1611

Numerical model tests of building response to

excavation-induced ground movements
Moorak Son and Edward J. Cording

Abstract: Distortion and damage to masonry and frame structures on shallow foundations subjected to excavation-induced
ground movements have been investigated using numerical model tests. The numerical tests were modeled using the two-
dimensional (2-D) universal distinct element code (UDEC) version 3.1 in which each masonry unit was modeled as a
block, with the contacts between blocks having stiffness and strength characteristics of mortar. The soil was modeled elas-
tically with a stiffness selected to provide the same pressure–displacement relation for the 2-D model as that for the three-
dimensional (3-D) foundation condition. To give a justifiable basis for the numerical tests, two physical model tests were
simulated numerically, and the results from the numerical tests were compared with those from the physical model tests.
The good agreements between the numerical simulations and physical model tests led to extended numerical studies. The
studies included the effect of cracking in structures and structural types (brick and frame structures) on the building re-
sponse, considering soil–structure interaction. The numerical studies indicated that the structural response to excavation-
induced ground movements is highly dependent on both cracking in structures and structural types, and therefore their
effects should be considered for better assessing the building response to excavation-induced ground movements.
Key words: numerical tests, physical tests, building response, excavation, cracking, damage assessment.
Résumé : On a étudié au moyen d’essais sur modèles numériques la distorsion et le dommage à la maçonnerie et au cadre
des structures sur fondations superficielles assujetties à des mouvements de sol induits par excavation. Les essais numéri-
ques ont été modélisés au moyen du code d’éléments distincts universels 2-D (UDEC 3,1) dans lequel chaque unité de ma-
çonnerie a été modélisé comme un bloc, avec les contacts entre les blocs ayant les caractéristiques de rigidité et de
résistance du mortier. Le sol a été modélisé élastiquement avec une rigidité sélectionnée pour fournir la même relation
pression – déplacement pour le modèle 2-D comme celui pour une condition de fondation 3-D. Pour donner une base justi-
fiable aux essais numériques, on a simulé numériquement deux essais sur modèles physiques et les résultats ont été compa-
rés avec les résultats des essais sur modèles physiques. La bonne concordance entre les simulations numériques et les
essais sur modèles physiques ont conduit à des études numériques élaborées. Les études incluaient l’effet de fissuration
dans les structures et les types de structures (briques et cadres de structures) sur la réaction de la bâtisse, prenant en consi-
dération l’interaction sol – structure. Les études numériques ont indiqué que la réponse structurale aux mouvements de ter-
rain induits par excavation est fortement dépendante tant de la fissuration dans les structures que des types de structures,
et ainsi, leurs effets devraient être pris en considération pour mieux évaluer la réaction du bâtiment aux mouvements de
terrain induits par l’excavation.
Mots-clés : essais numériques, essais physiques, réaction de bâtiment, excavation, fissuration, évaluation de dommages.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction Peck (1969), Cording and Hansmire (1975), Goldberg et al.

Excavation of underground facilities and deep building
foundations in urban areas must be controlled to limit
ground movements that may be potentially damaging to ad-
jacent structures. Of particular concern are buildings on
shallow foundations, which are often older masonry struc-
tures and may be historic and low-rise frame structures.
Considerable effort has been made by researchers (e.g.,
Received 13 June 2007. Accepted 25 June 2008. Published on
the NRC Research Press Web site at cgj.nrc.ca on 4 November
2008.
M. Son.1 Department of Civil Engineering, Daegu University,
Jillyang, Gyeongsan, Gyeongbuk, 712-714, South Korea.
E.J. Cording. Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 N.
Mathews Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
1Corresponding author (e-mail: mson@daegu.ac.kr).
(1976), Clough and O’Rourke (1990), and Mueller (2000))
to the estimation of green-field ground movements for dif-
ferent soils and construction methods.
However, the response of nearby structures due to
excavation-induced ground movements has been studied
less frequently, perhaps because of the difficulty and com-
plication involved in measuring and assessing soil–structure
interaction behavior. Some relevant studies include those of
Breth and Chambosse (1974), Attewell (1978), Boscardin
and Cording (1989), Burland (1995), Boone et al. (1999),
and Son and Cording (2005).
Identical green-field ground movements can cause differ-
ent responses in structures depending on both soil and struc-
ture conditions. However, many design criteria do not
explicitly consider the soil and structural conditions when
assessing potential damage to nearby structures. Reasonable
damage assessments are investigated in this paper, which re-
quire a better understanding of the complex soil–structure

Can. Geotech. J. 45: 1611–1621 (2008) doi:10.1139/T08-074 # 2008 NRC Canada

1612 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 45, 2008

interaction, considering large crack opening and post-crack

shear stiffness, Ks
Joint or interface
inelastic behaviors in structures and structural types. Failure
to understand the interaction can lead to the implementation

(MPa/mm)
of unnecessary protection measures, the incurrence of un-

0.017
necessary cost, and consequently, unsatisfactory results.

