International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: 1938-6362 (Print) 1939-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Prediction of behaviour of a deep excavation in

soft soil: a case study

T. Bhatkar, D. Barman, A. Mandal & A. Usmani

To cite this article: T. Bhatkar, D. Barman, A. Mandal & A. Usmani (2017) Prediction of behaviour
of a deep excavation in soft soil: a case study, International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
11:1, 10-19, DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2016.1177309

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2016.1177309

© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 20 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7758

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20
 Prediction of behaviour of a deep excavation in
soft soil: a case study
T. Bhatkar1, D. Barman2, A. Mandal*1 and A. Usmani3

In this paper, the nature of wall deformation and surface settlement for deep excavation in soft soil was
studied. Excavation was carried out in eastern metro city of India in the bank of Hooghly River. This
excavation was the part of underground metro station construction. Numerical analysis was performed
to predict the soil behaviour during excavation. Accordingly, the most suitable excavation method was
finalised. Vertical and horizontal deformations were measured during construction on adjacent area to
ensure the safety of nearby existing structures. Predicted deformation was relatively high when compared
with measured one. Back calculation from measured deformation shows the conservative estimation
of stiffness during investigation and anisotropic soil behaviour. This study indicates that the numerical
analyses can be very effective tools to predict the behaviour of soil during excavation with installation of
support systems. Thus, it helps for necessary planning to ensure the safety of nearby structures. However,
accuracy of such analysis depends on the judicial estimation of soil parameters.
Keywords:  Deep excavation, Deformation, Soft soil, Surface settlement

Introduction interpretation of numerical tools as well as proper estimation of

Rapid development of infrastructure facilities particularly in
urban area is the urgent need in developing country like India.
Such urbanisation is normally associated with soil excavation to
construct surface and subsurface facilities. In most of the cases,
excavations are carried out in densely populated areas. Therefore,
it becomes necessary to check the effects of excavations on sur-
rounding structures. To deal with such situation, it is essential to
predict the behaviour of such excavation well in advance. The pre-
diction of ground movement and necessary measures to mitigate
any adverse situation is of utmost importance before excavation
to ensure the safety and serviceability of surrounding properties.
Improper planning and design of deep surface excavation may
lead to collapse of side-wall which may propagate to the sur-
rounding structures. Thus, the success of project depends upon
good planning and preparedness to avoid any adverse effect on
existing structures. Based on the ground conditions of available
site, necessary measures have to be taken to carry out excavation.
Critical areas are identified by simulation with logical numerical
modelling. Thus, the numerical analysis helps in rationalising
a stipulated measure to make the site suitable for construction.
The accuracy of quantitative prediction of deformation, ground
water condition and many other parameters, depends on correct
Department of Civil Engineering, VNIT, Nagpur, India
1
non-homogeneous soil parameters.
Prediction of excavation-induced ground movements is an
essential part in the design of deep excavation, because of their
possible adverse effects on nearby structures and other existing
facilities. It is of considerable interest to establish practical
solution to predict the displacement/deformation around the
excavation accurately. Existing methods for estimation of the
excavation-induced ground movements are mainly separated
into three categories i.e. empirical methods (Peck 1969; Clough
and O’Rourke 1990; Yoo 2001), numerical methods (Mana
and Clough 1981; Hashash and Whittle 1996; Pakbaz et al.
2009) and the analytical solutions (Roscoe and Burland 1968
and Ghaboussi and Sidarta 1997). Each of these methods has
its own merits and demerits and application depends on the
specific site conditions. However, the numerical analysis in
particular can take account of non-linear soil behaviour and
complex construction procedure, but its application needs
proper understanding of site condition to obtain reliable ground
parameters. This is followed by suitable modelling techniques
to overcome difficulties associated with deep excavation so as
to utilise its full potential.
Particularly two-dimensional finite element method is used
since late 1960s (e.g. Clough and Duncan 1969) by researchers
and practitioners due to its relative simplicity, flexibility and
availability of computational facilities to simulate different

Afcons Infrastructure Limited, Kolkata, India

2 field conditions and excavation techniques. On most occasions,
Engineers India Ltd, New Delhi, India
3 two-dimensional numerical model predicts the deformation and
*Corresponding author, email anirbanmandal@civ.vnit.ac.in
© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon
in any way.
Received 15 February 2016; accepted 07 April 2016
10 DOI 10.1080/19386362.2016.1177309 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering   2017  VOL 11   NO 1

