Data Fusion Analysis Method for Assessment on Safety

Monitoring Results of Deep Excavations

Jin-Jian Chen, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE 1; Wei Zhang 2; and Jian-Hua Wang, Ph.D. 3

Abstract: A safety monitoring system is usually applied in deep excavations in order to control the construction risk and to ensure the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by George Washington University on 04/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

serviceability of adjacent facilities. Considering the mass data collected by different sensors, a reasonable assessment method on the mon-
itoring results is necessary to evaluate the safety state of both the deep excavation itself and the surrounding environment. By introducing the
conception of data fusion, a comprehensive assessment method is presented to find the anomaly in the safety monitoring results in this paper.
Data fusion analyses on both a single monitoring item and the correlation of multiple monitoring items are proposed and studied. The one-
class support vector machines (SVMs) are used to improve the data fusion analysis between a single monitoring item and different excavation
parameters, and then developed to three-dimensional (3D) fusion analysis on a single item and multiple parameters of an excavation. The
mechanical and geometric patterns between different monitoring items are studied to propose a data fusion analysis on multiple monitoring
items and then to build the assessment criteria. Based on these two kinds of data fusion analysis, the mass monitoring data can be analyzed
completely to assess the safety state of deep excavations. An application in two cases of deep excavation in Shanghai, China, shows that
the proposed method is effective in data anomaly assessment. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0000593. © 2015 American Society of
Civil Engineers.

Introduction
Field monitoring is an important means to ensure the safety state of
deep excavations and their surrounding structures (Bhalla et al.
2005; Liu et al. 2005, 2006; Su et al. 2006; Tan and Wei 2011;
Zhang et al. 2013; Chen et al. 2015). During deep excavation, re-
taining structures of deep excavations and the surrounding environ-
ment is a whole system. Therefore, in the design and construction
of a braced excavation, it is essential to consider not only the sta-
bility and safety issue but also the potential serviceability problem
of adjacent buildings and pipes caused by excessive wall deflec-
tions and ground movements (Xu 2007; Wang et al. 2010; Zhang
et al. 2013, 2015; Li et al. 2014; Wang et al. 2015). The typical
response of the whole system during deep excavation is shown
as Fig. 1 (Wang et al. 2010; Zhang et al. 2015). All of these differ-
ent responses have to be monitored as different items, including
displacement of wall, ground settlement, axial force of strut, and
vertical displacement of column and wall (Liu et al. 2005; Tan
and Wei 2011).
After the field monitoring data are obtained, the safety state of
the deep excavation and surrounding environment, both soil and
adjacent underground structure, should be assessed to control
the construction risk. Many monitoring criteria for risk warning
have been proposed based on performances of excavations and
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao
Tong Univ., 800 Dongchuan Rd., Shanghai 200240, China. E-mail:
chenjj29@sjtu.edu.cn
2 et al. 2005a). Similarly, the conception of data fusion is the process
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ.,
800 Dongchuan Rd., Shanghai 200240, China. E-mail: zhangwei2609@
gmail.com
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ., 800
Dongchuan Rd., Shanghai 200240, China (corresponding author). E-mail:
wjh417@sjtu.edu.cn
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 10, 2015; approved on
October 9, 2015; published online on December 31, 2015. Discussion
period open until May 31, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Aerospace En-
gineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0893-1321.
adjacent facilities (Mana and Clough 1981; Clough and O’Rourke
1990; Woo and Moh 1990; Ou et al. 1993; Wong et al. 1997). How-
ever, these criteria are mostly represented through linear relation-
ship and are single-parameter related. Such traditional monitoring
criteria just describe local features of the deep excavation safety
state and are vulnerable to the external environment. Additionally,
they do not consider deep excavation as a whole system and do not
make full use of the potential value of mass monitoring data. These
have led to false positive and false negative in safety monitoring
and cannot play an effective role in risk control to achieve the
purpose of monitoring (Liu and Wang 2009). For such reason, a
33-m-deep excavation adjacent to Nicoll Highway collapsed in
Singapore with continuous alarms, which masked real potential
dangers (Magnus et al. 2005b).
There are two aspects to solving false positive and false negative
problems according to present researches. One is to introduce new
monitoring techniques (Bhalla et al. 2005; Liu et al. 2006; Su et al.
2006). Liu et al. (2006) studied the feasibility of applying Brillouin
optical time domain reflectometry (BOTDR) to deep excavation
monitoring. Su et al. (2006) explored the use of three-dimensional
(3D) laser scanning technology to accurately capture construction
activities during excavation. The other aspect is to develop new
assessment methods based on analysis of monitoring data such
as statistics, nonlinear regression, and data fusion. There is a need
to integrate information from the various instruments and to relate
the crucial information to what is happening on the worksite as well
as the quality of each of the elements in the construction (Magnus
of integration of multiple data points and knowledge representing
the same real-world object based on the optimization criteria or
algorithms into a consistent, accurate, and useful representation
(Hall and Llinas 1997), and it has been applied in different fields.
Based on the conception of data fusion, a comprehensive
anomaly assessment method is presented in this paper through data
fusion analysis of a single monitoring item and multiple monitoring
items separately. Application in two case studies indicates the
effectiveness of this method.