0.68
0.68
This paper analyzes the results of building response to

—
excavation-induced ground movements, which have been
observed in numerical model tests with the effects of build-

Joint or inter-
ing cracking and different structural types, to provide the re-

stiffness, Kn
face normal

(MPa/mm)
lations among ground movement, building distortion, and
building damage in controlled variation of structural condi-
tions and types and to provide a better understanding of the

13.5
13.5

27.1
—

—
complex soil–structure interaction in building response.

27.5

11.9
Numerical analyses

—
Large enough
Joint or inter-
face tensile
strength, st
Numerical tests were performed to investigate the effect
of structural conditions on the response of buildings adjacent

(kPa)
to an excavation area. The advantages of numerical analysis
are that various conditions can be considered easily with
limited time, cost, and space, and reproducible analyses are
possible. This characteristic allows the responses of build-

Joint or inter-
face friction
ings to excavation-induced ground movements to be investi-

angle  (8)
gated in various conditions.
The 2-D universal distinct element code (UDEC) version

—
35
35
—
42
3.1 (Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 2000) was used to conduct
numerical studies on various configurations of brick-bearing

strength, c (kPa)
and frame structures. The properties of the brick and frame

8.3
27.5
—

—
Large enough
Joint or inter-
face cohesive
structures, the brick–mortar contacts, and the soil were se-
lected based on experimental tests performed for a 1/10th
scale physical model (Table 1). Analyses were performed
under plane stress conditions for both soil and structure, and
the soil was modeled as an elastic mass.
In modeling the brick structures numerically, each brick
Total unit
weight, g

was modeled as a separate elastic unit and the brick–mortar

(kN/m3)

contact model was chosen so that when the contact normal

Table 1. Soil, structure, and interface properties used in numerical analyses.

stress exceeds the maximum tensile strength of the contact

—
19
19
24
—
or the contact shear stress exceeds the contact shear strength,
which is a combination of cohesive (c) and frictional ()
Poisson’s
ratio, 

strength, the contact loses strength and a crack is formed.

0.33
0.20
0.20
0.15

Further extension across the contact causes separation of the

—

adjacent bricks and leads to a larger opening of the crack.

The contact does not simulate the crush in compression,
which is reasonable because a compressive strength is gener-
1.7210–3
modulus, E

ally higher than a tensile strength and cracks form mostly

Young’s

due to tensile stress. Before cracking, the brick–mortar con-

(GPa)

0.69
0.69
2.07

tact model has a linear stress–displacement relationship with

—

the slope of the contact normal stiffness for the normal stress
condition and with the slope of the contact shear stiffness for
Interface between soil and structure

the shear stress condition. After cracks form, the contact has
only frictional shear resistance. This model can more easily
simulate large crack openings and post-crack inelastic behav-
ior than the continuum-based numerical methods such as the
Frame structure (elastic)
Brick structure (elastic)

finite element method (FEM). The building–soil interface

model was similar to the brick–mortar contact model, but
the interface had different properties. Thus, the interface al-
Brick structure

