Thesis Chanaka HGDDD (109646)

EVALUATION ON BEHAVIOR OF DIAPHRAGM WALLS IN DEEP
EXCAVATIONS WITH CROSS-WALLS AS BASE STRUTS
by
Hewa Garusinghe Dapana Durage Dimal Chanaka
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree of Master of Engineering in
Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Engineering
Examination Committee: Dr. Noppadol Phien-wej (Chairperson)

Prof. Dennes T Bergado (Member)
Dr. Kyung-Ho Park (Member)
Nationality: Sri Lankan

Previous Degree: Bachelor of Science in Engineering (Honours) in Earth
Resources Engineering (Mining & Minerals)
University of Moratuwa,
Sri Lanka
Scholarship Donor: AIT fellowship
School of Engineering and Technology

Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand
May 2011
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am heartily thankful to my supervisor, Dr. Noppadol Phien-wej whose encouragement,

guidance and immense support from the initial to the final level, enables me to develop and
understanding of the subject and make the thesis a success.
I would like to offer my sincere thanks to Prof. Dennes T. Bergado and Dr. Kyung-Ho
Park for serving as members of the thesis committee and their invaluable comments and
suggestions.
I would like to express my utmost thanks to all officials of ARUP Singapore and
specially Geotechnical Division. My specials thank goes to Mr John Davies, Mr. Junaideen
S M, Mr.Neville Lui and Mr. Chandana J Madagoda for their help and generous support
during the two visits to ARUP Singapore.
I owe my deepest gratitude to Ms Anjula B N Dassanayake and my parents and family

members for being the driving force of my successful achievements.
Finally I offer my regards and blessings to all of those who supported me in any respect
during the completion of the thesis.
ii
ABSTRACT
There is a tendency to use cross walls as base strut in deep excavation in cities with soft
sub soil profiles. Some countries need cross walls for each diaphragm wall panels, but
cross wall can even bear load from two panels. Hence the study is based on diaphragm
wall response in omitting a cross wall from base strut in soft soil deep excavation is
evaluated by PLAXIS 2D and PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION finite element program. Mohr
Coulomb soil model is used to model the soil behavior. Horizontal sections at excavation
bottom are modeled in PLAXIS 2D for different cross wall arrangements. These models
are analyzed for three different joint strengths, three excavation depths and three loading
conditions. The excavation depth shows predominant influence to bending moment and
stresses induced in diaphragm wall and also joint shape shows a considerable influence on
induced stresses in diaphragm wall. One cross wall supported for every three panels is not
possible even in 6m excavation depth, but one cross wall supported for every two panel is
possible for shallower depth with several modification of the wall according to the bending
moment and shear forces. According to the 3D simulations, basal heave is not critical in
alternative panels supported.
iii
Table of content
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

Title of Page i
Acknowledgement ii
Abstract iii
Table of Content iv
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
List of abbreviation xi
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Statement of the problem ...................................................................................... 2
1.3 Objectives of the study ......................................................................................... 2
1.4 Scope of the study ................................................................................................. 2
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 3
2.1 General review ...................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Deep excavation .................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Types of deep excavation supporting system ....................................................... 3
2.4 Diaphragm wall..................................................................................................... 4
2.5 Types of joints ...................................................................................................... 6
2.6 Jet grouting ........................................................................................................... 7
2.7 Base strutting ........................................................................................................ 7
2.8 Singapore sub soil system ..................................................................................... 9
2.9 Possible failure modes .......................................................................................... 9
2.10 Influencing factors of stability ............................................................................ 11
2.11 PLAXIS 2D......................................................................................................... 12
2.12 PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION ............................................................................. 13
3 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 16
3.1 General ................................................................................................................ 16

3.2 2D horizontal model design ................................................................................ 16
3.3 3D Model design ................................................................................................. 22
iv
Table of content (continued)
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................. 24
4.1 Behavior of diaphragm wall panels on load. ...................................................... 24

4.2 Influence of the depth ......................................................................................... 27
4.3 Influence of the joint infill .................................................................................. 28
4.4 Influence of the joint shape ................................................................................. 29
4.5 Influence of the lateral load distribution ............................................................. 31
4.6 Results of 3D analysis......................................................................................... 32
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .......................................................... 33
5.1 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 33

5.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................... 34
References 35
Tables 37
Figures 39
v
List of Tables
TABLE NO TITLE PAGE
1.1 Characterization of Ariake, Singapore, and Bangkok clays 38

3.1 Cases of analysis 38
3.2 Minimum design parameters of Singapore sub soil 38
vi
List of Figures
FIGURE NO TITLE PAGE
2.1 Construction sequences of diaphragm wall 40

2.2 Configuration of cross wall as a base struts in deep excavation 40
2.3a In-situ constructed cross wall before excavate 41
2.3b Cross wall after excavate until end level of excavation 42
2.4 Cross wall joint systems with diaphragm wall panels 43
2.5 Stop end pipes for using in diaphragm wall panel joints 43
2.6 Plan view of constructed diaphragm wall panels with stop end pipe 44
2.7 Pre-cast reinforced concrete joint panels 44
2.8 Steel stop end plate element of CWS joint 44
2.9 Plan view of CWS joint with two rubber sealer 45
2.10 Triangular stop end joint element with rubber sealer 45
2.11 Plan view of diaphragm wall panels with Triangular joint 45
2.12 Construction of over cutting joint in diaphragm wall panel 46
2.13 Section view of deep excavation with base strut by jet grouting 46
2.14 Compressive Strength variation of grouted soil 47
2.15 Compressive Strength variation of grouted soil 47
2.16 Plan view of strip grouted base 48
2.17 Block type grouting as base strut 48
2.18 Column type grouting for base strut 49
2.19 Wall type grouting in excavation as struts 49
2.20 Singapore sub soil system 49
2.21 CPT values distribution in Singapore clay with depth 50
2.22 Pressure distribution at retaining wall (a) distribution of gross earth
pressure and (b) force equilibrium of the retaining wall as free body 50
2.23 Overall shear failures as flow heave in soft soil 51
2.24 Failure surfaces on overall shear failure (a) Terzaghi’s method (b)
modified Terzaghi’s method 51
2.25 Maximum settlement with depth variation 52
2.26 Comparisons of 2D and 3D soil element 52
3.1 Bending moment variation along diaphragm wall panel by plate
element and manually calculated 53
3.2 Comparison of variation in Bending moments difference on stiffness
reduction factor with reference 10^8 53
3.3 Assigned joint in 2D Plaxis for inclined CWS joint for new propose
(A type) 54
3.4 Assigned joint in 2D Plaxis for semicircular joint when using stop end
pipe(B-type) 54
3.5 Assigned joint in 2D Plaxis for CWS joint when using steel stop end
element (C type) 54
3.6 Assigned joint in 2D Plaxis for V shape joint when using steel stop end
element (D type) 55
3.7 Plaxis 2D model of all diaphragm wall panels supported by cross walls 55
3.8 Plaxis 2D model of alternative diaphragm wall panels supported by
cross walls 56
3.9 Plaxis 2D model of diaphragm wall panels supported by cross walls
after every three panels 56
vii
3.10 Plaxis 2D model of all diaphragm wall panels supported by cross walls
at excavation corner 57
3.11 Plaxis 2D model of alternative diaphragm wall panels supported by
cross walls at excavation corner 57
3.12 Plaxis 2D model of all diaphragm wall panels supported by cross walls
at uneven load distribution 58
3.13 Lateral earth pressure distribution along the diaphragm wall 58
3.14 Sub soil profile at one of underground railway station in Singapore 59
4.1 Deform mesh in 2D plaxis under 445kPa load distribution of all
diaphragm wall panel supported by cross walls 60
4.2 Displaced joint under 445kPa load distribution of all diaphragm wall
panel supported by cross walls (1000 times scaled up) 60
4.3 Effective stress distribution along diaphragm wall panels in all
diaphragm wall panels supported by cross walls 61
4.4 Shear force variation along successive panel of diaphragm wall with
all wall panels supported 61
4.5 Shear force variation along end panel of diaphragm wall with all wall
panels supported 62
4.6 Bending moment variation along successive panel of diaphragm wall
with all wall panels supported 62
4.7 Bending moment variation along end panel of diaphragm wall with all
wall panels supported 63
4.8 Deformed mesh of diaphragm wall in alternative panel supported with
100 times scaled up 63
4.9 Effective stress distribution along diaphragm wall panels in alternative
wall panels supported by cross walls 64
4.10 Shear force variation along three diaphragm wall panels in alternative
panels supported by cross walls 64
4.11 Bending moment variation along three diaphragm wall panels in
alternative panels supported by cross walls 65
4.12 Deform mesh in alternative panels supported with joint stiffness as
concrete at 20m excavation depth 65
4.13 Deformed mesh at a corner panel on asymmetrically supported
adjacent panels at 20m excavation depth 66
4.14 Effective stress distribution in clay 66
4.15 Displacement variation at middle of the panel and at the joint
according to the excavation depth 67
4.16 The maximum shear force variation with depths 67
4.17 Shear force variation along diaphragm wall with all wall panels
supported by cross walls 68
4.18 Shear force variation along diaphragm wall with alternative wall
4.19 Bending moment variation along diaphragm wall with all wall panels
4.20 Bending moment variation along diaphragm wall with alternative wall
4.21 Axial stress variation along diaphragm wall with all wall panels
4.22 Maximum axial stresses variation at panel’s middle and panel’s joint
diaphragm wall with all wall panels supported by cross walls 70
viii
4.23 Axial stress variation along diaphragm wall with alternative wall
4.24 Relative displacement variations at the joint with reference to the panel
middle according to different joint strengths 71
4.25 Shear force distribution along three diaphragm wall panels in all wall
panels supported 72
4.26 Shear force variation along three diaphragm wall panels in alternative
panels supported by cross walls with different joint strengths 72
4.27 Bending moment variation along three diaphragm wall panels in all
panels supported by cross walls with different joint strengths 73
4.28 Bending moment variation along three diaphragm wall panels in
alternative panels supported by cross walls with different joint
strengths 73
4.29 Axial stress distribution along three diaphragm wall panels in all wall
4.30 Axial stress distribution along three diaphragm wall panels in
alternative wall panels supported by cross walls 74
4.31 Relative displacement variations with joint shapes in all wall and
4.32 Shear force distribution along three diaphragm wall panels with
different joint shapes in all wall panels supported by cross walls 75
4.33 Maximum shear force variation with different joint shapes in all wall
4.34 Maximum shear force variation with different joint shapes in
different joint shapes in alternative wall panels supported by cross
walls 77
4.36 Bending moment distribution along three diaphragm wall panels with
different joint shapes in alternative wall panels supported by cross wa 78
4.38 Maximum bending moment variation with joint shapes in alternative
wall panels supported by cross walls 78
4.39 Axial stress distribution along three diaphragm wall panels with
different joint shapes in alternative wall panels supported by cross
walls 79
4.41 Resulting stress distribution around semicircular joint 80
4.42 Resulted stress distribution around V-shape joint 81
4.43 Resulted stress distribution around CWS joint 82
4.44 Resulted stress distribution around inclined CWS joint 83
different lateral loads in all wall panels supported by cross walls 84
different lateral loads in alternative wall panels supported by cross
walls 84
ix
walls 85
walls 86
4.51 Total displacement of soft soil model at 20m excavation depth with
alternative wall panels supported 87
4.52 Total displacement of diaphragm wall anchored to stiff soil layer at
20m excavation depth with alternative wall panels supported. 87
4.53 Total displacement of Singapore sub soil model at 20m excavation
depth with alternative wall panels supported 88
x
List of Abbreviations
m = Meter
m/s2 = Meter per square second
kg/cm2 = Kilogram per square centimeter
m/day = Meter per day
psi = Pounds per square inch
kN/m2 = Kilo Newton per square meter
MN/m = Mega Newton per meter
kNm/m = Kilo Newton meter per meter
kPa = Kilo Pascal
GPa = Giga Pascal
C = Cohesion
E = Young’s modulus
Φ = Friction Angle
ψ = Dilatancy angle
Ѵ = Poisson’s ratio
ϒ = Density
ϒw = Density of water
ϒsat = Saturated density
ϒunsat = Un-saturated density
σc = Uniaxial compressive strength
Ka = Lateral earth pressure coefficient
Rinter = Strength reduction factor at interface
CPT = Cone Penetration Test
CWS = Coffrage avec Water Stop
UCS = Uniaxial Compressive Strength
Type 01 = All diaphragm wall panels are supported by Cross walls
Type 02 = Alternative diaphragm wall panels are supported by Cross walls
A-type = inclined CWS joint
B-type = semi circular joint
C-type = Conventional CWS joint
D-type = Triangular element’s joint (V shape joint)
xi
CHAPTER 1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
New developments in urban areas and population growth have created the requirement
of getting the maximum use of land in urban areas. As a result, roads and railways are built
underground and tall skyscrapers are built everywhere which leads to the need of deep
excavations in urban construction
Every city is not constructed on soft soil but if there is soft soil in a city such as
Singapore, Bangkok or Taiwan, deep excavation must be carried out cautiously as
construction disasters and adjacent building damages may occur due to unexpected ground
movement and settlement. The protection of adjacent buildings and structures is a major
concern for designers and contractors when designing a deep excavation. Deep excavations
should be effectuated by braced excavation or tie back for proper ground movement
control and by using rigid walls such as Diaphragm wall or bored pile wall. Normally, a
flexible wall such as sheet pile is not used in soft soil. Diaphragm wall control ground
moment but in soft soil setting even rigid wall cannot control ground moment problems
with basal heave. The geotechnical Engineers will have to conduct a study on an
economical way to protect adjacent buildings and structures when carrying out deep
excavations.
To control the basal heave, various methods are introduced to deep excavation in soft
soil such as base strut by performing jet cement grouting, bore piling and deep cement
mixing. But base strut created by jet grouting or cement mixing has some drawbacks,
because it is time consuming and it is difficult to quality control. In order to overcome
these problems, cross walls are introduced in deep excavation as base struts. There is no
difference between construction techniques of cross wall and diaphragm wall, but
sometimes cross wall is constructed without reinforced steel. The cross wall behaves as a
strut with high compressive strength and is built before excavation.
Cross wall and diaphragm wall are constructed panel by panel subsequently before
ground excavation, and panel length is limited with the soil properties. Hence the joint
between adjacent panels should be constructed to ensure that the panels are well connected.
The joint should provide structural rigidity and prevention device of ground water
leakages.
The cross wall spacing differs according to the diaphragm wall panel lengths. Some
countries, added cross walls for every diaphragm wall panels. This study intends to check a
possibility to whether a cross wall can be skipped, further more whether one cross wall can
support every two or three diaphragm wall panels. It also attempts to develop a joint
system for diaphragm wall panels in construction of base strut with cross walls which
would support alternative diaphragm wall panels through numerical analysis.
1
1.2 Statement of the problem
Existing structures in deep excavation are constructed with perimeter diaphragm walls,
internal level struts and base strut. Normally, Jet cement grouting for base strut is quite
troublesome and time consuming. Since jet cement grouting process cannot be controlled
underground pot holes may occur. It is necessary to find a more efficient and effective
alternative method to solve the issues which may arise with the jet cement grouting
process. As time went by, the cross wall has been introduced as an alternative method in
construction of base strut to overcome these difficulties.
The perimeter diaphragm wall is constructed by using 2m to 10m panels. The factors
which affect Panel length are soil condition and diaphragm wall depth. When cross walls
are used for base strut, cross walls should be installed for every diaphragm wall panel.
Normally, cross walls can bear high load than single panel even loads from two or three
panels. People did not require a cross wall for each panel of the diaphragm wall, thus, a
joint had to be continued. Taiwan and some other countries developed a joint system which
rebound running through the joint, but these joints had many difficulties in implementing.
When reducing the number of cross walls for diaphragm wall panels, there is a risk of
displacement and separation of joints. The study is mainly focused on understanding load
transfer behavior along the joint and on developing a new joint system to bear the load
induced by surrounding soil without cross wall for all diaphragm wall panels.
1.3 Objectives of the study
The study has final aims of analyzing stress distribution of diaphragm wall and load
transfer mechanism of the joint in order to increase the cross wall spacing in deep
excavation. Finally, an appropriate new joint system will be developed for diaphragm wall
panels.
1. Stress distribution of deep excavation with diaphragm wall.