© ASCE B4015005-1 J. Aerosp. Eng.

J. Aerosp. Eng., B4015005

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by George Washington University on 04/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Binary classification and geometric margin

Fig. 1. Typical response of the whole system in deep excavation

Calculate w and b requires an evaluation objective for classifi-

Data Fusion Analysis of Single Monitoring Item
cation of training data and also a concept defined by function mar-
Behavior indicated by monitoring items of a deep excavation may gin to indicate the distance from training data point to hyperplane.
be affected by many factors, i.e., excavation parameters, such as The following introduces the concept of geometric margin because
excavation depth, strut spacing, system stiffness, soil stiffness, it has an obvious geometric meaning. Fig. 2 shows the hyperplane
and dewatering. There are a lot of researches on the relationships specified by certain w and b and the vector w, which is the direction
between monitoring item and excavation parameters (Clough and of the hyperplane. Because Fig. 2 is two-dimensional (2D), the hy-
O’Rourke 1990; Ou et al. 1993; Xu 2007). However, these relation- perplane degenerates to a line. These formulas can be compre-
ships are mostly represented through a linear relationship and are hended in two dimensions, according to the assumption that this
single-parameter related. Here, data fusion analysis implemented line represents a hyperplane. In Fig. 2, AB indicates the distance
by an artificial intelligence algorithm, one-class support vector γ ðiÞ from one of training data A to the hyperplane. Calculation
machines (SVMs), is applied in order to obtain the relationship be- of γ ðiÞ is as follows: The direction of w is w=kwk. Because A is
tween a single monitoring item and excavation parameters. denoted by xðiÞ, B can be denoted by xðiÞ − γ ðiÞ · w=kwk. B is
on the hyperplane, so xðiÞ − γ ðiÞ · w=kwk can be substituted to
the function of hyperplane. Then the following formula can be
Theory of One-Class SVMs obtained:
SVM is an artificial intelligence algorithm to solve classification  
T ðiÞ ðiÞ w
problem. The concept of kernel function gives SVMs powerful w x −γ · þb¼0 ð3Þ
nonlinear data analysis capabilities. The earliest research on kwk
SVMs is from Vapnik (2000) based on statistical learning theory.
Schölkopf et al. (2001) proposed a method called one-class SVMs To determine γ ðiÞ
based on the idea of SVMs for a one-class classification problem.  T
wT xðiÞ þ b w b
SVM is an algorithm to solve binary classification. Solving γ ðiÞ ¼ ¼ xðiÞ þ ð4Þ
a typical binary classification problem is through training kwk kwk kwk
labeled training data to obtain a model, then using this model to
It is easy to understand that γ ðiÞ generalize the distance from
determine or predict labels of testing data. Mathematically, xðiÞ ði ¼
point to plane to the distance form point to hyperplane. The mini-
1; 2; 3; : : : ; mÞ denotes training data, where m is the number of
mum of all γ ðiÞ is γ
training data. Each xðiÞ is an n-dimensional, vector indicating that
each xðiÞ has n features. And each xðiÞ has one corresponding label γ ¼ mini¼1; : : : ;m γ ðiÞ ð5Þ
yðiÞ , which is assumed as y ∈ f−1; 1g due to the binary classifica-
tion problem. Assuming training data are linear separable, there is a This paper’s objective is to find a hyperplane to maximize the
hyperplane formulated by fðxÞ ¼ wT x þ b ¼ 0 separating training smallest of the geometric margins. As a result, this idea can separate
data. Fig. 2 presents this in two dimensions, where the circles training data well through the hyperplane. Mathematically
denote y ¼ 1 and the pluses denote y ¼ −1.
The formula is maxγ;w;b · γ Subject to yðiÞ ðwT xðiÞ þ bÞ ≥ γ; i ¼ 1; : : : ; m
kwk ¼ 1 ð6Þ
hw;b ¼ gðwT x þ bÞ ð1Þ
Schölkopf et al. (2001) proposed a method called one-class
where SVMs based on the idea of SVMs. For one-class SVMs, all training