stress conservatively. However, this conservative prediction
by numerical simulation for deep excavation depends on the
efficiency of constitutive laws to represent few critical features
of soil model e.g. estimation of soil parameters, location and
nature of fictitious boundary conditions, effect of surcharge
from existing structures, sequence and schedule of excavations,
etc. Nonetheless, many researchers have studied these aspects
(Holt and Griffith 1992; Yoo and Lee 2007; Hsiung 2008).
In clay soil, excavation-induced stress and deformation in
surrounding ground are also influenced by consolidation process
and creep. Thus, numerical analysis with effective constitutive
law should consider this phenomenon along with stress–strain
relationship to predict the surrounding ground behaviour more
realistically during excavation. Few researchers also developed
coupled simulation techniques (Yong et al. 1989; Whittle et al.
1993; de Lyra Nogueira et al. 2009, 2011) to incorporate this
aspect. Although the available numerical techniques are suffi-
ciently effective to predict the behaviour of deep excavation,
the accuracy very much depends on the estimation of different
parameters of surrounding ground, which are normally non-ho-
mogeneous in nature. Therefore, more research needs to be con-
ducted to verify the model response with field study to develop
confidence among researchers and practitioners. Moreover, such
study must address the need to calculate the non-homogeneous
soil parameters more realistically to minimise the gap between
prediction and observed ground behaviour.
Dinakar and Prasad (2014) studied the performance of dia-
phragm wall on the stress distribution and deformation character-
istics of ground below adjacent structure at vulnerable locations.
A typical building load is idealised and its effects on excavation
and supporting system is analysed in terms of bending moment,
shear force and displacement of diaphragm wall. Results of the
study revealed that diaphragm wall method of excavation was
able to limit ground movements under buildings considerably
and the excavation could be carried out safely. In absence of
wall, the soil fails at very shallow depth. It was observed that
for 20.0 m depth of excavation with diaphragm wall, the wall
movements should be restricted within 0.1–0.3% of depth of
excavation. Horizontal and vertical displacements as well as
shear stress in soil decrease linearly with increase in distance
of the structure from the excavation. Therefore, the minimum
distance of excavation from existing structure could be estimated
based on allowable stresses and displacement of ground.
In present investigation, an effort has been made to predict
the deformation pattern of surrounding ground due to deep
surface excavation. This excavation was part of an underground
metro rail station in proposed East–West metro line of Kolkata,
India. Excavation work and necessary support structures were
already completed. This paper mainly focused on the prediction
of horizontal and vertical deformations during each stage of
excavation. The predicted deformation was also compared with
the available measured values during the course of construc-
tion. Finally, back calculation method was proposed to estimate
the important soil parameters to understand the accuracy of esti-
mated non-homogeneous soil parameters. Even under similar
ground condition, some soil parameters could vary significantly
due to the size and method of excavation. This approach can
prove to be the best practice in any geotechnical engineering
project along with initial field and laboratory investigations.
Thus, it could minimise risks of construction and damage to
 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering   2017  VOL 11   NO 1
Bhatkar et al.  Prediction of behaviour of a deep excavation in soft soil
adjacent structures which further could save both time and cost.
However, in the present study only an attempt had been made
to verify the influence of soil stiffness estimated from observed
deformation up to second stage (S-2) of excavation.
Description of site location
The project consisted of approximately 3.3-km long twin-bored
5.4-m internal diameter tunnels. A total of three similar under-
ground stations were proposed along the stretch of the tun-
nel; so out of three, one of the underground stations known as
Howrah Maidan Station located near Howrah Railway Station
in Kolkata, India was selected for study which was located on
the junction of national and state highway on the western side
of Hooghly river. This urban area is occupied by a mixture
of commercial and residential buildings. Therefore, it was of
utmost importance to ensure the stability of existing structures.
The location of Station is shown in Fig. 1. The B2–B2 cross sec-
tion of Howrah Maidan Station was considered for analysis as
shown in Fig. 1. The maximum elevation of groundwater level
was observed at approximately 1.0 m below the ground surface.
Investigation
Design methodology of this project was mainly based on
parameters evaluated from field and laboratory testing of soil
through vertical core drilling prior to excavation. Different in
situ and laboratory testing was carried out to get a realistic
value of the geotechnical properties of the soil encountered.
In situ standard penetration testing (SPT) was undertaken in
boreholes drilled near station location and corrected to N60. The
N60 is the normalised value for SPT, corrected for overburden
and field procedures. More details of soil profile in this location
are presented in Table 1.
Cambridge self-boring pressure meter (SBP) was used in
four boreholes. The purpose of the pressure meter testing was
to obtain field values for the engineering properties of the ground,
specifically strength, stiffness and in situ lateral stress. Some
tests were also carried out to measure the consolidation char-
acteristics of the less permeable material. The instrument was
fully calibrated prior to bringing to the site, and the properties
of the membrane were checked at intervals during the course of
the fieldwork. The fieldwork took place between 28 August and
29 October 2010. At this station location, a total of 11 additional
tests were conducted at varying depths in two positions (SBP1 and
SBP2). SBP1 and SBP2 were progressed at the main station and
crossover, respectively. The tests were undertaken by a specialist
sub-contractor between 28 August and 12 September 2010.
Necessary soil parameters were derived from field and lab-
oratory tests to get a broad view of the geotechnical properties.
Laboratory tests were performed in different soil samples col-
lected during drilling. It includes, drained and un-drained shear
strength, Atterberg’s Limit test, Permeability test, Oedometer
test and some Chemical tests. The relevant parameters from
these tests are reported in Tables 3 and 4. Cohesion values were
calculated by curve fitting method from laboratory tests using
an adaption of Carter et al. (1986). The relevant soil parameters
from HSSmall model were obtained from the Oedometer test,
Traiaxial test and the Self-boring Pressure meter tests which
were carried out near the station (Brinkgreve et. al. 2008;
11
Bhatkar et al.  Prediction of behaviour of a deep excavation in soft soil

