Journal Pre-proofs

Effects of jet grouting slabs on responses for deep braced excavations

Wengang Zhang, Hong Li, Yongqin Li, Runhong Zhang, Anthony T.C. Goh,
Hanlong Liu

PII: S2467-9674(19)30105-9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2020.02.002
Reference: UNDSP 135

To appear in: Underground Space

Received Date: 11 November 2019

Revised Date: 27 January 2020
Accepted Date: 7 February 2020

Please cite this article as: W. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Li, R. Zhang, A.T.C. Goh, H. Liu, Effects of jet grouting slabs on
responses for deep braced excavations, Underground Space (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.
2020.02.002

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover
page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version
will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are
providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors
may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Tongji University and Tongji University Press. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of
Owner.
 Effects of jet grouting slabs on responses for deep
braced excavations

Wengang Zhang1,2,*, Hong Li1, Yongqin Li1, Runhong Zhang1, Anthony T.C. Goh3,

Hanlong Liu1,2

1School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China;

2Key Laboratory of New Technology for Construction of Cities on Mountain Area, Ministry of
Education, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China
3 School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

* Corresponding author: Wengang Zhang, cheungwg@126.com

Abstract

Jet grouting slabs are widely used in deep excavations owing to their effectiveness for reducing the
deflection of the diaphragm wall and the prop forces acting on the struts and improving the basal-
heave stability. In this paper, according to case histories in Singapore, a series of finite-element
numerical simulations are performed to evaluate the effects of jet grouting slabs on responses to
deep braced excavations. On the basis of a parametric sensitivity study, a reasonable thickness of
jet grouting slabs is proposed. The effects of the wall depth, wall stiffness, soft-clay thickness, and
stiffness on the performance of the jet grouting slabs are assessed by comparing and analyzing a
series of simulation results. It is found that the soft-clay thickness significantly affects the wall
deflection and basal heave in deep excavation. During the design of support structures, soil profiles
should be considered first. The findings of this study provide a reference and guidance for the
support system design of similar projects.

Keywords

Jet grouting slab; Deep excavation; Soft clay; Finite-element analysis

1 Introduction

Jet grouting is a method for improving the physical and mechanical properties of soft soil or rock
by injecting solidified grout into the fissure of the soil/rock or the crack of a building. This method
was first used in France in the early 19th century. With more than 160 years of development, the jet
grouting technique is widely used in various fields of geotechnical engineering, such as foundation
treatment (Wang et al.,2013, 2018; Liu, Zhou, Kong et al., 2017), cement–soil composite piles
(Liu, Jiang, Xiao et al., 2017; Liu et al.,2015), braced excavation (Wong and Poh,2000; Poh and
Wong, 2001; Shirlaw et al., 2005; Wen 2015; Hsieh et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2019; Zhang et al.
2020), and control of postconstruction settlement in tunnel engineering (Qiu et al., 2018; Lü and
Low 2011; Zhang et al. 2017; Lü et al., 2017; Zhang et al. 2018a; Lü et al., 2019). In Singapore,
jet grouting slabs are widely used in deep braced excavation owing to underground marine clay.
Jet grouting slabs consist of a series of short overlapping grout columns. The jet grouting slab
below the final excavation level usually spans across the entire excavation. The main effects of jet
grouting slabs in deep excavation include reducing the wall deflection and ground settlement,
minimizing the influence of excavation on adjacent tunnels or buildings, improving the basal-heave
stability, improving the toe kick-in stability, and controlling seepage.
In previous studies on the jet grouting technique in deep excavation, four approaches have been
employed.
The first approach involves evaluating the reinforcing effect of jet grouting according to the case
history. Wong et al. (2000) and Poh et al. (2001) evaluated the performance of a well-instrumented
field jet grouting during the construction of the building basement of Singapore Post Center.
Shirlaw et al. (2000a, 2000b, 2005) combined engineering examples and monitoring data, analyzed
the reinforcing effect of jet grouting slabs in deep excavation, and proposed the key construction
points of jet grouting slabs. Wen (2015) presented that the reinforcing effect of jet grouting piles
depended on quality of construction, and proposed suggestions on design and construction.
The second method involves evaluating the spatial variability of the physical and mechanical
parameters of the jet grouting soil. Liu et al. (2015) and Liu, Jiang, Xiao et al. (2017) analyzed the
heterogeneity in the strength and elastic modulus using the random finite-element method and
proposed the use of the equivalent homogeneous mass strength and modulus of an improved slab
for deterministic finite-element analysis.
The third approach focuses on the interaction between the jet grouting area and existing buildings
or tunnels. Hsieh et al. (2003) assessed the effect of jet grouting on the diaphragm wall
displacement of a six-level basement excavation via numerical analysis. Ochmański et al. (2015)
analyzed the complex interaction between the soil and the structural elements of a tunnel built with
provisional jet-grouted reinforcement using two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D)
finite-element models (FEMs). Wang et al. (2019) analyzed the effect of jet grouting soils on
existing tunnels around deep excavation via 3D finite-element modelling. They also proposed a
reasonable mechanism of jet grouting based on the reinforcing performance of different types of
jet grouting soils around the tunnels or inside pits. Wang et al. (2013, 2018) reported that the
injection of large volumes of water and grout into the soil led to significant horizontal and vertical
displacements of the ground surface and presented an empirical equation for estimating the radius
of the plastic zone, which can provide guidelines for foundation treatment.
The fourth approach involves calculations and theoretical analysis of the jet grouting technique.
Goh et al. (2017) proposed a formula for calculating the safety factor of resistant heave stability.
Comodromosa et al. (2018) adopted a strength reduction factor to address the columnar geometrical
imperfections, spatially varying strength and stiffness, and post-peak behavior of the grout and
proposed a consistent design procedure to improve the existing design process and extend its
applicability to serviceability limit state analysis. Liu, Zhou, Kong et al. (2017) presented a
theoretical model to analyze the reinforcing effect of jet grouting columns in soft clay.
Nevertheless, few scholars have systematically analyzed the reinforcing performance of jet
grouting slabs in deep excavation and the interaction between jet grouting slabs and the excavation
supporting structure.
According to the case history in Singapore (Shirlaw et al. 2005), we performed finite-element
modeling using the software PLAXIS 2D. We systematically analyzed the reinforcing effect of jet
grouting slabs in deep excavation and performed parametric studies, e.g., on the depth–width ratio
of the excavation, the thickness of the jet grouting slabs, the depth of the diaphragm wall, and the
thickness and elastic modulus of the marine clay. According to the results, a reasonable thickness
of the jet grouting slabs was proposed, and the effects of the five parameters on the supporting
system were presented.

