and input parameters.
The input parameters of soil can be measured from the laboratory or field tests or be estimated
from empirical equations. To find proper results from numerical analysis, understanding of
engineers about the numerical methods and constitutive models of soil is very essential.
This paper aims to evaluate the performance of constitutive soil models, i.e. Morh-Coulomb
model (MC model), Hardening soil model (HS model) and Hardening soil model with small
strain stiffness (HSS model), implanted in PLAXIS software, for predicting movements caused
by a deep excavation in sands. A case history of deep excavation in sands, which is well
documented in Kaohsiung city, Taiwan, will be used as a basic for the numerical analyses in this
paper. The results of this study can be useful for engineers and researchers to perform numerical
analyses using the constitutive soil models more confidently.

A CASE HISTORY OF DEEP EXCAVATION

A case history of deep excavation in Kaohsiung city, Taiwan, namely Case A, was adopted as a
basic for numerical analyses in this paper. Case A was next to the O7 Station, which is on the
orange line of Kaohsiung MRT system. As shown in Figure 1, Case A was in the central area of
Kaohsiung city and about 3.0 km to the east of Kaohsiung harbor.

Case A

Figure 1: Location of Case A

The shape of Case A was rectangular with 70 m in length and 20 m in width. The excavation
was carried out by the bottom-up construction method and was retained by a diaphragm wall that
is 0.9 m thick and 32 m deep. It was excavated in five stages with the maximum excavation depth
of 16.8 m. The retaining wall was propped by steel struts at four levels, and the horizontal spacing
of the struts was average about 5.5 m. Figure 2 below shows the cross section and ground
condition of Case A.
According to the site investigation, the excavation of Case A was in the coastal plain of
Kaohsiung city, Taiwan. As shown in Figure 2, because three clay layers (CL type) are very thin,
their influences on the excavation behavior are not significant. It can be thus concluded that the
excavation of Case A is a typical case of deep excavations in sands.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z5 17327

Ground level: 0.0 m SID

1 CL, N = 6-7
2.0 m 1.50 m (1H400x400x13x21)
1 2.50 m
2
SM, N = 5-11
6.5 m 6.30 m (2H400x400x13x21)
8.0 m
3 CL, N = 3-4 2 7.30 m
9.65 m (2H400x400x13x21)
3 10.65 m
4 13.00 m (2H400x400x13x21)
4 14.00 m
SM, N = 5-17
17.0 m 5 16.80 m

SM, N = 5-17
23.5 m
0.9 m diaphram wall
6
SM, N = 5-17
28.5 m
7 CL, N = 11-15
30.5 m
32.0 m

SM, N = 18-26
42.0 m

SM, N = 28-42
60.0 m
Mudstone

Figure 2: Cross section and ground condition of Case A

The field observation also reported that the groundwater level before excavation was about
2.0 m deep below the ground surface. The groundwater level inside the pit was lowered to a depth
of 1.0 m below each excavation level before each stage of excavation to make a convenient space
for construction process of excavation.
The wall deflections and surface settlements were monitored by inclinometers and
settlement observation sections during construction process of the excavation, respectively.
Figure 3 below shows the wall deflections and ground surface settlements measured at the central
section of long side of Case A, in which the wall deflections were corrected to take into account
the toe movements of inclinometers (see Hwang et al., 2007 and Hsiung and Hwang, 2009). It
can be assumed that the movements of the wall and ground at the central section of long side are
in the plane strain condition because this section is far away from the excavation corners, and the
ratio of the excavation width to length (B/L) is less than 0.3.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z5 17328

Displacement (mm) Distance from the wall (m)

-30 0 30 60 90
0 -40
The 1st strut:
2 1.5m
-30

Ground surface settlement (mm)

4
-20
6

8 -10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
10 0
12 10
14
The 5th stage: 20
Depth (m)

16 16.8m
30
18

20 40

22

24

26
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
28

30
Stage 4 Stage 5
32

Figure 3: Wall deflections and ground surface settlements measured at the central section of long
side of Case A

As can be noted from Figure 3, the wall is to behave as a cantilever at the first stage of
excavation because the steel struts at the first level have not yet installed and preloaded. The wall
then displays the deep inward movements at subsequent stages of excavation. The maximum wall
deflection at the final excavation stage is near the excavation level and equal to 0.39%He (He is
the excavation depth). This value is thus consistent with the range of 0.2%He to 0.5%He found in
the study of Ou et al. (1993).
The range of observed settlements behind the retaining wall was quite limited because there
was a crowed traffic road near the excavation, which causes the difficulty for full observation of
settlement. The maximum surface settlement (vm) varies from 21 mm to 30 mm at the final stage
of excavation, or the ratio vm/He is equal to from 0.12% to 0.18%. According to the study of
Clough and O'Rourke (1990), the maximum surface settlement was average about 0.15%He for
excavations in stiff clays and sands. Therefore, the ratio vm/He in this study is similar to the study
of Clough and O'Rourke (1990).