1  Location and plan of station area

Table 1  Geological profile for Howrah Maidan station the city (this may be a result of defective/inadequate drain-
age). Hence, for modelling purposes the maximum elevation
Depth m bgl
N60 value of groundwater is assumed to be located at 1.0 m above the
Stratum Strata Top Bottom (SPT) ground level. Thus, excavation process was simulated con-
Howrah Maidan station sidering ground water flow condition. The adopted method
crossover of construction was bottom-up excavation, using diaphragm
Made ground Unit 1 0 1.2 3 walls to limit the degree of ground movement. According
Organic clay/silt Unit 2 1.2 15.65 6 to assessment report for the station, unit 3b and unit 3a are
Clay/silt Unit3a 15.65 29.65 33
Sandy silt/silty sand Unit 3b 29.65 65.65 53
likely to behave in a cohesive manner based on the classifi-
cation tests. Therefore in terms of its engineering behaviour,
these two could be treated as one unit. Table 1 illustrates the
Hardin and Black 1969 and Truty 2009). For the estimation of geological profile for Howrah Maidan Station and the soil
HSSmall model stiffness m was varied between 0.5 and 1.0 to classification summary.
obtain the most conservative values.
Excavation schedule and stages
Soil conditions Underground basements were built by bottom-up method,
The likely ground condition was expected to be encountered whereas substructure and superstructure floors are constructed
include alluvial deposits consisting of silts, clays, sands and sequentially from the bottom of the substructure or lowest level
organic silt. In general, the top 1.2 m of soil consists of made of basement to the top of the superstructure. In the bottom-up
ground overlying 15.65 m of soft clayey silt that will be method, a trench is excavated from the surface within the tunnel
required some form of retention during excavation. The site and then the trench is backfilled and the surface restored after-
topography is generally flat. The surveyed levels of the bore- wards. The trench can be formed using open cut (sides sloped
holes suggest that the ground level is approximately +5.65 m back and unsupported), or with vertical faces using an exca-
above mean sea level (MSL). It is known that groundwater vation support system. In this method, the tunnel is completed
abstraction has caused groundwater levels to reduce over time before it is covered up and the surface reinstated.
in this region (Sengupta 2009). Seasonal rains during the mon- Conventional bottom-up sequence of construction generally
soon period are known to cause flooding in many parts of consists of the following steps:

12 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering   2017  VOL 11   NO 1