2. Load transfer mechanism of diaphragm wall.
3. Develop a new joint system for diaphragm wall panels.
1.4 Scope of the study
The study basically focuses on the determination of the load transfer mechanism,
stiffness of the joints and stress distribution along diaphragm wall. This may also involve
identification of an appropriate joint system for diaphragm wall panels in installing cross
walls for alternative diaphragm wall panels which is normally installed in every panel.
2
CHAPTER 2
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General review
In deep excavations in soft soil using concrete diaphragm wall, the performance of wall
is judged by the ability to control the ground movement in the adjacent area and structural
stability of the wall. This can be critical, if a deep excavation is carried out in soft soil
because of basal heave.
Ground water pressure, lateral support system, reinforcement in diaphragm wall and
joint between wall panels are the main affecting factors in deciding the stability of the
excavation.
This chapter mainly identifies influencing factors for diaphragm wall stability, joint
systems, failure mechanisms and modeling steps of finite element analysis with PLAXIS
2.2 Deep excavation
Numbers of deep excavation pits in urban area are increasing every year. Buildings,
streets surrounding excavation locations and design of very deep basements make
excavations formidable projects in soft soil. There are many factors which affect stability
of deep excavation, such as conditions of ground water, surrounding soil, retaining walls,
struts and anchors. Soil stabilization with jet cement grouting or deep cement mixing is one
method to control the stability of the excavation. The retaining structures should be strong
enough to withstand surrounding loads. These structures can be constructed using different
types of walls and supporting systems.
2.3 Types of deep excavation supporting system
There are many supporting wall systems for deep excavation. The criteria for the
selection of wall type are excavation size, ground water, ground condition, natural ground
water level, ground displacement, allowable settlement of adjacent structures, cost,
availability, speed of work and water inflow from the wall. Types of walls are listed below
(M. Ufuk Ergun).
 Braced walls, soldier pile and lagging walls

 Sheet pile walls
 Pile walls (contiguous, secant)
 Diaphragm walls or slurry trench walls
 Prefabricated diaphragm walls
 Reinforced concrete (cast-in-situ or prefabricated) retaining walls
 Soil nail walls
 Cofferdams
 Caissons
 Jet-grout and deep mixed walls
The most effective retaining walls in deep excavation in soft soils are diaphragm wall
and contiguous pile walls. However, its construction cost is very high.
3
2.4 Diaphragm wall
The diaphragm wall is designed to withstand the horizontal forces such as earth induced
pressure surcharge and water pressure. The flexural rigidity of diaphragm wall is much
higher than the other retaining wall such as steel piled wall.
Diaphragm walls are in situ constructed in slurry supported, concrete or reinforced

concrete walls in existing ground. Diaphragm walls can be constructed having a width of
0.45m to 1.5m and a depth of panels can be extended up to 100m and also excavation
depth can be exceeded up to 50m. The diaphragm wall panel length is varying in 2m to
10m and the length is depending on the stability of soil. The shortest lengths used for
unstable soil are under very high surcharge load. Diaphragm walls are possible to construct
with any shape of “T” “H” “L” “Y” “+” after the pre stabilized ground.
2.4.1 Construction of the diaphragm wall
Diaphragm walls are constructed by using Bentonite slurry support for trenching. This
technique was developed in Europe and has been used in United States since 1940’s.
Narrow trench was excavated in Bentonite slurry medium and the slurry exerts hydrostatic
pressure against the walls then prevents collapse. The slurry trench excavation can be
constructed in any soil even below the water table.
After making the alignment of diaphragm wall, shallow soil layer on diaphragm wall is
removed and the guide walls are constructed for many factors such as supporting the top of
the trench, providing a template for wall excavation and panel layout and supporting the
trench from heavy construction surcharge load as shown in Figure 2.1. The guide wall was
constructed with a depth of 1-2m with lightly reinforced concrete and the depth was
depending on soil condition. Figure 2.1 shows the construction sequence of diaphragm
wall.
The trench excavation is done by vertical slots known as panel by using heavy
clamshells or grabs. These clamshells may be cable hang or Kelly mounted, and the
digging mechanics can be operated by cable or hydraulic. The Bentonite slurry is
maintained within 1m above the natural water table and 0.6m below the top of guide wall.
End stops are used to control concrete placement and damages from secondary panel’s
excavation. End stops can be permanent or temporary. Permanent end stops are normally
wide flange shapes and temporary end stops can be pipe or special key end stop. Then, the
fabricated reinforcing cage is inserted in to the trench carefully as shown in Figure 2.1.
Concrete is filled around reinforcing cage by using tremie pipe to form concrete panels
from bottom to top. The special concrete mix with strength 4000 to 6000 psi and fairly
high cement content is used to fill the panel in diaphragm walls.
The end stops are removed after cement setting typically 4hours by crane or using jacks.
If steel key stop is used for stop end panels, it can be removed after excavating the
secondary panel. Then again same procedure will be done for secondary wall panel’s
installation.
4
2.4.2 Construction of cross wall
The cross wall arrangement in deep excavation is shown in Figure 2.2. One wall
constructs for connecting the opposing two diaphragm walls before excavation is started. It
can be constructed using ground improvement techniques, such as jet grouting or deep
cement mixing, to get hold of a better construction quality or compressive strength. the
cross wall can also be constructed by unreinforced diaphragm walls (the unconfined
compression strengths of treated soils are usually between l0and 20 kg/cm2 whereas that of
concrete diaphragm wall can achieve 280 kg/cm2 with a minimum of 100 kg/cm2).
The wall deformation reducing mechanism of cross wall is quite different from that of
ground improvement. The designing standard of ground improvement is to enhance the
strength of soils in front of the wall, increasing soil stiffness too soft to have enough
passive resistance. The cross wall is a strut, which exists before excavation and consisting
a high compression strength (especially for unreinforced diaphragm walls). Theoretically,
the locations where cross walls have been placed are less susceptible to deformation
because they are restrained from moving. The obvious effects of the cross wall is reducing
lateral deformation of a retaining wall.
The design of cross walls has to consider compressive strength, depth, and span of two
cross walls To make sure that cross walls can effectively reduce deformation of the
diaphragm wall. Since the behaviors of the diaphragm wall with cross walls are three
dimensional, neither the traditional two-dimensional plain strain analysis nor the beam on
elastic foundation method can simulate behaviors of cross walls. Thus, to design cross
walls, one has to resort to the three-dimensional finite element method or successful case
histories
Ou and Lin (1999) for convenience of construction, the trenches above cross walls have
to be backfilled with soils, which are usually replaced with low strength concrete. Thus, to
save the cost, cross walls are best constructed between the excavation surface and 5 or 6 m
below it. For a single excavation, it may be necessary to design one or several cross walls.
The deformation of a retaining wall is the smallest at the location where cross walls are
constructed. The deformation of wall is decreasing with increasing the number of cross
walls, and decreasing the distances of cross walls from corners. Figure 2.3a and
Figure.2.3b show the cross wall before and after excavate.
There are four joint shapes between diaphragm wall and cross wall. Those are T type
joint, separately constructed joint, high pressure grouting joint and partition plate joint.
Figure2.4 shows the four types of joint between cross wall and diaphragm wall. Upper part
of the cross wall is constructed by filling of lean concrete or granular soil. Hence the cross
walls are demolished with excavation and part of the cross wall remain for base strutting to
excavation.
T-type joints
The joint interface between cross walls and perimeter diaphragm wall panels is constructed
as a T-type unit, which means installing a primary unit and a end plate at the T-type unit
joint of the main diaphragm wall. A T-type steel cage is thus formed, as shown in
Figure.2.4 (a). It usually needs two cranes to hoist a T-type steel cage into a trench, which
is difficult and unsafe. Steel brushes can be used to remove slime in the successive
5
excavation of cross walls. Since the corners are susceptible to collapse, T-type trench is of
low stability. Hence, engineers might sometimes first perform grouting on the corners in
order to avoid the collapse of the T-type trench. However, caution should be taken to avoid
disturbing the soil, which might bring the reverse effect.
Separately constructed joints
The main perimeter diaphragm wall panels and cross wall panels are constructed
separately. That is, the trench excavation and concreting the cross wall begin after the
construction of the main perimeter diaphragm walls is completed, as shown in
Figure.2.4(b). In this construction approach, there may exist the soft slime between the
main diaphragm wall and the cross wall which leads to prevents the supporting
functionality of the cross wall from being fully developed, though the collapse of trenches
can be avoided. The slime between the interfaces sometimes reaches 20 ~ 30 cm in
thickness, which can neither be removed by grab bucket nor swept out by steel brushes,
and as a consequence, affects the supporting efficacy of cross walls.
High-pressure grouting joints
When separately constructing the main perimeter diaphragm wall panels and the cross wall
panels, the joint interface is reserved to accomplish high-pressure cement grouting at a
later stage, as shown in Figure 2.4 (c). However, the efficacy of this method, which is
supposed to replace the soil and slime in the interconnecting location, is hard to evaluate.
Partition plate joints
The partition plate joint on the side of a diaphragm wall can be adopted to avoid the
problems arise with the stability of T-type trenches and the removal of slime at the
interface,. As shown in Figure 2.4 (d), one installs a partition plate on the side of the main
perimeter diaphragm wall panel. After the construction of the main diaphragm wall panel
is completed and the trench of the cross wall is excavated, a steel brush and high pressure
water jet are used to remove the slime on the partition plate. Then, concrete is poured into
the cross wall trench. This method can avoid the stability problems related to T-type
trenches and the existence of slime at the interface. If the cross wall is also a part of the
building foundation, cross wall should be reinforced as a diaphragm wall, for example,
some time cross wall functions like a pile foundation to bear the weight of the building or
to resist uplift force. The cross wall can be filled with lean concrete, if the cross wall is
only used to restrain the lateral movement of the perimeter diaphragm wall and the ground
settlement.
2.5 Types of joints
2.5.1 Steel stop end pipe
Stop end pipes are installed at both ends of the primary panel. In continuous
construction, there is one pipe at the end of excavation for interlocking the joint rather than
two pipes. The stop end pipe’s diameter is same as the diaphragm wall thickness. The
pipes are removed after the setting concrete panel, normally 3 to 4 hours after filling
concrete. After constructing a secondary wall, the wall joint provides a very good interlock
between primary and secondary panels. There are various diameter and lengths of stop end
6
pipes which can be used in any diaphragm wall specification. Figure 2.5 shows the stop
end pipes. And also Figure 2.6 shows the plan view of the constructed diaphragm wall,
constructing wall and stop end pipe.
2.5.2 Pre-cast reinforced concrete panel
Pre-cast reinforced concrete panels are used for the panel joints of diaphragm walls.
Primary wall panel is pre-cast reinforced with two end plates and secondary panels are
constructed by in situ concreting. This joint method has steel reinforcement in panel joint.
Figure 2.7 shows the sketch of the precast reinforced concrete joint panel. These types of
joints are very difficult to handle, because the joint panel is very high weight and seeping
concrete cannot be removed safely.
2.5.3 Steel joint element
The common method used for panel joint is steel joint element in diaphragm wall
construction. There are two types of joint elements. First, flat steel joint element with two
elastic joint tapes is shown in Figure 2.8. Second, triangular steel joint element with one
elastic joint tape is shown in Figure 2.9. The elastic tapes are remaining in concrete panel
after the joint element has been removed. The steel element can only be removed after
excavating the secondary panel which protects concrete surface from any aggressive action
of the excavation machine. Figure 2.10 shows plan view of CWS joint with two rubber
seals after constructing the panels and Figure 2.11 shows the plan view of triangular joint.
2.5.4 Over cutting panel joint
Over cutting panel joints are constructed by a special cutter. After primary panels were
constructed, two adjacent end surfaces were over cut by cutter. Finally, secondary panel
constructed in between the primary panels shown in Figure 2.12.
2.6 Jet grouting
Jet grouting is a soil modification technique which is an injection of cement water