lowed the building to separate from the soil or slide between

the building and the soil.
Properties

The entire excavation sequence was not simulated, but in-

Soil

stead a green-field ground movement obtained from the

physical model tests, performed in the Schnabel large soil
# 2008 NRC Canada
Son and Cording
model test facility at the University of Illinois, Urbana–
Champaign, Illinois, was applied to the soil mass, which
has a finite thickness.
Elastic soil stiffness in the numerical tests (2-D) was de-
termined to provide the same normal pressure–displacement
relation as that of the 3-D condition utilizing the Boussinesq
relationships.
Both vertical and horizontal green-field ground move-
ments were applied to the soil mass to allow the soil–
structure interaction between the structure and the soil
mass. Vertical green-field ground settlement was applied at
the base of the soil mass after confirming for the green-field
condition that the displacement profile induced at the sur-
face of the soil mass was a result of applying the profile to
the base of the soil mass. A horizontal displacement profile
was applied to the surface, not the base, of the soil mass in-
terconnected with the building wall at the soil–structure in-
terface because application of the horizontal displacement at
the base of the elastic soil mass would produce a distorted
horizontal displacement at the surface for the green-field
condition. However, the soil–structure interaction for hori-
zontal ground movement was still allowed because an equiv-
alent soil shear stiffness was applied at the interface
element. The shear stiffness at the interface was selected to
provide the same horizontal pressure – horizontal displace-
ment relation for the 2-D model as that for the 3-D condi-
tion (Son 2003). Thus, the soil–structure interaction
between the building wall and soil mass was allowed for
both vertical and horizontal ground displacements.
At the beginning of the numerical analysis, an initial equi-
librium was obtained with building self-weight and floor
loads. At this stage, the boundary condition for the soil
mass was roller supports at each end of the two vertical
boundaries of the soil mass and at the bottom boundary of
the soil mass. All displacements were reset to zero, and the
boundaries at the soil mass were made free before green-
field ground movement patterns were imposed on the soil
mass. The equilibrium condition was ensured with the boun-
daries roller-supported at the soil mass after imposing the
green-field ground movement and at the same time applying
the additional loads along a building end to consider the
down-drag effect due to an interconnected cross wall in real
structures. Distortions and cracking in structures were then
investigated.
Modeling of the soil using advanced constitutive models
is important when trying to relate the ground movements at
an excavation face to those in the vicinity of a building.
However, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the rela-
tions among ground movements, building distortion, and
building damage and to provide some features of the build-
ing response in variable conditions of structures for a better
understanding of the complex soil–structure interaction in
controlling building damage due to excavation-induced
ground movements.
It would be desirable in the future to link advanced soil
constitutive models with the UDEC modeling of a masonry
building. However, to evaluate building–ground interaction,
a linear soil mass or a Winkler foundation provides useful
results. The method used in this paper to assess the potential
impacts on buildings is consistent with that used in practice
where the green-field ground displacements are assessed,
1613
and then the impact on the building is evaluated, taking into
account building stiffness.
Physical model tests and numerical
simulations
Physical model tests were conducted on 1/10th scale, two-
storey brick bearing walls (PIT5E east wall and PIT5W west
wall) adjacent to a model tied back wall excavated in sand
in the Schnabel large soil model test facility at the Univer-
sity of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign, Illinois (Fig. 1; Laefer
2001). The model structures were 610 mm high 
1830 mm wide and seated on concrete spread footings,
which were 127 mm wide and 254 mm deep. The founda-
tions were fully embedded in soil and firmly bonded to the
bearing wall by cement mortar. The model structures were
tested in the same test pit and they were 610 mm apart,
which is about five times the width of the footing. This dis-
tance was determined to ensure that there was no interaction
between the structures. The test conditions were similar for
the two structures except that PIT5W was subjected to loads
that were about two times greater than those for PIT5E
(Fig. 2). Wooden lintels were used in the physical model
tests to prevent failure of the test bricks above the window
openings.
Figure 3a shows the deformation and crack formation in
the PIT5E model test structure. The structure was noticeably
cracked and deformed in the first of the three bays as a re-
sult of the large change in slope of the green-field vertical
ground movement between bay 1 and bay 2. The deforma-
tion in bay 1 of the building wall was determined by meas-
uring the vertical (subscript v) and lateral (subscript l)
displacements (Av, Bv, Cv, Dv, Al, Bl, Cl, and Dl) at the four
corners (A, B, C, D) of bay 1 (Fig. 3a). From these meas-
urements, the following terms were determined for the de-
formation of the section:
 Slope is the change of gradient at the base of the founda-
tion over the length (L) of the section and is defined as
Slope ¼ Av B
L
v
 Tilt is the rigid body rotation of the section and is de-
fined as Tilt ¼ ðCl Bl ÞþðD
2H
l Al Þ
or ClHBl (where H is the
height of the section)
 Angular distortion (b) is the shearing distortion of the
section and is defined as  ¼ Slope  Tilt
 Lateral strain at the top ("lat(T)) is the change of lateral
displacement at the top over the length (L) of the section
and is defined as "lat ðTÞ ¼ Dl C L
l
 Lateral strain at the base ("lat(F)) is the change of lateral
displacement at the base over the length (L) of the sec-
tion and is defined as "lat ðFÞ ¼ Al B L
l
The maximum vertical movement of the structure was
4.46 mm, which was similar to the maximum green-field
vertical ground movement of 4.5 mm at the same location
as the structure. The maximum horizontal movement of the
structure was 2.31 mm, which was slightly smaller than the
green-field horizontal movement of 3.0 mm. The lateral
strain of the green-field horizontal movement was 2.25 
10–3 in the location of bay 1. This observation indicates that
a slight slip occurred between the structure and the ground.
The structure was tilted up slightly at the back corners of
bay 3. This behavior has also been observed in field struc-
# 2008 NRC Canada
1614
Fig. 1. Schematic cross section and plan view of physical model tests.
Fig. 2. Applied loads for physical model tests.
tures built on shallow foundations. The cracks were concen-
trated around window openings because of low confinement
and high stress concentration in these areas. Crack formation
near window openings is frequently observed in full-scale
structures adjacent to open cutting or tunneling. Some
cracks in the model test structure were attributable to the
curing and installation process due to the material shrinkage
and some installation disturbance. In addition, material non-
uniformity induced some local cracks in the structure. The
maximum crack width was 1.0 mm (10 mm at field scale).
Figure 4a shows the results of the deformation and crack
formation in the PIT5W model test structure. The deforma-
tion and crack formation were also prominent in bay 1, as in
PIT5E. However, a large crack did not open at the top of the
structure as it did in PIT5E. Instead, some large cracks
formed around window openings in bay 3. Such crack for-
mation may have been due to the confinement associated
with the heavier loading along the top of the structure. The
maximum vertical movement of the structure was 5.21 mm,
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 45, 2008
which was slightly greater than the maximum green-field
vertical ground movement of 4.5 mm that occurred at the
structure location. In other words, the structure settled more
than the green-field ground movement. The maximum hori-
zontal movement of the structure was 2.68 mm, which was
closer to the green-field horizontal movement of 3.0 mm
than was the horizontal displacement of 2.31 mm in PIT5E.
This indicates that the structure with heavier loading under-
went less slip between the structure and the ground than the
structure with lighter loading. This was probably due to a
higher normal force at the interface between the structure
and the ground, which induced a higher frictional force at
the interface. The lateral strain of the green-field horizontal
movement was 2.25  10–3 in the location of bay 1. The
structure also tilted upward slightly at the back corners of
bay 3. As with PIT5E, cracks were concentrated around
window openings. The maximum crack width in the PIT5W
structure was 0.5 mm (5 mm at field scale).
For the brick bearing wall structures of PIT5E and
# 2008 NRC Canada
Son and Cording 1615