NUMERICAL ANALYSES AND RESULTS

The commercial software PLAXIS 2D, version 9 (2009), was selected as a tool for 2D numerical
analyses in this study. PLAXIS 2D is a two-dimensional finite element program, which is
developed at Deft University of Technology in the Netherlands and is made commercially
available by PLAXIS Bv, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z5 17329

Because the clay layers are very thin, their influences on excavation behavior are not
significant. In contrast, the excavation behavior is mainly influenced from sand layers. Three
constitutive soil models, i.e. MC model, HS model, HSS model, were adopted to simulate the
sand layers for evaluating their performances in predicting the wall deflections and surface
settlements induced by the excavation of Case A in numerical analyses herein. In these different
models, strength parameters are the same, but stiffness parameters are different. The stiffness
parameters are constant in the MC model, but they are stress dependent in the HS model and HSS
model and are strain dependent in the HSS model. All sand layers were assumed to be drained
materials in the numerical analyses.
To obtain a consistent evaluation, the clay layers were all modeled with the MC model in a
total stress undrained analysis in the analyses above. For the total stress undrained analysis of the
clay layers, parameters of undrained Young's modulus Eu,undrained internal friction angle u = 0
and undrained shear strength Su were used. Undrained Young's modulus Eu can be computed by
the empirical equation Eu = 500Su as suggested in researches of Bowles (1996), Lim et al. (2010),
Likitlersuang et al. (2013), and Khoiri and Ou (2013). Poisson's ratio u = 0.495 ( 0.5) was
adopted to simulate the incompressibale behavior of water and to avoid numerical problems
caused by an extremely low compressibility (singularity of the stiffness matrix). Table 1 shows
the input parameters of clay layers used for analyses.

Table 1: Input parameters of clay layers

Depth Soil gt Su Eu Analysis
Layer u
(m) Type (kN/m3) (kPa) (kPa) Type
1 0.0-2.0 CL 19.3 28 14000 0.495 Undrained
3 6.5-8.0 CL 19.7 21 10500 0.495 Undrained
7 28.0-30.5 CL 18.6 84 42000 0.495 Undrained

The diaphragm wall was simulated by plate elements, and the steel struts were simulated by
elements of fixed-end anchor. The linear elastic model was adopted to model both the diaphragm
wall and steel struts. This model requires two input parameters, i.e. Poisson's ratio and Young's
modulus. The Poisson's ratio was taken to be 0.2 for both the diaphragm wall and steel struts. The
Young's modulus of the diaphragm wall was calculated by the formula of ACI Committee 318
(1995) as follows:

E = 4700 f c, ( MPa) (1)

in which f c, ( MPa) is the standard compressive strength of the diaphragm wall concrete. The
Youngs modulus of steel struts was taken to be 2.1x105 (MPa). The stiffnesses of the diaphragm
wall and the steel struts were reduced by 30% and 40%, respectively, from their nominal values
to consider the cracks in the diaphragm wall due to bending moments and to consider the repeated
uses as well as improper installation of steel struts as suggested by Ou (2006). Tables 2 and 3
below show input parameters of the diaphragm wall and steel struts used for numerical analyses.
The weight of plate is obtained by multiplying the unit weight of plate by thickness of plate. It is
noted that the unit weight of plate was subtracted a value of soil unit weight because the wall was
modeled as non-volume elements. Interface elements were also simulated to represent the friction
between soil and the diaphragm wall. As proposed by PLAXIS 2D (2009) and Khoiri and Ou
(2013), the stiffness of interface elements could be taken as 0.67 to simulate the disturbance of
ground between the wall and soil.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z5 17330

Table 2: Input parameters of diaphragm wall

Parameter Name Value Unit
Compressive strength of concrete f'c 28 MPa
Young's modulus E 24.8x106 kPa
Thickness d 0.9 m
Axial stiffness x 70% 70%EA 15.66x106 kPa/m
Flexural stiffness x 70% 70%EI 1.057x106 kPa/m
Weight w 4.95 kN/m/m
Poisson's ratio 0.2

Table 3: Input parameters of steel struts

Strut Preload Section EA 60%EA
Strut level
level (kN) area (m2) (kN) (kN)
Level 1 1H400x400x13x21 900 0.0219 4.59x106 2.75x106
Level 2 2H400x400x13x21 2000 0.0437 9.18x106 5.50x106
Level 3 2H400x400x13x21 2800 0.0437 9.18x106 5.50x106
Level 4 2H400x400x13x21 2800 0.0437 9.18x106 5.50x106

Figure 4 below presents the finite element model adopted for the numerical analyses of Case
A. Only a half of the excavation of Case A was modeled because of its symmetrical geometry.
The base of the finite element model was placed at the top of mudstone layer, i.e. at a depth of 60
m below the ground surface. The distance from the lateral boundary of the model to the retaining
wall was taken to be 120 m, which is appropriately seven times excavation depth as suggested by
Khoiri and Ou (2013). The horizontal movement was restrained for the lateral boundaries, and
both the vertical and horizontal movements were restrained for the bottom boundary of the model.

10 m 120 m
60 m

Figure 4: Finite element model adopted in numerical analyses

Mohr-Coulomb model (MC model)

The MC model assumes the stress-strain relation to be linear elastic-perfectly plastic, and its
failure criterion is Mohr-Coulomb's failure criterion. The slope of linear elastic section of stress-
strain curve is defined as Young's modulus of soil (E'), and the perfectly plastic section is
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z5 17331

obtained when the stress states reach the Mohr-Coulomb's failure criterion. The MC model is a
basic model of soil, and it represents a first-order approximation of soil behavior. It is thus
recommended to use this model for preliminary analyses of the considered problem. Because
each soil layer is estimated by a constant average stiffness, computations with the MC model are
relatively fast. The MC model involves six input parameters as summarized in Table 4.

