Indian Geotech J
DOI 10.1007/s40098-017-0230-1
TECHNICAL NOTE
Deep Excavation Supported by Diaphragm Wall: A Case Study
J. Jasmine Nisha1 • M. Muttharam1
Received: 6 July 2016 / Accepted: 2 March 2017
 Indian Geotechnical Society 2017
Abstract Space scarcity and demand for us to build
skyscrapers as well as deeper basements are increasing in
the present scenario. Excavations are commonly carried out
in congested areas to increase underground usable spaces.
Hence a case study is made on shoring system for exca-
vation depth of 14.2 m for an office block located in Noida.
The office blocks which consist of 14 stories with 3 levels
of combined basement are surrounded by existing struc-
tures and service lines. Subsoil of the study area mainly
consists of two strata, silty sand with occasional gravel and
sand with traces of silt at deeper depth. Diaphragm wall is
supported by soil anchors during excavation and after
basement construction is over, the diaphragm wall will
derive horizontal support from the floor slabs and the
basement raft. Hence analyses of diaphragm wall are
divided into two phases and are carried out using PLAXIS
2D and STAAD Pro software. Inclinometers are used to
monitor the diaphragm wall deflection and a similar trend
of displacement pattern is observed between the predicted
and the measured lateral deflection of the wall. Cross-hole
sonic logging and Koden test were also carried out to check
the quality of concrete and verticality of the drilled hole
respectively.
Keywords Excavation  Diaphragm wall  Anchor 
Plaxis  Inclinometer
& J. Jasmine Nisha
j_nisha2k@yahoo.co.in
M. Muttharam
muttharam@annauniv.edu
1
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, CEG, Anna
University, Chennai, India
Introduction
Due to cost concern and scarcity of land, there has been
number of projects requiring multi storied office buildings
with basements having large floor area. Such buildings are
situated at strategic points with structures and congested
roads around the site. The excavation alters the stresses and
disturbs the existing equilibrium and become unstable.
Hence executions of deep excavations become one of the
important tasks of a geotechnical engineer in the modern
times.
As construction space is generally limited and control of
ground movement is important, the involvement of spe-
cialized foundation technologies, sophisticated equip-
ment’s, new methods in underground construction, safety
and monitoring systems are necessary to prevent the failure
of excavations. Therefore, in order to improve the stability,
support systems are used to prevent the failure of excava-
tions. Although various supporting systems are available,
economical design of supporting system without compro-
mising on the safety is of paramount importance. Choice of
a suitable method for support system of excavation
depends on several factors such as the depth of excavation,
soil profile, sensitivity of the adjacent structure, water
table, duration of protection in case of temporary protec-
tion etc.
The performance of tied-back walls and braced walls
using finite element analysis is compared and examined the
effects of pre-stressing, anchor stiffness, anchor spacing,
wall rigidity and excavation depth on tied-back walls with
parametric finite element studies [1]. A parametric study
using finite element method is performed to assess the
effects of the wall properties, depth of competent soil,
excavation width and wall embedment on deep excavation
stability in clay [2].
123
 Indian Geotech J

Fig. 1 Site plan

Fig. 2 Observed N values

Table 1 Subsoil profile Settlements and lateral deflections measured at three

Stratum Depth below NGL Soil classification
deep excavation sites of South Korea constructed in mixed
(m) ground profiles are analysed with respect to the construc-
tion process [3], categorized as (1) pre excavation i.e.,
I 0.5–1.0 Filled up soil preliminary site work and wall installation (2) main exca-
II 1.0–4.0 Silty sand vation to final subgrade for basement construction and (3)
III [4.0 Sand post excavation i.e., removal of bracing and basement
construction and concluded that deep excavations made
through mixed soil and rock profiles exhibited smaller