Fig. 3. Distortion and cracking of physical model and numerical simulation of PIT5E (1/10th scale model). CALC., calculated; MEAS.
MAX, measured maximum crack width; MEAS. SUM, measured maximum summation of cracks along a horizontal line; b, angular distor-
tion; "p, maximum principal strain; "p(F), maximum principal strain using the horizontal strain at the foundation level; "p(T), maximum
principal strain using the horizontal strain at the top level; "lat(F), horizontal strain at the foundation level; "lat(T), horizontal strain at the top
level.

PIT5W, the green-field ground movements were compared
with those modified by the model structures (Figs. 3a, 4a).
The vertical displacement in bay 1 of the PIT5E structure
was similar to the vertical green-field ground movement. In
other words, the first bay of the structure conformed closely
with the green-field ground movement owing to the inten-
sive cracking in the structure. The second and third bays
show that relatively large tilts occurred, which were close
to the building settlement slope and therefore less distortion
and damage were observed. The horizontal strain at the
foundation level of bay 1 in the PIT5E structure closely con-
formed to the horizontal green-field ground strain. The hori-
zontal strain caused large cracks at the foundation level of
bay 1, but the horizontal strains induced in bays 2 and 3
were relatively small, and only slight damage occurred at
the foundation level of bays 2 and 3.
The settlement in bay 1 of the PIT5W structure also con-
formed closely with the green-field ground movement be-
cause the bay underwent significant cracking. The damage
in bay 3 of the structure was also quite significant, which is
different from that observed in the PIT5E structure. The hor-
izontal strain at the foundation level of bay 1 in the PIT5W
structure was also close to the horizontal green-field ground
strain. The horizontal strain caused large cracks at the foun-
dation level of bay 1, as in PIT5E. The horizontal strains in
bays 2 and 3 were relatively large compared with those in
the PIT5E structure.
Investigation of the structure deformations and cracks in
the PIT5E and PIT5W structures indicates that the stiffness
of the structures decreased with an increase in cracking, and
the structures became flexible enough to closely conform
with the green-field ground movement. However, if there
had been no cracking or if only minor cracking occurred,
the structures would have been stiff enough to modify the
green-field ground movement, as shown in Fig. 5b.
To verify the numerical approach and provide a justifiable
basis for extended numerical studies, the two physical model
tests (PIT5E and PIT5W) were simulated numerically and
the results were compared with those of the physical model
tests. The applied green-field ground movements (broken
lines in Figs. 3 and 4) were based on a limited number of
measured data at the same depth of the structure foundation.
Foundations were not modeled explicitly in the numerical
simulations. Instead, the weight of each physical foundation
was applied at the foundation level, and the effect of foun-
dations in contact with the soil was considered by adjusting
the interface properties. The simulation was performed
based on the properties of the model structures, which had
# 2008 NRC Canada
1616 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 45, 2008