mixture under very high pressure to soil by rotating steel injection nozzle. The cement
mixture cuts soil and mixes them together by rotating high pressure mixture beam
perpendicular to the drilling axis. The Grouting column radius is depended with grouting
pressure, drilling speed and soil properties. Normally grouting pressure is around 400bar
and the particle speed approximately 200m/s. The strength and the permeability of the
column can be controlled by composition of cement mixture such as cement water ratio
and addition of admixture. Additional pressure can be built up in clay layer due to high
pressure grouting, hence soil movement and structure deflection can happen around.
2.7 Base strutting
Base strut is a bottom seal or heave stabilized system which is often constructed by jet
grouting. Base strut has two functions such as prevention of basal heave and prevention of
wall inward movement. The floor slab should have enough strength to withstand from
inward forces of soil. Hence, jet grouting should be done by frequent monitoring and
ensuring that the grouting columns are interconnected. Figure 2.13 and Figure 2.14 show
the base strut in deep excavation and the strength variation of grouted soil respectively.
7
The base strut can be constructed by jet grouting the whole bottom area. Soil cannot be
grouted continuously, as a result there may have some weak grouted areas or un-grouted
areas in the base strut (showing in Figure 2.15). The strength of grouted base is reduced by
un-grouted or weak grouting areas. This discontinuous cement grouted floor leads to
failure in excavation pit.
Figure 2.16 shows the jet grouted cross walls of base floor of an excavation. This type
of base strut is used in deep excavations for cost reduction other than the grouting whole
base, but grouting column cannot be constructed properly at the diaphragm wall. The weak
grouting space between diaphragm wall and the grouted cross wall leads to large
displacement of wall.
The cross wall constructed as diaphragm wall without reinforcement is becoming

popular for base strut. These cross walls have high strength than jet grouted cross wall.
Normally, Cross walls are constructed for every diaphragm wall panel to bear the stress
induced from surround soil.
Deep mixing
The deep mixing is a ground improvement technique. The goal of the ground
improvement is to improve the strength and permeability of the in situ soil. When soil at
the outside of excavation is improved, the active earth pressure acting against the retaining
wall is decreasing and also when inside soil is improved, the passive pressure is increasing.
The ideal measure is to improve the soil both inside and outside even though the cost may
be too high. When excavation is started the retaining wall will move towards the
excavation zone. And active earth pressure thus produced no matter whether the soil at
outside has been improved or not. On the other hand, ground improvement at inside the
excavation will always directly restrain the movement of the retaining wall. Hence the
effects of inside improvement is better than outside improvement.(ou et al) there are three
methods of inside soil improving methods, those are as follows.
(1) Block type

Within a specific area, improve the soils fully. Replace the soil bodies within the
area completely or have them completely combined with chemical into treated soils
shown in Figure 2.17.
(2) Column type
The pattern of the improved soils is similar to that of piles. The columns of
improved soils do not connect with each other as shown in Figure 2.18.
(3) Wall type
Connect the columns of improved soils into a wall shape, which joins the retaining
wall and forms a counter fort-like wall. The wall can only increase the soil strength
in front of the retaining wall. It is not able to raise the moment-resistance stiffness of
the wall showing in Figure 2.19.
8
2.8 Singapore sub soil system
The Singapore Island is widely covered by sediment deposits of marine clay known as
Kallang formation which is in 25% of total land surface of the island (Chang 1991). The
Kallang formation was deposited in Holocene and late Pleistocene age but lower layer was
deposited ten thousand years ago. Upper part of the lower layer is intensively affected by
desiccation which was caused by changing of the sea level during the Ice Age.
Figure 2.20 shows, the original sea bed is at 1.5m below the surface. The marine clay
deposit is divided in to two parts as upper marine clay and lower marine clay by a stiffer
desiccated intermediate layer with thickness of 2-8m (chong et al 1998). The lower marine
clay layer which is starting at 8.5m depth is highly plastic with the liquid limit ranging 65
to 85 and the plastic limit ranging 38 to 55. The bulk unit weight ranging within 14.6 to
15.8 kN/m3. The natural moisture content is about 50 to 69%. And also upper marine clay
layer has liquid limit ranging 76 to 101 and the plastic limit ranging 45 to 69. The average
bulk unit weight of upper marine clay layer is ranging from 15.8 to 16.8 kN/m3 and the
natural moisture content is about 60 to 92%. Figure 2.21 shows CPT value distribution
with depth, Characterization of Ariake, Singapore, and Bangkok clays are shown in
table.2.1.
2.9 Possible failure modes
2.9.1 Base stability
There are two base instabilities in deep excavations into soft clay, where the soft clay
extends to below the base of the excavation. These are overall shear failure and hydraulic
uplift on the existing clay below the bottom of the deep excavation.
2.9.1.1 Overall shear failure
Push in failure
As shown in Figure 2.22 earth pressure reached to active pressure on outer side of the
retaining wall and also passive earth pressure in under the excavation of inner side of
retaining wall in the limiting state of braced excavation. To analyze the factor of safety of
push in failure, conduct a face equilibrium analysis and moment analysis around lowest
strut supported to the retaining wall. Factor of safety can be taken as follows
M r Pp Lp  M s
FS   (1)
Md Pa La
Mr = resisting moment
Md = driving moment
Pa = resultant of the active earth pressure on the outer side of the wall below the
lowest level of strut
La = length of the lowest level of strut to the point of action Pa
Ms = allowable bending moment of the retaining wall
Lp = length of the lowest level of strut to the point of action Pp
Pp = resultant of the passive earth pressure on the inner side of the wall below
the excavation
9
Basal heave failure
There is a possibility occur the un-drained basal heave in excavation bottom, when
shear strength of clay bellow the excavation is low and diaphragm wall is not anchor or
extend to the stiffer soil layer (Figure 2.23).
There are many published methods for the assessment of basal heave stability of
excavations in clay.
(Shirlaw et al, Terzaghi's method (1943)) catered for wide excavations with the width
(B) greater than the depth (H). The failure mechanism is shown in Figure 2.24. The failure
surface extends from the ground surface to a depth of 0.7B below the formation level or to
the top of the underlying hard stratum whichever is shallower. Wall penetration beyond the
formation level is ignored. The effect of wall stiffness is not considered. Even though it is
developed under plane strain condition, it is applicable to wide excavations of rectangular
shape. The factor of safety F. can be computed using Equation (2).
5.7Cub B1
FS  (2)
HB1  Cuh H
where cuh is the average un-drained shear strength above the formation level; cub is the
average un-drained shear strength within the failure zone below the formation level; ϒ is
the average bulk unit weight of the soil above the formation level; H is the maximum
excavation depth; and B1 is equal to 0.7B or depth to hard stratum below formation level
(T) whichever is smaller.
5.7Cub B1  Cuh H
FS  (3)
HB1
This equation is expressed in terms of soil resistance over the net driving force. An
alternate approach (Chang, 2000) is to keep all resisting forces in the nominator and all
driving forces in the denominator as shown in Equation (3).
2.9.1.2 Hydraulic basal stability
If the clay is underlain by sand or any permeable material, these materials can be
significantly more permeable than the overlying soft clay, so consideration has to be given
to the potential for hydraulic uplift. This will occur if the water pressure in the more
permeable layer is higher than the weight of the remaining soil in the passive zone of the
excavation. Pressure relief wells have been used in Singapore to control this problem.
2.9.2 Wall movements
The diaphragm wall movements can be significantly reduced with reducing the spacing
of cross walls. And also ground water pressure and adjacent soil properties such as shear
strength, cohesion, fiction and stiffness of soil affect wall movement directly. Ground
water pressure is critical factor for the diaphragm wall movement, because ground water
pressure is acting on the wall horizontally. The joint system of cross wall and diaphragm
wall should be well interconnected. Otherwise, large displacement can happen in
diaphragm wall. The maximum lateral movements at the ground surface are approximately
equal to the maximum vertical ground settlement O'Rourke (1981).
10
2.9.3 Floor heave failure
Terzaghi (1943) viewed base heave as a bearing capacity failure in deep excavation.
Bjerrum & Eide (1956) took the analogy by using same shape factors for more accurate
indication and Eide et al (1972) consider wall adhesion. These analyses used slip surface
for the collapse mechanisms. Floor heave failure can be happened in deep excavation as
bearing capacity failure by surcharge load induced from surrounding soil of an excavation.
Soil at base of the excavation behaves as frictionless material under undrained condition, if
the excavation depth is large enough to fail.
Peck (1969) introduced a dimensionless number, Nb = γH/Cub, where Cub is the

undrained shear strength of the soil below base excavation. Theoretical studies indicate
that a plastic zone should be started at the lowest corners of the cut when Nb reaches 3.14,
and increases until Nb = Ncb = 5.14 where base failure takes place, If the strength variation
of the soil consisting by the surcharge is ignored and the excavation cut is considered to be
infinitely long. However, in reality, excavation cuts are not infinite extending and the
strength variation of the material by surcharge is not negligible. In 1956, Bjerrum and Eide
proposed that the values of Ncb for excavation cuts of ordinary shapes are usually in the
range of 6.5 to 7.5, instead of 5.14.
2.10 Influencing factors of stability
Soil type
(David J. Bentler )All of the previous review papers show that soil type is a key factor in
the performance of deep excavations. Soil type is important because the performance of
deep excavations is governed by the interaction between the soil and the support system.
Peck’s figure summarizing the case history settlement information is reproduced in
Figure.2.25. As can be seen in the Figure 2.25, Peck proposed three zones of settlement
profiles based on conditions of soil, and workmanship. Results of Goldberg et al. (1976)
show that retaining wall movements for excavations in sand and gravel or very stiff to hard
clay are usually less than 0.4 percent of the excavation depth. Their results also showed
that wall movements for excavations in soft soils averaged about 1 percent of the
excavation depth.
Prompt support installation
Wall movement can be increased during delays in support installation due to two
causes. One is time- dependent deformation. Time-dependent deformation may be caused
by consolidation of soils, soil creep, or creep of structural members. The second cause is
over-excavation. The term over-excavation describes the delay of support installation
during excavation continues.
Workmanship
(David J. Bentler, Peck (1969) emphasized the importance of workmanship in the

performance of deep excavations. He included workmanship as a factor in the three
settlement profile zones he proposed. Peck observed that poor workmanship (for example,
late or sloppy installation of supports) could easily cause larger movements.
11
Temperature changes
(David J. Bentler , Goldberg et al. (1976)) included temperature-induced strain as a