data are classified as one class. In other words, labels of all of train-
1 if z > 0 ing data are the same yðiÞ ¼ 1. Because there are no training data
gðzÞ ¼ ð2Þ
−1 if z < 0 whose label is yðiÞ ¼ −1, the original point is also assumed as a
training data point and its label is yðiÞ ¼ −1. Then the problem
If the value of w and b are known, the problem is solved. turns into finding a hyperplane for which all of training data fall

© ASCE B4015005-2 J. Aerosp. Eng.

J. Aerosp. Eng., B4015005

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by George Washington University on 04/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. One-class SVM
to one side and separate them from the origin with maximum
margin. Fig. 3 shows this idea and it is similar to using SVMs
to solve binary classification.
For practical problem, training data do not completely satisfy
the assumption of linear separable and they are susceptible to
outliers, so Schölkopf et al. (2000) proposed v-SVM. The primal
problem of one-class SVM deduced from v-SVM is (Schölkopf
et al. 2001)
1 1X l
min wT w − ρ þ ξ Subject to wT ∅ðxi Þ ≥ ρ − ξ i
w;ξ;ρ 2 vl i¼1 i
ξ i ≥ 0; i ¼ 1; : : : ; l ð7Þ
2D Fusion Analysis by One-Class SVM
Relationship between δhm and H
Clough and O’Rourke (1990) collected field data of δ hm of different
types of retaining walls in stiff clay, residual soil, and sandy soil.
The results suggest that the average of δ hm is 0.2%H and most of
data are less than 0.5%H. Ou et al. (1993) analyzed the relationship
between δhm and H of 10 deep excavations including the bottom-up
method and top-down method, suggesting that most of δhm fall in
the range of 0.14–0.68%H and the average value is 0.4%H. Xu
(2007) used the finite-element method (FEM) to obtain the upper
limit of the relationship between δ hm and H. It can be seen that the
traditional method represents the relationship linearly.
The one-class SVM algorithm is used to train training data from
the top-down deep excavation method used for concrete diaphragm
walls in Shanghai, China, to maintain comparability and study the
relationship between δ hm and H. The algorithm is implemented by
the LIBSVM program (Chang and Lin 2011). Then the relationship
between δ hm and H in two dimensions can be obtained. Fig. 4
shows the boundary of region and case histories data. From Fig. 4,
most of historical data fall inside the region, while several data
points fall outside the region. The region calculated by one-class
SVM has good performance without the phenomenon of overfitting
(Bishop 2006), and is so robust that individual outliers cannot affect
the shape of the region. Of course, these individual outliers are also
should be examined. It is known that the region obtained is not
simply from the maximum and minimum of each dimension be-
cause it forms a rectangular region. From another perspective,
© ASCE B4015005-3
J. Aerosp. Eng., B4015005
Fig. 4. Boundary of δhm and H calculated by one-class SVM and Xu
(2007) upper limit
the boundary of the region is a kind of fitting to peripheral points
of training data.
Xu (2007) also proposed the upper limit of relationship between
δ hm and H; Fig. 4 shows the comparison. When H is less than 15 m,
the boundary of the model calculated by one-class SVM is similar
to the upper limit proposed by Xu (2007). But when H is bigger
than 15 m, according to mechanical laws, larger excavation
depth allows larger δ hm. In engineering practice, the larger H is,
the more uncertainty and risk engineering has. To solve this issue,
conservative design and construction leads to small δhm . So, the
boundary based on engineering practice data declines when H is
bigger than 15 m. What is more, another difference is that the boun-
dary is a closed curve. If the model is generalized to multiple di-
mensions, some parameters have positive correlation with δ hm and
some parameters have negative correlation or other correlation. It is
unnecessary to analyze every parameter because the safety direc-
tion is ð1=2Þn under the assumption that there are only positive and
negative correlation, where n is the number of the parameters.
Relationship between δhm and ρs
The value of δ hm is not only related to geometric parameter but
also to mechanical parameter. Here, region representation of rela-
tionship between δ hm and system stiffness is also improved. The
following system stiffness ρs is adopted here (Clough and
O’Rourke 1990)
Ew I
ρs ¼ ð8Þ
γ w h4
where Ew = elasticity modulus of retaining wall; I = section inertia
moment of retaining wall; h = average spacing of struts in vertical
direction; and γ w = unit weight of water.
Training data from the top-down method deep excavation are
also used in concrete diaphragm walls in Shanghai, China (Xu
2007). Fig. 5 shows the boundary of the relationship between
δ hm and ρs calculated by one-class SVM.
Relationship between δhm and H
Similarly, region representation of the relationship between δ vm and
H is also proposed. Clough and O’Rourke (1990) collected field
data of ground surface settlement of different types of retaining
wall in stiff clay, residual soil, and sandy soil. The result suggests
that δ vm is 0.15%H. Wong et al. (1997) analyzed δ vm in Singapore
J. Aerosp. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by George Washington University on 04/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Boundary of δ hm and ρs calculated by one-class SVM
and most of the data are less than 0.2%H. Xu (2007) used FEM to
obtain the upper limit of the relationship between δ vm and H.
Training data are from the top-down method of deep excavation
used in concrete diaphragm walls in Shanghai, China (Xu 2007).
Fig. 6 shows the boundary of relationship between δ vm and H
calculated by one-class SVM.
3D Fusion Analysis by One-Class SVM
Monitoring items are not only affected by a single excavation
parameter, but also related by other parameters. Generalization
to region representation of the relationship between a single
monitoring item and multiple parameters makes the region more
precise. And another advantage of using the one-class SVM algo-
rithm is that it is easy to implement generalization to multiple
dimensions. Combined with geometric parameter and mechanical
parameter, the proposed region relationship among δ hm , H, and ρs
is shown in Fig. 7.
Discussions
Data fusion analysis of monitoring item and excavation parameters
is an experience analogy method. If data of a new deep excavation
