International Journal of Civil Engineering (2019) 17:659–672

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-019-00391-9

RESEARCH PAPER

Numerical Modelling and Experimental Monitoring of a Full-Scale

Diaphragm Wall
Valentina Lentini1   · Francesco Castelli1 

Received: 3 April 2018 / Revised: 21 November 2018 / Accepted: 2 January 2019 / Published online: 28 January 2019
© Iran University of Science and Technology 2019

Abstract
Ground movements due to deep excavation may cause damage or loss of functionality to nearby building, especially in urban
areas: embedded diaphragm walls between the new and the existing buildings can be effective in reducing these movements.
The paper reports the results of an experimental and numerical study carried on a full-scale anchored piles diaphragm used
to supporting deep excavation in urban area devoted to the new Library of the University of Enna “Kore”, Enna (Italy). Two
piles, located in the central part of the diaphragm wall, have been instrumented with conventional inclinometer cases and
embedded piezoelectric accelerometers. The experimental measurements recorded during the construction and in operation
are reported and discussed in detail. Plane strain finite element analyses using the code PLAXIS 2D are presented in which
the diaphragm was modelled to evaluate the geotechnical system behavior. It has been observed that this model allows for a
satisfactory simulation of the displacement of the wall during the construction phases under a static loading scenario. The
results in terms of horizontal displacements obtained by numerical modelling are in good agreement with those derived by
measurements. Furthermore, on the basis of measured data, an empirical method has been used to evaluate the surface set-
tlements, whose values guarantee a good safety threshold to the nearby building.

Keywords  Numerical modelling · Excavation · Monitoring · Diaphragm wall

1 Introduction Deformation control is often as critical as assurance

In recent decades, the demand for underground space
increased. Deep excavations are required to meet this
demand, and, in many cases, excavation sites are in closing
proximity to existing structures. Consequently, advanced
techniques are needed in the excavations to mitigate lateral
wall deflections and surface settlements for the purpose of
avoiding damage of the adjacent structures.
Large-scale excavations require retaining structures, such
as diaphragm walls, to be installed before the soil excava-
tion. Diaphragm walls have been widely used as primary and
permanent structural elements for supporting deep excava-
tions in urban area.
* Valentina Lentini
valentina.lentini@unikore.it
Francesco Castelli
francesco.castelli@unikore.it
1
Geotechnical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
and Architecture, University of Enna Kore, Via delle
Olimpiadi, 94100 Enna, Italy
against collapse [1–5]. Therefore, limiting values of dis-
placements or strains should be specified to define service-
ability in terms of just acceptable conditions and an accu-
rate prediction of displacements under working conditions
is required. There are two common techniques for estimating
wall deflections and soil settlements involving either inter-
polation from a published empirical database or numeri-
cal analysis using finite elements. Finite element modelling
(FEM) is important in geotechnical design of excavations,
representing a powerful tool in the cases in which excava-
tions are located in urban areas. Although the influence of
excavation work on the surrounding ground and on existing
structures has been commonly evaluated through numerical
simulation [6–10], the main interest focuses on the influ-
ence of the excavation process on these areas after retaining
structures are installed in the soil. In these cases, monitor-
ing of the response of the wall (in terms of displacements)
plays a relevant role for a quality assessment of the design
and construction process. It is usually based on comparisons
between the predicted and the observed behavior.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