Fig. 4. Distortion and cracking of physical model test and numerical simulation of PIT5W (1/10th scale model). CALC., calculated; MEAS.
MAX, measured maximum crack width; MEAS. SUM, measured maximum summation of cracks along a horizontal line; b, angular distor-
tion; "p, maximum principal strain; "p(F), maximum principal strain using the horizontal strain at the foundation level; "p(T), maximum
principal strain using the horizontal strain at the top level; "lat(F), horizontal strain at the foundation level; "lat(T), horizontal strain at the top
level.

been obtained from the experimental sample testing (Laefer
2001), and the load conditions applied in the model tests
(see Fig. 2).
The model geometry and boundary conditions of the nu-
merical simulations are shown in Fig. 6. The results of both
physical model tests and numerical simulations are summar-
ized for deformations and crack patterns in Figs. 3 and 4. A
direct comparison was performed between the physical
model tests and the numerical simulations. As shown in
Figs. 3 and 4, the overall structure deformations, crack pat-
terns, and crack width distributions were similar between
and among the numerical and physical models having simi-
lar properties. However, small changes in load distributions
and minor variations in the properties of the brick–mortar
contacts will cause crack formation and openings to occur
in different locations. These conditions may be induced be-
cause of the variation of properties through the physical
model test structures and the initial cracks due to shrinkage
and disturbance during curing and installing the model struc-
tures. The numerical simulations were performed under the
assumption of uniform strength and stiffness throughout the
model structures so that the structures did not have variable
properties and initial cracks.
From the direct comparisons, good agreements were
found between the model structures and the numerical simu-
lations. The numerical model was able to simulate both the
structure deformations (slope, tilt, angular distortion, and lat-
eral strain) and the crack widths and patterns exhibited in
the physical model tests. The correlations confirmed that
the numerical approach was reasonably valid and provided
a strong foundation to extend numerical studies.
Extended numerical tests
The reasonable simulations of the two physical model
tests led to extended numerical studies that included the ef-
fects of structural conditions. In urban areas, two main struc-
ture types are brick-bearing and frame structures, and these
structures are often encountered in construction areas. Even
though the two different structures may show very different
responses to excavation-induced ground movements, a direct
comparison of their responses under the same ground move-
ment profile has not been observed in the field or in a test
situation, either physically or numerically.
Therefore, numerical studies were carried out to evaluate
the performance of single brick bearing walls and a frame
structure (Figs. 6, 7) under an identical ground movement
profile and to provide key features of building response
# 2008 NRC Canada
Son and Cording 1617

Fig. 5. Comparison of the numerical analyses of two-storey brick bearing walls (1/10th model scale). b, angular distortion; "lat(F), horizontal
strain at the foundation level; "lat(T), horizontal strain at the top level.

Fig. 6. Model geometry and boundary conditions for numerical tests of brick-bearing structure.