Fig. 6. Boundary of δ vm and H calculated by one-class SVM and Xu
(2007) upper limit
© ASCE B4015005-4
J. Aerosp. Eng., B4015005
Fig. 7. Boundary of δ hm , H, and ρs calculated by one-class SVM
fell outside region of existing similar engineering, it is worth ana-
lyzing the reason why anomaly data appeared. The most likely rea-
son is the lack of similar engineering data, but that may not meet
some implied mechanical laws in region. Region representation
among multiple parameters calculated by the one-class SVM algo-
rithm describes the region more accurately so it can solve the false
positive problem in deep excavation monitoring. The region can be
updated to obtain better performance by presenting new training
examples as new data become available.
Data Fusion Analysis of Multiple Monitoring Items
During excavation, there are mechanical and geometric patterns be-
tween various monitoring items because the retaining structure and
surrounding environment work as a whole system. Soil unloading
causes bottom heave and displacement of retaining walls, thereby
ground movements behind walls occur, which cause settlements of
pipelines and buildings. Among the monitoring items, the relation-
ship between lateral displacement of retaining wall and settlement
ground surface describes the soil flow inside and outside of the pit,
indirectly reflecting the settlement and bottom heave of pit and the
settlement pipelines and buildings; the relationship between verti-
cal displacements of supporting columns and retaining walls con-
tributes an additional factor on the stability of struts; the amount of
compression of struts and lateral displacement of the retaining wall
must be coordinated geometrically, otherwise there is a risk of
buckling failure of struts or punching failure of walls.
Lateral Displacement of Retaining Wall and Settlement
of Ground Surface
With soil excavated in construction, soil behind the wall has a ten-
dency to move inside the pit, resulting in pressure on the retaining
walls, causing lateral deformation of the walls. So there is close
relationship between lateral displacement of retaining wall and set-
tlement ground surface. Fig. 1 shows this response. A number of
studies have also indicated that there is a mechanical and geometric
relationship between lateral displacement of the retaining wall and
settlement of the ground surface.
The value of δhm has consistency with δ vm . According to Mana
and Clough (1981), who collected data from various excavations in
San Francisco; Oslo, Norway; and Chicago, their result shows
δ vm ¼ 0.5 − 1.0δ hm . And through the surveying of excavations
in Taipei, Taiwan, soft soil area, Ou et al. (1993) suggest δ vm falls
J. Aerosp. Eng.
 between 0.5 and 0.7δhm , and local damage, groundwater seepage, and
overload on the ground surface lead to the situation in which δ vm is
more than δ hm . Statistics based on Woo and Moh’s (1990) excavation
experience in Taipei, Taiwan, show δ vm ¼ 0.25 − 1.0δ hm. Using
FEM to analyze deep excavation in Shanghai, China, Xu (2007)
found δ vm ¼ 0.7δ hm on average. Liu et al. (2005) observed the per-
formance of a deep excavation in Shanghai, China, statistically and
suggests δvm ¼ 0.4 − 0.5δ hm . If lateral displacement of the retain-
ing wall is small and sustainable settlement of the ground surface
develops, it is usually caused by local damage in soil, groundwater
seepage, and abnormal rebound at the bottom of the pit or other
factors.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by George Washington University on 04/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Similarly, there is a relationship between maximum rate of
change of settlement Δδ vm and maximum rate of change of lateral
displacement Δδ hm . According to relevant research (Xu 2007), if
Δδ vm is bigger than Δδ hm or Δδ hm is small and Δδ vm is large, a
mismatch is considered to have happened.
Without outside soil flowing and groundwater seepage, the vol-
ume of soil loss behind retaining walls caused by displacement of
walls is equal to the sum of the volume of ground surface settlement
trough and volume of bottom heave caused by unloading. Statis-
tical analysis in Shanghai, China, shows that the relationship be-
tween volume of soil loss trough behind retaining walls and
volume of ground surface settlement trough is V s ¼ 0.76V w (Xu
2007). This coefficient is affected by factors including dewatering
outside the pit, nonignorable lateral deformation at the toe of
retaining walls, overload on ground surface, and abnormal bottom
heave.
Fig. 8. Flowcharts of the comprehensive anomaly assessment method
© ASCE B4015005-5
J. Aerosp. Eng., B4015005
Vertical Displacement of Supporting Column and
Retaining Walls
The fact that additional deformation for horizontal struts generated
by different vertical displacement of supporting column and retain-
ing walls leads to large stress may threaten construction of deep
excavation. Only limit values for vertical displacement of support-
ing column and retaining walls are specified in traditional monitor-
ing (Liu and Wang 2009). So, the traditional monitoring method
cannot effectively assess additional deformation. Furthermore,
whatever it is for a concrete or steel compression members, displace-
ment perpendicular to compression direction at midspan is an im-
portant factor affecting the stability of compression members. Under
the traditional method, there is hidden risk because limit-value dis-
placement still gives rise to additional displacement for struts.
Axial Force of Strut and Lateral Displacement of
Retaining Wall
Generally, risk control for struts uses the value of axial force as the
only assessment criteria, such as 80% (Liu and Wang 2009) of de-
sign value of axial force. Statistical results show that the force of
struts is rarely beyond the design value, while local buckling of
struts or punching failure to retaining wall brings great hidden risk
to deep excavation engineering. From the design of the supporting
system, struts deformation and lateral displacement of retaining
walls should be coordinated geometrically. If that is a mismatch,
the force of struts will be small and lateral displacement of the re-
taining wall will be too large.
J. Aerosp. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by George Washington University on 04/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Hanzhong Road Station and instruments layout