660
Furthermore, empirical methods for estimations of
ground deformation are often sufficient for practical applica-
tions. These methods are subjected to important limitations,
because they have been developed, or have been validated,
for a limited number of cases. Nevertheless, their advantage
is that only a few parameters for the soil and geometry are
required. In engineering practice, surface settlements are
usually estimated using empirical formula [11], where it is
assumed that the ground settlement can be approximated by
a normal Gaussian distribution curve.
The paper provides a description of the monitoring sys-
tem used to monitor the anchored diaphragm wall designed
for the construction of the new Library of the University
of Enna “Kore” (Italy), the interpretation of the obtained
data and a discussion about assumptions and results of the
numerical analyses carried out by the FEM code PLAXIS.
Fig. 1  View of the building and anchored embedded wall
Fig. 2  Plan view of the dia-
phragm wall and the monitored
piles
13
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2019) 17:659–672
On the basis of measured data, an empirical method has been
used to evaluate the surface settlements.
2 Metrology
Measurements of displacements and pressures during and
after the construction of geotechnical structures are com-
monly used to check design assumptions and they are even
prescribed by some codes [12, 13]. In order to record the
influence the deep excavation and, moreover the whole new
building, has on the neighboring structures, a monitor of the
displacements has been performed.
The diaphragm wall, located at Enna, in the Sicily
Region, consists of two rows of reinforced concrete (r.c.)
piles 1000 mm in diameter and has a free height of about
10 m with an overall length of 22 m. An r.c. top-beam has
been constructed on the top of the structure and one row
of anchorage has been realized at depth of 4.50 m (Fig. 1).
An integrated structural and geotechnical monitoring
system for the diaphragm wall has been used. Two piles
(Fig. 2), located in the central part of the wall, have been
instrumented with conventional inclinometer cases (Fig. 3)
and embedded piezoelectric accelerometers. The two piles
were chosen in order to consider about the middle point of
the two parts making up the diaphragm. The response of
the two piles, chosen in order to avoid as much as possible
boundary effects, was monitored. Static displacements were
registered during the construction of the structures.
Frequent measurements have been carried out during the
excavation and the construction phases. The need to moni-
tor deflections along the pile axis has driven the choice of
embedding sensors in the piles. They have been equipped
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2019) 17:659–672 661
Fig. 3  View of the diaphragm wall and instrumented pile
with two inclinometer casings and embedded piezoelectric
accelerometers.
The short distance between building and wall suggests
that there should exist an interaction between the two struc-
tures. Thus, the knowledge about the building behavior can
help in better understanding measurement results obtained
from the sensors in the piles. Sensor characteristics and
installation phases are going to be described in detail in the
following sections.
2.1 The Embedded Piezoelectric Accelerometers
Over the past 50  years engineers have used traditional,
manual inclinometers to monitor the soil displacements.
However, the frequency and accuracy of this labor-intensive
monitoring depend on a trained engineer in manually col-
lecting and managing the data.
Recent advances in miniaturizing sensors and electronics
have enabled a paradigm shift in the monitoring of soil and
structures. In order to observe soil displacements, highly
sensitive sensors are necessary. These sensors are typically
expensive due to their high sensitivity and precision.
Abdoun et al. [14] developed a microelectromechanical
system (MEMS) accelerometer that is designed to monitor
soil displacements and soil accelerations. The recent MEMS
technology may offer some distinct advantages over other
types of tilt sensors, and in fact many manufacturers are now
offering MEMS-based inclinometer probes. The wireless
system can remotely collect both deformation and accelera-
tion readings anywhere where there is cell-phone coverage.
The sensor array is capable of measuring soil acceleration
and permanent ground deformation to a depth of 100 m.
Each sensor array is connected to a wireless earth station to
enable real-time monitoring of a wide range of soil and soil-
structure systems as well as remote sensor configuration.
In this study MEMS accelerometers and traditional
inclinometers have been used to monitor diaphragm wall
behavior. Two piles have been instrumented with no.5
embedded piezoelectric accelerometers placed at different
depths (Fig. 4) and conventional inclinometer casings.
Sensor module consists of two seismic accelerometers,
placed in two orthogonal directions and encapsulated in a
stainless steel enclosure (Fig. 4) to avoid any damage during
the casting operations and assure waterproofing. Specific
procedures for concrete casting have been adopted to ensure
the effectiveness of sensors after installation, which are bur-
ied in concrete and, therefore, not repairable. Furthermore,
the instrumented piles had to show similar characteristics
with respect to the adjacent ones, to assure reliability of
measurement.
2.2 Sensor Installation and Data Acquisition
In this section, the main features of a monitoring system
architecture, developed by the Laboratory of Experimental
Dynamics of the University of Enna “Kore”, is described.
First, the relevant features of the used sensors are reported
and then the monitoring system characteristics are detailed.
The sensor package constitutes the main device of the moni-
toring system and it is comprised of two parts, namely the
processor board and the sensor board, respectively.
The processor board main element is a microprocessor
with 16 k bytes flash (program) memory, 768 bytes SRAM
and 256 bytes of data memory, able to interpret commands
from a master node and to elaborate data at the sensor level.
The board mounts a 18-MHz clock sensor in order to syn-
chronize data acquisition. Analogical data read from the
sensor board are conditioned and converted by means of a
dedicated 16 bit sigma-delta ADC. Digital data are then sent
to the master node (PC) by means of a transceiver RS485.
The sensor board consists of an InvenSense, Inc. model
MPU-6000 6-axis MEMS sensor. The sensor includes a
3-axes MEMS accelerometer that uses separate proof masses
for each axis. Acceleration along a particular axis induces
displacement on the corresponding proof mass and capaci-
tive sensors detect the displacement differentially. When the
device is at rest, its three axes are able to sense the static
component of the gravitational acceleration. The full-scale
range of the digital output can be adjusted to ± 2 g, ± 4 g,
± 8 g, or ± 16 g.
The architecture of the monitoring system consists mainly
of: (1) a general purpose personal computer to manage the
flow of data coming from the network of sensor nodes; (2)
the master node which is connected to the personal computer
by USB port and it has the main function of translating the
physical USB protocol to the RS485 slave nodes protocol;
(3) the slave nodes or sensor nodes which represent the
peripheral units of the system.
Each slave node is connected to the master one by a
serial bus with a communication protocol based on the
13