with different structural conditions. Two different types of
structures (brick-bearing and frame) were modeled under
both elastic and crackable conditions, and their responses
were compared in terms of the deformations. The structures
were subjected to the same ground movements and load
conditions as those of the physical model test of PIT5E.
The brick-bearing structures were modeled using a dis-
tinct element code UDEC version 3.1 (Itasca Consulting
Group Inc. 2000) in which each brick unit was modeled sep-
arately with the contact properties determined by the proper-
ties of the mortar–brick contacts, and the frame structure
was also modeled using the same code. Detailed soil and
structure properties are presented in Table 1.
The most important element to model on the ground –
brick bearing wall interaction is the nonlinearity of the
building because the displacements and cracking between
masonry units control the behavior and building stiffness. In
assessing the soil–structure interactions due to excavation-
induced ground movements, many investigators have given
considerable efforts to the analysis of soil–structure interac-
tions in which structures were often simulated as elastic
beams, but most analyses did not explicitly consider soil–
# 2008 NRC Canada
1618
Fig. 7. Model geometry and boundary condition for numerical tests of frame structure.
structure interactions when assessing potential damage to
nearby structures. Reasonable damage assessments require a
better understanding of the soil–structure interactions with
building cracking.
Some studies have been performed to investigate the re-
sponse of masonry structures due to tunneling with the con-
sideration of cracking, including those of Simpson (1994),
Netzel and Kaalberg (1999), and Burd et al. (2000). How-
ever, the masonry structures in these studies were modeled
with the conventional finite element (FE) procedures, which
cannot simulate the large crack openings and the relative ro-
tations and translations between the masonry units.
In this paper, brick-bearing structures have been modeled
to consider the large crack openings and the relative transla-
tions and rotations between masonry units, and building re-
sponses to excavation-induced ground movements have been
more explicitly investigated simulating the large crack open-
ings and postcracking behaviors of the structures.
Figure 5 summarizes the responses of the two-storey elas-
tic and cracked brick-bearing structures that were subjected
to all the same conditions except the joint tensile and shear
strengths. The comparison of the two structures shows that,
for the same ground stiffness and displacement, structures
may respond very differently when they are cracked.
The elastic structure responded with much greater stiff-
ness than the cracked structure. For the elastic structure, the
angular distortion (b) was 0.44  10–3 in bay 1 and 0.53 
10–3 in bay 3, and the lateral strain ("lat(F)) at the foundation
level was 0.39  10–3 in bay 1 and 0.08  10–3 in bay 3.
Due to elastic deformations, the elastic brick-bearing struc-
ture has similar angular distortions in bays 1 and 3, and the
deformation direction is shown in Fig. 5. However, with
modeling of crack occurrence, the brick-bearing structure
underwent significant cracking, and a large angular distor-
tion developed in bay 1. The cracked brick-bearing structure
responded in a much more flexible manner than the elastic
brick-bearing structure because of the significant cracking.
The angular distortion was 2.29  10–3 in bay 1 and 0.15 
10–3 in bay 3, and the lateral strain at the foundation level
was 1.95  10–3 in bay 1 and 0.03  10–3 in bay 3. The
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 45, 2008
structures were tilted up at the back corners of bay 3 and
the tilt was greater in the elastic brick-bearing structure.
It should be noted that the angular distortion in the
cracked structure increased in bay 1 and decreased in bay 3
compared with the elastic structure, and a similar trend was
found for the lateral strain at the foundation level. This im-
plies that once cracking occurs in a structure, the subsequent
cracks form around and extend out from the initial cracks,
making the initial cracks open wider. For the elastic brick
structure, the building slope was close to the tilt, but the dif-
ference between the slope and the tilt increased with an in-
crease in building cracking. The comparison of the two
structures clearly shows that the cracking in structures
strongly controls the building response to a ground move-
ment, and elastic analysis alone can produce misleading re-
sults about building responses. Therefore, estimates of
building damage due to excavation-induced ground move-
ment should be based on soil–structure interaction that con-
siders the cracking in the structures.
Soil–structure interaction of the given ground movement
was investigated in terms of the normalized angular distor-
tion (b/DGS, where b is an angular distortion in a bay and
DGS is the change in ground slope between two adjacent
bays in a green-field ground movement profile). For the elas-
tic brick-bearing structure, the normalized angular distortion
was 0.18 in bay 1 and 1.0 in the cracked brick-bearing struc-
ture, which implies that the structure distorted conforming to
the given ground settlement. The tilt was greater and the
slope smaller in bay 1 of the elastic brick-bearing structure
than in the cracked structure because of the higher stiffness
due to the lack of cracking. These observations indicate that
the cracked brick-bearing structure distorted close to the
given ground settlement, but the elastic brick-bearing struc-
ture greatly modified the ground movement and underwent
much less distortion.
Figure 8 summarizes the responses of the two-storey brick
and frame structures in which the brick structure was in the
cracked condition. The brick-bearing structure underwent
significant cracking, and the angular distortions in bays 1
and 2 were larger than those in the frame structure, which
is elastic. However, the brick structure underwent less dis-
# 2008 NRC Canada
Son and Cording