According to material mechanics, Eq. (9) can be derived
FN L
¼ Kδ ð9Þ
Es A
where FN = axial force of strut; L = length of strut; Es = elastic
modulus of strut material; A = cross-sectional area of strut; δ =
compression deformation calculated by lateral displacement of
retaining wall; and K = coefficient between strut axial force and
lateral displacement calculation value.
Data Fusion Analysis on Results of Inclinometer
There is a mechanical relation for the same kind of monitoring
item, so it can also apply data fusion analysis. An inclinometer in
a deep excavation can obtain lateral displacement of the wall at a
different depth. Then the internal force of the retaining wall is indi-
rectly felt through these lateral displacements such as using curva-
ture of displacement curve to calculate bending moment of retaining
wall. Consequently, the assessment criterion can be obtained by
selecting the internal force control parameters. There are some
methods to calculate internal force through lateral displacement.
Discussions
Essentially, relationships between monitoring items mean geomet-
ric or physical patterns in deep excavation. If new monitoring data
violate these geometric and physical patterns, they are considered
as anomaly data. This is a situation in which the traditional mon-
itoring method is not considered because it uses a single monitoring
item. What is more, it is more obvious in physical meaning than the
traditional method, so it can solve false positive and false negative
problems in deep excavation monitoring.
4. Collect references for determining coefficient between multiple
monitoring items by calculation, literature, or statistics;
5. Obtain assessment criteria on multiple monitoring items,
e.g., δ vm ¼ 0.5 − 1.5δ hm and K ¼ 0.5 − 1.5 in “Data Fusion
Analysis of Multiple Monitoring Items” can be used as assess-
ment criteria;
6. Assess safety monitoring results through these two kinds of
assessment criteria; and
7. Obtain anomaly data after assessment and possible reasons for
these data.
In the assessment relationship, it is not necessary to draw the
region in practice. Once w and b in Eq. (9) are discovered, a model
is obtained based on one-class SVM. Then, w and b are substituted
into Eq. (1) to obtain the value of yðiÞ. Concretely, in deep exca-
vation the features of training data include δ hm , H, and ρs or others.
Then calculate the monitoring data with the model, which is learnt
from training data. The value of y determines this engineering is in
a safety state or anomaly state.
Application in Case 1 of Deep Excavation
Project Description
The depth of excavation of the Hanzhong Road Station in Shanghai
Metro Line No. 13 is 31.1 to 33.1 m. The thickness of the dia-
phragm walls is 1,200 mm, and the depth is 58 m in the standard
segment of station and 62 m in the work shafts of the shield tunnel.
There are eight levels of struts along depth of pit. The fourth and