662
Fig. 4  Scheme of the position of accelerometers (a); stainless steel enclosure (b, c)
physical layer RS485 and with a logical protocol developed
by Wisenet Engineering s.r.l. The RS485 standard ensures
an optimal electromagnetic noise isolation while the logical
protocol guarantees the optimization of the data flow on the
bus, the coherence control of the data packs by means of a
16-bit cyclic redundancy check (CRC-16) and the identifica-
tion of the node ID information. Moreover, the logic proto-
col allows the transmission of the data on a single RS485 bus
by means of a time-division multiplexing. Data acquisition
is synchronized since the command is sent from the master
node to all the slave nodes (sensors) via broadcast digital
information. After the acquisition, each node sends the
acquired data to the master node according to the sensor ID.
An experimental campaign aimed at the calibration of
the sensors has been performed. Sensors have been tested
by means of static tests in order to determine ground noise,
static sensitivity and their dependence on environmental
temperature. All tests have been carried out at the Labora-
tory of Experimental Dynamics of the Faculty of Engineer-
ing and Architecture of the University of Enna “Kore”.
In order to use the MEMS sensors in a monitoring sys-
tem for civil structures, the basic idea is to discard their
dynamic behavior and use them as inclinometers, exploiting
their capacity to read the static component of the gravity
acceleration along their three axes. For such a reason, the
angle sensitivity of the MEMS sensors has been determined
by means of multi position static tests.
The sensors have been mounted on an index table capa-
ble of axis rotation which can be measured with a resolution
13
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2019) 17:659–672
of 0.006°. The table has been rotated from 0.0° to − 1.4° in
35 steps so that, once the reference gravitational accelera-
tion components are known, it was possible to determine the
decomposition of the gravitational vector along the sensor
measurement axes and, consequently, the corresponding Euler
angles. For each sensor, this test has been repeated twice in
order to measure angle variations on two axes per time. Sensor
data have been corrected, as explained before, and the com-
puted angles have been compared to the actual angles meas-
ured on the reference table.
The charts in Fig. 5 show these comparisons. Real angles
measured by the index table are plotted against those obtained
by the sensor outputs, showing a very good agreement. By
means of classical statistical error propagation analysis [15],
it has been found that the smallest measurable angles for each
sensor axis are approximately ± 0.002°, ± 0.002° and ± 0.003°
for the x-, y- and z-axis, respectively. Although measured
angles present small deviations from the real table angles,
anomalies are smaller than the tolerances expected.
To detect soil movement, the static acceleration due to
gravity sensed by the accelerometer has been measured. The
angle between the longitudinal axis and the gravity vector is
computed as follows:
( ) ( )
−1 accelerometer data 180
𝜗 = sin × . (1)
gravity 𝜋
The mean values of the recorded accelerations at each
axis have been compared to the gravity acceleration
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2019) 17:659–672 663

Fig. 5  Comparison between the real angle observed by the index table and those measured by the sensors

component in order to compute the scale factors (sf) that 2.3 The Inclinometers
have been used to convert the sensor output to the physical
variable of interest. The procedure adopted to find the scale Measurements of horizontal displacements of the diaphragm
factors for each axis consisted in a series of static acquisi- wall were carried out using inclinometer casings and were
tions of accelerations when, in turn, one of the axis of the performed with steps of 1.0 m, starting from the bottom of
accelerometer was matched with the vertical direction, once the inclinometer hole.
downward ­(sf−) and once upward ­(sf+). Experimental data have been acquired over a 4-month
The gain gi and the bias bi (i = x, y, z) of the raw data can period (from July 29th, 2014 to November 4th, 2014) dur-
be then obtained by assuming a linear variation from − 1 ing the construction and excavation phases of the embedded
to + 1 g: diaphragm wall. Measurements recorded on September 15th
and November 4th, 2014 are reported in Fig. 6 for the moni-
⎧ sf+i − sf−i tored piles in terms of lateral displacement.
g
⎪ i =
2 Displacements of the two piles are not very similar. A
⎨ i = x, y, z. (2)
+
⎪b = i sfi
sf + −
continuous increase in the horizontal displacements of the
⎩ i 2 wall has been observed, until it has reached a final value of
about 49 mm for inclinometer I1 and of about 23 mm for
inclinometer I2.
Gain and bias are then used to compute the static cor-
rected output as,i for each axis according to the following
expression:
3 Geological and Geotechnical
as,i = ms,i ⋅ ai + bs,i i = x, y, z, (3) Characterization
where ai is the raw output from accelerometer axis, and
ms,i and bs,i are the coefficients of the linear transformation To realize the new Library of the University of Enna
defined as follows: “Kore”, a detailed soil investigation of the site has been
performed. In particular, were carried out no.3 boreholes
⎧ms,i = 1 up to a depth of 30 m to determine the stratigraphic col-
⎪ gi umns, n.1 down-hole tests (DH) to evaluate compres-
⎨ b
i = x, y, z. (4)
⎪bs,i = − i sion (VP) and shear (VS) wave velocities, cross hole sonic
⎩ gi logging tests across several piles to check its integrity.
Undisturbed samples have been retrieved from boreholes
Accordingly, it is possible to state that the proposed sen- to determine, through standard classification test, the grain
sor can be also used as an inclinometer for application in size distribution and the physical properties in terms of
civil engineering structural monitoring [16]. unit weight γ, water content w and plasticity index I P.