design consideration for braced excavations. Changes in temperature can cause significant
thermal stresses or strains in braces.
Wall type
Diaphragm walls are stiff, are constructed in situ and in contact with the soil, and are
essentially watertight. Goldberg et al. (1976) studied information from case histories and
concluded that using diaphragm walls in weak soils reduced movements to about a fourth
of those experienced with sheet pile walls in weak soils. Clough and O’Rourke (1990) also
observed that stiff walls help limit movements in soft soils. Clough and O’Rourke (1990)
pointed out that the use of diaphragm walls eliminates void closure and running soil
problems that can occur with soldier pile and lagging walls.
Anisotropy
(David J. Bentler, Clough and Hansen (1981) ), they studied about effect of anisotropy
on basal heave, wall movement, and load acting on the support system at deep excavations.
They considered strength anisotropy in limit equilibrium studies of basal heave potential.
Studies clearly show that anisotropy can have a considerable effect on basal heave
potential. They also performed parametric studies with uncoupled un-drained finite
element analyses on a braced excavation. Un-drained shear strength and the tangent
modulus were assumed to vary with the angle of principal stress reorientation. Clough and
Hansen concluded from their finite element studies that anisotropy can increase wall
movements and settlements, and can change the distribution and magnitude of loads on
braces.
2.11 PLAXIS 2D
2.11.1 General Description
PLAXIS is a finite element program intended for the two-dimensional and three
dimensional analyses of deformation and stability in soil or rock body in geotechnical
engineering. Geotechnical applications need more advanced constitutive models for the
analyzing of the non -linear, time -dependent and an-isotropic behavior of soils and/or
rock. In addition, special procedures are required to deal with hydrostatic and non-
hydrostatic Pore pressures in the soil since soil is a multi-phase material. Although the
modeling of the soil itself is an important issue, many deep excavations involve the
modeling of structures and the interaction between the structure and the soil. PLAXIS is
equipped with features to deal with various aspects of complex geotechnical structures.
Soil interface
An elastic-plastic model is used in PLAXIS to describe the behavior of interfaces for

the modeling of soil structure interaction. Each soil data set has an associated strength
reduction factor for interfaces (Rinter ) the interface properties are calculated from soil
properties in the associated data set and the strength reduction factor by applying the
following rules
12
Ci = Rinter Csoil
tan φi = Rinter tan φsoil ≤tan φsoil
2.11.2 Type of element
In the plane strain analysis of deep excavation by PLAXIS 2D program, the soil can be
modeled either by 6-node or 15-node triangular elements which shows in Figure 2.24. For
the l5-node triangle elements the order of interpolation is four and the integration involves
twelve stress points, whereas the stiffness matrix of the 6-node element is evaluated by
numerical integration using a total of three stress points. Although the 15-node triangle is a
very accurate 2D element, it usually leads to relatively high memory consumption
2.12 PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION
2.12.1 General Description
The PLAXIS3D FOUNDATION program is a special purpose three-dimensional finite

element computer program used to perform deformation and stability analyses for various
types of foundations and excavations in soil. It uses a convenient graphical user interface
that enables users to quickly generate a true three-dimensional finite element mesh based
on a composition of horizontal cross sections at different vertical levels.
2.12.2 Type of Element
The basic soil elements of a 3D finite element mesh are the l5-node wedge elements
(Figure 2.26). These elements are generated from the 6-node triangular elements as
generated in the 2D mesh. Due to the presence of non-horizontal soil layers, some 15- node
wedge elements may degenerate to 13-node pyramid elements or even l0-node tetrahedral
elements. The l5-node wedge element is composed of 6-node triangles in horizontal
direction and 8-node quadrilaterals in vertical direction. The accuracy of the 15-node
wedge element and the compatible structural elements are comparable with the 6-node
triangular element and compatibles in a 2D PLAXIS analysis. Higher order element types,
for example comparable with the l5-node triangle in a 2D analysis, are not considered for a
3D FOTINDATION analysis because this will lead to large memory consumption and
unacceptable calculation times.
2.12.3 Material Model
Soil tends to behave in a highly non-linear way under load. This non-linear stress strain
behavior can be modeled at several levels of sophistication. Clearly, the number of model
parameters increases with the level of sophistication.
The mechanical behavior of soils may be modeled at various degrees of accuracy.

Hooke's law of linear, isotropic elasticity, for example, may be thought of as the simplest
available stress-strain relationship. As it involves only two input parameters, i.e. Young's
modulus, E, and Poisson's ratio, v, it is generally too crude to capture essential features of
soil behavior. For modeling massive structural elements and bedrock layers, however,
linear elasticity tends to be appropriate. A discussion of the available models is given
below:
13
Linear elastic model
This model represents Hooke's law of isotropic linear elasticity. The model involves two
elastic stiffness parameters, namely Young's modulus E, and Poisson's ratio v. The linear
elastic model is too limited for the simulation of soil behavior. It is primarily used for stiff
structures in the soil.
Mohr-Coulomb model (MC)
The elastic-plastic Mohr-Coulomb model involves five input parameters, i.e. E and v for
soil elasticity; φ and c for soil plasticity and Ψ as an angle of dilatancy. This Mohr-
Coulomb model represents a 'first-order' approximation of soil behavior. It is
recommended to use this model for a first analysis of the problem considered. For each
layer one estimates a constant average stiffness. Due to this constant stiffness,
computations tend to be relatively fast and one obtains a first estimate of deformations.
Besides the model parameters mentioned above, initial soil conditions play an essential
role in most soil deformation problems.
Hardening-Soil model (HS)
The Hardening-Soil model is an advanced model for the simulation of soil behavior. As
for the Mohr-Coulomb model, limiting states of stress are described by means of the
friction angle, φ, the cohesion, c, and the dilatancy angle, Ψ. However, soil stiffness is
described much more accurately by using three different input stiffnesses: the triaxial
loading stiffness, E50, the triaxial unloading stiffness, Eur, and the oedometer loading
stiffness, Eoed. As average values for various soil types, we have Eur, ≈ 4 E50 and Eoed ≈ E50,
but both very soft and very stiff soils tend to give other ratios of Eoed/E50. In contrast to the
Mohr-Coulomb model, the Hardening-Soil model also accounts for stress dependency of
stiffness module. This means that all stiffnesses increase with pressure. Hence, all three
input stiffnesses relate to a reference stress, usually taken as 100 kPa (lbar).
2.12.4 Type of Material Behavior
In principle, all model parameters in PLAXIS are meant to represent the effective soil
response, i.e. the relation between the stresses and strains associated with the soil skeleton.
An important feature of soil is the presence of pore water. Pore pressures significantly
influence the soil response. To enable incorporation of the water-skeleton interaction in the
soil response PLAXIS offers for each soil model a choice of three types of behavior:
Non-porous behavior
Using this setting neither initial nor excess pore pressure will be taken into account in
clusters of this type. Applications may be found in the modeling of concrete or structural
behavior. Non-porous behavior is often used in combination with the linear elastic model.
The input of a saturated weight is not relevant for non-porous materials.
14
Drained behavior
Using this setting no excess pore pressures are generated. This is clearly the case for dry
soils and also for full drainage due to a high permeability (sands) and/or a low rate of
loading. This option may also be used to simulate long-term soil behavior without the need
to model the precise history of un-drained loading and consolidation.
Un-drained behavior
First, it should be noted that the modeling of un-drained soil behavior is even more
complicated than the modeling of drained behavior. Therefore, the user is advised to take
the greatest care with the modeling of un-drained soil behavior.
2.12.5 Types of Calculations
The first parameter to be set when defining a calculation phase is the Type of
calculation. Distinction is made between five basic types of calculation: Plastic calculation,
Consolidation analysis, Phi/c reduction (safety analysis), Gravity loading and K0
procedure. The latter two types are only available for the initial phase. The Advanced
button in this group is only available for a Consolidation analysis.
Plastic calculation
A Plastic calculation is used to carry out an elastic-plastic deformation analysis

according to small deformation theory. The stiffness matrix in a plastic calculation is based
on the original un-deformed geometry. This type of calculation is appropriate in most
practical geotechnical applications. In general, a plastic calculation does not take time
effects into account.
Considering the quick loading of water-saturated clay-type soils, a Plastic calculation

may be used for the limiting case of fully un-drained behavior using the Un-drained option
in the material data sets. On the other hand, performing a fully drained analysis can assess
the settlements on the long term. This will give a reasonably accurate prediction of the
final situation, although the precise loading history is not followed and the process of
consolidation is not dealt with explicitly. When changing the geometry configuration it is
also possible (for each calculation phase) to redefine the water boundary conditions and
recalculate the pore pressures.
Gravity loading (initial phase only)
Gravity loading is a type of Plastic calculation, in which initial stresses are generated
based on the volumetric weight of the soil. All options that are available for a Plastic
calculation are available. In Gravity loading analysis the relative proportion of weight is
raised from 0 to l. In all phases after the initial phase, the full soil weight remains activated.
Gravity loading is only available for the initial calculation phase.
15
CHAPTER 3
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 General
The study was mainly focused on the behavior of the diaphragm wall which is subjected
to different scenarios of cross walls such as a cross wall provided for every panel, every
other panel and every three panel. It also studies the joint movement and stress distribution
around diaphragm wall panel joints on four different joint shapes with three joint infill; soft
clay, stiff clay and concrete. Table 3.1 shows cases of analysis.
All these models were analyzed with three different depths such as 20m, 30m and 40m
and also analyzed for different soil zones and uneven load distribution along the diaphragm
wall panels.
Another PLAXIS 2D model was analyzed to study joint behavior of corner diaphragm
wall panel in deep excavation on two scenarios of cross wall installations with uniform
load distribution. This was also modeled for different soil zones, uneven load distribution.
3.2 2D horizontal model design
The models were built in finite element program software of PLAXIS 2D 8.2 version as
a horizontal section which is normally model as vertical section. Then earth gravity was
assigned as 0.01 m/s2, x acceleration and y acceleration remained zero. PLAXIS software
is provided 6 nodes and 15 nodes triangular element in plane strain condition. In this model
15 nodes triangular element was used in plane strain condition
Diaphragm wall panel dimensions were taken as general dimensions used in Singapore.
The wall length is 6m and width of the wall is 1.2m. Seven wall panels have been built in
model and results were taken at middle panels’ joint to take equitable results of joint
behavior. Hence effect of boundary condition is negligible.
Dimensions of model domain were taken as
Xmin = 0 Xmax = 42
Ymin = 0 Ymax = 25
Horizontal section was drawn by geometry line and assign relevant materials for all
clusters. Cross walls were assigned as 1m thick and 10m long wall section which was
supported to the middle of all diaphragm wall panels. The joint between two diaphragm
wall panels was drawn by geometry line and assigned interfaces. Separate plate elements
were assigned at center of cross walls and diaphragm walls only to extract bending
moment, shear force and axial forces along the wall panel.
“Distributed load – load system A” was assigned top of the model to represent the
lateral load acting on wall. Right side and left side boundaries were fixed horizontally and
bottom side boundary was fixed both horizontally and vertically.
Global coarseness was adjusted to “very fine” and a mesh was generated with the
smallest triangular elements. Thereafter, Ground water level has been assigned at ground
surface and remains as hydrostatic outside the excavation and water density has been
16
assigned as zero weight to generate the pore water pressure. Then there is no pore water
pressure at initial condition.
Structural input parameter
Diaphragm walls have been modeled as 1200mm thick wall with Mohr Coulomb soil
model and drained material type, at the same time cross walls have been constructed as
same as diaphragm wall with thickness 1000mm.
Assumption:-
 Concrete wall’s strength (UCS) = 30MPa

 Concrete wall’s friction angle = 45 ̊
From Mohr – Coulomb strength criteria
𝜎𝑐 = 2𝑐 𝑁(𝜑) (3)
1+𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑
𝑁 𝜑 = 1−𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑 (4)
σc = 30 MPa, φ = 45 ̊
Then C = 6213.203kN/m2
Cohesion was taken as 6000 kN/m2
Tension cut off = σc/10

= 3000 kN/m2
Plate element has been assigned at the center of the diaphragm wall and the cross wall to
take bending moment, shear forces and axial load of the wall which normally cannot be
directly taken from soil elements. Properties of the plate element have been changed to
very small stiffness for negligible effect from plate. Maximum bending moment of
diaphragm wall has been calculated analytically with simple bending moment equation
𝑀 𝐸 𝜎
= = (5)
𝐼 𝑅 𝑦
M – Bending moment (Nm/m)

I – moment of inertia (m4)
E – Young’s modulus (N/m2)
R – Radius of neutral axis (m).
σ – Stress (N/m2)
y – Distance of surface from neutral surface (m).
For verification of bending moment extraction from plate element, wall bending
moment has been calculated manually as well as using plate element. Maximum stresses in
soil element wall panel have been extracted from Plaxis 2D horizontal model, and then the
bending moment was calculated by using equation (5). Both manually calculated moment
17
and extracted moment from plate element have been plotted in the same graph shown in
Figure 3.1. It can be concluded that the bending moment in plate element is as same as
bending moment induced in diaphragm wall panel.
Structural parameters for plate element
Plate element was used to only take bending moment, shear force and axial forces acting
along diaphragm wall. Actual young’s modulus was divided by 106 to reduce the effect of
the plate element on diaphragm wall displacement. Figure3.2 shows the bending moment
variation with plate element stiffness.
Effect of plate element is negligible when
𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐸
> 105
𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐸
𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐸
Stiffness of the plate element has been used as 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 106
𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐸
Then structural parameters have been assigned as E = 28kN/m2, EA = 33.6kN/m and

IA = 4.033kNm2/m.
Soil properties for soft clay
Soft clay has been assigned for surrounding soil at diaphragm wall.
ϒsat = ϒunsat = 0
Eref = 5000 kN/m2
Cref = 20 kN/m2
Φ=0
Ψ=0
Ѵ = 0.3
Kx=Ky=1.000E-8 m/day
Material model = Mohr Coulomb
Material type = Un-drained
3.2.1 Analyzing scenarios of 2D Plaxis
3.2.1.1 Interface elements
The diaphragm wall panel joints are modeled by using geometry lines and interfaces.
Three different materials are assigned to interface with 10mm thickness. If clay is assigned
as the interface material, joint surface is working as clay infill in diaphragm wall panel
joints.
18
1. Interface 01-Very soft clay was assigned to interface elements representing
clay infill in between two diaphragm wall panels.
Properties of interface element:-
Virtual element thickness = 10mm

ϒsat = ϒunsat = 0
Eref = 5000 kN/m2
Cref = 01 kN/m2
Φ=0
Ψ=0
Ѵ = 0.3
2. Interface 02-cohesive clay was assigned to interface elements representing

considerably hard clay infill in between two diaphragm wall panels.