• Installation of temporary excavation support walls, such
as soldier pile and lagging, sheet piling, slurry walls, tan-
gent or secant pile walls.
• Dewatering within the trench if required.
• Excavation and installation of temporary wall support
elements such as struts or tiebacks.
• Complete construction of the walls and then the roof.
• Backfilling to final grade and restoring the ground surface.
As such, bottom-up construction sequence was used in the
analyses for present station construction. However, complete
construction of wall and roof along with backfilling was not
considered in analysis. Only the excavation of various layers
was simulated which was carried out between January and
June 2012. The various excavation stages used in modelling
i.e. Stage 1 (S1) – excavation level at 2.0 m, Stage 2 (S2)
– excavation level at 8.0 m, Stage 3 (S3) – excavation level
at13.0 m, Stage 4 (S4) – excavation level at 21.0 m and vari-
ous strut levels were at 1.65, 7.85 11.85, and 15.85 m, closely
simulating actual excavation sequences.
Monitoring plan and status
Geotechnical monitoring has now become an important part of
the construction all over the world and especially for excavation
projects in urban area where occupancy level is quite high and
proper monitoring could result in preventing failures and conse-
quent damages. The support philosophy in this project is based
on staged excavation followed by incremental installations of
support measures and verifications by monitoring. In addition,
progressive support enhancements based on actual performance
are an essential part for any geotechnical project, which lead to
cost-effective and practical application of support. Therefore,
an adequate geotechnical monitoring plays an important role in
such excavation. However, in this project the scope to minimise
the support system based on monitoring report was limited,
keeping in mind the stability of existing operating railways,
road ways and old high-rise buildings. The sole purpose of
geotechnical monitoring was to ensure the safety and service-
ability of nearby structures during excavation.
The field monitoring plan and interpretation covers the
period during construction, and contains monitoring results of
all the instrumentation installed and in operation. In the present
project, the objectives were to monitor wall deflections, move-
ments of adjacent buildings and ground settlement outside the
excavation during construction.
The specific purposes and instruments of monitoring are
as follows:
• Monitoring building movement using building settlement
pin and prism target.
• Monitoring surface (ground/pavement/roads) settlement
using ground settlement point.
Table 2  Summary of phases for calculations
Phases Remarks
1 and 2 Activation of building load, traffic load and diaphragm wall, barrette for ground level
3, 4, 5, 6 Excavation of stage 1 and 2 with preloading of strut of 150 and 200 kN/m
7 Install temporary traffic deck
8, 9 Excavation of stage 3 and preloading of strut of 200 kN/m
10, 11 Excavation of stage 4 and preloading of strut of 300 kN/m
 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering   2017  VOL 11   NO 1
Bhatkar et al.  Prediction of behaviour of a deep excavation in soft soil
• Monitoring lateral movement in diaphragm wall using
inclinometer.
Different monitoring instruments were installed at various loca-
tions to ensure the safety of all nearby structures. Tilt meter was
planned for thirty numbers in total quantity as 27 were installed
due to unavailability of space. To monitor surface settlement, two
instruments were installed as planned. Pavement settlement point
was planned for 43 in total quantity but only 34 were installed as
two of instruments were not installed due to unavailability of space
and seven instruments were not installed as located on D-wall. Soil
settlement points with five instruments were planned and all were
installed. However, most of these instruments didn’t show any
significant reading during excavation and some instruments were
damaged during construction. Therefore, only the lateral move-
ment in diaphragm wall and surface settlement were considered
in the present study. To monitor lateral movement in diaphragm
wall, inclinometer was planned for four locations and all were
installed as shown in Fig. 1.
Monitoring frequencies prior to excavation of all the instru-
ments were nearly weekly, during excavation it was daily, during
backfilling it was weekly and after backfilling it was monthly.
The alarming value for horizontal deformation was 63 mm and
for surface settlement near the diaphgram wall was 60 mm which
gradually reduces to 10 mm up to the last boundary of the soil
model. These values are decided considering the present site
condition (Long 2001), and required action needs to be taken
once it is exceeded. Necessary facilities must be mobilised to
ensure the safety of adjacent buildings e.g. structural support
system will be enhanced, construction activity will be stopped
and design will be reviewed if this alarming value was exceeded.
Numerical analysis
Modelling
A finite element modelling was used to analyse the staged
excavation (cross section B2–B2) and dewatering for one of
the underground stations. The ground was discretised using
six-nodded triangular plane strain elements. While the slabs
were modelled as a plate-element having flexural rigidity sim-
ilar to concrete structures. The model boundary was extended
approximately three times the width of excavation to mini-
mise the effect of artificial boundaries on the ground move-
ment. This was decided based on few trials considering the
effect on deformation of excavated area and optimising the
time required to run the model. Thus, complete excavation was
carried out in 11 phases as shown in Table 2. The soil model
consisting of 435 m wide and 65.65 m deep with diaphragm
wall of 29.65 m and barrette of 38.65 m depth as shown in Fig.
2. The properties for various layers of soil are given in Tables
3 and 4. Sequential staged construction and dewatering were
simulated using consolidation type analysis for 7 and 14 days.
Calculation type (for PLAXIS model)
Plastic type
Consolidation type
Consolidation type
Consolidation type
Consolidation type
13
Bhatkar et al.  Prediction of behaviour of a deep excavation in soft soil

50 kPa

75 kPa
20kPa 20kPa 20kPa
(0,0) 20kPa (100,0) (120.5,0) Unit 1 : Made Ground (0.0 m) (435,0)

Unit 2: Organic Clay/Silt (1.2 m)

Struts
Diaphragm wall
29.65 m Excavation

Interface
38.65 m Unit 3a : Clay/Silt (15.65 m)
65.65 m

Slabs

Unit 3b : Sandy Silt (29.65 m)

Barrette

20.5 m

(65.65,0) (435,65.65)

435 m

2  Schematic diagram of the model

Table 3  Summary of design parameters

Unit weight (γ) Angle of friction Permeability (k) Earth pressure

Strata kN/m3 Poisson ratio (ύ) (Φ) deg Cohesion (ϲ) kPa m/s at rest (k0)
Mohr Coulomb Soil model
1 19 0.3 28 0 5 × 10−5 0.53
Hardening soil with small strain model
2 17.5 0.25 24 7 1 × 10−7 0.59
3 18.5 0.2 30 0 3a: 1 × 10−9 0.50
3b: 1 × 10−6

Table 4  Summary of ‘Hardening soil with small strain’ design parameters

Secant stiffness from Tangent stiffness

Drained standard drained triaxial from odometer test Reference shear
Young’s test at reference pressure at reference pressure Reference stiffness in stiffness at small
Modulus (Pref = 100 kPa) (Pref = 100 kPa) unloading/reloading strain

Strata MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa

Mohr-Coulomb model
1 12 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Hardening soil with small strain model
2 N/A 14 8 28 40
3 N/A 3a (above −24 m): 34 3a (above-24 m): 22 3a (above −24 m): 73 3a (above −24 m): 83
3a (below −24 m): 54 3a (below-24 m): 34 3a (below −24 m): 125 3a (below −24 m): 130

The existing maximum building load of 75 kPa was about 10 m construction phases. The properties of structural elements are
away from the diaphragm wall on the right side. Construction presented in Table 5. Stiffness properties were derived based on
live load of 20 kPa at ground level was considered symmetri- detailed design of reinforced concrete structures and subsequent
cally. Additional 10 kPa load were taken on all internal slab for analysis using SAP 2000.