2 Case study

2.1 Background

This case was located in Race Course Road, Singapore. Soil profiles and the arrangement of the
retaining structure system are shown in Fig. 1. The first layer located from surface to –1.5 m is the
fill layer. The second layer from –5 to –10 m is fluvial sand. The third layer from –10 to –27.5 m
is marine clay. The layer below –27.5 m is old alluvium. Below -33m, the value of standard
penetration test of soil layer (NSPT) is larger than 100. The final excavation depth is 17.5 m, and a
jet grouting slab 1.5 m thick is adopted to reduce the wall deflection and control seepage. The
ground water level is approximately 5 m below the ground surface. The supporting system consists
of a 0.8-m-thick and 35-m-deep diaphragm wall and six axial struts (average vertical distance of 3
m). There is a three-story frame structure building 12 m from the excavation. The diaphragm wall
and jet grouting slabs were constructed prior to excavation.
 Fig. 1. Schematic plot of the soil profiles and support systems.

2.2 Finite-element modeling

The size of the excavation was 16 m (width)×17.5 m (depth)×183 m (length). The length is
significantly larger than the width and depth; therefore, a 2D FEM can be adopted to simulate this
excavation under the plane strain assumption. The half structure can be adopted for the 2D FEM,
because of symmetrical excavation.
The boundary conditions of the model are set as follows:
The lower boundary limits both the horizontal and vertical displacement. The left and right
boundaries limit the horizontal displacement, and the upper boundary is free from any constraint.
Considering the small strain hardening characteristics of soil during braced excavation, the small
strain hardening-soil model (HSS model) in PLAXIS is adopted to simulate soil (Brinkgreve et al.,
2017). The parameters of HSS model were based on the stress-strain curve from experiments, they
are shown in notes of Table 1. Compared with the hardening-soil (HS) model, the HSS model has
better performance for the hardening behavior of soils. The HSS model is an extension of the HS
model (Wang et al.,2011; Burland, 1989; Kung et al., 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2009; Goh et al., 2017a,
2017b, 2019; Zhang et al., 2018b; Zhang et al. 2019). The input parameters of the soils are
presented in Table 1; fill and fluvial sand are simulated via the drainage mode, and marine clay and
old alluvium are simulated via the undrained B mode. The undrained B mode allows effective stress
analysis. The effective stress value is adopted for the rigidity parameter, and the undrained shear
strength value is adopted for the strength parameter. The excess pore water pressure is calculated,
and the soil strength is a constant value. The soil weight (γ), friction angle (φ), undrained shear
strength (cu), results of the SPT (NSPT), and permeability coefficient (k) are derived from the case
history, as shown in Table 1 (Shirlaw et al. 2005). According to the PLAXIS manual (Brinkgreve
et al., 2017) and previous research, the range of small strain hardening (γ0.7) is 0%–0.0002% (Xuan,
2009; Tanaka, 1993; Wang et al., 2011); the value of m depends on the performance of soils (1.0
for marine clay, 0.8 for fluvial soils) (Xuan, 2009; Wang et al., 2011). The secant stiffness (E50)
can be calculated using empirical formulas.