Fig. 8. Comparison of the numerical analyses of two-storey brick bearing wall and frame wall (1/10th model scale), with the brick structure
in the cracked condition and the frame structure in the elastic condition. b, angular distortion; "lat(F), horizontal strain at the foundation
level; "lat(T), horizontal strain at the top level.
tortion in bay 3 than the frame structure because of minor
cracking. After the significant cracking, the stiffness of the
brick-bearing structure decreased remarkably and the struc-
ture responded in a much more flexible manner than the
frame structure. For the brick-bearing structure, the angular
distortion after cracking increased substantially in bay 1 but
decreased in bay 3. The angular distortion for the brick-
bearing structure was 2.29  10–3 in bay 1 and 0.15  10–3
in bay 3, but it was only 0.37  10–3 in bay 2. However, the
frame structure had similar angular distortions in bays 1 and
3 (1.24  10–3 and 1.34  10–3, respectively); this trend was
also observed in the elastic brick structure. The deformation
direction is shown in Fig. 8.
It should be noted that the angular distortion in bay 3 of
the frame structure is as high as that in bay 1, irrespective of
the small building slope. This is attributable to the large lat-
eral swing of the structure due to the structural flexibility.
The lateral strains in bay 1 were much greater in the brick
structure than in the frame structure because of the severe
cracking.
For the cracked brick-bearing structure, the normalized
angular distortion (b/DGS) was 1.0 in bay 1 and 0.55 in the
frame structure. The cracked brick-bearing structure dis-
torted more than the frame structure because of the severe
cracking.
The observation of the response of the two different struc-
ture types provides an important result in terms of a building
damage estimate. Both structures were subjected to the same
ground movement profile so that the structures had the same
1619
ground deflection ratio (/L = 6.0  10–4, where  is the
relative deflection that is the maximum displacement of the
settlement profile of a structure relative to the straight line
connecting two settlement reference points and L is the dis-
tance between two reference points, which is here the length
of structure). However, the two structures distorted very dif-
ferently as described earlier in the paper. Comparison of the
brick-bearing and frame structures shows the importance of
tilt in structure distortion. The result implies that differences
in tilt should be considered when evaluating building distor-
tion, and thus the deflection ratio, which does not consider
tilt effect in structure distortion, may not be an appropriate
parameter for building damage estimation.
Figure 9 compares the responses of the two-storey brick
and frame structures, both in the elastic condition. Both
structures underwent elastic deformations, but the brick-
bearing structure underwent much less distortion.
For each structure, the angular distortions are very close
in bays 1 and 3 and bay 2 has a relatively small value. An-
gular distortion in the brick-bearing structure was 0.44 
10–3 in bay 1, 0.53  10–3 in bay 3, and only 0.03  10–3
in bay 2. A similar trend was found in the frame structure,
but the angular distortion was much greater than that in the
brick-bearing structure. Angular distortion in the frame
structure was 1.24  10–3 in bay 1, 1.34  10–3 in bay 3,
and only 0.19  10–3 in bay 2. Both structures underwent
similar tilt.
The normalized angular distortion (b/DGS) was 0.18 in
bay 1 for the elastic brick structure and 0.55 for the frame
# 2008 NRC Canada
1620
Fig. 9. Comparison of the numerical analyses of two-storey brick bearing wall and frame wall (1/10th model scale) with both in the elastic
condition. b, angular distortion; "lat(F), horizontal strain at the foundation level; "lat(T), horizontal strain at the top level.
structure, which implies that the frame structure distorted
more closely to the given ground settlement. In other words,
the elastic brick-bearing structure greatly modified the
ground movement and underwent much less distortion.
From the comparison of the two structures, it is clear that a
brick structure before cracking is much stiffer than a frame
structure, and therefore the brick structure can modify the
ground movement greater and distorts less than the frame
structure.
Conclusions
The building response to excavation-induced ground
movements was investigated both physically and numeri-
cally. The investigation was performed for two different
structures, a brick-bearing structure and a frame structure.
The structures were subjected to a ground movement and
the responses to the ground movement were compared and
analyzed. The results are summerized and conclusions are
presented as follows:
(1) Both the physical model tests and numerical studies
clearly indicate that building response is strongly con-
trolled by the soil–structure interaction. A better estimate
of the building response to excavation-induced ground
movements requires a better understanding of the com-
plex soil–structure interaction of the soil, structure, and
ground movement.
(2) Investigation of the deformations and cracks in the
model structures indicates that the shear-induced crack-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 45, 2008
ing and horizontal strain-induced cracking patterns are
typical in structures. Cracking is easily concentrated
around opening areas in the first bays of the structures
because of low confinement and high stress concentra-
tion.
(3) Cracking significantly decreased the stiffness of the
structure and increased the tendency for the structure to
conform more closely to the green-field ground move-
ment. This result implies that cracking of the structure
strongly controls the building response to excavation-
induced ground movements and elastic analysis alone
can produce misleading results of the building response.
(4) The comparison of the brick-bearing structure and the
frame structure in elastic conditions clearly indicates
that the brick-bearing structure is much stiffer than the
frame structure and can modify the ground movement
more and distort less than the frame structure. For each