Table 4: Input parameters of soil models

Input parameters
MC HS HSS Explanation of parameters Initial estimates
model model model
Slope of failure line from Morh-
' Internal friction angle
Coulomb's failure criterion
y-intercept of failure line from
c' Cohesion
Morh-Coulomb's failure criterion
E0 or E50 or Eur depends on
E' Young's modulus for elasticity
considered problem
From 0.3 to 0.4 as suggested by
' Poisson' ratio for elasticity
Plaxis 2D (2009)
Dilatancy angle Function of 'peak and 'critical state
Coefficient of earth pressure at
K0 1 - sin' (default setting)
rest
( 1 3 ) f /(( 1 3 )ult =0.9
Rf Failure ratio
(default setting)
Reference secant stiffness from y-intercept in log('3/pref) -
E50ref
drained triaxial test log(E50) curve
Reference tangent stiffness for y-intercept in log('1/pref) -
ref
Eoed
oedometer primary loading log(Eoed) curve
Reference unloading/reloading y-intercept in log('3/pref) -
Eurref
stiffness log(Eur) curve
Power for stress-level Slope of trend-line in log('3/pref)
m
dependency of stiffness - log(E50) curve
Unloading/reloading Poisson's
ur 0.2 (default setting)
ratio
Reference small strain shear y-intercept in log('3/pref) -
G0ref
modulus log(G0) curve
Shear strain magnitude at Modulus degradation curve
g0.7
0.722G0 between G/G0 and logg
Remarks: '1 is major principal stress (kPa); '3 is minor principal stress (kPa); pref is reference pressure (100 kPa).

The effective friction angle (') for each sand layer was directly obtained from laboratory
tests. Values of effective cohesion (c') for sand layers were assumed to be zero, but to avoid
complication for calculation of PLAXIS software, a very small value c' = 0.5 kPa was set for sand
layers. The drained Poisson' ratio was assumed to be 0.3 for sand layers as suggested by PLAXIS
2D (2009), Khoiri and Ou (2013). As proposed by Bolton (1986), the dilatancy angle could be
obtained as follows:
For sands with ' 300: '= 0 0 (2)

For sands with ' > 300: ' = '30 0 (3)

 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z5 17332

The coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest can be determined by the following formula of
Jaky (1944):
K 0 = 1 sin ' (4)

A common problem of sandy soils is that the field samples are easily disturbed. Thus, the
strength parameter of sand, i.e. ', can be directly obtained from the laboratory tests, but it is
difficult to get an accurate value of stiffness parameter (E') from the laboratory tests for sands.
This is because the ' is related to the surface roughness, compaction and shape of the sand
particles that are little influenced by the sample disturbance. In contrast, the Young's modulus of
sand E' depends on physical properties and intergranular force between the sand gains that are
much affected from the sample disturbance. As a result, the E' is often obtained from the
empirical equations, which are often found by either calibration studies or back analyses (inverse
analyses) from the full-scale load test data obtained from the field or the case histories of deep
excavation. The standard penetration test is recently the most popular and economical means to
provide the geotechnical engineering properties of soil. The standard penetration test values (SPT
or N values) are in situ field measurements, and they are little influenced from the sample
disturbance. Therefore, the use of correlations between N values and soil properties has become
common practice in many countries. Consequently, the empirical relations between the E' and N
for sands have proposed by many researchers, for example Schertmann (1970), Poulos (1975),
Bowles (1996), Ou et al. (2000), Hsiung (2009). However, these correlations are significantly
various because they were established from various ground conditions.
Alternatively, the E' of sand layers in this study can be evaluated by back analysis method, in
which E' is evaluated by minimizing the deviation or difference between the field measurements
and numerically calculated results (see Calvello and Finno, 2004). Because almost previously
empirical equations between E' and N are in form of E' = AxN, in which A is a correlation ratio,
this study also used this form in the back analysis to evaluate the Young's modulus of sands. In
addition, the back analysis was based on the observed wall deflections at the final excavation
stage at the central section of long side because the wall deflections are the largest, which are
easier for comparing the numerically calculated wall deflections with the field measurements.
The back analysis found that the best-fit correlation between the E' and N for the sand layers of
Case A is:
E ' = 2000 N (kPa) (5)
This equation is identical to the equation used by Hsiung (2009) for sands of the excavation
at O6 station, which is about 0.6 km away from the excavation of Case A, as shown in Figure 1.
Table 5 lists the input parameters of sand layers for the MC model used for analysis.

Table 5: Input parameters of sand layers for the MC model

Depth Soil gt ' c' E'
Layer N value ' K0
(m) type (kN/m3) (o) (kPa) (kPa) (o)
2 2.0-6.5 SM 20.9 5-11 32 0.5 16000 0.3 2 0.47
4 8.0-17.0 SM 20.6 5-17 32 0.5 22000 0.3 2 0.47
5 17.0-23.5 SM 18.6 5-17 32 0.5 22000 0.3 2 0.47
6 23.5-28.5 SM 19.6 5-17 33 0.5 22000 0.3 3 0.46
8 30.5-42.0 SM 19.6 18-26 34 0.5 44000 0.3 4 0.44
9 42.0-60.0 SM 19.9 28-42 34 0.5 70000 0.3 4 0.44
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z5 17333

Figure 5 below presents the comparison of measured and predicted wall deflections and ground
surface settlements for the excavation of Case A using the MC model.