123
Indian Geotech J
Fig. 3 Support of excavation system
Table 2 Details of diaphragm walls
Thickness of the Top level of the Depth of open Level of anchors
D-wall D-Wall excavation
(mm) (m) (m)
800 200.58 (FRL) 0 3 levels (3, 7 and 11 m from 7
600 4 m below FRL 4 2 levels (7 and 11 m from
(196.58)
lateral wall movements than similar excavations made in
homogeneous soil profiles.
The application of a generalized effective stress soil
model, for predicting the performance of 22 m deep
excavations in the M1 pit near the Lehrter Bahnhof in
central Berlin is described [4]. The behaviour of a 16-18 m
deep excavation for a metro station using cut-and-cover
technique in soft clay in the Shanghai metropolitan area is
studied [5] and concluded that the magnitudes of wall
deflections, ground settlements and settlements of the
adjacent buildings and utilities were relatively small and
less than the specified protection levels due to quick
excavation and rapid cast of rigid concrete floor slabs right
after the completion of excavation.
Though several researchers are working on various
aspects of support system for deep excavation as men-
tioned in references [6–13], the reported work of case study
on support system for deep excavation is limited. Hence
Embedment Maximum depth of
depth of excavation
D-wall (m)
(m)
14.2 from FRL
FRL)
6 14.2 from FRL
FRL)
present study aims to discuss a case study on deep exca-
vation supported by diaphragm wall.
Site Descriptions
The site for the case study considered in the research work
is located along Noida (India). The plot area of the pro-
posed building is approximately 24,000 m2. The project
includes the construction of Block 1 (G ? 13 floors) with
three basements, Block 2 (G ? 13 floors) with three
basements and Substation. Block 1 and 2 consists com-
bined basement of 3 levels. The three basement floors will
be used as car parking and remaining all floors are to be
used as office space. The site investigation comprised of a
series of 23 nos. deep borings in and around the footprint of
the proposed building which extends to a depth of 30 m.
The site plan, along with boreholes and building location,
123
 Indian Geotech J

diaphragm walls, and nearby existing structures of the
present case study is shown in Fig. 1. Ground water
table was found to be around 6 m below the natural ground
level. The site is almost plain in topography with surface
elevation of 200.58 m. Detail study is made on all the 23
borelog data sheets and their respective laboratory test
results to prepare the generalised soil profile.
Earlier the site was being used for agricultural purposes.
The deposits at the site are alluvial in nature. The variation
of SPT N with depth for typical boreholes is shown in
Fig. 2 and it reveals that SPT N values increases with
increase in depth irrespective of the type of soil. The
Table 3 Design soil parameters
Layers (m) Soil description Unit weight of soil Observed SPT ‘N’ value
(kN/m3)
Top Bottom
stratigraphy at the site may be divided into three general-
ized strata as given in Table 1.
Support System for Deep Excavation
During the excavation for the basement construction, the
diaphragm wall has been proposed to be supported by soil
anchors (installed at two or three levels depending on the
design requirement) as shown in Fig. 3. Initially the anal-
ysis has been carried out by considering 600 mm thick
diaphragm wall, two level of anchors and depth of
Young’s modulus Poissons ratio, l Friction angle, /
(kN/m2) (degrees)

0 4 Silty sand (SM) 15 8 22,900 0.25 27

4 8 Sand (S) 16 14 35,900 0.25 29
8 11 Sand (S) 18 20 47,500 0.25 29
11 17 Sand (S) 19 32 64,400 0.25 30
17 22 Sand (S) 19 46 78,400 0.35 30
22 28 Sand (S) 19 52 80,000 0.35 30
[28 Sand (S) 20 60 85,000 0.35 31