13

664 International Journal of Civil Engineering (2019) 17:659–672

Fig. 6  Lateral pile displace- Disp lacement [mm] Disp lacement [mm]

ments versus depth 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 0

I nclinometer I 1 I nclinometer I 2
2 2

4 4

6 6

8 8

10 10
Dep th [m]

Dep th [m]
12 12

14 14

16 16

18 18

2014 Sep tember 15 th 2014 Sep tember 15 th

20 20
2014 N ovember 4 th 2014 N ovember 4 th

22 22

Furthermore, direct shear test and unconsolidated und-
rained triaxial test have been carried out to evaluate the
shear strength parameters in drained (effective cohesion c′
and effective friction angle 𝜙′ ) and undrained (undrained
cohesion cu) conditions, respectively. The results of labo-
ratory test, summarized in the Table 1, are reported in
detail by Castelli et al. [17–19].
As an example, the stratigraphic column derived from
a borehole is reported in Fig. 7a. The stratigraphy shows
clayey silt up to 4 m below the ground surface, sandy silt
from 4 up to 6 m, gypsum clay from 6 up to 10 m and finally
gypsum from 10 up to 30 m. The results in terms of VP and
VS versus depth obtained by DH test are reported in Fig. 7b.
Values between 254 and 1936 m/s and 111 and 1159 m/s

Table 1  Geotechnical properties Sample Depth (m) Clay (%) Silt (%) Sand (%) γ (kN/m3) wn (%) IP (%) cu (kPa) c′ (kPa) 𝜙′ (°)
derived by laboratory tests
S1/C2 8.00 10.15 30.01 46.11 19,27 24.74 14.80 – 0 31
S1/C3 18.0 25.13 53.54 21.27 19,88 31.86 36,39 – 0 38
S2/C1 3.00 23.35 43.79 25.63 20.02 21.97 19.97 – 10 24
S2/C3 13.2 37.45 51.80 10.72 20.52 22.50 47.44 – – –
S3/C2 5.70 26.24 34.80 36.44 19.25 28.18 22.79 – – –

γ unit weight; w water content; IP plasticity index; c′ effective cohesion; 𝜙′ effective friction angle; cu und-
rained cohesion

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2019) 17:659–672 665

Waves velocity (m/s )

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
0

VS
VP

10

Depth (m)
15

20

25

30

(a) (b)

Fig. 7  Stratigraphic column (a); waves velocity versus depth (b)

have been estimated for compression and shear waves,

respectively.
To adopt a high level of quality control and assurance,
the CSL testing procedure has been performed to detect
anomalies inside concrete. Cross-hole sonic logging (CSL)
is the most accurate and reliable technique for assessing the
integrity of deep foundation. One transmitting probe and one
receiving ultrasonic probe are lowered into parallel access
tubes, which have to be fixed to the reinforcement cage
before casting the concrete (Fig. 8). Measurements are taken
each 1–5 cm with both probes at the same depth. First arrival
time (which can be converted to apparent wave speed) and
amplitude are recorded as well as the raw times series. The
data are presented as log or waterfall diagrams, respectively
(Fig. 9). For both piles tested (PA42 and PA100) have been
obtained undisturbed signals from top to bottom with an Fig. 8  Cross-hole sonic logging
average value of ultrasonic waves velocity equal to 3500 m/s.
Based on the laboratory and in situ investigation results,
a simplified geotechnical model was adopted and used to
set a numerical model of the diaphragm wall for PLAXIS
code [20].