ϒsat = ϒunsat = 0
Eref = 5000 kN/m2
Cref = 100 kN/m2
Φ = 40 ̊
Ψ=0
Ѵ = 0.3
3. Interface 03-Poor concrete was assigned to interface elements representing a

considerably hard joint between two diaphragm wall panels.

ϒsat = ϒunsat = 0
Eref = 14000000 kN/m2
Ѵ = 0.15
Material model = Linear elastic
Material type = Non porous
3.2.1.2 Joint shapes
Four different joint shapes have been analyzed in 2D plaxis model according to the
construction techniques. Normally, there are three kinds of stop end elements used in deep
excavation to develop connection between diaphragm wall panels. Stop end pipe, CWS
stop end joint element and V shape stop end joint elements are creating respectively
19
semicircular joint, conventional CWS joint and V shape joint. And also another new joint
shape has been analyzed in 2D Plaxis model which is called inclined CWS joint.
1. A-type joint –inclined CWS joint

Inclined CWS joint has been developed with 1 : 4 inclination with the diaphragm
wall the Figure3.3 shows the dimension of the joint
2. B-type joint – semicircular joint
Semi circular joint was made by stop end pipe with pipe’s diameter equal to
diaphragm wall width. The diameter of joint was taken as 1.2m. Figure3.4 shows
shape and dimension of the joint
3. C-type joint – conventional CWS joint
Conventional CWS joints are common in diaphragm wall construction. Figure3.5
shows detail of the joint
4. D-type joint – V shape joint
V shape joint construction is also same as CWS joint, the shape and dimensions are
shown in Figure 3.6
3.2.1.3 Supporting arrangement
One of the main objectives is analyzing stress distribution around a joint between two
diaphragm wall panels with changing cross wall span length. In this study, five cross wall
supporting arrangements have been analyzed.
1. Cross wall supported for all diaphragm wall panels (Figure3.7)

2. Cross wall supported for alternative diaphragm wall panels(Figure3.8)
3. Cross wall supported for diaphragm wall panel after every three panels
(Figure3.9)
4. Corner panel with cross wall supported for every diaphragm wall
panels(Figure3.10)
5. Corner panel with cross wall supported for alternative panels(Figure3.11)
3.2.1.4 Influence of geological condition
Underground geological condition is not uniform place to place, as an example stresses

and soil types differ from place to place. Hence, three loading conditions have been
assigned for representing the ground condition and analyzing behavior of diaphragm wall
joint.
1. Uniform load distribution-

The load has been assigned at top of the model uniformly with respect to the
depth of excavation.
2. Non-uniform load distribution-

The load has been assigned at top of the model with 100 kPa load difference
between tow side boundaries. Figure3.12 shows the load variation along the
diaphragm wall panel. loads for 20 depths are 251kPa and 351kPa
3. Different soil zones

Model has been divided to two equal parts and hard soil has been assigned for
one part.
20
Properties of hard soil were
ϒsat = ϒunsat = 0
Eref = 90000 kN/m2
Cref = 40 kN/m2
Φ = 32 ̊
Ψ=0
Ѵ = 0.3
3.2.1.5 Influence of depth of excavation
The load has been assigned at top of the model according to the depth of the excavation.
Three different lateral loads at 20m, 30m and 40m have been considered in this study.
Lateral load has been calculated with soil parameters such as surrounding soil density
17.5kN/m3, ground water table at the surface of excavation, friction angle 24 degrees and
density of water 10 kN/m3. Surcharge load consider as 20 kPa vertically downward at the
top of the excavation. Figure3.13 shows the lateral earth pressure acting on a wall.
1. 20m depth excavation – 301kPa

2. 30m depth excavation – 445kPa
3. 40m depth excavation – 590 kPa
ϒ = 17.5 kN/m3 , ϒw = 10 kN/m3 , φ = 24 ̊ and z = 20m (excavation depth)

Lateral
Lateral
component
component
of of
Lateral pressure = Water pressure + Lateral soil pressure +
surcharge
surcharge
loadload
𝑃 = 𝑍ϒ𝜔 + 𝑍 𝛾 − 𝛾𝜔 𝐾𝑎 + 𝑞𝐾𝑎
P= 20x10 + 20x(17.5-10)(1-sin24) + 20x(1-sin24) kPa
P= 301 kPa
3.2.2 Construction phases
Construction phases have been assigned to the model after the initial soil stresses and
water pressures have been generated. The load according to the depth has been activated in
first phase, then diaphragm wall panels and cross walls have been assigned in second
phase. Finally, soil clusters in excavation area have been deactivated in third phase. Two or
three points were selected for curves at important places, and then the model was
calculated.
21
3.3 3D Model design
The models were built in finite element software of 3D Plaxis foundation. Then earth
gravity was assigned as 9.80 m/s2 and unit weight of water was 10kN/m3. Dimensions of
model have been assigned as X -40-50, Y (-80)-0 and Z -10-50.
Dimensions of deep excavation were 24m wide, 60m long and 20m depth, but the
model was simulated for a quarter of the above with 12m wide and 30m long section.
Diaphragm wall panels and cross wall panels have been assigned by geometry lines.
Materials were assigned to those clusters at the calculation stage. 20kpa surcharge load has
been assigned along the side of the model with 20m width at surface. Diaphragm wall was
40m deep and analyzed for 30m and 26m also. Cross walls have been assigned in base of
the excavation with 20m deep and analyzed for cross wall depths 10m 8m 6m and 4m.
Temporary steel struts were assigned in excavation area with 5m vertical spacing and 6m
horizontal spacing, First strut was assigned 1m below the surface and then assigned 5m
spacing at 6m,11m and 16m levels. A simple joint was assigned in between two diaphragm
wall panels with 50mm clay thickness. Uniform and homogeneous soft clay was used for
underground sub soil profile. Model mesh has been generated with coarse mesh for
reducing the calculating time. Ground water level has been modeled at ground surface and
remains as hydrostatic outside the excavation
Only one construction phase was assigned in the model. All soil clusters in excavation
were deactivated and all struts were activated at once. Materials were assigned in the initial
face for diaphragm walls and cross walls. Finally, the model was calculated.
Structural input parameter
The diaphragm wall has been modeled as 1200mm thick wall and 6m long wall panels
with Mohr coulomb material model with concrete property and the cross wall have been
constructed as 1000mm wall with same Mohr Coulomb material as diaphragm wall.
Case (i)
Surrounding sub soil properties (clay)
ϒsat = ϒunsat = 17.5 kN/m3

Eref = 7000 kN/m2
Cref = 21 kN/m2
Φ = 20 ̊
Ψ=0
Ѵ = 0.3
Rinter = 0.65
22
Diaphragm wall and cross walls
ϒsat = ϒunsat = 24 kN/m3

Eref = 2.8X107 kN/m2
Cref = 6000 kN/m2
Tension cut off = 3000 kN/m2
Φ = 45 ̊
Ψ=0
Ѵ = 0.15
Kx=Ky=1.000E-7
Material type = Drained
Rinter = 0.65
Case (ii)
In this case, Singapore sub soil profile has been used as surrounding soil in 3D plaxis
model. Figure 3.14 shows the subsoil profile at underground railway station in Singapore.
One borehole data has been used to model the soil profile, and also soil parameters have
been taken according to the “Minimum Requirement of Geotechnical Design Parameter”
of land transport authority in Singapore shown in table 3.2. Dimensions of cross walls and
diaphragm walls are same as previous and also all other properties remain same.
Strut stiffness
The strut stiffness of 210,000kN/m/m run ( this is an equivalent to an area of 0.040m2;