structure, the angular distortions were similar in bays 1
and 3, but smaller in bay 2.
(5) A brick-bearing structure in an elastic condition was
much stiffer and underwent less distortion than a frame
structure; after significant cracking, however, the stiff-
ness of the brick-bearing structure decreased substan-
tially and the structure distorted much more than the
frame structure, conforming to the given ground move-
ment more closely. From these results, it is evident that
the building response should be evaluated by considering
both strength and stiffness.
(6) Comparison of the response of the brick-bearing struc-
# 2008 NRC Canada
Son and Cording
ture and the frame structure shows the importance of tilt
in a structure. It is recognized that, when evaluating
building distortion, the tilt effect should be considered
for building damage assessment, and thus angular distor-
tion, which considers the tilt effect in a structure distor-
tion, may be a more appropriate parameter for building
damage assessment than the deflection ratio, which does
not consider tilt.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the National Science Founda-
tion (NSF) and Schnabel Foundation Co. This support is
gratefully acknowledged.
References
Attewell, P.B. 1978. Large ground movements and structural da-
mage caused by tunneling below the water table in a silty allu-
vial clay. In Proceedings of the Conference on Large Ground
Movements and Structures, Cardiff, July 1977. Edited by James
D. Geddes. Pentech Press, London, UK. pp. 307–355.
Boone, S.J., Westland, J., and Nusink, R. 1999. Comparative eva-
luation of building response to an adjacent braced excavation.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36(2): 210–223. doi:10.1139/
cgj-36-2-210.
Boscardin, M.D., and Cording, E.J. 1989. Building response to ex-
cavation-induced settlement. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 115(1): 1–21.
Breth, H., and Chambosse, G. 1974. Settlement behavior of build-
ings above subway tunnels in Frankfurt clay. In Proceedings of
the Conference on Settlement of Structures, London, April 1974.
British Geotechnical Society, Pentech Press, London. pp. 329–
336.
Burd, H.J., Houlsby, G.T., Augarde, C.E., and Liu, G. 2000. Mod-
elling tunneling-induced settlements of masonry buildings. Pro-
ceedings of ICE, Geotechnical Engineering, 143: 17–30.
Burland, J.B. 1995. Assessment of risk of damage to buildings due
to tunneling and excavation. In Proceedings of the 1st Interna-
tional Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, IS-
Tokyo, Japan, November 1995. Edited by K. Ishihara. A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 1189–1201.
Clough, G.W., and O’Rourke, T.D. 1990. Construction induced
movements of in situ walls. In Design and performance of earth
retaining structures. Edited by P. Lambe and L.A. Hansen. Geo-
technical Special Publication 25, ASCE, Reston, Va. pp. 439–470.
Cording, E.J., and Hansmire, W.H. 1975. Displacements around
soft ground tunnels. In Proceedings of the 5th Panamerican Con-
ference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Buenos
Aires, 27–31 October 1975. pp. 571–633.
Goldberg, D.T., Jaworski, W.E., and Gordon, M.D. 1976. Lateral
support systems and underpinning. Federal Highway Adminis-
tration Research Program Report (volume 1: Design and Con-
struction), U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 2000. UDEC 3.1 theory and manual.
Itasca Consulting Group Inc., Minneapolis, Minn.
Laefer, D.F. 2001. Prediction and assessment of ground movement
and building damage induced by adjacent excavation. Ph.D. the-
1621
sis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Ill.
Mueller, C.G. 2000. Behavior of model-scale tieback walls in sand.
Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineer-
ing, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Ill.
Netzel, H., and Kaalberg, F.J. 1999. Numerical damage risk assess-
ment studies on masonry structures due to TBM-tunnelling in
Amsterdam. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Geotechnical Aspects on Underground Construction in Soft
Ground, Tokyo, Japan, 19–21 July 1999. Edited by O. Kusa-
kabe, K. Fujita, and Y. Miyazaki. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
the Netherlands. pp. 235–244.
Peck, R.B. 1969. Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground. In
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Me-
chanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico.
State-of-the-Art Report, pp. 225–290.
Simpson, B. 1994. A model of interaction between tunneling and a
masonry structure. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Confer-
ence on Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Man-
chester, UK, 7–9 September 1994. Edited by I.M. Smith. A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 221–228.
Son, M. 2003. The response of building damages to excavation-
induced ground movements. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, The University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Ill.
Son, M., and Cording, E.J. 2005. Estimation of building damage
due to excavation-induced ground movements. Journal of Geo-
technical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 131(2):
162–177. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:2(162).
List of symbols
Al, Bl, Cl, Dl lateral displacement at A, B, C, and D
Av, Bv, Cv, Dv vertical displacement at A, B, C, and D
c cohesive strength
E Young’s modulus
H height of the section
Kn joint or interface normal stiffness
Ks joint or interface shear stiffness
L length of section
b angular distortion
g total unit weight
"lat(F) horizontal strain at the foundation level
"lat(G) horizontal green-field ground strain
"lat(T) horizontal strain at the top level
"p maximum principal strain
"p(F) maximum principal strain using the horizontal
strain at the foundation level
"p(T) maximum principal strain using the horizontal
strain at the top level of the structure
 Poisson’s ratio
 friction angle
t joint or interface tensile strength
D relative deflection
DGS change in ground slope of a green-field ground
movement profile
# 2008 NRC Canada