13

666
Fig. 9  Cross-hole sonic logging plot of a sound pile for PA42 and PA100 piles
4 Empirical Solution for Maximum Surface
Settlement Estimation
In new buildings design causing minimum disturbance to
the routine daily lives of the city is very important, as infra-
structure, buildings and services stretch through the densely
populated and scarcely limited land space. In order to fully
understand the extent of disturbance due to excavation in
urban areas, a comprehensive knowledge of the deformation
caused by excavation will be useful. Hence construction of
new buildings requires meticulous considerations in terms
of geotechnical site investigations, construction methods,
instrumentation and monitoring of surface subsidence and
the subsequent impact on nearby buildings and services.
Among these considerations, the most important aspect is
the control of surface subsidence to minimize any distur-
bance to nearby buildings and services.
The study of surface subsidence is limited to mainly
empirical solutions based on field studies, and very few
analytical studies have been carried out. Hence in situ
13
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2019) 17:659–672
monitoring and empirical solution coupled with numeri-
cal modelling are necessary to model the effect of surface
subsidence due to excavation.
According to previous researches, most commonly used
approach is based on the assumption that the surface set-
tlement can be approximated to a Gaussian distribution.
Martos [21] first observed that the shape of the surface
settlement trough above mining excavations can usually be
represented by a Gaussian curve. Later, Peck [22], Schmidt
[23] and Rowe et al. [24] investigated surface settlement
data from a large number of tunnels and proposed that the
Gaussian function, as shown in Eq. (5), can be applied for
describing the surface settlement trough. This conclusion
was based on statistical evaluation of field observed data
over 20 case histories.
( 2)
x
Sx = Smax exp − 2 , (5)
2i
where x is the horizontal distance from the diaphragm cen-
terline and i is the horizontal distance from the diaphragm
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2019) 17:659–672 667
B Distance from diaphragm [m]
y x
Vw Vs
S max
Sx
ymax
H 3
i
D
Fig. 10  Gaussian curve for the evaluation of the settlement profile
centerline to the point of inflection on the surface settlement
trough.
According to Fig. 10, the maximum surface settlement
(Smax) is the one of effective parameters describing the
nature of surface settlement. This parameter (Smax) has been
studied by different researchers. Mair [25] proposed Eq. (6)
to calculate the value of Smax:
Smax = √
Vs
, (6)
2𝜋 × i
where Vs = Rv × Vw is the volume loss with Rv = 0.65 and Vw
has the significant shown in Fig. 10 that is the soil volume
affected by settlement. Using Eqs. (5) and (6), the curve Sx
may be defined by any two of the parameters Vs, Smax or i.
For the diaphragm of the Library of University of Enna
Kore, the surface settlements Sx have been evaluated by the
measured value ymax and the volume Vw affected by set-
tlement. The values obtained confirm that a good safety
threshold is guaranteed to the nearby buildings, as shown
in Fig. 11.
5 Finite Element Analysis
5.1 Numerical Model
The modelling of the behavior of the pile diaphragm wall
has been performed using the FEM code PLAXIS 2D. The
numerical analysis was carried out in plane strain condi-
tions. The geometry of the model, the material properties
and the boundary conditions were specified. To analyze the
full-scale diaphragm wall, the model extends about 100 m
horizontally and 30 m vertically to be sufficient to avoid
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
1
Settlement [cm]
2
4
Fig. 11  Settlements versus distance from diaphragm
border disturbances. At the base, the boundary conditions
were assumed to be pinned in both vertical and horizontal
directions and laterally the model is free to move vertically.
Meshing plays one of the key aspects in obtaining a rea-
sonable result. A too coarse meshing fails to capture the
subtle changes in the stresses generated in different parts of
the medium, especially at the points where stress concentra-
tions are expected. On the other hand, a too fine mesh ren-
ders the time of obtaining a solution to be very long. Hence,
a trade-off is required to obtain a nearly accurate solution
in reasonable less time. In this study, the global meshing is
achieved with a medium mesh, and the central part of the
model is then refined twice. Figure 12 depicts the extent of
the model and the type of meshing used in the present study
in which the colors green, yellow and light blue represent
silt with sandy clay (material 2), clay with chalk (material
3) and chalk (material 4), respectively.
The numerical analysis includes the use of 15 node trian-
gular elements to model the soil. The retaining wall structure
was simulated with one-dimensional linear beam element
that can resist axial load and bending moments. The stiffness
for the wall element is represented by means of the flexural
rigidity (EI) and the normal stiffness (EA).
Figure 12 shows the various soil clusters used to define
regions with same properties within the finite element mesh.
The soil model was run with a medium mesh of triangu-
lar elements, leading to 1729 elements and 13,983 nodes.
The reticule average dimension is strongly refined near the
structure, for a better evaluation of the gradient of stress
and strain.
5.2 Calculation Stages
Many phases have been used in the numerical analysis to
establish the initial effective stress state condition existing
prior to the construction of the diaphragm wall, the excava-
tion to remove filling material, the excavation for positioning
the diaphragm wall, the excavation for anchor placement, the
stage of pre-stressing and locking of the anchors.
13