Fig. 4 Schematic
representation of soil anchors
with failure plane

123
Indian Geotech J

embedment as 5 m below the excavation level and found
that system is not safe. Then different options were anal-
ysed by changing the thickness of diaphragm wall, number,
level and spacing of anchors, depth of embedment etc. and
finally adopted the safe and economical solution. The
details of diaphragm wall considered for execution are
summarised in Table 2. Embedment depth mentioned in
Table 2 is the depth of D-wall inserted into the ground in
addition to the excavation depth. Though diaphragm wall
of thickness 800 mm and 600 mm are adopted in the site,
the design and performance of 800 mm thick diaphragm
wall is described in this paper. The main purpose of this
paper has been to assess the performance of the diaphragm
wall based on the comparison between predicted and
measured wall displacements during construction.
Analysis of Diaphragm Wall
The analysis of diaphragm wall is divided into two phases.
The analysis of diaphragm wall supported by soil anchors
till the final excavation level is said to be Phase 1. Analysis
of diaphragm wall by considering all the floor slabs in
position is termed as Phase 2. Analysis of Phase 1 and 2
were carried out using PLAXIS 2D and STAAD Pro
software respectively. However, the diaphragm wall is
designed as a flexural member for the worst case forces

Horizontal Displacement Bending Moment Shear Force

(mm) (kNm/m) (kN/m)
0 20 40 -250 -50 150 350 550 -200 -100 0 100
0 0 0

2 2 2

4 4 4

6 6 6
Depth (m)

8 8 8

10 10 10

12 12 12

14 14 14

16 16 16

18 18 18

20 20 20

22 22 22
Towards Excavation Towards Excavation

Fig. 5 Analysis results of PLAXIS 2D

123

obtained from both the analysis. Brief description of
analysis carried out using these two phases are described in
Sects. 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.
Phase 1: Analysis Using PLAXIS 2D
The soil parameters considered for PLAXIS analysis in
Phase 1 is shown in Table 3.
A surcharge load of 20 kPa [14] is considered in addi-
tion to the earth pressure acting on the diaphragm wall. The
excavation has to be carried out in dry condition for the
construction activity and hence deep well dewatering sys-
tem [15] is proposed on both outside and inside the
Fig. 6 STAAD model for
800 mm thick diaphragm wall
123
Indian Geotech J
basement area for lowering the ground water table to 1 m
below the bottom of excavation. Therefore no water pres-
sure is considered for diaphragm wall analysis in this
phase. The excavation was carried out using three levels of
soil anchor system for supporting 800 mm thick diaphragm
wall during the basement construction.
Soil anchors are designed as pre-stressed anchors and
the design is in accordance to BS 8081:1989 [16], IS:
10270 [17] and IS: 14268 [18] and The anchors are
designed for a design life of 2 years since the soil anchors
are designed to support the diaphragm wall till the final
excavation level. Type C anchorage is adopted in the
design. All the anchors shall be water tight and no leakage
Indian Geotech J

shall be allowed into the diaphragm wall. For the 800 mm
thick diaphragm wall three levels of anchors are proposed
(viz. 3, 7 and 11 m from the NGL) at a horizontal spacing
of 1.66 m c/c. Detailed design of soil anchors, determina-
tion of anchor lengths with failure wedge were carried out
for the present study. Refer Fig. 4 for the schematic rep-
resentation of soil anchors with failure plane.
Phase 1 analysis is carried out using PLAXIS 2D soft-
ware as a plane strain problem. In this analysis, the dia-
phragm wall is modelled as plate element, soil anchors are
modelled as node-to-node anchors and geo-grid elements
for free length and fixed length portion respectively. The
soil behavior is modelled using Mohr–Coulomb model.
The maximum total displacement of 50 mm occurs near
the top of diaphragm wall and below the area of surcharge
application. Stage wise analysis results of PLAXIS 2D
such as horizontal deflection, bending moment and shear
force is shown in Fig. 5. As the excavation proceeded to
lower levels, the diaphragm walls began to develop deep
seated movements towards the excavation side. The values
of bending moment and shear force are reduced at the
location of soil anchors. However maximum bending
moment and shear force occurs at the final excavation
stage.
Phase 2: Analysis Using STAAD Pro
In Phase 2 analysis, the loads include self-weights and the
other downward load calculated based on the tributary area
of the basement slabs depending upon the support system
at the corresponding levels. At-rest earth pressure condition
is considered behind the diaphragm wall along with the
surcharge of 20 kPa. The design water table level is con-
sidered at ground level on soil side in this analysis.
In Phase 2 analysis, the diaphragm wall is modelled as a
2D beam element of unit meter width on the out of plane
direction. The soil resistance in the embedded portion of
the wall is modelled in the form of lateral springs up to the
embedment depth and with vertical spring support at the
end. The earth pressure from the soil side is applied as
horizontal loading with corresponding load intensity,
including the lateral thrust due to vehicular loading and
ground water pressure. The diaphragm wall acts as a
retaining wall and is restrained by basement slabs and
hence the diaphragm wall is not free to tilt. Therefore earth
pressure at rest condition is considered in the design.
STAAD model for 800 mm thick diaphragm is shown in
Fig. 6. Detailed load calculations, earth pressure calcula-
tion for at rest condition and dynamic increment,