based on an E of 200GPa, width of excavation of 16m and a spacing of 5m) has been
adopted for all the temporary struts.
ϒ = 78 kN/m3
Eref = 2.0X108 kN/m2
I3 = 1.310E-04 m4
I2 = 1.370E-03 m4
Ѵ = 0.1
A = 0.04 m2
Material model = linear
23
CHAPTER 4
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Result of the study is presented and discussed with regard to five influencing parameters
i.e. Lateral load on diaphragm wall at excavation depths, joint infill, effect of amount of
support to the diaphragm wall, effect of the joint shape, non uniform earth pressure
distribution along the diaphragm wall. In this study, stress data is taken from Plaxis 2D and
manipulated in surfer and Microsoft Excel for better understanding. Compressive stress is
taken as negative and tension stresses taken as positive in result presentation
4.1 Behavior of diaphragm wall panels on load.
In this Horizontal section modeling in Plaxis 2D, all structural and surrounded soil have
been assigned as soil element, hence surrounded soil was assigned as soft clay with very
low stiffness and structural elements such as cross wall and diaphragm wall were assigned
as concrete with high stiffness value. Normally, diaphragm wall was constructed as panel
by panel, and then the joint between these two panels was modeled by geometry lines with
interface element. Very thin soft clay was assigned for interface material along the joint to
represent the weak contact.
4.1.1 Cross walls supported for all diaphragm wall panels (type 01)
Displacement
All diaphragm wall panels supported by cross walls under the excavation bottom, cross
walls are working as base struts to prevent diaphragm wall’s inward movement and basal
heave. These cross walls are supported at middle of the diaphragm wall panel. Figure 4.1
shows deformed diaphragm wall panels under 445kPa uniform lateral load. All diaphragm
wall panels are displaced towards the excavation, the minimum displacement is showing at
the middle of diaphragm wall panel and gradually increasing displacement with distance
from the center of the cross wall until panel edge and the Maximum displacement is two
times larger than with the displacement at diaphragm wall middle.
According to the Plaxis 2D horizontal model, there are two zones along the joint. One is
compression zone which is situated at loading side and other one is pop open up zone.
Figure4.2 shows a joint of diaphragm wall panels in deformed mesh with displacement
scaled up 1000 times. Stress distribution of diaphragm wall panel shows the two zones, one
is compression zone and the other is tension zone. These two zones are clearly shown in
Figure4.3. The joint key was under comparatively high load, the shear force at the key is
increased suddenly with four times increment shown in figure 4.4.
Shear force variation
Shear force distribution of diaphragm wall follows a general pattern, but the force is
localized at the joint key with large increment. Localized shear increment is not applied at
both ends in primary panel, but successive panel has localized dramatic shear increment at
flange side (figure4.4a). There are shear force increments in both flange sides of ending
panel (figure4.5a). The shear force has linear change in diaphragm wall along the
supporting area of cross wall and achieving same amount with opposite sign.
24
Bending moment variation
Bending moment of diaphragm wall panel has the same effect of shear force at flange
key. In the primary panel, bending moment is increasing until middle of the wall panel.
The peak value is at middle of the wall panel and both ends’ moments are zero. But in
successive panel, there is a little opposite bending moment at the flange side (figure4.6).
The little opposite moment is resulted by compression of the joint’s upper portion. Ending
plate has two flange sides with the same pattern of bending moment variation with
opposite increment at both sides. Figure4.7 shows the bending moment variation along
ending panel.
4.1.2 Cross walls supported for alternative diaphragm wall panels (type 02)
Displacement
The minimum displacement of the diaphragm wall panel is shown at the middle of cross
wall supported. Displacement is increasing gradually along two panels till middle of the
unsupported panel, then again it decreases. The maximum displacement is shown at the
middle of the unsupported diaphragm wall panel with nine times increment with the
minimum displacement. Relative displacements between joint and middle of the panel of
supported and unsupported diaphragm wall panels are 8.028mm, 5.29mm respectively.
Figure 4.8 shows the deformed diaphragm wall panels with 100 times scaled up
Effective stress distribution pattern in diaphragm wall panel is completely different from
section 4.1.1. The place of compression zone in diaphragm wall panel is different from
supported wall to unsupported wall. The tension zone is at soil side in supported panel and
excavation side in unsupported panel, and also compression zone is opposite side with
tension. Variation of effective stress is shown in Figure 4.9. The maximum tension is
3MPa at the middle of the supported diaphragm wall panel near soil interface under
445kPa lateral load.
Shear force variation along the diaphragm wall at 30m lateral pressure shows complex
behavior than the previous section. In the supported panel, shear force is moderately high
value at the joint flange, and then the force first decreases and gradually increases until the
edge of the supported cross wall, thereafter force get opposite sign at the other edge of the
cross wall with sudden draw down and wave in between. Shear force has 13 times increase
in comparison to type 01 at joint flange of unsupported wall panel. And axial force also
gets 18 times increase at this joint according to the Plaxis 2D model. Gentle shear force
variation is shown along unsupported wall panel and again suddenly increasing at joint.
Figure 4.10 shows the shear force variation along three diaphragm wall panels. If one cross
wall is removed to increase the span of the cross walls, shear force and axial forces at the
joint are increased by significant amount which exceeds the allowable limit.
25
According to the model’s result, bending moment is shown in Figure 4.11. Bending
moment is zero at the joint and increases along wall panel till the middle of the supported
cross wall and the peak bending moment increases 11 times with type 01 at the middle,
then the moment gradually decreases to zero at the joint. Unsupported diaphragm wall
panel has negative moment along the panel with higher moment of 30% of the maximum
moment at the middle of the panel. Normally diaphragm wall panels are designed with the
allowable bending moment lower than 5500kNm/m according to panel dimensions and
amount of reinforcement. Removing one base strut cross wall to increase the span critically
affects the stability of the supported panel. There is a possibility of structural failure of
diaphragm wall at the supported point by cross wall at 30m depth (445kPa lateral load).
4.1.3 Cross walls supported after every three diaphragm wall panels
The analysis carried out with diaphragm wall panels supported by cross wall after every
three panels. Displacement of the diaphragm wall is very high, that was 0.5m, even though
panel joints are as strong as concrete. In this analysis, Joint shape does not show any
significant effect for displacement of the diaphragm wall panels. The amount of support is
not enough to resist the lateral load, even uniform horizontal stress is 301kPa along the
diaphragm wall. According to this analysis, the deepest excavation depth is 6m (100kPa) to
withstand with this supporting configuration; the maximum displacement is 26.7mm at the
middle joint. Figure 4.12 shows the deformed mesh of the analysis with joint stiffness as
concrete in 20m. Both unsupported middle diaphragm wall panels freely rotate. If there is a
rebar continuation along the joint, it can minimize wall displacement, but bending moment
at the supported panel could be very high. According to this analysis, it can be concluded
that the displacement leads to wall failure at the joint of middle two panels by lateral load,
because of insufficient support from cross walls for the diaphragm wall panels.
4.1.4 Corner panel with all panel supported by cross walls
The corner panel in diaphragm wall does not behave as same as other panels. Corner
panels are designed symmetrically having a length of 3.0m in one side. According to this
study, the corner panel has been rotated by middle axis of wall when adjacent panels were
supported asymmetrically. One side of the corner panel is pushed out from excavation and
the other side is pushed in to the excavation side. Figure4.13 shows the deformed mesh at a
corner panel on asymmetrically supported adjacent panels. If the corner panel and
supporting arrangement are symmetric, the panel shows smaller displacement than in other
diaphragm wall panel’s displacement at the joint. But stress concentration at excavation
side corner is much higher than other walls. However, the maximum bending moment of
corner panel is lower than bending moment acting on other wall panels.
4.1.5 Corner panel with alternative panel supported
The behavior of corner panel in alternative diaphragm wall panel supported by cross
wall is partially different from other panel. The maximum Shear force and bending
moment of a corner panel are smaller than maximum bending moment or shear force in
other panels. The highest bending moment is shown in cross wall supported diaphragm
wall panel and the lowest bending moment is shown in middle unsupported panel. But
unsupported cornel panel’s bending moment shows an intermediate value. Normally
26
bending moment and shear force values are lower at corner panel by arching effect in clay.
Figure 4.14 shows effective stress distribution in clay.
4.2 Influence of the depth
Numerical simulations have been done varying the excavation depths from surface as
20m, 30m and 40m. The depth is represent by assigning a load at the top of the model, the
calculated load according to the depths are 301kPa, 445kPa and 590kPa respectively at
20m, 30m and 40m. The Influence of the depth is analyzed under conditions of uniform
load distribution along diaphragm wall, clay as joint interface material for joint strength
and normal CWS joint between diaphragm wall panels. Displacement, Shear force and
bending moment were compared with depth in two numerical simulations of all panel and
alternative panel supported by cross walls.
Joint displacement
Displacement at middle of wall panel and panels’ joint are growing linearly, but
displacement and increase are higher at the joint than at the middle of wall. Displacement
at the joint of type 01 is very small at the 40m excavation depth which is not significant
value for yielding. However, joint displacement is nearly five times higher in type 02.
Figure4.15 shows displacement variation at middle of the panel and at the joint with
respect to the excavation depth. Movement of the middle of the supported wall panel
grows with low magnitude. And also, displacement at middle of the panel in type 02 is
growing with considerably low magnitude. The maximum displacement is induced at the
joint of wall panels in type 01, but in type 02, it is shown at the middle of unsupported
panel.
Shear force variation along the diaphragm wall follows the same pattern in different
depth, but magnitude is increased with excavation depth. Relatively high shear forces are
induced in diaphragm wall panel at a flange side of the supported cross wall panel at the
joints. Figure4.16 shows the maximum shear force which vary according to excavation
depth; the graph shows approximately linear variation with depth. Very high shear stress is
induced at the flange of the joint, because area of the flange is smaller and also shear force
is very high at the flange. Figure 4.17 and Figure4.18 show shear force distribution along
diaphragm wall panels in type 01 and type 02 respectively. Shear forces acting on
unsupported wall panel is comparatively low with the supported panels. The maximum
shear force in alternative panel supported is increased nearly 10 times than all wall
supported. Hence shear force at flange is a critical factor in increasing span of the cross
wall.
According to this study, bending moment variation along diaphragm wall panels gradually
increases as the excavation depth increases. The maximum bending moment at 40m depth
excavated is 1989 kNm/m in type 01. Highest moment is induced at the middle of the
supported panel. An opposite moment induced in unsupported panel with 30% of the
maximum moment which is the peak at middle of the panel. The maximum bending
moment of diaphragm wall panel in type 02 is 14134kNm/m at 30m excavation depth,
27
even moment at 20m depth is also 8009kNm/m which is greater than normal designing
ultimate diaphragm wall moment capacity. Figure4.19 shows bending moment variation
with excavation depth along three diaphragm wall panels in type 01 and the Increment of
moment is only 1200kNm/m at 20m depth to 40m depth. However moment variation in
type 02 is not as same as type 01, bending moment increase is 6000kNm/m even 10m
excavation depth increase at 20m to 30m depth is shown in Figure4.20.
Axial stress
Axial stress distribution along diaphragm wall is not much higher in all diaphragm wall
panels supported by cross walls. According to these results, axial stresses are getting
relatively higher values at supported area and panel joints (Figure4.21); the maximum axial
stress of panel is shown at the joint. The Maximum axial stresses of different depths are
not showing linear growth, stress is increased until 30m depth then decreases at 40m due to
pop open up the joint by high lateral displacement near panel joints. But stresses at the
middle of panel are increasing gradually. Figure4.22 shows the maximum stresses
variation at middle of the panel and joint in type 01. However axial stress distribution in
type 02 is not as same as type 01. The maximum axial stress is induced in diaphragm wall
panel at corner of the supported cross wall and the value is increased 180 times than type
01 at same excavation depth. Figure4.23 shows the axial stress distribution along the
diaphragm wall in type 02. Axial stress is higher at supporting area and shows sudden
increase at joint, other area also stresses lay within +3000 to -3000kN/m2.
4.3 Influence of the joint infill
Three numerical simulations have been done varying the joint strength by assigning
interface materials along the joint in between two panels. This interface material is
represented as 10mm thickness of joint infill in between two diaphragm wall panels
Influence of the joint strength is analyzing under conditions of uniform load distribution
along diaphragm wall, 30m depth as excavation depth (445kPa lateral load) and normal
CWS joint between diaphragm wall panels. Displacement, Shear force and bending
moment are compared with depth in two numerical simulations of type 01 and type 02.
Joint displacement
Comparison of the joint strength with displacement is shown in Figure4.24. The lowest
relative displacement is induced in concrete assigned as joint interface material in type 01.
Relative displacement is slightly higher in soft clay interface material. There is no
significant relative displacement between Soft clay and stiff clay interfaces. However,
there is a considerably low relative displacement at 40m depth in type 02, even though
relative displacement at 20m and 30 depths are same for all joint interface materials in
alternative panel supported. Strength of the joint is not a considerable influence on relative
displacement.
Figure4.25 shows shear force distribution along three diaphragm wall panels in type 01.
Shear force variation in concrete interface material has a different shape from others,
because joint strength at concrete is higher than other materials Magnitude of shear force
does not considerably change with the joint strength. However, shear force variation in
28
type 02 is slightly different in concrete interface from other two interface materials. Shear
force variation in type 02 is shown in Figure4.26. Sudden increment of shear force in
flange gets cancelled at a harder joint which uses interface material as concrete. Shear
forces are getting lower when joint becomes hard in type 02.
It is clear that bending moment variation along diaphragm wall declines with the hard
joint. Figure4.27 shows bending moment variation along three panels in type 01. Rigidly
jointed panels have high opposite moment near the joint than weakly jointed panel. But
bending moment variations along diaphragm wall in type 02 do not show any opposite
moment near the joint. Bending moment graph of concrete interface follows the same
pattern of other two with low magnitude (Figure4.28). The strength of joint influences the
reduction of bending moment in alternative diaphragm wall panel supported by cross wall.
Axial stress
Stiff joints show low axial stress at joint in type 01 but in weak joints show large axial
stress increment at the joint. Figure4.29 shows the axial stress distribution along diaphragm
wall. The maximum axial stress of concrete interface at the supported panel in type 02 is
nearly half of axial stress induced at same wall with clay interface. Figure4.30 shows the
axial stress distribution along three diaphragm wall panels. It can be concluded that the
hard joint reduces axial force in diaphragm wall.
4.4 Influence of the joint shape
Four numerical simulations have been done varying the joint shape by assigning
geometry line along joint in between two panels and assigned interface with material to
disconnect the diaphragm wall continuation. Normal CWS joint, semicircular joint by stop
end pipe, v shape joint and inclined CWS joint with angle 1:4. Influence of the joint shape
is analyzing under conditions of uniform load distribution along diaphragm wall, 20m
depth as excavation depth (301kPa lateral load) and clay as interface material for joint
strength. Displacement, Shear force and bending moment compared with depth in two
numerical simulations of type 01 and type 02.
Joint displacement
Relative displacement of panel joint with reference to the panel middle according to
joint shape is shown in Figure4.31. It is clear that the joint shape is not influence for
relative displacement in panel except c type joint. Because, there are thin edges in B- type
joints which have more displacement. These thin edges are under high shear stress and
more displacement lead to shear failure of wall panel. Hence, all other cases of B-type
joints failed except type 01 at 20m excavation depth. Relative displacement of other three
joint shapes follows the same pattern in all wall panel supported by cross wall. And also
relative displacements in type 02 do not show significant variation with joint shapes.
According to this study, joint shape does not influence relative displacement.
29
Stress concentration at joints
The stress is calculated by using strain components and young’s modulus. Equivalent
resulted strain is calculated by using two components, and then multiplies by young’s
modulus to get the acting stress. The stress is drawn with coordinates by surfer software.
Figure 4.41a show stress distribution at joint in semi circular joint shape in type 01 and
Figure 4.41b shows stress distribution in type 02. These figures show that high stresses
concentrated at excavation side of thin flange of joint. This high stress concentration leads
to shear failure of joint, hence all simulated depths (20m-40m) have failed in alternative
panel supported, and also 30m and 40m excavation depths failed even though all wall
panels were supported. According to this study, the most unstable joint is B-type joint
(semicircular joint).
Figure4.42a shows stress distribution at the V-shape joint in 20m excavation depth of
type 01. And also stress distribution at 20m excavation depth in type 02 is shown in
Figure4.42b. High stress concentration is shown at soil side of the joint in type 01, but
stress concentration in type 02is laying across the joint with inclination to the wall axis.
Other two joint shapes also show same stress variation with slight differences, but
generally these three joint shapes show same stress distribution at the joints. Figure4.43a, b
shows the stress distribution at CWS joint on type 01and type 02. According to this study,
the best joint shape is inclined CWS joint, because all excavation depths of type 02 are
fully reached to prescribed ultimate state. Stress distribution at 20m excavation depth is
shown in figure4.44a, b for type 01and type 02.
Figure4.32 shows shear force variation along diaphragm wall panels. The maximum
shear force varies according to joint shape shown in figure4.33. The relatively minimum
shear force is shown at the inclined CWS joint (A-type) and the maximum shear force is
shown at the semicircular joint (B-type).in type 01. Shear force induced at CWS joint (C-
type) is lower than shear force induced at V-shape joint (D-type). And also shear force
variation in type 02 is following same pattern in all shape, but maximum shear force
different with the shape. Figure4.34 shows the maximum shear force variation of wall
panel. The minimum shear force variation shows in inclined CWS joint and the maximum
shear force variation at the V-shape joint. All excavation depths with semicircular joint
failed and both cases of 30m and 40m excavation depths are failed in V-shape joint.
Figure4.35 shows shear stress variation along diaphragm wall with four shapes of joints.
According to this study, joint shapes are control maximum shear force induced at joints,
the minimum shear force induced at inclined CWS joints.
Bending moment variations along wall panel do not show big difference with the joint
shapes. But bending moment variation with inclined CWS joint shows slightly high
moment in one panel and slightly lower in other panel; this variation is caused by angle
orientation. When the angles of joints are inward, slightly high moment is induced at
middle of the panel, and panel with outward angles shows slightly lower moment at the
middle of panel. Figure4.36 shows the bending moment variation in diaphragm wall with
all panels supported. However, bending moment variation in type 02 shows low bending
moment induced in diaphragm wall with inclined CWS joint (Figure4.37). Bending
30
moment of other joints shapes show same slightly high variation along three panels.
Figure4.38 shows the maximum bending moment induced in panel with joint shapes. The
maximum moment of diaphragm wall with inclined CWS joint is lower than other joints.
The joint shape slightly influences the bending moment of wall panels.
Axial stress
The lowest axial stress variation is shown in diaphragm wall with semicircular joint,
even though it is the most unstable joint in these four joints. Figure4.39 shows axial stress
variation along diaphragm wall with type 01. The maximum axial force is shown in V-
shape joint, bending moment at C-type joint is also slightly behind it. Moment induced in
diaphragm wall with inclined CWS joint shows moderately a low value. Though, the
lowest maximum bending moment is shown in inclined CWS type jointed diaphragm wall.
Diaphragm wall with C-type and D-type joints are showing the same moment variation
along panels with higher maximum bending moment (Figure4.40). Joint shape shows a
considerable influence in axial stress in diaphragm wall panels.
4.5 Influence of the lateral load distribution
Three numerical simulations have been done varying the loading condition by assigning
uniform load, uneven load distribution with 100kPa load difference between both sides and
different soil zones of stiff and soft clay. Influence of the lateral load distribution is
analyzed under conditions of clay as interface material for joint strength, 30m depth as
excavation depth (445kPa lateral load) and normal CWS joint between diaphragm wall
panels. Displacement, Shear force and bending moment are compared with depth in two
numerical simulations of type 01 and type 02.
Shear force acting in diaphragm wall on different loading conditions do not show
considerable difference between each loading condition in type 01, same shear force
variation is shown in each loading condition. Figure4.45 shows shear force variation along
diaphragm wall panels. However, relative shear force increments in diaphragm wall panels
show a small difference in type 02. Relative increments of shear forces are shown when
shear forces reach the maximum point and the minimum point. Shear force variation along
diaphragm wall in type 02 is shown in Figure4.46. Relatively higher shear force is shown
at higher loading condition and lower shear force shown in stiff soil layer. Lateral load
variation along diaphragm wall is not affecting considerably when type 01, but there is a
slight influence in shear force variation in type 02.
Figure4.47 shows bending moment variation along three diaphragm wall panels under
different lateral load conditions in type 01. As discussed in shear force variation, bending
moment variations also show the same behavior. But same moment variation shows along
the wall panel except maximum point in all loading condition. Bending moment variations
in type 02 also show the same behavior as type 01. But differences of the maximum
moment of each loading condition in type 02 are higher than in type 01 (Figure 4.48).
31
Axial stress
Axial stress variations along diaphragm wall according to loading condition are not
same as shear force or bending moment variation. Figure4.49 shows the axial stress
variation in three wall panels on type 01. There is no relative variation of axial stress in
different soil zones compared with uniform load distribution. But there is a big maximum
axial stress variation in uneven load distribution. The maximum axial stress in single panel
acts at joint flange; it shows low stress at low lateral load, then stress increases gradually at
flange in every panel with increase of load. But axial force variation in type 02 is showing
that both axial forces of uneven load and different soils are increasing with load increasing
and increasing of softness of soil. Not only the maximum axial stress and also general axial
stresses are higher on high lateral earth pressure. Figure4.50 shows axial stress variation
along diaphragm wall panels in type 02.
4.6 Results of 3D analysis
Plaxis 3D simulations were done to analyze basal heave of deep excavations with cross
wall as base strut. These simulations were carried out for three soil conditions. First, Soft
soil was extended to lower than the diaphragm wall tip. Second, diaphragm wall was
anchored to the stiff soil layer. Finally, general sub soil profile was used in simulation at
one of the underground railway station. And also several 3D simulations have been carried
out by varying diaphragm wall’s embedment depth and depth of the cross wall.
Comparatively high basal heave is shown in simulation with soft soil extended below
the diaphragm wall tip. The maximum basal heave is reduced by 18% when increasing
diaphragm wall embedment depth 4m to 20m. And also it is reduced with 44% when cross
wall depth is increasing 4m to 10m. Number of cross walls also controls the maximum
basal heave, the maximum basal heave is increased by 20% when supported cross walls
change to type 01 to type 02. Figure 4.51 shows total displacement in soft soil with type 02
supporting system.
When diaphragm wall is anchored to stiff soil layer with 2m, the maximum basal heave
is reduced by 84% in comparison to soft soil simulation shown in figure 4.52. Basal heave
in Singapore subsoil profile is only 10cm at 20m excavation depth even with supported
alternative wall panels shown in figure 4.53. Then the basal heave is not a problem in
skipping a cross wall from base strut.
32
CHAPTER 5
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the results of the Plaxis 2D model and Plaxis 3D foundation models for
checking a possibility to omit a cross wall which is supported to diaphragm wall panels
from base strut, the pertinent conclusions which can be reached are outlined below.
 Alternative wall panel supporting in base strut is not possible with the same
diaphragm wall dimensions which are used for all panels supported, because
induced bending moment in supported wall panel is 11 times higher than all wall
panels supported. But there is a possibility to support alternative diaphragm wall
panels by cross walls with several modifications of diaphragm wall. A cross wall
supporting every three panels is not possible even in 6m excavation depth due to
large displacement of the wall.
 Large displacement at the joint is caused to shear failure in joint flange the most
unstable joint is semicircular joint then V- shape joint, CWS joint, and most
stable joint inclined CWS joint.
 Joint displacement and shear force do not change but bending moment and axial
force decrease by 30% when joint strength increases from clay infill to concrete
infill
 Load distributions along diaphragm wall show less effect on bending moment,
shear force or joint displacement, but axial force shows big variation with non
uniform load distributions.
 Alternative panel supporting in base strut can be used at 20m depth with high
bending moment capacity diaphragm wall. But in 30m or 40m depth are not
economical alternative panel supporting than all wall panels supporting.
 According to the 3D simulations, the maximum basal heave is increased by 20%