Table 1 Soil properties at Race Course Road

γ cu E50 𝐸ref
50 𝐸ref
oed 𝐸ref
ur 𝐺ref
0 φ k
Soil type Model NSPT m γ0.7
(kN/m3) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (°) (m/d)
Fill HSS 19 6 – 5250 33 000 33 000 99 000 0.8 130 000 0.0002 30 1×10−4
Fluvial sand HSS 19 15 – 7500 23 000 23 000 69 000 0.8 67 000 0.0002 35 1×10−5
Marine clay HSS 16 – 44 6600 7950 7950 23 850 1.0 30 000 0.0002 23 1×10−8
Old alluvium HSS 20 30 150 90 000 107 000 107 000 321 000 0.8 380 000 0.0002 40 1×10−8
Old alluvium
HSS 20 100 500 300 000 270 000 270 000 810 000 0.8 820 000 0.0002 45 1×10−8
(NSPT>100)

Notes:
E50—secant stiffness in standard drained triaxial test;
𝐸ref
50 —reference secant stiffness in standard drained triaxial test;
𝐸ref
oed—reference secant stiffness for primary oedometer loading;
𝐸ref
ur —reference unloading/reloading stiffness;
𝐺ref
0 —reference shear modulus when ε < 10 ;
−6

m—power for stress-level dependency of stiffness;

γ0.7—shear strain at which Gsecant = 𝐺ref
0 .

For fill and fluvial sand,

𝐸50 = 250(𝑁SPT + 15). (1)
For marine clay,
𝐸50 = 150𝑐u. (2)
The values 250 in Eq. (1) and 150 in Eq. (2) refer to another case study in Singapore (Xuan,
2008). With the known E50, the other parameters of the HSS model, such as 𝐸ref
50 , 𝐸oed, 𝐸ur , and 𝐺0 ,
ref ref ref

can be calculated using Eqs. (3) and (4):

𝐸ref
ur 𝐸50
3 = 𝐸ref ref
50 = 𝐸oed = , (3)
( )
𝜎′3

𝑝ref

𝑐′cos 𝜑 + 𝑝refsin 𝜑 𝑚
𝐺ref
0 = 𝐺0 ( 𝑐′cos 𝜑 ― 𝜎′3sin 𝜑 ), (4)
where 𝜎′3 represents the effective confining stress (assuming that the compressive stress is
negative), 𝑐′represents the effective cohesion, 𝑝ref represents the reference pressure, and the
values of φ and m are from Table 1.
These default calculation formulas are supplied by the PLAXIS manual (Brinkgreve et al., 2017),
and their applicability and accuracy have been verified in many studies (Xuan, 2009; Orazi, 2018;
Lu et al., 2018; Mu et al., 2016; Clayton 2011) and will not be discussed here.
The linear elastic model is adopted to simulate the diaphragm and axial struts. The jet grouting
slab is simulated by the Mohr–Coulomb model. The parameters of the retaining system are
presented in Table 2. According to the suggestions of scholars around the world (Wen, 2015;
Comodromosa et al., 2018; Ochmański et al., 2015; Qiu et al., 2018), the performance of a jet
grouting slab is significantly affected by the quality of construction; thus, conservative values are
adopted for the equivalent modulus of elasticity and equivalent undrained shear strength. In this
study, the elastic modulus is E = 120 MPa, and the undrained shear strength is cu = 300 kPa
(undrained B mode in PLAXIS 2D).

Table 2 Structural properties at Race Course Road

Structural members E (kPa) A (m2/m) I (m4/m)
Strut (at –1 m) 2.07×108 0.019 –
Strut (at –4 m) 2.07×108 0.019 –
Strut (at –7 m) 2.07×108 0.019 –
Strut (at –10 m) 2.07×108 0.038 –
Strut (at –13 m) 2.07×108 0.038 –
Strut (at –16 m) 2.07×108 0.038 –
Diaphragm wall 800 mm thick 2.8×107 0.8 0.042 67
Notes: I—moments of inertia of section;
A (strut equivalent area) = strut area/spacing perpendicular to the plane.