Displacement (mm) Distance from the wall (m)

-30 0 30 60 90
0 -40
The 1st strut:
2 1.5m
-30

Ground surface settlement (mm)

4
-20
6

8 -10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
10 0
12 10
14
The 5th stage: 20
Depth (m)

16 16.8m
30
18

20 40

22 Stage 1-Measurement Stage 2-Measurement

24
Stage 3-Measurement Stage 4-Measurement
26
Stage 5-Measurement Stage 1-Analysis
28
Stage 2-Analysis Stage 3-Analysis
30

32 Stage 4-Analysis Stage 5-Analysis

Figure 5: Wall deflections and ground surface settlements measured and predicted for the
excavation of Case A using the MC model

As shown in Figure 5, the predicted wall deflections at the earlier stages of excavation
(Stages 1, 2 and 3) in general are all larger than the field measurements, respectively. It is because
the MC model dose not consider the strain-dependent stiffness behavior or the small train
characteristics that invole high stiffness modulus at small strain levels of soil. It is thus concluded
that the Young's modulus of sands adopted in the MC model was underestimated at the earlier
stages of excavation due to the wider range of small strain soil area at these stages.
The predicted wall deflections at the later stages of excavation (Stages 4 and 5) are very
close to the field measuremetns at the upper wall parts but are significantly larger than the field
measurements at the lower wall parts, respectively. The the largest wall displacements of
observation and prediction are equal to each other and near the excavation level. The main reason
can be related to the fact that the MC model only uses a single Young's modulus and dose not
also distinguish between loading and unloading stiffnesses. These features of the MC model
cause over-prediction of heave of excavation bottom becauce the higher stiffness of ground below
the excavation level that is unloaded during excavation process is not considered. The over-
prediction of the heave of excavation bottom then causes the larger wall deflections at the lower
wall parts.
From Figure 5, it is obviously seen that the predicted settlements for all stages of excavation
are very different from the field measurements. The unrealistic heaving of the ground surface
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z5 17334

near the retaining wall and under-prediction of the maximum ground surface settlements are also
seen herein. These can be explained that the so large heave of the excavation bottom, as
mentioned above, pushes the wall and surrounding ground up, which then causes the unrealistic
heave of the ground surface and under-prediction of the maximum settlements. On the contrary,
the settlements in the secondary influence zone (SIZ), which are far away from the retaining wall
(see Hsieh and Ou, 1998), are higher and wider than those reported in the previous studies of
excavations in sands such as Peck (1969), Clough and O'Rourke (1990), Ou et al. (1993), Bowles
(1996). This is because the MC model dose not take into account the strain-depent stiffness
behavior. It can be thus concluded that the single Young's modulus used in the MC model was
underestimated in the SIZ whose strains are mainly in small strain levels. The same profiles of the
ground surface settlement predicted from MC model can be also found in the previous researches
of Brinkgreve et al. (2006), Schweiger (2009), and Khoiri and Ou (2013) for excavations in sands.

Hardening soil model (HS model)

The HS model is an advanced model for simulation of soil behavior (see Schanz et al., 1999), and
it uses the same failure criterion as the MC model. Before reaching the failure surface, the HS
model adopts a hyperbolic stress-strain ralation between the vertical strain and deviatoric stress
for primary loading, which is the well-known model proposed by Duncan and Chang (1970). In
the HS model, soil stiffness is calculated much more accurately by using three different
stiffnesses, i.e. triaxial loading secant stiffness E50ref , triaxial unloading/reloading stiffness Eurref and
oedometer loading tangent stiffness Eoed ref
at the reference pressure p ref that is usually taken as 100
kPa (1 bar). The MC model represents Young's modulus of soil in the in situ stress state. On the
other hand, the HS model represents its three moduli at the reference pressure, and these moduli
at the in situ stress state are automatically calculated as a function of the current stress state, for
example:
m m
c' cos f '+s '3 sin f ' s'
For sands: E50 = E
ref
= E50ref ref3 (6)
c' cos f '+ p sin f '
50 ref
p
in which '3 is the minor effective principal stress, a positive value for compression; m is the
power determining the rate of variation of E50 with '3 (see PLAXIS 2D, 2009).

There are 10 input parameters for the HS model as listed in Table 4. The parameters of ', c',
and K0 were completely the same as those used in the MC model. The parameters of m and ur
were taken as 0.5 and 0.2 for sands, respectively, as suggested by Schanz et al. (1999), PLAXIS
2D (2009) and Khoiri and Ou (2013). The failure ratio Rf was taken to be 0.9 as a default value in
the PLAXIS program. For stiffness parameters, the Eurref and E oed
ref
were set equal to 3E50ref and E50ref for
sands, respectively, as suggested by Schanz and Vermeer (1998), Schanz et al. (1999), Schweiger
(2009) and PLAXIS 2D (2009). It is similar to the E' of the MC model, the E50ref of the HS model
was also evaluated by back analysis method with the same form of E', and the back analysis was
also based on the monitoring wall deflections at the final stage of excavation at the central section
of long side of Case A. The best-fit relation found from the back analysis between the E50ref and N
for sand layers of Case A is:
E50ref = 1200 N (kPa) (7)
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z5 17335

Equation (7) compared with Equation (5) shows that the E50ref of the HS model is equal to
60%E' of the MC model for sand layers. A similar relation between E' and E50ref is also seen in the
study of Schweiger (2009) for sand. Table 6 below presents the input parameters of sand layers
for the HS model used for analysis.