Shear Force (kN/m) & Bending Moment (kN-m/m)

-650 -550 -450 -350 -250 -150 -50 50 150 250

-1

-3 Basement slab
at -4.5m
-5

-7
Basement slab Diaphragm Wall
-9
at -9.0m
Depth (m)

-11

-13
Raft slab at
-15 -12.7m

-17

-19 Max. Shear force

-21 Min. Shear force

Max. Bending moment
-23
Min. Bending moment
-25

Fig. 7 Maximum and minimum bending moments and shear force for 800 mm thick diaphragm wall

123
 Indian Geotech J

calculation of spring values, STAAD analysis and struc- Ks ¼ K0s =B ð4Þ

tural design of diaphragm wall were carried out for the
present study. Earth pressure calculation with dynamic
increment is calculated based on IS 1893-1984. The total
earth pressure of at-rest and with dynamic increment con-
ditions linearly increases with depth, whereas the values of
earth pressure with dynamic increment is little higher than
the at-rest earth pressure.
The spring values are obtained using Newmark Eqs. (1),
(2) and (3).
K1 ¼ ðBL=24Þ  ð7ks1 þ 6ks2  ks3 Þ
 
Ki ¼ ðBL=12Þ  ksði1Þ þ 10ksi þ ksðiþ1Þ
 
Kn ¼ ðBL=24Þ  7ksn þ 6ksðn1Þ ksðn2Þ
where, K1, Ki, Kn: are spring stiffness values for the first,
ith and last layer respectively; L: depth of interval between
the springs; Ks1, ksi, ksn: are soil modulus for the first, ith
and last layer respectively. Soil modulus is determined
using Eq. (4).
Where, K0s 4
= 1.3 9 [Es 9 B /(Ep 9 Ip)]^(1/12) 9 Es/(1-
l2); Es: young’s modulus of the soil, kPa; l: poison’s ratio;
B: width of diaphragm wall; Ip: moment of inertia of dia-
phragm wall; fck: grade of concrete, M30; Ep: young’s
modulus of the diaphragm wall.
Analysis Results
Figure 7 summarises the maximum and minimum values
ð1Þ of Bending Moment (BM) and Shear Force (SF) obtained
ð2Þ from the analysis for 800 mm thick diaphragm wall. It is
noted from figure that the maximum shear force and
ð3Þ bending moment are ?283 and ?106 respectively. Simi-
larly, minimum shear force and bending moment are -306
and -559 respectively. In the chart, maximum and mini-
mum values are shown with respect to positive or negative
sign. However in the design, maximum value of shear force

Horizontal Displacement of 800 mm thick Diaphragm Wall (mm)

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
0
1st level support
2

4
2nd level support
6
Depth below ground level (m)

10 3rd level support

12

Excavation level
14

16 E-79
Towards Excavation
N-52
18
N-21
20
Analysis Result

22

Fig. 8 Comparative plot for numerical versus measured lateral deflection

123
Indian Geotech J

and bending moment were considered irrespective of pos-
itive or negative sign.
Instrumentation
As the deep excavation is made very close to buildings and
services, which require safeguarding against damage it was
decided to adopt observational method where predicted
responses are checked by field monitoring during the works
and contingency measures are implemented as and when
necessary. The deflections of the 800 mm thick diaphragm
walls were monitored using three inclinometers. Cross hole
sonic logging test is carried out to check the homogeneity
and integrity of concrete and Koden test is carried out to
accurately measure and record the shape of a drilled hole of
greater depth.