Considering that the quality of the diaphragm wall is not easy to control during construction, the
reduction factor of the elastic modulus is set as 0.7 (Xuan, 2009; Zhang et al., 2015).
For adjacent buildings, each floor is subjected to a uniform load of 25 kPa, and the maximum
ground settlement is approximated to replace the settlement of the adjacent building.
The construction sequence is as follows: (1) initial consolidation process (K0 process); (2)
activate the uniform load to simulate building construction; (3) reset the displacements to zero and
activate diaphragm wall and jet grouting slab at the base of the excavation (in PLAXIS, different
physical and mechanical parameters can be used for the same element in different steps; therefore,
the parameters of the soil element at the base of the excavation can be replaced with the parameters
of the jet grouting slabs, which can simulate the process of jet grouting); (4) perform excavation to
3 m underground and set up the first strut; (5) similarly, gradually perform excavation to 6, 10,
12.5, 15, and 17.5 m underground, and set up the other five struts in order.
According to the practical project, the method of lowering the groundwater level followed by
excavation is adopted, implying that the groundwater level is set below the excavation surface in
each step.
The FEM is shown in Fig. 2.
 Fig. 2. Numerical FEM.

2.3 Results and analysis

The results of numerical simulations showed that the maximum deflection of the diaphragm wall
without the jet grouting slab was 82.08 mm, and that with the jet grouting slab was 49.82 mm. The
test data indicated that the deflection of the diaphragm wall was 80 mm (without the jet grouting
slabs) and 55 mm (with the jet grouting slabs), respectively (Shirlaw et al., 2005). Moreover, the
deformation mainly occurred in the soft clay area. The maximum wall deflection occurred below
the finial excavation level, as proposed by Liu et al. (2015) and Tanaka (1993).
The error was small, indicating that the parameters of the soil and jet grouting slab were
reasonable. The mechanical property of the jet grouting slab was non-uniform, which led to errors
between the numerical results and test data.

3 Parametric sensitivity study

A total of 22 numerical simulations were performed for the parametric sensitivity study.

3.1 Effects of slab thickness

To evaluate the effects of the slab thickness on the excavation responses, four cases with different
slab thicknesses were simulated. In cases 1–4, the slab thicknesses were 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 m,
respectively. The other conditions were identical. The deformation of the diaphragm wall and the
ground settlement are presented in Table 3, and Figs. 3(a) and 3(b) show the deformation curve
and bending moment of the diaphragm wall, respectively. Clearly, the slabs with thicknesses of
1.5–3.0 m reduced the deflection and bending moment of the diaphragm wall, the basal heave, and
the additional settlement of the adjacent building. The slabs with thicknesses of 2.0–2.5 m reduced
the deformation and bending moment by approximately 50%. If the deformation is strictly
controlled, a jet grouting slab with a thickness of 3.0 m can be considered. Generally, slabs with a
thickness of >3 m are not used, owing to their high cost. Consequently, the reasonable thickness of
the jet grouting was identified as 1.5–3.0 m, which is approximately 10%–20% of the excavation
depth.
 Table 3 Excavation responses with different slab thicknesses
δmax hmax Smax Mmax
Slab thicknesses
(mm) (mm) (mm) (kN/m)
without jet grouting slabs 82.08 128.8 61.20 2028
slabs 1.5 m thick 49.82 88.21 39.13 1474
slabs 2.0 m thick 41.14 76.32 33.27 1326
slabs 2.5 m thick 34.54 65.48 28.90 1183
slabs 3.0 m thick 29.17 54.63 25.37 1034
Notes: δmax—maximum deflection of the diaphragm wall; (the same below);
hmax—maximum value of the basal heave; (the same below);
Smax—maximum ground settlement; (the same below);
Mmax—maximum bending moment of the diaphragm wall (the same below).

Fig. 3. Effects of the jet grouting slab thickness on the diaphragm wall (a) deflection and (b) bending moment.

Figure 3(a) shows that there was no remarkable difference in shape between the deformation
curves with and without jet grouting slabs. The maximum wall deflection occurred at a depth of
22–23 m because the main deformation occurred in the marine-clay layer. The location where the
maximum negative bending moment of the diaphragm wall occurred was close to the location of
maximum deflection (Fig. 3(b)). The location of the maximum negative bending moment became
deeper with the increasing thickness of the jet grouting slabs. The maximum positive bending
moment was located at the interface between marine clay and old alluvium (approximately 28 m
deep).