Assessment of Monitoring Results and Application

Assessment Method and Implementation

A comprehensive anomaly assessment method is formed based on
the preceding analysis, and Fig. 8 shows this analysis method
through flowcharts in the following steps:
1. Prepare monitoring data of deep excavation for assessment;
2. Collect excavation parameters related to assessment criteria and
histories data of local excavation;
3. Obtain relationship between monitoring item and parameters by
one-class SVM algorithm, e.g., the relations between δ hm and
H, δ hm and ρs , or δvm and H can be determined based on ana-
Fig. 10. Variables δhm and H in excavation
lysis in “Data Fusion Analysis of Single Monitoring Item”;

© ASCE B4015005-6 J. Aerosp. Eng.

J. Aerosp. Eng., B4015005


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by George Washington University on 04/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. Variables δhm and ρs in excavation
sixth levels of struts are concrete struts and the others are steel
struts. Fig. 9 shows the profile of the excavation and the layout
of monitoring instruments.
Analysis of Single Monitoring Item
Because the top-down method is adopted, training data should also
come from the top-down method deep excavation. There is an
assumption that the excavation face is located where δ hm occurs
Fig. 12. Variables δhm , H, and ρs in excavation from different perspectives
© ASCE B4015005-7
J. Aerosp. Eng., B4015005
(Xu 2007). The dashed line in Fig. 10 indicates the region of
δ hm and the solid line is the monitoring data of one diaphragm wall
labeled CX-16. This engineering is considered to be in a safety state
because δhm does not exceed the region.
Similarly, the solid line is the monitoring data of one diaphragm
wall labeled CX-16 and the dashed line is the boundary of the
region in Fig. 11. The monitoring data of CX-16 are considered
to be in safety because the data are inside the region.
The value of ρs is added to δ hm and H to obtain the region
between a single monitoring item and multiple excavation param-
eters. In Fig. 12, the monitoring data of CX-16 exceed the region at
the final stage of excavation. This situation does not happen in as-
sessment based on a single monitoring item and single parameter.
The relationship between δhm and H and the relationship between
δ hm and ρs can be seen to project in two directions separately.
The two-dimensional region obtained by project is larger than
the three-dimensional region.
Analysis of Multiple Monitoring Items
The decline trend of the ratio of δ hm and δ vm can be seen in Fig. 13.
Then the ratio falls when δ vm ¼ 0.4–0.7δ hm . This is in accord with
Liu et al.’s (2005) statistic. In the beginning of the excavation, the
ratio is uncertain because of the effect of the construction. How-
ever, traditional monitoring specifies that δ hm cannot be greater
than 0.14% of H. But in the end stage of excavation, most δ hm ex-
ceed the criterion and continuous alarms happened. So data fusion
analysis of multiple monitoring items solves the problem that con-
tinuous alarms happened for δ hm in the end stage of exaction.
J. Aerosp. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by George Washington University on 04/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. Ratio of δ hm and δ vm in excavation
Fig. 14. Axial force changes at point ZC18-2
Application in Case 2 of Deep Excavation
Project Description
Case 2 is an excavation of Kaixuan Road Station in Shanghai Metro
Line No. 10. This deep excavation is 150.25 m long, 24 m wide,
and 15.44 m deep. The depth of diaphragm walls is 33 m in the
standard segment of station and 29 m in the work shafts of shield
tunnel. There are five levels of struts along depth of the pit. The first
levels of struts are concrete struts and the others are steel struts.
Data Fusion Analysis of Multiple Monitoring Items
The steel strut monitored by the ZC18-2 sensor is 18.6 m long and
located at −4.5 m. The cross-section shape of this strut is a pipe
whose external diameter is 609 mm and thickness is 16 mm. Ac-
cording to the traditional method, the limit value of axial force is