in alternative panel supported by cross wall than all wall panels supported. The
basal heave is not a problem to omit a cross wall.
33
5.2 Recommendations
In order to determine a better response of diaphragm wall on alternative panel supported

by cross walls it is essential to have a clear understanding about the shear strength and joint
stiffness of the panel joint. Hence, diaphragm wall panel Joint’s strength should be
analyzed by lab test for shear resistance with different axial load. These stiffness data can
be used to analyze on PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION with plate element or soil element.
Use horizontal section modeling in 2D Plaxis with different joint angles to find the best
inclination of the joint.
Use stress condition at joint to model new joint which is mechanically stable by
structural design soft ware.
It is recommended to verify simulated data of Plaxis model with field monitoring data.
34
REFERENCE
American Society of Civil Engineers Jet Grouting Guideline Geo-Institute of Asce

Grouting Committee Jet Grouting Task Force
Bilfinger Berger Diaphragm Walls, Cut-Off Wallsand Slurry Walls
Bird M.I., Pang W.C., Lambeck K. (2006) the Age and Origin of the Straits of Singapore
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology Vol 241 Pp531–538
Bolton M. D. (1993) Mechanisms of Ground Deformation Due To Excavation in Clay

Excavation in Urban Areas
David J. Bentler Review and Analysis of Published Data on Performance of Deep

Excavation Support Systems
Durgunoglu H. T., Kulac H.T., Oruc K. and Eker F. S. A Case History of Jet Grout
Column Application in Turkey
Ergun M. U. Deep Excavations
Hsieh H. S., Lu Y. C. and Lin T. M. (2008) Effects of Joint Details On The Behavior Of
Cross Walls Journal Of Geoengineering, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 55-60
Jaritngam S. (2003) Design Concept of the Soil Improvement for Road Construcion on
Soft Clay Proceedings Of The Eastern Asia Society For Transportation Studies,
Vol.4, pp313-322
Karlsrud K. And Myrvoll F. Performance of a Strutted Excavation in Quick-Clay
Karlsrud K. Performance and Design of Slurry Walls in Soft Clay Asce Spring Convention
Karlsrud K. Practical Experience from the Excavation of Slurry Trenches in Oslo Clay
Kozlowski A., Kowalczyk R. and Gizejowski M. (2008) Estimation of the Initial Stiffness
and Moment Resistance of Steel and Composite Joints Ctbuh 8th World Congress
Lee T. S., Jackson T. and Anderson R. R. Innovative Designs of Seismic Retrofitting the
Posey & Webster Street Tubes, Oakland/Alameda, California
Liao H. J., Lin C. C. And Huang C. J. (2008) Modeling The Effect Of Ground
Improvement On Reducing Movement During Bermed Excavation In Clay Journal
Of The Chinese Institute Of Engineers, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 81-93
Ou C. Y., Lin Y. L. And Hsieh P. G. (2006) Case Record of an Excavation with Cross
Walls and Buttress Walls Journal of Geoengineering, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 79-86
Parkinson J., Davies J. (2006) Temporary Cofferdam Used For Pumping Station
Construction after Collapse of Diaphragm Wall International Symposium on
Underground Excavation and Tunneling pp 425-432
35
Piu C. M. (2005) Analysis and Modeling of Grouting and Its Application in Civil
Engineering University Of Southern Queensland Faculty of Engineering and
Surveying
Razek M. E. A. E. New Mthod for Construction of Diaphragm Walls
Sakai K., Tazaki K., Kamenoi T. (2006) Development of Ns-Box Diaphragm Wall and
Applications to Bangkok Metro International Symposium on Underground
Excavation and Tunneling
Shirlaw J.N., Tan T. S. and Wong K. S. (2005) Deep Excavations in Singapore Marine
Clay
Tan T. S., Goh T. L., and Yong K. Y.(2002) Properties Of Singapore Marine Clays
Improved By Cement Mixing Geotechnical Testing Journal Vol. 25, No. 4
Tanaka H., Locat J., Shibuya S., Soon T. T. And Shiwakoti D. R. (2000) Characterization
of Singapore, Bangkok, and Ariake Clays Nrc Research Press Web Site
Thansnanipan N., Maung A. W., Aye Z. Z., Boonyarak C. S. T. Construction Of

Diaphragm Wall For Basement Excavation Adjacent To Tunnels In Bangkok
Subsoil International Symposium On Underground Excavation And Tunneling
Thasnanipan N., Maung A. W. And Baskaran G. (2000) Diaphragm Wall And Barrette
Construction For Thiam Ruam Mit Station Box, Mrt Chaloem Ratchamongkhon
Line, Bangkok An International Conference On Geotechnical And Geological
Engineering
Thomas D. Richards (2006) Diaphragm Walls Nicholson Construction Company, Cuddy,

Pennsylvania
Wang J. G., Oh B., Lim S. W. And Kumar G. S (1998) Studies on Soil Disturbance Caused
By Grouting In Treating Marine Clay International Conference on Ground
Improvement Techniques pp 521-528
Wang J. H., Xu Z. H. And Wang W. D. Wall and Ground Movements Due To Deep
Excavations in Shanghai Soft Soils Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering pp 985-994
Xiao H. W., And Lee F. H. (2009) Curing Time Effect on Behavior of Cement Treated
Marine Clay International Journal of Mathematical, Physical and Engineering
Sciences
Zhong X., Zhu W., Huang Z. and Han Y. Effect of Joint Structure on Joint Stiffness for
Shield Tunnel Lining
36
Tables
37
Table .2.1 Characterization of Ariake, Singapore, and Bangkok clays (H. Tanaka et al)
Table 3.1 Cases of analysis