3.2 Effects of excavation width

The ratio of the excavation width to the excavation depth affects the excavation responses.
Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the influence of the geometric size of the excavation with the
jet grouting slabs. Four cases with different slab thicknesses were simulated (width = 16, 20, 32,
and 48 m, respectively; depth = 17.5 m). With an increase in the excavation width, the maximum
deflection and ground settlement increased slightly, while the deformation of the basal heave
decreased (Figs. 4(a)–4(c)). However, the effect of the jet grouting slab on reducing the basal heave
became poorer when the excavation width increased (as shown in Fig. 4(c), the gradient of the
curve decreased with the increasing excavation width). Therefore, the jet grouting slab had better
performance when the excavation depth was larger than the excavation width. Accordingly, the
reasonable thickness of the slab was 1.5–3.0 m.
 Notes: B represents the excavation width.
Fig. 4. Effects of the excavation width on the (a) diaphragm-wall deflection, (b) maximum ground surface
settlement, and (c) basal heave.

3.3 Effect of diaphragm-wall stiffness

The support system consists of the diaphragm wall and the jet grouting slab. To evaluate the
effects of the wall depth and stiffness on the excavation responses, four cases with different wall
depths (30, 35, 40, and 45 m) and five cases with different wall stiffnesses were simulated. As
shown in Table 4, when the depth of the retaining wall was 35, 40, and 45 m, the deflection of the
diaphragm wall was almost identical, because the diaphragm wall was embedded in the hard layer
(old alluvium, NSPT > 100). However, when the embedding depth of the diaphragm wall was
reduced, the maximum deflection increased slightly, because the diaphragm wall was still
embedded in the hard layer at a depth of 30 m (old alluvium, NSPT < 100).

Table 4 Excavation responses with different wall depths

Diaphragm-wall length δmax hmax Smax Mmax
(m) (mm) (mm) (mm) (kN/m)
30 54.66 94.12 41.50 1678
35 49.82 88.21 39.13 1474
40 49.44 87.83 38.70 1467
45 49.44 87.82 38.70 1467

In brief, if a support system comprising a jet grouting slab and a diaphragm is adopted, the
diaphragm wall can be embedded in the hard layer with a thickness of 2–3 m. Extra depth will not
reduce the wall deflection or ground settlement.
In addition to the embedded depth of the diaphragm wall, the stiffness of the diaphragm wall is
a key factor. By introducing the equivalent stiffness λ, the support effect of the axial struts on the
diaphragm wall can be revealed. λ is defined as follows:
 𝜆 = ln ( 𝐸wall
𝛾w ⋅ ℎ4awg ), (5)

where Ewall represents the stiffness of the wall, γw represents the unit weight of water, and hawg
represents the average vertical distance of the struts.
By changing the vertical distance of the struts and the thickness of the diaphragm wall, five cases
were simulated. In case 1, the vertical distance of the struts was 6 m (λ = 4.1671). In cases 2–5, the
thicknesses of the diaphragm wall were 400 mm (λ = 4.8602), 600 mm (λ = 6.0766), 800 mm (λ =
6.9397), and 1000 mm (λ = 7.6091), respectively.
The analysis results are presented in Table 5 and Figs. 5(a) and 5(b).

Table 5 Excavation responses with different wall thicknesses

Wall Average vertical δmax hmax Smax
thickness distance λ
(mm) (m) (mm) (mm) (mm)
800 6 4.1671 59.57 102.0 47.60
400 3 4.8602 98.11 153.4 66.86
600 3 6.0766 67.65 113.1 50.23
800 3 6.9397 49.82 88.21 39.13
1000 3 7.6091 38.76 72.51 31.68

Fig. 5. Effects of the wall stiffness on the (a) diaphragm-wall deflection and (b) ground settlement.

Clearly, the stiffness of the diaphragm wall played an important role in the support system. When
the thickness of the diaphragm wall decreased, the deformation of the excavation increased rapidly.
The vertical distance of the struts had a smaller effect on the deformation of the whole excavation
than the wall width (Fig. 5(a)). The equivalent stiffness in case 1 was lower than that in case 2, but
the maximum wall deflection and ground settlement in case 1 were smaller than those in case 2
(Figs. 5(a) and 5(b)). Therefore, in practical engineering, even if the jet grouting slab is used, the
thickness of the diaphragm wall should be determined first. The number of axial struts can be
reduced appropriately, if the deformation control is not strict.
3.4 Effects of marine-clay stiffness and thickness