668
Fig. 12  Finite element mesh
Calculations have been organized in 8 stages, following
the technological phases:
• phase 0: initialization of the stress state;
• phase 1: excavation step 1 (to level − 4.00 m);
• phase 2: activation of diaphragm wall;
• phase 3: activation of concrete retaining wall;
• phase 4: excavation step 2 (to level − 8.00 m);
• phase 5: activation of anchor 1 at level − 4.00 m;
• phase 6: excavation step 3 (to level − 11.00 m);
• phase 7: excavation step 4 (to level − 14.00 m);
• phase 8: activation of surcharge load.
5.3 Soil Properties
Choosing an appropriate constitutive model for the soil is
the most important factor in the numerical analysis. The
constitutive model should reflect the main behavior of the
soil, and it also should be simple and easy to implement.
As constitutive law for the soil, the linear elastic–plastic
behavior is generally assumed in numerical analysis, such
as Mohr–Coulomb (MC) model. On the other hand, using a
complex constitutive model, the behavior of the soil would
be reflected wonderfully and the displacements of ground
could be predicted better, but the parameters of the model
are difficult to obtain. Since the MC model is simple to be
understood and the parameters can be obtained easily, it is
widely used.
In this study, the MC model and hardening soil (HS)
model are used in order to compare the prediction results of
diaphragm and ground movements so that assessment could
be made on the better constitutive model for use. HS model
[26] is based on the plasticity theory, evaluating the stiffness
as a function of the stress level according to an exponential
law.
In the first step, the soil behavior has been modeled
adopting a linear elastic perfectly plastic constitutive law,
using the geotechnical parameters issued from laboratory
and in situ tests. The MC criterion in PLAXIS requires
five parameters: E and ν for linear elastic behavior and c
and 𝜙 for yield function and ψ as dilation angle for plastic
13
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2019) 17:659–672
deformation behavior. Based on the stratigraphic columns
obtained by boreholes performed in the site, four different
soil types have been considered. In particular, from ground
level to bottom filling material (1), silts with sand clay (2),
clays with chalk (3) and chalk (4). Table 2 reports the geo-
technical properties adopted in the numerical modelling for
the four categories of soil considered. Strength and deform-
ability parameters have been obtained by laboratory testing
performed on the soil and by a literature database [27–29]
of model parameters used in PLAXIS for similar soil type.
The predicted ground movements are primarily influ-
enced by soil stratigraphy and soil model parameters used.
To investigate the suitability of the HS model parameters for
subsoil, the analysis of diaphragm behavior was performed
for comparative study of observed values of lateral ground
movements and predicted values using adjusted parameters
of HS model in comparison of the MC model prediction. HS
soil parameters are iteratively adjusted until the calculated
results show reasonable agreement with the observed data.
6 Predicted Performance
The analysis of diaphragm wall behavior was performed
for comparative study of observed values of lateral ground
movements and predicted values and for the comparison of
surface settlement deducted by analytical solution and those
derived by FEM analysis.
The results of the numerical analysis are presented in
terms of anchored diaphragm wall and soil displacements
Table 2  Geotechnical parameters for numerical analyses
Soil layer γ (kN/m3) c′ (kPa) 𝜙′ (°) E (kPa) Eed (kPa)
1 19.6 0 24 6.0 × 104 8.9 × 104
2 19.6 21.6 24 2.9 × 105 3.8 × 105
3 18.6 50.0 22 1.8 × 106 2.4 × 106
4 19.6 114.0 29 7.5 × 106 10.1 × 106
γ unit weight, c′ effective cohesion, 𝜙′ effective friction angle, E
Young modulus, Eed oedometer modulus
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2019) 17:659–672 669
computation. The predicted ground movements are influ-
enced by soil stratigraphy and soil model parameters used.
In particular, Fig. 13 shows the deformed mesh of the
numerical simulation corresponding to the state of end con-
struction and Fig. 14 reports the soil displacements predicted
at the final stage. According to the calculations, the maxi-
mum horizontal displacement of the soil is about 49 mm at
the top of the diaphragm.
The values of bending moment along the diaphragm wall
as function of calculation phases and at the end of construc-
tion (phase 8) are reported in Figs. 15 and 16, respectively.
From phase 3 to phase 8, the bending moment increase until
a value approximately equal to 650 kNm/m.
7 Comparison of Experimental
and Numerical Results
Retaining structures imply complex soil–structure interac-
tion phenomena. A correct estimation of their behavior is
possible only by using numerical models, allowing a com-
plex modelling of the system formed by the retaining struc-
ture, foundation ground and neighboring buildings. Even
when such methods are used, the results can present signifi-
cant differences from the real behavior.
The reasons for these differences are many, including
incertitude regarding the geotechnical parameters used for
Fig. 13  Deformed mesh
Fig. 14  Total displacements of
the diaphragm wall
the calculations, especially when complex constitutive laws
are used for the ground; difficulty in estimation of the initial
stress state in the ground, taking into account its lithology,
the presence of neighboring structures, the execution of the
retaining structure itself, etc.; complexity of the numerical
model itself, considering all implied parameters; three-
dimensional behavior of the retaining structure.
In order to obtain reliable results using numerical model-
ling it is important to calibrate and validate the model based
on experimental measurements. Taking into account the
geometry and dimensions of the diaphragm wall, the loading
conditions and the soil model, it was found that the predicted
data were close to the observed results.
As depicted in Fig. 17, the observed data correspond-
ing to last on-site measurements (November 4th, 2014) are
compared to the results of the numerical analyses in terms
of soil horizontal displacements. In particular, the values
of displacement versus depth of diaphragm computed by
PLAXIS and those measured by inclinometers are repre-
sented with red (MC model), green (HS model) and blue
points, respectively. The plot shows a good agreement
between measured and computed results, with a maximum
horizontal displacement of 49 mm. A difference of 5% can
be observed between the values calculated with HS and MC
model and those measured.
Furthermore, the surface settlements derived by the
empirical solution (blue line) described in Sect.  4 are
13

670 International Journal of Civil Engineering (2019) 17:659–672

Bending Moment [ kNm/ m] to the excavation depth is for both cases about 0.5. Obvi-
-800 -400 0 400 800 ously the location where the maximum settlement occurred
4 might have a significant effect on the performance of adja-
Phase 3 cent buildings.
6 There are several parameters that are effective on amount
Phase 4
of maximum surface settlement and recognizing effects of
Phase 5
these parameters can be very helpful for accurate meas-
8
Phase 6
urement of maximum surface settlement derived by FEM
Phase 7
analysis.
Phase 8
10 According to the numerical and experimental investi-
gations, cohesion, angle of internal friction, diaphragm
depth, Poisson’s ratio, Young’s modulus, unit weight, face
Depth [ m]

12 support pressure are the most effective parameters. On the

other hand, the empirical solution adopted is based on the
14 assumption that the surface settlement can be approximate
to a Gaussian distribution.