Table 6: Input parameters of sand layers for the HS model

gt ' E 50ref ref
Depth N c' E oed Eurref
Layer 'ur m Rf K0
(m) (kN/m3) value (o) (kPa) (o) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
2 2.0-6.5 20.9 5-11 32 0.5 2 9600 9600 28800 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.47
4 8.0-17.0 20.6 5-17 32 0.5 2 13200 13200 39600 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.47
5 17.0-23.5 18.6 5-17 32 0.5 2 13200 13200 39600 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.47
6 23.5-28.5 19.6 5-17 33 0.5 3 13200 13200 39600 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.46
8 30.5-42.0 19.6 18-26 34 0.5 4 26400 26400 79200 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.44
9 42.0-60.0 19.9 28-42 34 0.5 4 42000 42000 126000 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.44
Figure 6 shows the comparison of measured and predicted wall deflections and ground
surface settlements for the excavation of Case A using the HS model.
It is clearly seen from Figure 6 that the results of the HS model are much more improved in
comparison with the MC model, especially the prediction of surface settlements. Because the
unloading stiffness is calculated in the HS model, the large movements of the wall toe and
unrealistic heaving of the ground surface near the retaining wall are not seen in the results of this
model. The maximum ground surface settlement estimated from the HS model is located in range
of 0.6He to 1.0He away from the wall, and its value is equal to about 0.3%He. However, the
predicted wall displacements at the earlier stages of excavation are still larger than the field
measurements, respectively, and the estimated settlements in the SIZ are still larger and wider
than those found from the previous researches. It is because the HS model dose not still compute
the strain-dependent stiffness behavior or the small strain characteristics of soil.

Hardening soil model with small strain stiffness (HSS model)

The HSS model is modified from the HS model with considering the small strain
characteristics of soil, which is based on the research of Benz (2006). At very small and small
strain levels, most soils show a higher stiffness than that at engineering strain levels. The HSS
model uses a modified hyperbolic law for the stiffness degradation curve, which was proposed by
Hardin and Drnevich (1972) and Santos and Correia (2001). In addition to the same parameters as
the HS model, the HSS model requires two additional parameters. These two parameters are the
reference shear modulus at very small strain ( G0ref ) and shear strain (g0.7) at which the secant shear
modulus is equal to about 70% its initial value ( G s = 0.722G0 = 0.722Gmax ). Thus, there are total 12
input parameters for the HSS model as shown in Table 4. All input parameters for the HS model
were kept completely the same for the HSS model.
There are 21 empirical equations for determining the shear wave velocity (Vs) of sand soils at
different places in over the world as reported in the study of Marto et al. (2013). All of these
equations were in a power-law relationship between Vs and N, i.e. Vs = AN B , in which A and B
are regression parameters. For estimating the Vs more generally, a power-law relationship
between Vs and N value was established by the regression method based on the 21 empirical
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z5 17336

equations mentioned above. As can be noted from Figure 7, a newly found correlation between Vs
and N value, which is shown in Equation (8), is quite reliable because its coefficient of
determination is quite high, R2 = 0.708.
V s = 71.48 N 0.391 (8)

Displacement (mm) Distance from the wall (m)

-30 0 30 60 90
0 -40
The 1st strut:
2 1.5m -30

Ground surface settlement (mm)

4 -20
6 -10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
8 0
10 10

12 20

14 30
The 5th stage:
Depth (m)

16 40
16.8m
18 50

20 60

22 Stage 1-Measurement Stage 2-Measurement

24
Stage 3-Measurement Stage 4-Measurement
26
Stage 5-Measurement Stage 1-Analysis
28
Stage 2-Analysis Stage 3-Analysis
30

32 Stage 4-Analysis Stage 5-Analysis

Figure 6: Wall deflections and ground surface settlements measured and predicted for
the excavation of Case A using the HS model

500

Vs = 71.48N0.391
400
Shear wave velocity (m/s)

R = 0.7081

300

200

100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
N value

Figure 7: Found correlation between Vs and N based on earlier correlations

for sandy soils
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z5 17337

From the shear wave velocity calculated from the correlation above, the shear modulus at
very small strain level of sand layers can be determined by the following equation:
g
G0 = Vs2 = Vs2 (kPa) (9)
g
in which is total density of soil; g is total unit weight of soil (kN/m3); g is gravitational
acceleration (m/s2) and Vs is shear wave velocity in soil (m/s). The reference shear modulus at
very small strain level was then obtained as follows:
m
'3
G0 = G ref
0 ref (10)
p
Since the researches of the threshold shear strain g0.7 is very limited, especially for sandy soils.
In addition, values of g0.7 are very scattered for various types of soil, as reported in studies of
Vucetic and Dorbry (1991), Brinkgreve et al. (2006), Schweiger (2009), Lim et al. (2010) and
Likitlersuang et al. (2013). As a result, in this study, the g0.7 was evaluated by back analysis
method based on the monitoring wall deflection at the final stage of excavation at the central
section of long side of Case A. The best-fit value of g0.7 found from the back analysis was 10-4.
This found value of g0.7 is consistent with previous researches mentioned above. Table 7 below
shows the two additional parameters of sand layers for the HSS model used for analysis.