W-05 1-2 W-05 1-2

L = 21.27 meters L = 21.27 meters
Spacing = 1.72m Spacing = 1.72m
Gain = 19686 (x16) Gain = 19686 (x16)
02/12/2013 12:45 02/12/2013 12:45

Fig. 9 CSL test graph for diaphragm wall panel number W-05 between tubes 1-2

123

Inclinometer
Digital inclinometer with portable and traversing probe
system is used in the present study for monitoring lateral
deformation. The predicted behavior of 800 mm thick
diaphragm wall is compared with actual measured behavior
using three inclinometers. Figure 8 shows the comparison
plot between the predicted and actual horizontal displace-
ment profiles for 800 mm thick diaphragm walls after final
level of excavation has reached. By the end of excavation
works for inclinometer E-79, the maximum deflection was
about 7 mm. Displacements observed in inclinometer N-52
was more, with a maximum of about 15 mm. Maximum
horizontal displacement in the other inclinometer N-21 was
still of greater magnitude (27 mm).
The curves presented indicate that the numerical
behavior of the wall has a trend similar to that of the actual
behavior measured using inclinometers. However, the
actual realized movements are consequently below the
predicted values this may be because of various reasons
like non homogeneity of soil, assumed design surcharge
was not actually experienced in the site by the walls and so
on.
Cross Hole Sonic Logging Test
The field test of Cross-hole Sonic Logging (CSL) is
conducted in accordance with ASTM D6760-08 [19]. For
conducting the sonic logging test five steel tubes of
50 mm internal diameter were installed throughout the
length of the shaft by tying them to the reinforcement
Fig. 10 Log for panel number
N-61
Panel No. – N 61
123
Indian Geotech J
cage. The detailed test graphs received for diaphragm wall
panel number W-05 between tubes 1-2 is presented in
Fig. 9.
The following points can be concluded from cross hole
sonic logging tests conducted on the diaphragm wall panel
no. W-05 based on data, diaphragm wall location and site
conditions at the time of testing.
• Diaphragm wall number W-05 shows minor defect for
tube corridors 2-3 and 3-5.
• The minor defect also seems likely to be reflection from
anchors as the locations match with the anchor
locations.
Koden Test
The Drilling Monitor system has been developed in com-
pliance with the user’s needs arisen from the recent con-
struction environment to accurately measure and record the
shape of a drilled hole of greater depth. It can be easily
positioned and set up for measurement to provide quick
and accurate recordings of excavations. This monitoring is
done for every bite of all panels.
With the help of Koden ultrasonic echometer, both the
three dimensional orientations and the actual dimensions of
a panel can be continuously checked. A typical log of panel
number N-61 for the present case study is presented in
Fig. 10 The vertical line ‘0’ bordered by two strips (X–X0 ),
represents the vertical descent path of the probe. The trench
wall profile is shown by the inner borders of the dark strips.
It is inferred that the vertical deviation of diaphragm wall
Excavation Face Soil Face
Scale X Axis Scale Y Axis
1Division = 50 mm 1Division = 1 m
Indian Geotech J
panel number N-61 is 90 mm which is within the permis-
sible limit 1 in 80 m.
Conclusion
This study focuses on the study of deep basement using
diaphragm wall. The 800 mm thick diaphragm wall was
monitored during the works using three digital inclinome-
ters. The results from the observations have been used to
analyse the diaphragm wall response to various construc-
tion and excavation activities. Observations from the
monitoring results and the deduced diaphragm wall
responses can be summarised as follows.
1. Inclinometer measurements within the diaphragm
walls indicated deep-seated inward horizontal move-
ments due to stress relief during excavation.
2. The predicted behaviour of the diaphragm wall has a
trend similar to that of the actual behaviour. Overall,
the predicted displacement trend of diaphragm wall is
similar to the measured lateral deflection of the wall.
3. Inclinometer data indicated that the maximum mea-
sured horizontal wall displacements varied from 17.5
to 67.5% of the numerical results.