16

18 8 Concluding Remarks

The increasing use of underground spaces has driven many

20
22
Fig. 15  Bending moment along the diaphragm wall function of calcu-
lation phases
compared with those predicted by FEM analysis (red line)
in Fig. 18 as function of distance from diaphragm wall.
The comparison shows a reasonable agreement in terms of
maximum value of surface settlement (about 3 cm) but a
discrepancy in the trend is clear. Figure 18 also displays
the comparison in terms of ground surface settlements with
those (black line) found in literature [5] for different stages.
The distance where the maximum ground surface settlement
occurred is about 11 m and 5 m for literature results and for
FEM analysis, respectively, whereas the ratio of this distance
researchers to update the knowledge on the behavior of
embedded structures in soil. The availability of FE codes,
advanced constitutive models for soil and the spread of suit-
able laboratory and in situ testing techniques are allowing
more reliable evaluation of the safety conditions and the
prediction of the behavior of these structures during both
the construction and the serviceability phases.
In this paper, the results of an experimental and numeri-
cal study carried on a retaining structure are presented and
discussed. Static displacements were carried out starting
from the excavation phase and until the construction of an
anchored diaphragm wall for the new Library of the Univer-
sity of Enna “Kore” (Italy). Two piles of the diaphragm have
been instrumented with conventional inclinometer cases and
embedded piezoelectric accelerometers. A continuous incre-
ment in the horizontal displacement of the wall has been
observed, until it has reached a final and stable value of
about 49 mm.

Fig. 16  Bending moment along

the diaphragm wall

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2019) 17:659–672 671

Displacement [mm] The use of MEMS provides as advantages the low cost in
0 10 20 30 40 50 relation to the possibility to monitor the behavior of the
0 structures more easily and for long periods. The calibra-
Computed (M C)
tion procedure, which takes into account static sensitivity,
2 adopted to use the sensors as inclinometers for static moni-
Computed (H S)
toring applications, is also reported. The low-cost MEMS
M easured
sensors have been calibrated and tested to be used for sev-
4
eral applications of civil engineering structures monitoring.
Details of the installed monitoring system are reported and
6 the preliminary results are discussed. It has been proved that
the proposed system is reliable and the rotations measured
8
correspond to the actual deformations of the structures.
Based on careful interpretation of geotechnical data
derived by soil investigation, a numerical modelling by the
10 Finite Element code PLAXIS 2D has been performed and
Depth [m]

calibrated. The comparison between computed results and

12 experimental measurements in terms of horizontal displace-
ment has been carried out, highlighting a very good agree-
ment between experimental evidences and computed results.
14
Bending moment distributions have been assessed according
to computed lateral displacements along the diaphragm wall.
16 Finally, an empirical method to evaluate the surface set-
tlement based on the results of measured horizontal dis-
18
placements has been used and the results have been com-
pared with those obtained by FEM analysis, guaranteeing a
good safety threshold to the nearby building.
20

Compliance with Ethical Standards 

22
Conflict of interest  On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
Fig. 17  Comparison between computed and measured pile lateral dis-
placements

References
Distance from diaphragm [m]
0 10 20 30 40 50 1. Garrett C, Barnes SJ (1984) Design and performance of the Dun-
0 ton Green retaining wall. Geotechnique 34(4):533–548
2. Raison CA (1985) Discussion on performance of proposed and
2 cantilevered rigid walls. Geotechnique 35(4):540–544
3. Ikuta Y, Maruoka M, Aoki M, Sato E (1994) Application of the
observational method to a deep basement excavated using the top–
Settlement [cm]

4 This study - FEM Analysis

This study - Empirical Solution down observation method. Geotechnique 44(4):655–664
Stage 1 - Ou et al. 2000 4. Young DK, Ho EWL (1994) Observational approach to design of
Stage 3
6
Stage 5 a sheet-piled retaining wall. Geotechnique 44(4):637–654
Stage 7 5. Ou CY, Liao JT, Cheng WL (2000) Building response and
Stage 9
8 Stage 11
ground movements induced by a deep excavation. Geotechnique
50(3):209–220
6. Gunn MJ, Clayton CRI (1992) Installation effects and their impor-
10
tance in the design of earth-retaining structures. Geotechnique
42(1):137–141
Fig. 18  Predicted surface settlement by FEM analysis versus those by 7. De Moor EK (1994) An analysis of bored pile/diaphragm wall
empirical solution installation effects. Geotechnique 44(2):341–347
8. Ng CWW, Yan RWM (1999) Three-dimensional modeling
of a diaphragm wall construction sequence. Geotechnique
49(6):825–834
A detailed description of a monitoring system with piezo- 9. Conti R, de Sanctis L, Viggiani GMB (2012) Numerical mod-
electric accelerometers instead of conventional inclinometer elling of installation effects for diaphragm walls in sand. Acta
for measuring horizontal displacements has been explained. Geotech 7(3):219–237