Table 7: Two additional parameters of sand layers for the HSS model
Depth Soil Vs '3 G0 G0ref
Layer N value g0.7
(m) type (m/s) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
2 2.0-6.5 SM 5-11 161 63 55343 69657 10-4
4 8.0-17.0 SM 5-17 183 150 69974 57153 10-4
5 17.0-23.5 SM 5-17 183 226 63180 42069 10-4
6 23.5-28.5 SM 5-17 183 278 66577 39966 10-4
8 30.5-42.0 SM 18-26 239 374 114480 59204 10-4
9 42.0-60.0 SM 28-42 287 518 167115 73412 10-4

Figure 8 shows the comparison of measured and predicted wall deflections and ground
surface settlements for the excavation of Case A using the HSS model.
As shown in Figure 8, the wall deflections and ground surface settlements computed from
the HSS model are much more improved in comparison with the MC model and HS model. The
large displacements of the wall toe at the later stages of excavation and the over-prediction of the
wall deflections at the earlier stages of excavation are not seen with the HSS model. Furthermore,
for settlement prediction, the larger and wider settlements in the SIZ are not also found in the
HSS model. The better results above are found because the HSS model considers the unloading
stiffness and the strain-dependent stiffness behavior of soil. The largest settlement of the HSS
model is also located in range of 0.6He to 1.0He away from the wall, and its value is equal to
about 0.29%He that is a little smaller than that of the HS model.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z5 17338

Displacement (mm) Distance from the wall (m)

-30 0 30 60 90
0 -40
The 1st strut:
2 1.5m -30

Ground surface settlement (mm)

4
-20
6
-10
8 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0
10
10
12
20
14
The 5th stage: 30
Depth (m)

16 16.8m
18 40

20 50

22 Stage 1-Measurement Stage 2-Measurement

24
Stage 3-Measurement Stage 4-Measurement
26
Stage 5-Measurement Stage 1-Analysis
28
Stage 2-Analysis Stage 3-Analysis
30

32 Stage 4-Analysis Stage 5-Analysis

Figure 8: Wall deflections and ground surface settlements measured and predicted for the
excavation of Case A using the HSS model

DISCUSSIONS
Comparison of results from the different soil models
In this section, the wall deflections and ground surface settlements predicted from the MC
model, HS model and HSS model are compared with each other in each stage of excavation. Figs.
9, 10 and 11 below present the observed and computed wall displacements and surface
settlements in the first stage (Stage 1), the intermediate stage (Stage 3) and the final stage (Stage
5) of excavation, respectively.
As shown in Figure 9, for Stage 1 of excavation, the wall deflections estimated from the
HSS model are very close to the field measurements, but the wall deflections from the MC and
HS model are slightly larger than the field measurements. The surface settlements of the three
models are all smaller than the observations. However, the settlements of the HS model and HSS
model are similar to each other and closer to the field measurements whereas the settlement
profile of the MC model is very far from the observation.
For Stage 3 of excavation, the wall deflections from the HS model and HSS model are
consistent with each other but slightly larger than the measurements. On the contrary, the MC
model results in the significant over-prediction of the wall movements. The settlement profile of
the MC model is very different from the field measurements and those of the HS model and HSS
model. The maximum settlement of the MC model are much smaller than those of the HS and
HSS models, and the settlements in the SIZ of the MC model are larger than those of the HSS
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z5 17339

model. The maximum settlement from the HS model is close to that of the HSS model, but the
settlements in the SIZ of the HS model are larger and wider than those of the HSS model.
For the final stage of excavation (Stage 5), the wall movements of the HS and HSS models
are the same as each other and the observation. In contrast, the MC model yields the significant
over-prediction of the wall deflections at the lower depths of the wall. The trends of settlement
predicted at Stage 5 of excavation are seen to be the same as those predicted at Stage 3 of
excavation.

Parametric studies
The parameters E', E50ref and g0.7 are important input parameters of the MC, HS and HSS models,
respectively, which were obtained by the back analysis method. To evaluate the sensitivity of
these parameters on prediction of movements induced by the excavation of Case A, parametric
studies were conducted with various values of E', E50ref and g0.7 in the analyses using the MC, HS
and HSS models, respectively. The E' was varied in values of 0.5E' = 1000N, 1.0E' = 2000N and
1.5E' = 3000N; the E50ref was varied in values of 0.5E50ref = 600 N , 1.0 E50ref = 1200 N and 1.5E50ref = 1800 N .
The g0.7 was varied in values of 5x10-5, 10-4 and 5x10-4. All other input parameters of the MC, HS
and HSS models were kept unchanged in the parametric studies. Results of the parametric studies
are shown in Figs. 12, 13 and 14. In these figures, dhtop is the deflection at the wall top, dhm is the
maximum wall deflection, dhtoe is the deflection at the wall toe, dvw is the surface settlement at the
wall, dvm is the maximum surface settlement, and dvb is the surface settlement at the model
boundary.