Joint shape Interfaces cross wall supported load distribution depths
inclined CWS joint
(A type) very soft clay all Dwall panels different soil zones 20m
circular joint alternative Dwall
(B type) Stiff clay panels uniform load 30m
CWS joint concrete half uneven load
(C type) stiffness after three panels distribution 40m
V shape joint corner panel all Dwall
(D type) panel supported
corner panel alternative
Dwall panel supported
Table 3.2 Minimum design parameters of Singapore sub soil (land transport
authority Singapore)
38
Figures
39
Fig.2.1 Construction sequences of diaphragm wall (Manish Kumar)
Fig 2.2 Configuration of cross wall as a base struts in deep excavation (C. Y. Ou)
40
Fig. 2.3a In-situ constructed cross wall before excavate
41
Fig. 2.3b Cross wall after excavate until end level of 30m excavation depth
42
Fig.2.4 Cross wall joint systems with diaphragm wall panels (C. Y. Ou et.al. ).
Fig.2.5 Stop end pipes for using in diaphragm wall panel joints
(www.p3planningengineer.com)
43
Fig. 2.6 Plan view of constructed diaphragm wall panels with stop end pipe
Fig 2.7 Pre-cast reinforced concrete joint panels (www.p3planningengineer.com)
Fig.2.8 Steel stop end plate element of CWS joint (www.p3planningengineer.com)
44
Fig 2.9 Plan view of CWS joint with two rubber sealer
Fig. 2.10 Triangular stop end joint element with rubber sealer
(www.p3planningengineer.com).
Fig 2.11 Plan view of diaphragm wall panels with Triangular joint
45
Fig. 2.12 Construction of over cutting joint in diaphragm wall panel
(www.p3planningengineer.com)
Diaphragm Wall
Strut
Base strut
Fig. 2.13 Section view of deep excavation with base strut by jet grouting
46
Fig.2.14 Compressive Strength variation of grouted soil (H. baker)
Diaphragm Wall
Weak spots
Base strut by jet grouting
Fig. 2.15 Plan view of jet grouted base in whole excavation for base strut
47
Diaphragm Wall
Weak location
Base strut by jet grouting
Fig. 2.16 Plan view of strip grouted base
Fig. 2.17 Block type grouting as base strut (C. Y. Ou)
48
Fig. 2.18 Column type grouting for base strut ( Chang Yu Ou)
Fig. 2.19 Wall type grouting in excavation as struts (C. Y. Ou)
Fig 2.20 Singapore sub soil system
49
Fig.2.21 CPT values distribution in Singapore clay with depth (H. Tanaka)
Fig 2.22 Pressure distribution at retaining wall (a) distribution of gross earth pressure and
(b) force equilibrium of the retaining wall as free body (C. Y. Ou)
50
Fig 2.23 Overall shear failures as flow heave in soft soil (C. Y. Ou)
(a) (b)
Fig 2.24 Failure surfaces on overall shear failure (a) Terzaghi’s method (b) modified
Terzaghi’s method (Shirlaw et al).
51
Fig 2.25 Maximum settlement with depth variation and soil type (peck 1969)
Fig 2.26 Comparisons of 2D and 3D soil element (Brinkgreve, 2004)
52
Bending moment
1000
800
Bending moment (kNm/m)
Manually calculated
600
Taken by plate element
400
200
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-200
-400
-600
-800
Distance (m)
Fig. 3.1 Bending moment variation along diaphragm wall panel by plate element and
manually calculated
Bending moment difference

30
20
moment value deference (kNm/m)
10
0 10^3
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10^4
-10
10^5
-20 10^6
-30 10^7
10^8
-40
-50
-60
Distance (m)
Fig 3.2 Comparison of variation in Bending moments difference on stiffness reduction

factor with reference 10^8.
53
0.3m
0.4m
Diaphragm wall Diaphragm wall
primary panel secondary panel
1.2m 0.4m
5m
0.27
0.4m
Fig 3.3 Assigned joint in 2D Plaxis for inclined CWS joint for new propose (A type)
Diaphragm wall Diaphragm wall

primary panel secondary panel
1.2m
0.6m
0.6m
Fig 3.4 Assigned joint in 2D Plaxis for semicircular joint when using stop end pipe(B-type)
0.375m
Diaphragm wall
primary panel
0.05m
1.2m 0.275m
0.35m Diaphragm wall
secondary panel
0.05m
0.375m
Fig 3.5 Assigned joint in 2D Plaxis for CWS joint when using steel stop end element
(C type)
54
0.3m
Diaphragm wall
primary panel
0.3m
1.2m 0.3m Diaphragm wall

secondary panel
0.3m
0.3m
Fig 3.6 Assigned joint in 2D Plaxis for V shape joint when using steel stop end element
(D type)
Fig 3.7 Plaxis 2D model of all diaphragm wall panels supported by cross walls
55
Fig 3.8 Plaxis 2D model of alternative diaphragm wall panels supported by cross walls
Fig 3.9 Plaxis 2D model of diaphragm wall panels supported by cross walls after every
three panels
56
Fig 3.10 Plaxis 2D model of all diaphragm wall panels supported by cross walls at
excavation corner
Fig 3.11 Plaxis 2D model of alternative diaphragm wall panels supported by cross walls at
excavation corner
57
351kPa 251kPa
Fig 3.12 Plaxis 2D model of all diaphragm wall panels supported by cross walls at non
uniform load distribution at 20m depth
20kPa
Lateral pressure
by surcharge load
Lateral pressure
by soil
20m
Water pressure
30m
Total pressure
40m
Fig 3.13 Lateral earth pressure distribution along the diaphragm wall
58
3.14 Sub soil profile at one of underground railway station in Singapore
59
Fig 4.1 Deform mesh in 2D plaxis under 445kPa load distribution of all diaphragm wall
panel supported by cross walls.
Fig 4.2 Displaced joint under 445kPa load distribution of all diaphragm wall panel
supported by cross walls (1000 times scaled up).
60
Fig. 4.3 Effective stress distribution along diaphragm wall panels in all diaphragm wall
panels supported by cross walls
Fig. 4.4 Shear force variation along successive panel of diaphragm wall with all wall
panels supported
61
Fig. 4.5 Shear force variation along end panel of diaphragm wall with all wall panels
supported
Fig. 4.6 Bending moment variation along successive panel of diaphragm wall with all wall
panels supported
62
Fig. 4.7 Bending moment variation along end panel of diaphragm wall with all wall panels
supported
Fig. 4.8 Deformed mesh of diaphragm wall in alternative panel supported with 100 times
scaled up
63
Fig. 4.9 Effective stress distribution along diaphragm wall panels in alternative wall panels
supported by cross walls
Fig. 4.10 Shear force variation along three diaphragm wall panels in alternative panels
supported by cross walls.
64
Fig. 4.11 Bending moment variation along three diaphragm wall panels in alternative
Fig. 4.12 Deform mesh in alternative panels supported with joint stiffness as concrete at
20m excavation depth
65
Fig. 4.13 Deformed mesh at a corner panel on asymmetrically supported adjacent panels at
20m excavation depth.
Fig. 4.14 Effective stress distribution in clay
66
Fig. 4.15 Displacement variation at middle of the panel and at the joint according to the
excavation depth
Fig. 4.16 The maximum shear force variation with depths
67
Fig. 4.17 Shear force variation along diaphragm wall with all wall panels supported by
cross walls
Fig. 4.18 Shear force variation along diaphragm wall with alternative wall panels
68
Fig. 4.19 Bending moment variation along diaphragm wall with all wall panels supported
by cross walls
Fig. 4.20 Bending moment variation along diaphragm wall with alternative wall panels
69
Fig. 4.21 Axial stress variation along diaphragm wall with all wall panels supported by
cross walls
Fig. 4.22 Maximum axial stresses variation at panel’s middle and panel’s joint diaphragm
wall with all wall panels supported by cross walls
70
Fig. 4.23 Axial stress variation along diaphragm wall with alternative wall panels
Fig. 4.24 Relative displacement variations at the joint with reference to the panel middle
according to different joint strengths.
71
Fig. 4.25 Shear force distribution along three diaphragm wall panels in all wall panels
supported
Fig. 4.26 Shear force variation along three diaphragm wall panels in alternative panels
supported by cross walls with different joint strengths.
72
Fig. 4.27 Bending moment variation along three diaphragm wall panels in all panels
supported by cross walls with different joint strengths.
Fig. 4.28 Bending moment variation along three diaphragm wall panels in alternative
panels supported by cross walls with different joint strengths
73
Fig. 4.29 Axial stress distribution along three diaphragm wall panels in all wall panels
Fig. 4.30 Axial stress distribution along three diaphragm wall panels in alternative wall
74
Fig. 4.31 Relative displacement variations with joint shapes in all wall and alternative wall
Fig. 4.32 Shear force distribution along three diaphragm wall panels with different joint
shapes in all wall panels supported by cross walls
75
Fig. 4.33 Maximum shear force variation with different joint shapes in all wall panels
supported by cross walls at 20m depth
Fig. 4.34 Maximum shear force variation with different joint shapes in alternative wall
76
Fig. 4.35 Shear force distribution along three diaphragm wall panels with different joint
shapes in alternative wall panels supported by cross walls
Fig. 4.36 Bending moment distribution along three diaphragm wall panels with different
joint shapes in all wall panels supported by cross walls
77
joint shapes in alternative wall panels supported by cross walls
Fig. 4.38 Maximum bending moment variation with joint shapes in alternative wall panels
78
Fig. 4.39 Axial stress distribution along three diaphragm wall panels with different joint
shapes in all wall panels supported by cross walls
Fig. 4.40 Axial stress distribution along three diaphragm wall panels with different joint
shapes in alternative wall panels supported by cross walls
79
Fig. 4.41 Resulting stress distribution around semicircular joint.
80
Fig. 4.42 Resulted stress distribution around V-shape joint
81
Fig. 4.43 Resulted stress distribution around CWS joint
82
Fig. 4.44 Resulted stress distribution around inclined CWS joint
83
Fig. 4.45 Shear force distribution along three diaphragm wall panels with different lateral
loads in all wall panels supported by cross walls
Fig. 4.46 Shear force distribution along three diaphragm wall panels with different lateral
loads in alternative wall panels supported by cross walls
84
lateral loads in all wall panels supported by cross walls
lateral loads in alternative wall panels supported by cross walls
85
Fig. 4.49 Axial stress distribution along three diaphragm wall panels with different lateral
loads in all wall panels supported by cross walls
Fig. 4.50 Axial stress distribution along three diaphragm wall panels with different lateral
loads in alternative wall panels supported by cross walls
86
Fig. 4.51 Total displacement of soft soil model at 20m excavation depth with alternative
wall panels supported.
Fig. 4.52 Total displacement of diaphragm wall anchored to stiff soil layer at 20m
excavation depth with alternative wall panels supported.
87
Fig. 4.53 Total displacement of Singapore sub soil model at 20m excavation depth with
alternative wall panels supported.
88

Thesis Chanaka HGDDD (109646)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis Chanaka HGDDD (109646)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EVALUATION ON BEHAVIOR OF DIAPHRAGM WALLS IN DEEP

EXCAVATIONS WITH CROSS-WALLS AS BASE STRUTS

Hewa Garusinghe Dapana Durage Dimal Chanaka

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Examination Committee: Dr. Noppadol Phien-wej (Chairperson)

Nationality: Sri Lankan

Scholarship Donor: AIT fellowship

School of Engineering and Technology

I am heartily thankful to my supervisor, Dr. Noppadol Phien-wej whose encouragement,

I owe my deepest gratitude to Ms Anjula B N Dassanayake and my parents and family

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 1

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 3

2.1 General review ...................................................................................................... 3

3.1 General ................................................................................................................ 16

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................. 24

4.1 Behavior of diaphragm wall panels on load. ...................................................... 24

5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .......................................................... 33

5.1 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 33

TABLE NO TITLE PAGE

1.1 Characterization of Ariake, Singapore, and Bangkok clays 38

FIGURE NO TITLE PAGE

2.1 Construction sequences of diaphragm wall 40

1.3 Objectives of the study

1. Stress distribution of deep excavation with diaphragm wall.

1.4 Scope of the study

2.2 Deep excavation

2.3 Types of deep excavation supporting system

 Braced walls, soldier pile and lagging walls

Diaphragm walls are in situ constructed in slurry supported, concrete or reinforced

2.4.1 Construction of the diaphragm wall

Separately constructed joints

High-pressure grouting joints

Partition plate joints

2.5 Types of joints

2.5.1 Steel stop end pipe

2.5.2 Pre-cast reinforced concrete panel

2.5.3 Steel joint element

2.5.4 Over cutting panel joint

2.6 Jet grouting

Jet grouting is a soil modification technique which is an injection of cement water

2.7 Base strutting

The cross wall constructed as diaphragm wall without reinforcement is becoming

(1) Block type

2.9 Possible failure modes

2.9.1 Base stability

2.9.1.1 Overall shear failure

2.9.1.2 Hydraulic basal stability

2.9.2 Wall movements

Peck (1969) introduced a dimensionless number, Nb = γH/Cub, where Cub is the

2.10 Influencing factors of stability

Prompt support installation

(David J. Bentler, Peck (1969) emphasized the importance of workmanship in the

(David J. Bentler , Goldberg et al. (1976)) included temperature-induced strain as a

2.11.1 General Description

An elastic-plastic model is used in PLAXIS to describe the behavior of interfaces for

2.11.2 Type of element

2.12 PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION

2.12.1 General Description

The PLAXIS3D FOUNDATION program is a special purpose three-dimensional finite

2.12.2 Type of Element

2.12.3 Material Model