14 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering   2017  VOL 11   NO 1


Table 5 Properties of structural members for different
stages in numerical model
Structure elements EA (kN/m) EI (kNm2/m)
29.58 × 106 2.465 × 106
Diaphragm wall
1.8050 × 1010 515.43 × 106
Roof slab
394.15 × 106 1.380 × 1010
Concourse slab
848.946 × 106 2.973 × 1010
Base slab
1.2 × 109 100 × 106
Barrette
3 × 108 – modelled by adding and removing elements at corresponding
Struts
Capturing the true soil behaviour was a significant chal-
lenge, while simple linear elastic–perfectly plastic model
can produce reasonable first-order results. A more realistic
response could be obtained by simulating soil as a non-linear
material (Yoo and Lee 2007). In the present study, the top
soil layer (unit-1) was modelled considering Mohr–Coulomb
criteria due to lack of relevant soil parameters. With addi-
tional ground investigation information which include three
boreholes, additional laboratory testing and two self-boring
pressure meter test results, the soil models for the strata under-
neath the station (i.e. unit 2 & 3) were refined to Hardening
Soil Model with small strain (HSSmall model). The HSSmall
model would predict better and more realistic soil behav-
iour especially in unloading problem e.g. deep excavation
(Gioacchino and Claudio 2000).
Interface strength (Rinter)
The influence of interface element on retaining structures for
numerical modelling has been studied by past researchers. Day
and Potts (1998) investigated the effect of interface properties
on the behaviour of a vertical retaining wall and the deforma-
tion of the ground through a series of finite element analyses.
Results showed that the active and passive pressures on wall
depend on the maximum value of friction angle but not on the
properties of interface element, whereas interface had some
effect on the ground surface deformation.
The Rinter between the soil and the continuous wall and slab
was generally taken as 0.67 considering the relative movement
(Plaxis Manual). However, in plane strain model, the wall will
be modelled as a continuous ‘beam’ element. The Rinter between
the soil and wall was reduced using the following relation,
Rinter = P/(3 × S) where, P is the effective perimeter of the wall
and S is the centre-to-centre spacing (Van Langen 1991). It is
worth noting that the interface element is extended below the
toe of the wall as recommended (Brinkgreve 2002) to avoid
stress oscillations. These extended interfaces are not meant to
 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering   2017  VOL 11   NO 1
Bhatkar et al.  Prediction of behaviour of a deep excavation in soft soil
model soil structure interaction and assigning Rinter < 1.0 may
lead to unrealistic soil behaviour. Therefore the extended inter-
face, the Rinter is set to 1.0. However, it was only activated during
plastic analysis stages.
Analysis
Preliminary analysis with both Mohr–Coulomb and HSSmall
only for unit-1 (keeping unit 2 & 3 unchanged), indicates that
there was no visible effect on change in deformation after com-
plete excavation. This might be due to the thin layer thickness
of top soil layer. Therefore, it was expected that the application
of Mohr–Coulomb soil model for top layer might not have
significant effect on overall deformation even in unloading
condition. In simulating, the systematic excavation process,
the initial vertical state of stress were first created by running on
in situ stress condition with the assumption of wished-in-place
wall. The lateral stress was created by considering stress condi-
tion as presented in Table 3. The excavation process was then
steps. The soil strata underneath the station are likely to behave
in an undrained condition and the total excavation period of
several weeks (or few months) is typically not long enough
to establish steady-state seepage flow in clay. Therefore, the
soil parameters that were derived in undrained condition were
more relevant for numerical analysis. However, to consider the
deformation even in less permeable soil, consolidation type
analysis was performed.
Normally, two calculation types are used in commercially
available PLAXIS, which is widely used by industries, i.e.
plastic and consolidation type analysis. The plastic calculation
type is the non-linear computation carried out for loading and
unloading problems. However, this calculation does not con-
sider time-dependent phenomenon, such as consolidation and
pore pressure dissipation. The consolidation type calculation
considers the excess pore water pressure changing with time.
To assess the behaviour of soil from short-term (undrained)
to long-term (drained) condition in deep excavation problem,
the typical practice is to perform plastic calculation (staged
construction) with undrained material followed by consolida-
tion type analysis. A more advanced option as adopted was to
carry out partial consolidation for every construction phase.
Therefore, for the present study, plastic calculation type anal-
ysis was conducted for first stage (S1) while for all other stages
(S2, S3 and S4) consolidation type analysis was followed. The
active pore pressure in the numerical analysis was varying lin-
early with depth.
Once the geometry of model had been created as shown in
Fig. 2, the boundary conditions and material properties were
assigned with fine mesh generation, particularly in excavation
area. Model analysis was performed considering initial ground-
water level at 1.0 m below the ground surface with ground
water flow condition, initial geometrical configurations and
initial state of stress. Figure 3 illustrates complete geometry
of soil model taken for analysis along with mesh and bound-
ary conditions. For the numerical analyses, it was found that
0.7γ between 0.00005 and 0.0001 has little influence on the
settlement trough behind excavation; therefore, 0.7γ is taken
as 0.0001 for both unit 2 and unit 3.
15
Bhatkar et al.  Prediction of behaviour of a deep excavation in soft soil
3  Finite element model in Plaxis
4 Maximum horizontal deformation of left and right
diaphragm wall properties at different stages
Results and discussion
The results from model study were plotted and several obser-
vations were made related to horizontal and vertical defor-
mations. Figure 4 shows the change in maximum horizontal
deformation for both sides of the excavated pit with different
excavation stages. The right-side wall was deformed more as
compared to left-side wall. This might be due to the additional
surcharge on right side. It was also observed that the peak
deformation was increased by almost 200% during second
stage (S2) of excavation and minimum increase was around
25% at the last stage (S4) of excavation. The maximum lat-
eral deformation occurred just below the ground surface and
the wall had a cantilever-type deflection for the first stage of
excavation (S1). Subsequently, the maximum lateral deflection
of the wall occurred at a deeper level as compared with initial
stage of excavation.
5  Vertical deformation of left and right side of excavation
16 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering   2017  VOL 11   NO 1
Similarly, Fig. 5 shows the vertical deformation at the sur-
face for either side of the pit. In this plot, up to 100 m distance
from the face of excavated wall was considered after complete
excavation beyond which the change in vertical deformation
was insignificant. The maximum ground surface settlements
were found to be located at a distance approximately (15–25) m
away from the back of the wall i.e. a concave type of settlement
profile was produced in both sides of excavated pit. However,
the amount of surface settlement was slightly higher in right
side as compared to the left side.
As it is well established, that in numerical analysis with
present material model, the stiffness is one of the important
parameters which significantly influences the deformation of
the ground. At the same time, it is difficult if not impossible
to measure this parameter of natural soil deposit accurately.
Available field or laboratory tests can only give some idea
about soil stiffness rather than quantitative determination. On
the other hand, the stiffness of D-wall could be well predicted
as it is constructed at site. Therefore, special emphasis was
given to understand the nature of model response to stiffness.
In case of horizontal deformation, the influence of stiff-
ness of diaphragm wall was more significant than the stiff-
ness of backfill soil. Figure 6 shows the variation of horizontal
deformation in D-wall with increase in thickness, though the
soil stiffness remains same. In terms of maximum values, the
location of the maximum settlement tends to move away from
the edge of excavation as the wall stiffness increases. This
trend indicates that for a given excavation condition, the wall
bending stiffness influences not only the magnitudes of ground
movements but also the pattern of movements (Yoo and Lee
2007). When the stiffness of diaphragm wall was constant, the
horizontal deformation variation was around 8–10% due to
the variation of backfill soil stiffness. However, after a certain
 Bhatkar et al.  Prediction of behaviour of a deep excavation in soft soil