In Singapore, the distribution of marine clay is not uniform. In the area adjacent to that of the
case study, the total depth to the base of the marine clay was between 18 and 35 m (Shirlaw et al.,
2005). To examine the effects of the marine-clay layer thickness on the reinforcing effect of the jet
grouting slab, five marine-clay layer thicknesses (12.5, 15, 17.5, 20, and 22.5 m) were selected.
Empirical formulas are often used to predict the elastic modulus of marine clay in finite-element
simulations. According to the undrained shear strength (cu) measured via experiments, it is often
assumed that E = 150–300cu (Xuan, 2009; Zhang et al., 2015, 2018; Ou et al., 1993, 2008; Finno
and Calvello, 2005; Wang et al., 2005). By comparing the test results with the FEM analysis results,
an appropriate value was obtained. Therefore, four cases (E = 150cu, 200cu, 250cu, and 300cu) were
examined.
Table 6 and Figs. 6(a) and 6(b) indicate that the thickness of the soft soil layer was one of the
important factors affecting the deformation of the excavation. With an increase in the thickness of
the marine clay, the wall deflection, basal heave, and ground settlement increased significantly—
particularly the basal heave. With the increasing thickness of the marine-clay layer, the deflection
curve of the diaphragm wall changed significantly, and the maximum deflection of the diaphragm
wall occurred in a deeper layer. This is because the diaphragm wall was not embedded in the hard
soil layer. In contrast, when the thickness of the marine clay decreased, the deformation of the
excavation decreased rapidly.

Table 6 Excavation responses with different marine-clay thicknesses

Marine-clay thickness δmax hmax Smax Mmax
(m) (mm) (mm) (mm) (kN/m)
12.5 24.11 20.50 19.03 721.5
15 34.75 52.47 28.62 1074
17.5 49.82 88.21 39.13 1474
20 75.80 153.1 56.28 1895
22.5 114.5 248.3 80.02 2395
 Fig. 6. Effects of the marine-clay thickness on the (a) diaphragm-wall deflection and (b) ground settlement.

In Singapore, if the project is located in a marine clay area, the main deformation will occur in
marine clay. For deep excavation with a soft clay layer, the deformation of the diaphragm wall,
basal heave, and ground settlement can be effectively controlled by the support system of a jet
grouting slab combined with a diaphragm wall. If the soft clay is thick, the diaphragm wall should
be embedded deeper so that the support system can have better performance.
As shown in Table 7, the wall deflection, ground settlement, and basal heave generally decreased
when the undrained shear strength of the marine clay remained unchanged, while the elastic
modulus increased. If keep E50 as a constant, we can find that the deformation with jet grouting
slabs is 60% to 70% of the deformation without jet grouting slabs. This indicates that the jet
grouting slab can effectively control the deformation and has good stability in typical marine-clay
areas.

Table 7 Excavation responses with different marine-clay stiffnesses

δmax hmax Smax Mmax
Jet grouting slabs E50
(mm) (mm) (mm) (kNm)
150cu 82.08 128.8 61.20 2028
Without jet grouting 200cu 71.33 112.3 53.74 1831
slabs 250cu 64.19 101.1 48.71 1667
300cu 58.86 92.94 44.90 1542
150cu 49.82 88.21 39.13 1474
200cu 43.02 76.09 34.24 1305
With jet grouting slabs
250cu 38.50 68.29 30.92 1188
300cu 35.30 62.65 28.54 1102

4 Conclusion

According to case validation, as well as a series of numerical simulations, the following

conclusions are drawn.
(1) This paper presented the reasonable thickness of jet grouting slabs. According to the results of
parameter studies, the thickness of the marine clay and the stiffness of the diaphragm wall
significantly affect the deep excavation responses.
(2) The diaphragm wall should be embedded in the hard soil layer at a depth of 2–3 m (not too
deep).
(3) For most of the soft clay (E=150–300cu), the jet grouting slab can achieve a good reinforcement
effect. In this case, a slab with a thickness of 1.5 m can reduce the basal heave, deflection, and
ground settlement by approximately 30%.
In a future study, more numerical simulations with different moduli and strengths of the jet
grouting slab will be performed to investigate the possibility of deriving a mathematical model that
considers all the key influential parameters as predictors of the jet grouting stability effect on deep
excavations. Furthermore, the spatial variability characteristics of jet grouting slabs will be
considered.
Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the financial support from the Chongqing Construction Science and
Technology Plan Project (2019-0045), National Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing, China
(cstc2018jcyjAX0632), and Science and Technology Research Program of Chongqing Municipal
Education Commission (KJZD-K201900102).