Displacement (mm) Distance from the wall (m)

-30 0 30 60 90
0 -40
2 Stage 1
-30
Ground surface settlement (mm)

4
-20
6

8 -10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
10 0
12 10
14
20
Depth (m)

16
30
18

20 40

22
Measurement The MC model
24

26
The HS model The HSS model
28

30

32

Figure 9: Wall deflections and ground surface settlements measured and predicted at Stage 1 of
excavation from the MC model, HS model and HSS model
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z5 17340

Displacement (mm) Distance from the wall (m)

-30 0 30 60 90
0 -40
2
-30

Ground surface settlement (mm)

4
-20
6

8 -10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
10 Stage 3 0
12 10
14
20
Depth (m)

16
30
18

20 40

22
Measurement The MC model
24

26
The HS model The HSS model
28

30

32

Figure 10: Wall deflections and ground surface settlements measured and predicted at Stage 3 of
excavation from the MC model, HS model and HSS model
Displacement (mm) Distance from the wall (m)
-30 0 30 60 90
0 -40
2 -30
Ground surface settlement (mm)

4 -20
6 -10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
8 0
10 10
12 20
14 30
Depth (m)

16 Stage 5 40

18 50

20 60

22
Measurement The MC model
24

26
The HS model The HSS model
28

30

32

Figure 11: Wall deflections and ground surface settlements measured and predicted at Stage 5 of
excavation from the MC model, HS model and HSS model
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z5 17341

dhtop

Wall deflections and surface settlements (mm)

140
120
dhm
100
80 dhtoe
60
40 dvw
20
dvm
0
0 0.5E'
1 1.0E'
1 1.5E'
2 2
-20 dvb
-40
-60
-80
Young's modulus, E'

Figure 12: Effects of E' on wall deflections and surface settlements at the final stage of
excavation in the analysis using the MC model
Wall deflections and surface settlements (mm)

120

100 dhtop

80 dhm

dhtoe
60
dvw
40
dvm
20
dvb
0
0 1 ref50 1.0E
0.5E 1 ref50 2 ref50
1.5E 2
-20
Young's modulus, Eref50

Figure 13: Effects of E50ref on wall deflections and surface settlements at the final stage of
excavation in the analysis using the HS model
Wall deflections and surface settlements (mm)

80

70 dhtop
60 dhm
50
dhtoe
40
dvw
30
dvm
20

10 dvb

0
0.00001 0.00010 0.00100
-10
Shear strain, 0.7

Figure 14: Effects of g0.7 on wall deflections and surface settlements at the final stage of
excavation in the analysis using the HSS model
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z5 17342

CONCLUSIONS
The following are conclusions drawn from this study:
1) The back analyses found that the Equation (5) and Equation (7) are the best-fit
correlations of input parameters E' and E50ref of the sand layers for the MC model and HS model,
respectively. The back analyses also found that the best-fit value of g0.7 of the sand layers for the
HSS model is 10-4. Furthermore, a quite reliable correlation between Vs and N for sandy soils is
also found as Equation (8), which is based on the previously empirical equations in the literature.
2) In general, the more advanced soil model is adopted in the numerical analyses, the better
predictions of the wall deflection and surface settlement are obtained from the analyses. In order,
the HSS model is better than the HS model, and the HS model is better than the MC model.
3) For the first stage of excavation (Stage 1), the wall deflections of the HSS model are very
close to the field measurements, but those of the MC model and HS model are slightly larger than
the field measurements. The surface settlements of the three models are all smaller than the
observations. However, the settlements of the HS model and HSS model are similar to each other
and closer to the field measurements whereas the settlement profile of the MC model is very far
from the observations.
4) For the intermediate stage of excavation (Stage 3), the wall deflections of the HS model
and HSS model are consistent with each other and slightly larger than the measurements. On the
contrary, the MC model gives the significant over-prediction of the wall movements. The
settlement profile of the MC model is very different from the field measurements and those of the
HS model and HSS model. The maximum settlement of the MC model is much smaller than
those of the HS and HSS models, but the settlements in the SIZ of the MC model are larger than
those of the HSS model. The maximum settlement from the HS model is close to that of the HSS
model, but the settlements in the SIZ of the HS model are larger and wider than those of the HSS
model.
5) For the final stage of excavation (Stage 5), the wall movements of the HS and HSS
models are the same as each other and the observations. In contrast, the MC model yields the
significant over-prediction of the wall deflections at the lower depths of the wall. The trends of
settlement predicted at Stage 5 of excavation are seen to be the same as those predicted at Stage 3
of excavation.
6) The variations of input parameters E', E50ref and g0.7 of the MC, HS and HSS models,
respectively, are significantly influence the predictions of dhm and dvm but have a little effect on
results of dvb and dhtop.

ACKNOWLEDGGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Mr. Hsin-Nan Huang and Mr. Wei-Ya Song, graduate
students of Department of Civil Engineering, National Kaohsiung University of Applied and
Sciences, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, for helping to collect the field data used in the study.

REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318 (1995), "Building code requirements for structure concrete and
commentary", American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z5 17343

2. Benz, T. (2006), "Small-strain stiffness of soil and its numerical consequences", Ph.D .
Thesis, Universitt Stuttgart.
3. Bolton, M. D. (1986), "The strength and dilatancy of sands", Geotechnique, Vol. 36, pp. 65-
78.
4. Bowles, J. E. (1996), "Foundation Analysis and Design", 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, USA.
5. Brinkgreve, R. B. J, Bakker, K. J., and Bonnier, P. G. (2006), "The relevance of small-strain
soil stiffness in numerical simulation of excavation and tunnelling projects", Numerical
Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp. 133-139.
6. Calvello, M. and Finno, R. J. (2004), "Selecting parameters to optimize in model calibration
by inverse analysis", Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 411-425.
7. Clough, G. W. and ORourke, T. D. (1990), "Construction-induced movements of in situ
walls", Proc., Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE, New York, pp.
439-470.
8. Duncan, J. M. and Chang, C. Y. (1970), "Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soils",
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, pp. 1629-1653.
9. Hardin, B. O. and Drnevich, V. P. (1972), "Shear modulus and damping in soils: Design
equations and curves", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol.
98, pp. 667-692.
10. Hsieh, P. G. and Ou, C. Y. (1998), Shape of ground surface settlement profiles caused by
excavation, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 1004-1017.
11. Hsieh, P. G., Kung, T. C., Ou, C. Y., and Tang, Y. G. (2003), "Deep excavation analysis
with consideration of small strain modulus and its degradation behavior of clay",
Proceedings of 12th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, Singapore, Vol. 1, pp. 785-788.
12. Hsiung, B. B. C. (2009), "A case study on the behavior of a deep excavation in sand",
Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 665-675.
13. Hsiung, B. B. C. and Hwang, R. N. (2009), "Correction of inclinometer readings for
movements at tips", Geotechnical Engineering, SEAGS, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 39-48.
14. Hwang, R. N., Moh, Z. C., and Wang, C. H. (2007), "Toe movements of diaphragm walls
and correction of inclinometer readings", Journal of GeoEngineering, TGS, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.
61-71.
15. Jaky, J. (1944), "The coefficient of earth pressure at rest", Journal of Society of Hungarian
Architects and Engineers, Vol. 8, No. 22, pp. 355-358.
16. Khoiri, M. and Ou, C. Y. (2013), "Evaluation of deformation parameter for deep excavation
in sand through case studies", Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 47, pp. 57-67.
17. Kung, G. T. C., Ou, C. Y., and Juang, C. H. (2009), "Modeling small strain behavior of
Taipei clays for finite element analysis of braced excavations", Computers and Geotechnics,
Vol. 36, No. 1-2, pp. 304-319.
18. Likitlersuang, S., Surarak, C., Wanatowski, D., Oh, E., and Balasubramaniam, A. (2013),
"Finite element analysis of a deep excavation: A case study from the Bangkok MRT", Soils
and Foundations, Vol. 53, No. 5, pp. 756-773.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z5 17344

19. Lim, A., Ou, C. Y., and Hsieh, P. G. (2010), "Evaluation of Clay constitutive models for
analysis of deep excavation under undrained conditions", Journal of GeoEngineering, TGS,
Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 9-20.
20. Marto, A., Soon, T. C., and Kasim, F. (2013), "A Correlation of Shear Wave Velocity and
Standard Penetration Resistance", Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 18,
pp. 463-471.
21. Ou, C. Y, Hsieh, P. G., and Chiou, D. C. (1993), "Characteristics of ground surface
settlement during excavation", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 758-767.
22. Ou, C. Y. (2006), "Deep excavation: Theory and Practice", Taylor & Francis, The
Netherlands.
23. Ou, C. Y., Shiau, B. Y., and Wang, I. W. (2000), "Three-dimensional deformation behavior
of the Taipei national enterprise center (TNEC) excavation case history", Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 438-448.
24. Peck, R. B. (1969), "Deep excavation and tunneling in soft ground", Proceedings of the 7th
international conference on soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, pp.
225-290.
25. Plaxis 2D (2009), "Reference Manual", Plaxis BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
26. Poulos, H. G. (1975), "Settlement of isolated foundations", Soil Mechanics - recent
Developments, Valliappan, S., Hain, S., Lee, I. K. editors, William H. Sellen Pty., Zetland,
pp. 181-212.
27. Santos, J. A. and Correia, A. G. (2001), "Reference threshold shear strain of soil, its
application to obtain a unique strain-dependent shear modulus curve for soil", Proceedings of
15th international conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. Istanbul,
Turkey, Vol. 1, pp. 267-270.
28. Schanz, T. and Vermeer, P. A. (1998), "On the stiffness of sands", Pre-failure deformation
behaviour of geomaterials, Thomas Telford, London, pp. 383-387.
29. Schanz, T., Vermeer, P. A., and Bonnier, P. G. (1999), "The hardening soil model:
formulation and verification", Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics, Balkema,
Rotterdam.
30. Schmertmann, J. H. (1970), "Static cone to compute static settlement over sand", Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, pp. 1011-1043.
31. Schweiger, H. F. (2009), "Influence of constitutive model and EC7 design approach in FEM
analysis of deep excavations", Proceedings of ISSMGE International Seminar on Deep
excavations and Retaining Structures, Budapest, pp. 99-114.
32. Vucetic. M. and Dobry, R. (1991), "Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response", Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 1, pp. 89-107.

2014 ejge