6 Variation of horizontal deformation with increased thickness

in D-wall

lower value of stiffness of diaphragm wall, the soil stiffness

dominated the deformation characteristics. Otherwise, at higher
values of stiffness of diaphragm wall, backfill soil stiffness
became less significant for final deformation. This nature is also 7  Variation of horizontal displacement with excavation depth
reflected in Fig. 6, that after certain higher values of stiffness
of diaphragm wall, the deformation almost became constant
for a particular soil type.

Comparison
In the present investigation, the predicted deformation values
both in horizontal and vertical directions were compared with
observed values. Figure 7 shows the comparison of horizontal
deformation from model analysis versus measured one. The
variation in maximum horizontal deformation was within the
range of 20–50%, whereas variation in maximum vertical
deformation was much higher with a range of 100–110% as
shown in Fig. 8. In all these cases, model study predicted
the higher deformation. In case of horizontal deformation,
the variation was comparatively less and expected to be the
combined effect of stiffness of wall and soil. In contrast, the 8 Variation of maximum vertical diformation for different
variation of vertical deformation was comparatively higher stages of excavation
and expected to be due to conservative estimation of soil
stiffness. The maximum vertical deformation was much
higher than the maximum horizontal deformation after com- Back calculation approach
plete excavation. Installed supports had restricted horizontal
movement. In addition, the cumulative effect of previously Monitoring deformation during the excavation could not only be
installed strut and wall from both sides of excavation may used for the safety of the construction site but also provide impor-
have reduced the deformation. The horizontal movement as tant information for back analysis at initial stages of excavation.
predicted was around 0.25%H (where H is the depth of exca- Method of back calculation certainly helps to re-assess the already
vation). In actual ground condition, the quantity of maximum determined soil properties from laboratory and field investigation.
horizontal movement was also less than the maximum verti- Ideally, the selection of soil parameters is an iterative approach
cal deformation. As stated earlier, it is difficult to determine to minimise the uncertainties involved by comparing predicted
the accurate value of soil stiffness beforehand from initial and measured soil behaviour during excavation (Rechea et al.
investigation. Because of its sensitiveness to different ground 2008; Wang et al. 2014). Particularly those parameters, which are
conditions i.e. water condition, compactness, particle compo- case-sensitive and could get affected by excavation method, exca-
sition, size and method of excavation, etc., it is recommended vation size and any other project-specific parameters. Thus on most
to measure stiffness value from actual site conditions. The occasions, this approach could result in considerable cost-effective-
prediction could have been more accurate if the relevant soil ness by optimising the design (Mansour et al. 2015). However, in
parameters for present study were obtained from back cal- the present study, there was limited scope for minimisation of the
culation using the observed deformation value at the initial support system based on observed deformation and subsequent
stage of excavation. back analysis due to proximity of sensitive structures. From the