Declaration of interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Reference

Brinkgreve, L. B. J., Engin, E., & Swolfs, W. M. (2017). Plaxis Manual, PLAXIS bv, Netherlands.
Burland, J.B. (1989). Small is beautiful-the stiffness of soils at small strains. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 26(4), 499–516.
Clayton C.R.I. (2011). Stiffness at small strain: research and practice. Géotechnique, 61(1), 5–37.
Comodromosa, E.M., Papadopouloua, M.C. & Georgiadisb, K. (2018). Design procedure for the
modelling of jet-grout column slabs supporting deep excavations. Computers and Geotechnics,
100, 110–120.
Finno, R.J., & Calvello, M. (2005). Supported excavations: the observational method and inverse
modeling. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(7), 826–836.
Goh A T C, Zhang F, Zhang W G, & Otard Chew Y S. (2017). Assessment of strut forces for
braced excavation in clays from numerical analysis and field measurements. Computers and
Geotechnics, 86, 141–149.
Goh, A. T. C., Zhang, F., Zhang, W. G., Zhang, Y. M., & Liu, H. 2017. A simple estimation model
for 3D braced excavation wall deflection. Computers and Geotechnics, 83, 106–113.
Goh, A. T. C., Zhang, W. G., & Wong, K. S. 2019. Deterministic and reliability analysis of basal
heave stability for excavation in spatial variable soils. Computers and Geotechnics, 108, 152–
160.
Goh, A.T.C. (2017). Deterministic and reliability assessment of basal heave stability for braced
excavations with jet grout base slab. Engineering Geology, 218, 63–69.
Hsieh, H.S., Wang, C.C. & Ou, C.Y. (2003). Use of jet grouting to limit diaphragm wall
displacement of a deep excavation, 129(2), 146–157.
Kung, G.T.C., Hsiao, E.C.L., & Juang, C. H. (2007). Evaluation of a simplified small-strain soil
model for analysis of excavation-induced movements. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 44,
726–736.
Kung, G.T.C., Hsiao, E.C.L., & Juang, C.H. (2007). Evaluation of a simplified small-strain soil
model for analysis of excavation-induced movements. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 44,
726–736.
Kung, G.T.C., Juang, C.H., Hsiao, E.C.L., & Hashash, Y.M.A. (2007). Simplified model for wall
deflection and ground-surface settlement caused by braced excavation in clays. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(6), 731–747.
Kung, G.T.C., Ou, C.Y., & Juang, C.H. (2009). Modeling small-strain behavior of Taipei clays for
finite element analysis of braced excavations. Computers and Geotechnics, 36(1), 304–319.
Liu, H.L., Zhou, H., Kong, G.Q., Qin, H.Y., & Zha Y.H. (2017). High pressure jet-grouting column
installation effect in soft soil: Theoretical model and field application, 88, 74–94.
Liu, Y., Jiang, Y.J., Xiao, H., & Lee, F.H. (2017). Determination of representative strength of deep
cement-mixed clay from core strength data. Géotechnique, 67(4), 350–364.
Liu, Y., Lee, F.H., Quek, S.T., Chen, E.J., & Yi, J.T. (2015). Effect of spatial variation of strength
and modulus on the lateral compression response of cement-admixed clay slab. Géotechnique,
65(10), 851–865.
Lü Q., Chen P., Kim B., Zheng J., & Ji, J. (2019). Probabilistic assessment of seismic stability of
a rock slope by combining the simulation of stochastic ground motion with permanent
displacement analysis. Engineering Geology, 260, 105210.
Lü, Q., Low, B. K. (2011). Probabilistic analysis of underground rock excavations using response
surface method and SORM. Computers and Geotechnics, 38(8), 1008–1021.
Lü, Q., Xiao, Z P., Ji, J., Zheng, J., & Shang Y Q. (2017). Moving least squares method for
reliability assessment of rock tunnel excavation considering ground-support interaction.
Computers and Geotechnics, 84, 88–100.
Lu, K.K., Yin, J.H., & Lo, S.C. (2018). Modeling Small-Strain Behavior of Hong Kong CDG and
Its Application to Finite-Element Study of Basement-Raft Footing. International Journal of
Geomechanics, 18(9), 04018104.
Mu, L.L., & Huang M.S. (2016). Small strain based method for predicting three-dimensional soil
displacements induced by braced excavation. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
52, 12–22.
Ochmański, M., Modoni, G., & Bzówka (2015). Numerical analysis of tunnelling with jet-grouted
canopy. Soils and Foundations, 55(5), 929–942.
Orazi, M., Gori, U., Ruggeri, P., Sakellariadi, E., & Scarpelli, G. (2018). Small-Strain Stiffness
Values for a Reconstituted Soil from Southern Italy. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,
36(5), 3323–3330.
Ou, C.Y., Hsieh, P.G., & Chiou, D.C. (1993). Characteristics of ground surface settlement during
excavation. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 30(5), 758–767.
Ou, C.Y., Teng, F.C., Seed, R.B., & Wang, I.W. (2008). Using buttress walls to reduce excavation-