13

672
10. Chen J, Lei H, Wang J (2014) Numerical analysis of the installa-
tion effect of diaphragm walls in saturated soft clay. Acta Geotech
9:981–991
11. Peck RB (1969) Advantages and limitations of the observational
method in applies soil mechanics. Geotechnique 19(2):171–187
12. Rainieri C, Fabbrocino G, Santucci de Magistris F (2013) An
integrated seismic monitoring system for a full-scale embed-
ded retaining wall. Geotech Test J 36(1):40–53. https​://doi.
org/10.1520/GTJ20​12006​7
13. Rainieri C, Dey A, Fabbrocino G, Santucci de Magistris F
(2017) Interpretation of the experimentally measured dynamic
response of an embedded retaining wall by finite element mod-
els. Measurement 104:316–325. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.measu​
re-ment.2016.05.100
14. Abdoun T, Danisch L, Ha D (2005) Advanced sensing for real-
time monitoring of geotechnical systems. In: Proceedings of geo-
Frontiers congress, 2005, Austin, Texas, USA, American Society
of Civil Engineers
15. Taylor JR (1997) An Introduction to error analysis: the study
of uncertainties in physical measurements. University Science
Books, Sausalito. ISBN 0-935702-75-X
16. Lo Iacono F, Navarra G, Oliva M (2017) Structural monitoring
of “Himera” viaduct by low-cost MEMS sensors: characteriza-
tion and preliminary results. Meccanica 52:3221. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1101​2-017-0691-4
17. Castelli F, Freni G, Lentini V, Fichera A (2017) Modelling of
a debris flow event in the Enna area for hazard assessment. In:
Proceedings of 1st international conference on the material point
method, MPM 2017, Delft, January 10–13, 2017, Procedia Eng
175:287–292. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.proen​g.2017.01.026
18. Castelli F, Castellano E, Contino F, Lentini V (2016) A web-based
GIS system for landslide risk zonation: the case of Enna area
(Italy). In: Proceedings of 12th international symposium on land-
slides, Napoli, Italy. Aversa et al. (eds) Landslides and engineered
slopes. Experience, theory and practice. Associazione Geotecnica
Italiana, Roma, Italy. ISBN 9781138029880
19. Castelli F, Lentini V (2013) Landsliding events triggered by rain-
falls in the Enna area (South Italy). In: Proceedings of second
world landslide forum, WLF2 2011, Rome (Italy), vol 2: Early
warning, instrumentation and monitoring. Margottini C et al (eds),
Springer, Heidelberg, pp 39–47. ISBN 978-3-642-31444-5, ISBN
978-3-642-31445-2 (eBook). https​://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
31445​-2
13
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2019) 17:659–672
20. Brinkgreve RBJ, Vermeer PA (2006) PLAXIS. In: Brinkgreve
RBJ, Broere W, Waterman D (eds). The Netherlands ISBN-10
90-76016-02-X, ISBN-13 978-90-76016-02-34
21. Martos F (1958) Concerning an approximate equation of the sub-
sidence trough and its time factors. In: International strata control
congress, Leipzig, pp 191–205
22. Peck RB (1969) Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground.
In: 7th International conference on soil mechanics and foundation
engineering, state of the art report. Proceedings of 7th interna-
tional conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering,
Mexico City, pp 225–290
23. Schmidt B (1969) Settlements and ground movements associ-
ated with tunneling in soils. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois,
Urbana
24. Rowe RK, Lo KY, Kack GJ (1983) A method of estimating surface
settlement above tunnels constructed in soft ground. Can Geotech
J 20(1):11–22. https​://doi.org/10.1139/t83-002
25. Mair RJ, Williamson MG (2014) The influence of tunneling and
deep excavation on piled foundations. In: Geotechnical aspects
of underground construction in soft ground—proceedings of 8th
international symposium on geotechnical aspects of underground
construction in soft ground, TC204 ISSMGE—IS-SEOUL 2014.
pp 21–30
26. Schanz T, Vermeer PA, Bonnier PG (2000) The hardening soil
model: formulation and verification. In: Beyond 2000 in compu-
tational geotechnics—10 years of PLAXIS. Balkema, Rotterdam.
ISBN 90 5809 040 X
27. Likitlersuang S, Surarak C, Wanatowski D, Oh E, Balasubrama-
niam A (2013) Finite element analysis of a deep excavation: a case
study from the Bangkok MRT. Soils Found 53(5):756–773. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf​.2013.08.013
28. Yasushi A, Kusakabe O, Murata O, Konishi S (2008) A numeri-
cal study on ground displacement and stress during and after the
installation of deep circular diaphragm walls and soil excavation.
Comput Geotech 35:791–807
29. Brinkgreve RBJ (2005) Selection of soil models and parameters
for geotechnical engineering application. In: Soil constitutive
models: evaluation, selection, and calibration. ASCE, geotechni-
cal special publication no. 128. Evaluation, selection, and calibra-
tion, 2005. Geo-Frontiers congress 2005, Austin, Texas, USA.
https​://doi.org/10.1061/40771​(169)4