 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering   2017  VOL 11   NO 1 17

Bhatkar et al.  Prediction of behaviour of a deep excavation in soft soil
9  Comparison of maximum (a) vertical and (b) horizontal defromation for left side wall from back calaculation
earlier comparison, it was observed that though the horizontal
deformation was in reasonable agreement the vertical deforma-
tion was overestimated in the present model. Back analysis also
supported the fact that the soil parameters, more importantly the
stiffness, were estimated conservatively. The measured deforma-
tions were normally used to back analyse soil parameters including
Young’s Modulus (E) and shear strength parameters i.e. cohesion
and friction angle. It was acknowledged (Pakbaz et.al. 2013) that
for low-level deformations at shallow depth, the Young Modulus
(E) is effective; however, for considerably higher depths, where
deformations are due to plastic behaviour of the soil, cohesion and
friction angle parameters are more sensitive. The back analysis
method was based on iterative variation of involved parameters to
match the obtained results with the real measured data. Therefore,
an attempt had been made to back-calculate the soil modulus by
matching model prediction with observed response from initial
stage of excavation. In this approach, the Young Modulus value
(E) was changed from 12 × 103 to 24 × 103 kN/m2 (after few trials)
for first and second layers to match the model deformation with
observed one and finally both the deformations keeping the third
layer properties unchanged were compared. After complete exca-
vation, the predicted vertical deformation was in good agreement
with observed one as shown in Fig. 9 (a, b). However, the predicted
horizontal deformation was almost 50% of measured deformations.
This indicates anisotropic nature of soil behaviour, which was not
considered in the present study. The anisotropic nature of soil
behaviour influences the wall movement and settlement during
deep excavation, particularly in soft soil condition (Clough and
Hansen 1981; Finno et al. 1991). From the above study, it was
understood that the value of the Young Modulus calculated from
back analysis is higher than the designed Young Modulus based
on initial investigation. Thus back calculated stiffness can well pre-
dict the deformation during excavation; otherwise it could be an
important factor in the performance of deep excavation (Schweiger
and Freiseder 1994).
Conclusions
In this paper, the surface settlements and lateral deformation of
the diaphragm wall and their influence on the adjacent structure
18 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering   2017  VOL 11   NO 1
were studied and compared. Present investigation shows that
Two-dimensional Finite Element analysis is an effective way
to investigate the performance of deep excavation, in which
detailed geotechnical and structural aspects such as size of
excavation, structural support system and actual excavation
sequence can be well accounted. From the above study, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
• Two-dimensional plain strain model can predict excava-
tion-induced ground movement for long station reason-
ably well.
• It was observed in model study as well as in measured data
that the maximum ground surface settlement is more com-
pared to the maximum lateral wall deflection in soft soil.
• The maximum settlement on the ground as predicted is
located 15–25 m away from the wall.
• Predicted amount of horizontal and vertical movements
with numerical model were more than observed deforma-
tions, which could be due to lack of reliance on laboratory
parameters of representative soil samples. However, this
little conservative approach should be well accepted to
ensure the safety of nearby sensitive structures.
The accurate prediction of the performance of deep exca-
vation, especially the ground movements requires a realistic
soil model that is able to consider the small-strain stiffness
non-linearity of the soil. In addition, the soil model adopted
needs to be calibrated with soil properties corresponding to
geotechnical condition at construction site.
Further, the numerical simulation can be incorporated as an
integral part of the observational method to permit maximum
economy and assurance of safety during construction. The
results of computation are not more than working hypothesis
that have to be subjected to confirmation or modification during
construction. In the past, the numerical simulations could not
benefit from these types of field observations but with this pro-
posed approach, there can be a direct link between precedence
and numerical modelling. As construction advances and new
field data are obtained, the material model can be improved
as new behaviour observed. Thus, the back calculation should
be the compulsory part of geotechnical site investigation and
geotechnical design should continue till the end of such project.