1,600 kN. The axial force of this strut is always under the limit
value shown in Fig. 14. Calculated by Eq. (9), the coefficient be-
tween strut axial force and lateral displacement calculation value
can be obtained. Fig. 15 shows the coefficient during excavating.
However, it can been seen that on December 16, K equals 0.41,
which less than the criteria K ¼ 0.5 − 2, while nothing happened
in the traditional method, so it belongs to false negative data.
© ASCE
J. Aerosp. Eng., B4015005
Fig. 15. Coefficient K at point ZC18-2
Conclusions
In order to realize more effective use of the mass monitoring data
and control the construction risks, a data fusion analysis method is
proposed to assess the safety monitoring results of deep excava-
tions. Data fusion analysis on both a single monitoring item and
correlation of multiple monitoring items are studied. The following
conclusions and suggestions can be obtained:
• In data fusion analysis on a single monitoring item, assessment
by region is an experience analogy method. If new deep exca-
vation data fall outside the region of existing similar engineer-
ing, the reason for the anomaly data should be analyzed.
• In data fusion analysis on multiple monitoring items, relation-
ships between monitoring items essentially mean geometric or
physical patterns in deep excavation. If new monitoring data
violate these patterns, they should be considered as anom-
aly data.
• An application of deep excavation shows the performance of the
anomaly assessment method, which solves the false positive and
false negative problem in deep excavation monitoring.
The anomaly assessment method based on data fusion analysis
can be updated to obtain better results by presenting new train-
ing data.
Acknowledgments
The financial support from the National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China (NSFC) (Grant Nos. 41172251 and 41330633) and
the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality
(Funding No. 14231200702) are gratefully acknowledged.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
A = cross-sectional area of strut;
b = parameter of hyperplane;
Es = elastic modulus of strut material;
Ew = elastic modulus of retaining wall;
FN = axial force of strut;
f = hyperplane;
H = excavation depth;
h = average spacing of struts in vertical direction;
B4015005-8 J. Aerosp. Eng.
 hw;b = hypothesis function;
I = section inertia moment of retaining wall;
K = coefficient between strut axial force and lateral
displacement calculation value;
L = length of strut;
m = number of training data;
n = number of features of training data;
V s = volume of ground surface settlement;
V w = volume of lateral displacement of wall;
w = parameter of hyperplane;
kwk = norm of w;
xðiÞ = ith training data;
yðiÞ = label of ith training data;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by George Washington University on 04/04/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
γ = minimum of γ ðiÞ ;
γ = distance from xðiÞ to the hyperplane;
ðiÞ
γ w = unit weight of water;
Δδ hm = maximum rate of change of lateral displacement;
Δδ vm = maximum rate of change of settlement;
δ = compression deformation calculated by lateral
displacement of retaining wall;
δ hm = maximum lateral displacement of wall;
δ vm = maximum lateral displacement of wall; and
ρs = system stiffness of deep excavation.
References
Bhalla, S., Yang, Y. W., Zhao, J., and Soh, C. K. (2005). “Structural health
monitoring of underground facilities—Technological issues and chal-
lenges.” Tunnell. Underground Space Technol., 20(5), 487–500.
Bishop, C. M. (2006). Pattern recognition and machine learning, Springer,
New York.
Chang, C., and Lin, C. (2011). “{LIBSVM}: A library for support vector
machines.” ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol., 2(3), 1–27.
Chen, J. J., Zhu, Y. F., Li, M. G., and Wen, S. L. (2015). “Novel excavation
and construction method of an underground highway tunnel above
operating metro tunnels.” J. Aerosp. Eng., 28(6), A4014003.
Clough, G. W., and O’Rourke, T. D. (1990). “Construction induced move-
ments of in situ walls.” Proc., ASCE Conf. on Design and Performance
of Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE, Reston, VA, 439–470.
Hall, D. L., and Llinas, J. (1997). “An introduction to multisensor data
fusion.” Proc. IEEE, 85(1), 6–23.
Li, M. G., Chen, J. J., Xu, A. J., Xia, X. H., and Wang, J. H. (2014). “Case
study of an innovative top-down construction method with channel-type
excavation.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0000828, 05014003.
Liu, G. B., Ng, C. W., and Wang, Z. W. (2005). “Observed performance of a
deep multistrutted excavation in Shanghai soft clays.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:8(1004),
1004–1013.
Liu, G. B., and Wang, W. D. (2009). Handbook for excavation engineering,
China Architecture and Building Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
© ASCE B4015005-9
J. Aerosp. Eng., B4015005
Liu, J., Shi, B., Zhang, D., Sui, H. B., and Suo, W. B. (2006). “Experimental
study of foundation pit monitoring using BOTDR-based on distributed
optical fiber sensor.” Yantu Lixue (Rock Soil Mech.), 27(7), 1224–1228
(in Chinese).
Magnus, R., Teh, C. I., and Lau, J. M. (2005a). “Interim report of the com-
mittee of inquiry into the incident at the MRT circle line worksite that
led to the collapse of Nicoll Highway on 20 April 2004.” Ministry of
Manpower, Singapore.
Magnus, R., Teh, C. I., and Lau, J. M. (2005b). “Report on the incident at
the MRT circle line worksite that led to the collapse of the Nicoll
Highway on 20 April 2004.” Ministry of Manpower, Singapore.
Mana, A. I., and Clough, G. W. (1981). “Prediction of movements for
braced cuts in clay.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 107(6), 759–777.
Ou, C., Hsieh, P., and Chiou, D. (1993). “Characteristics of ground surface
settlement during excavation.” Can. Geotech. J., 30(5), 758–767.
Schölkopf, B., Platt, J. C., Shawe-Taylor, J., Smola, A. J., and Williamson,
R. C. (2001). “Estimating the support of a high-dimensional distribu-
tion.” Neural Comput., 13(7), 1443–1471.
Schölkopf, B., Smola, A. J., Williamson, R. C., and Bartlett, P. L. (2000).
“New support vector algorithms.” Neural Comput., 12(5), 1207–1245.
Su, Y. Y., Hashash, Y., and Liu, L. Y. (2006). “Integration of construction
as-built data via laser scanning with geotechnical monitoring of urban
excavation.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364
(2006)132:12(1234), 1234–1241.
Tan, Y., and Wei, B. (2011). “Observed behaviors of a long and deep
excavation constructed by cut-and-cover technique in Shanghai soft
clay.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
.0000553, 69–88.
Vapnik, V. (2000). The nature of statistical learning theory, Springer,
New York.
Wang, J. H., Xu, Z. H., and Wang, W. D. (2010). “Wall and ground
movements due to deep excavations in Shanghai soft soils.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000299, 985–994.
Wang, W. D., Wang, J. H., Li, Q., and Xu, Z. H. (2015). “Design and
performance of large excavations for Shanghai Hongqiao International
Airport Transport Hub using combined retaining structures.” J. Aerosp.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0000435, A4014002.
Wong, I., Poh, T., and Chuah, H. (1997). “Performance of excavations
for depressed expressway in Singapore.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1997)123:7(617), 617–625.
Woo, S. M., and Moh, Z. C. (1990). “Geotechnical characteristics of soils
in the Taipei basin.” Proc., 10th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conf.,
51–65.
Xu, Z. H. (2007). “Deformation behavior of deep excavations supported by
permanent structures in Shanghai soft deposit.” Ph.D. thesis, Shanghai
Jiao Tong Univ., Shanghai, China (in Chinese).
Zhang, H. B., Chen, J. J., Zhao, X. S., Wang, J. H., and Hu, H. (2015).
“Displacement performance and simple prediction for deep excavations
supported by contiguous bored pile walls in soft clay.” J. Aerosp. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0000481, A4014008.
Zhang, J. F., Chen, J. J., Wang, J. H., and Zhu, Y. F. (2013). “Prediction
of tunnel displacement induced by adjacent excavation in soft soil.”
Tunnell. Underground Space Technol., 36, 24–33.
J. Aerosp. Eng.