4. Cross-hole sonic logging test shows that there is no
major defect in the homogeneity and integrity of
concrete.
5. Koden tests were carried out and found that the
verticality of the drilled hole is within allowable limit.
6. The tie-backed retaining wall system proved a suc-
cessful method of constructing deep excavations, with
the major advantage of having no temporary struts
obstructing the work site, thus allowing restriction-free
basement construction from raft level.
Extensive monitoring carried out during the construction
has given valuable insight into the performance of the
diaphragm walls and the behaviour of the soil strata.
However the final product was an effective design solution
which took advantage of both analysis and project specific
opportunities along with good workmanship, proper
installation of the support system and limited construction
induced movements. Thus, this paper provides useful
guidance to practising engineers on the design of deep
basements using diaphragm walls.
Acknowledgements Authors are thankful to all the staff of Larsen
and Toubro, Construction for granting the permission to use the
experimental data to reach the conclusions. Special thanks to
geotechnical services team of L&T (B&F) for the help rendered in
performing the analysis and for their great suggestions which sub-
stantially improved the presentation of this paper.
References
1. Clough G, Tsui Y (1974) Performance of tied-back walls in clay.
J Geotech Eng Div 10(12):1259–1273
2. Goh A (1990) Assessment of basal stability for braced excavation
system using finite element method. Comput Geotech
10(4):325–338
3. Gandhi SR, Suresh PK, Raju VS (1998) Lateral load tests on
large diameter bored pile and analysis. Indian Geotech Conf
1:373–377
4. Seo M, Olson SM, Yang KS, Kim M (2010) Sequential analysis
of ground movements at three deep excavation sites with mixed
ground profiles. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136(5):656–668
5. Nikolinakou MA, Whittle AJ, Savidis S, Schran U (2011) Pre-
diction and interpretation of the performance of a deep excava-
tion in Berlin sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
137(11):1047–1061
6. Tan Y, Wei B (2012) Observed behaviors of a long and deep
excavation constructed by cut-and-cover technique in Shanghai
soft clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 138(1):69–88
7. Konstantakos DC (2008) Online database of deep excavation
performance and prediction. In: 6th international conference on
case histories in geotechnical engineering, Arlington, pp 1–12
8. Fekado T (2010) Analysis and parametric study of deep exca-
vation supported by diaphragm walls. M.S. Thesis in Geotechnics
submitted to Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa
9. Leung EHY, Ng CWW (2007) Wall and ground movements
associated with deep excavations supported by cast in situ wall in
mixed ground conditions. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
133(2):129–143
10. Ou C, Hsieh P, Lin Y (2011) Performance of excavations with
cross walls. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137(1):94–104
11. Konstantakos DC, Regalado AJWC, Scharner B (2004) Control
of ground movements for a multi-level-anchored diaphragm wall
during excavation. In: 5th international conference on case his-
tories in geotechnical engineering, New York, pp 1–7
12. Sen KK, Alostaz Y, Pellegrino G, Hagh A (2004) Support of deep
excavation in soft clay: a case history study. In: 5th international
conference on case histories in geotechnical engineering, New
York, pp 1–8
13. Wang JH, Xu ZH, Wang WD (2010) Wall and ground move-
ments due to deep excavations in Shanghai soft soils. J Geotech
Eng ASCE 136(7):985–994
14. Puller M (2003) Deep excavations a practical manual, 2nd edn.,
London, Thomas Telford
15. Control of groundwater for temporary works, CIRIA Report 113
16. BS 8081 (1989) British standard code of practice for ground
anchorages
17. IS 10270 (1982) Guidelines for design and construction of pre-
stressed rock anchors
18. IS 14268 (1995) Uncoated stress relieved low relaxation seven-
ply strand for prestressed concrete-specification
19. ASTM D6760-08 Standard test method for integrity testing of
concrete deep foundations by ultrasonic crosshole testing
123