References
Brinkgreve, R. B. J. 2002. PLAXIS-finite element code for soil and rock
analysis: users manual- version 8, Rotterdam, Netherlands, A.A Balkema.
Brinkgreve, R. B. J., Broere, W. and Waterman, D. 2008. PLAXIS 2D Manuals,
Rotterdam, Netherland, Balkema.
Carter, J. P., Booker, J. R. and Yeung, S. K. 1986. Cavity expansion in cohesive
frictional soils, Géotechnique, 36, (3), 349–358.
Clough, G. W. and Duncan, J. M. 1969. Finite element analyses of Port Allen and
Old River Docks, Contract report S-69-6, U.S. Army Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Clough, G. W. and Hansen, L. A. 1981. Clay anisotropy and braced wall
behaviour, ASCE International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 107,
(7), 893–913.
Clough, G. W. and O’Rourke, T. D. 1990. Construction induced movements of
in situ walls, In Proc. Design and Performance of Earth retaining structure,
ASCE Special Conference, Ithaca, New York, 439–470.
Day, R. A. and Potts, D. M. 1998. The effect of interface properties on retaining
wall behaviour, International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods
in Geomechanics, 22, 1021–1033.
Dinakar, K. N. and Prasad, K. S. 2014. Effect of deep excavation on adjacent
buildings by diaphragm wall technique using PLAXIS, IOSR-Journal of
Mechanical Civil Engineering, 3, 26–32.
Finno, R. J., Lawrence, S. A., Allawh, N. F. and Harahap, I. S. 1991. Analysis
of performance of pile groups adjacent to deep excavation, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 117, (6), 934–955.
Ghaboussi, J. and Sidarta, D. E. 1997. New method of material modeling using
neural networks, Computers Geotechnical, 22, (1), 29–52.
Gioacchino, V. and Claudio, T. 2000. Ground movements around excavations in
granular soils: a few remarks on the infuence of the constitutive assumptions on
FE predictions, Journal of Mechanics Cohesive-Frictional Material, 5, 399–423.
Hardin, B. O. and Black, W. L. 1969. Closure to vibration modulus of normally
consolidated clays, Proceedings ASCE: Journal Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division, 95, (SM6), 1531–1537.
Hashash, Y. and Whittle, A. 1996. Ground movement prediction for deep
excavations in soft clay, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 122, (6),
474–486.
Holt, D. A. and Griffiths, D. V. 1992. Transient analysis of excavations in soil,
Computer Geotechnical, 13, 159–174.
Hsiung, B.-C. B. 2008. A case study on the behaviour of a deep excavation in
sand, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 36, 665–675.
Long, M. 2001. Database for retaining wall and ground movements due to
deep excavations, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 127, (3), 203–224.
Mana, A. I. and Clough, G. W. 1981. Prediction of movements for braced cuts
in clay, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 107, (6), 759–777.
Mansour, M. F., Morsy, M. S. and Fam, M. E. 2015. Estimation of fill properties
behind a deep excavation by back analysis, International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 9, (4), 329–340.
 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering   2017  VOL 11   NO 1
Bhatkar et al.  Prediction of behaviour of a deep excavation in soft soil
Nogueira, C. L., Azevedo, R. F. and Zornberg, J. G. 2009. Coupled analyses
of excavations in saturated soil, International Journal of Geomechanics,
9, (2), 73–81.
Nogueira, C. L., Azevedo, R. F. and Zornberg, J. G. 2011. Validation of Coupled
Simulation of Excavations in Saturated Clay: Camboinhas Case History,
ASCE International Journal of Geomechanics, 11, (3), 202–210.
Pakbaz, M. S., Imanzadeh, S. and Bagherinia, H. K. 2013. Characteristics of
diaphragm wall lateral deformations and ground surface settlements: Case
study in Iran-Ahwaz metro, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
35, 109–121.
Pakbaz, M. S., Mehdizadeh, R., Vafaeian, M. and Bagherinia, K. 2009.
Numerical prediction of subway induced vibrations: case study in Iran-
Ahwaz city, Journal of Applied Scientific Research, 14, (9), 1812–5654.
Peck, R. B. 1969. Deep excavation and tunneling in soft ground, In Proc. of 7th
R-7 ICSMFE, State-of-the-Art volume, Mexican City, 225–290.
Rechea, C., Levasseur, S. and Finno, R. J. 2008. Inverse analysis techniques
for parameter identification in simulation of excavation support systems,
Computer Geotechnical, 35, (3), 331–345.
Roscoe, K. H. and Burland, J. B. 1968. On the generalized stress–strain
behaviour of ‘wet’ clay, in Engineering plasticity, (ed. J. Heyman), 535–609,
Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
Schweiger, H. F. and Freiseder, M. 1994. Three dimensional finite element
analysis of diaphragm wall construction, Proceeding of the Eighth
International Conference on Computer Methods and Advances in
Geomechanics, 8, (3), 2493–2498.
Sengupta, P. K. 2009. Hydrology of Kolkata, http://jces.blogpost.com/2009/
hydrology-of-kolkata.html
Truty, A. 2009. Hardening soil model with small strain stiffness, http://www.
zace.com/Course_ACTUAL/HS-small-model/HS-model-presentation.pdf
Van, L. H. 1991. Numerical analysis of soil structure interaction, PhD thesis,
Netherland, Delft University of Technology.
Wang, L., Luo, Z., Xiao, J. and Juang, C. H. 2014. Probabilistic inverse analysis
of excavation-induced wall and ground responses for assessing damage
potential of adjacent buildings, Journal of Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering , 32, 273–285.
Whittle, Andrew J., Hashash, Y. M. A. and Whitman, R. V. 1993. Analysis of
deep excavation in Boston, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division,
119, (1), 69–90.
Yong, K. Y., Lee, F. H., Parnploy, U. and Lee, S. L. 1989. Elasto-plastic
consolidation analysis for strutted excavation in clay, Computer
Geotechnical, 8, 311–328.
Yoo, C. 2001. Behavior of braced and anchored walls in soils overlying rock,
ASCE Journal Geotechnical Geoenvironment, 127, (3), 225–233.
Yoo, C. and Lee, D. 2007. Deep excavation-induced ground surface movement
characteristics – A numerical investigation, Journal of Computers and
Geotechnics, 35, 231–252.
19