induced movements. Proceedings of the Institution of civil Engineers-geotechnical
Engineering, 161(4), 209–222.
Poh, T.Y., & Wong, I.H. (2001). A field trial of jet-grouting in marine clay. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 38(2), 338–348.
Qiu, J.L., Liu, H.Q., Lai, J.X., Lai, H.P., Chen, J.X., & Wang, K. (2018). Investigating the long-
term settlement of a tunnel built over improved loessial foundation soil using jet grouting
technique. Journal of performance of constructed facilities, 32(5), 04018066.
Shirlaw, J.N., Tan, T.S., & Wong, K.S. (2005). Deep excavations in Singapore marine clay. In:
fifth International Conference on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft
Ground, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 13–28.
Shirlaw, J.N., Wen, D., Nadarajah, P., Yoon, S.I., & Sugawara, S. (2000a). Construction issues
related to jet grouted slabs at the base of excavations. In: International Conference on Tunnels
and Underground Structures, Singapore, Singapore. pp. 639–643.
Shirlaw, J.N., Wen, D., Nadarajah, P., Yoon, S.I., & Sugawara, S. (2000b). Design issues related
to jet grouted slabs at the base of excavations. In: International Conference on Tunnels and
Underground Structures, Singapore, Singapore. pp. 653–658.
Tanaka, H. (1993). Behavior of braced excavations stabilized by deep mixing method. Soils and
Foundations, 33(2), 105–115.
Wang, H.B., Xu, M., & Song, E.X. (2011). A small strain constitutive model based on hardening
soil model. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 32(1), 39–43. (in Chinese)
Wang, L., Zheng, G., & Ou, R.N. (2019). Effect of jet grouting and dewatering on an adjacent
tunnel in a Shanghai deep excavation. Proceedings of the Institution of civil Engineers-ground
improvement, 172(4), 274–284.
Wang, Z.F., Shen, J.S., & Cheng, W.C. (2018). Simple Method to Predict Ground Displacements
Caused by Installing Horizontal Jet-Grouting Columns. Mathematical problems in
Engineering, 2018, 1897394.
Wang, Z.F., Shen, S.L., Ho, C.E., & Kim Y.H. (2013). Investigation of field-installation effects of
horizontal twin-jet grouting in Shanghai soft soil deposits. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
50(3), 288–297.
Wang, Z.W., Ng, C.W.W., & Liu, G.B. (2005). Characteristics of wall deflections and ground
surface settlements in Shanghai. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 42(5), 1243–1254.
Wen, D.Z. (2015). Use of Jet Grouting in Deep Excavations, In: Indraratna B, Chu J and
Rujikiatkamjorn C (EDs). Ground Improvement Case Histories (pp. 109–122). Waltham, E-
Publishing Inc.
Wong, I.H., & Poh, T.Y. (2000). Effects of jet grouting on adjacent ground and structures. Journal
of Geotechinical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 126(3), 247–256.
Xuan, F. (2009). Behavior of diaphragm walls in clays and reliability analysis. M.Eng. Thesis,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Zhang, W. G., Hou, Z. J., Goh, A. T. C., & Zhang, R. H. (2018). Estimation of strut forces for
braced excavation in granular soils from numerical analysis and case histories. Computers and
Geotechnics, 106, 286–295.
Zhang, W.G., Goh, A.T.C., & Xuan, F. (2015). A simple prediction model for wall deflection
caused by braced excavation in clays. Computers and Geotechnics, 63, 67–72.
Zhang, W.G., Zhang, Y.M., & Goh, A.T.C. (2017). Multivariate adaptive regression splines for
inverse analysis of soil and wall properties in braced excavation. Tunneling and Underground
Space Technology, 64, 24–33.
Zhang, W.G., Goh, A.T.C., Goh, K.H., Chew, O.Y.S., Zhou, D., & Zhang, R. (2018a). Performance
of Braced Excavation in Residual Soil with Groundwater Drawdown, Underground Space, 3,
150–165.
Zhang, W.G., Wang, W., Zhou, D., Zhang, R.H., Goh, A.T.C., & Hou, Z.J. (2018b). Influence of
groundwater drawdown on excavation responses-A case history in Bukit Timah granitic
residual soils. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 10, 856–864.
Zhang, W.G., Zhang, R.H., Wang, W., Zhang, F., & Goh, A.T.C. (2019). A Multivariate Adaptive
Regression Splines model for determining horizontal wall deflection envelope for braced
excavations in clays. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, 84, 461–471.
Zhang, W.G., Zhang, R.H., Wu, C.Z., Goh, A.T.C., Lacasse, S., Liu, Z.Q., & Liu, H.L. (2020).
State-of-the-art review of soft computing applications in underground excavations. Geoscience
Frontiers. DOI:101016/j.gsf.2019.12.003
Declaration of interests

 The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could
have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

 The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as
potential competing interests: