See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245294602

Reliability Analysis and Updating of Excavation-Induced Ground Settlement for

Building Serviceability Assessment

Article  in  Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · October 2008

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:10(1448)

CITATIONS READS

80 576

4 authors, including:

Evan C. L. Hsiao C.Hsein Juang

geoLyteca LLC, United States Clemson University
9 PUBLICATIONS   387 CITATIONS    282 PUBLICATIONS   8,151 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gordon Tung-Chin Kung

National Cheng Kung University
19 PUBLICATIONS   788 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Multiscale regional liquefaction hazard mapping View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gordon Tung-Chin Kung on 09 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Reliability Analysis and Updating of Excavation-Induced
Ground Settlement for Building Serviceability Assessment
Evan C. L. Hsiao1; Matt Schuster2; C. Hsein Juang, F.ASCE3; and Gordon T. C. Kung4

Abstract: In this paper, the excavation-induced settlement determined by the KJHH model, a recently developed semiempirical model,
is used to assess the serviceability reliability of adjacent buildings. The calculated settlement, considered as the load in the context of
reliability analyses in this paper, is compared with a tolerable settlement, considered as the resistance herein. The reliability of the adjacent
building against “damage” 共defined herein as the violation of serviceability requirements such as having intolerable settlement兲 is first
analyzed and the probability of exceedance 共i.e., exceeding the tolerable settlement兲 is calculated. Furthermore, as the excavation
proceeds, observed settlement at the current excavation stage is used to update the prediction of settlement at subsequent stages, and the
probability of exceedance is updated accordingly.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2008兲134:10共1448兲
CE Database subject headings: Reliability; Probability; Bayesian analysis; Excavation; Settlement; Serviceability; Damage.

Introduction “predicted settlement” or “prediction” is referred to an engineer-

Construction of a braced excavation system inevitably causes
wall deflections and ground movements, which can have detri-
mental effects on adjacent buildings. In practice, the excavation-
induced maximum ground surface settlement 共␦vm兲, and
particularly, angular distortion 共␻兲, are often used as performance
indicators for estimating the damage potential of buildings adja-
cent to an excavation. In the context of this paper, the term “dam-
age” is synonymous with the state of a building where the
violation of serviceability requirements occurs. The serviceability
requirements are usually expressed in terms of some threshold
values 共or tolerable limits兲 of ground surface settlement or angu-
lar distortion. In a deterministic approach, serviceability of a
building adjacent to a braced excavation can be assumed if the
“predicted” ␦vm and/or ␻ are less than the specified tolerable lim-
its. In reality, such tolerable limits and “predicted” ␦vm and ␻ are
random variables in light of the presence of uncertainty. There-
fore, the development of a reliability-based approach for estimat-
ing the serviceability of a building adjacent to a braced
excavation is desirable.
It should be noted that in the context of this paper, the term
1 and MacDonald 1956; Wahls 1994; Simons and Menzies 2000兲
Staff Engineer, Golder Associates Inc., Irvine, CA 92602. E-mail:
ehsiao@golder.com
2
Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Clemson Univ.,
Clemson, SC 29634. E-mail: mschust@clemson.edu
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Clemson Univ., Clemson,
SC 29634 共corresponding author兲. E-mail: hsein@clemson.edu; formerly,
Chair Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Central Univ.,
Jungli, Taiwan.
4
Assistant Research Fellow, Sustainable Environment Research
Center, National Cheng Kung Univ., Taiwan 70944. E-mail: tckung@
mail.ncku.edu.tw
Note. Discussion open until March 1, 2009. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. The manuscript for this paper was
submitted for review and possible publication on April 4, 2007; approved
on February 29, 2008. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 10, October 1, 2008.
©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2008/10-1448–1458/$25.00.
ing calculation of settlement. Because the analyses performed
herein all dealt with case histories 共“after-the-event” calculations兲,
the term “prediction” used in this paper does not meet the strict
definitions given by Lambe 共1973兲. Nevertheless, the term “pre-
dicted settlement” is used herein as it goes well with the focus of
the paper, namely, the updating of settlement “prediction.”
In this paper, a newly developed model for the excavation-
induced wall deflection and ground movements, called the KJHH
model 共Kung et al. 2007b兲, is adopted for developing the
reliability-based approach. For simplicity, the maximum ground
surface settlement ␦vm is selected as an indicator to assess the
excavation-induced building damage potential, although more ad-
vanced evaluation criteria 共i.e., Boone 1996; Son and Cording
2005; and Finno et al. 2005兲 are available. The tolerable limits of
␦vm, such as those proposed by Wahls 共1994兲, Simons and Men-
zies 共2000兲, and Zhang and Ng 共2005兲, are used as the evaluation
criterion. In the context of serviceability reliability of the build-
ings adjacent to an excavation, the calculated ␦vm is the load and
the tolerable limit of ␦vm is the resistance. In a real-world prob-
lem, either or both the load and the resistance can be treated as a
random variable.
It is noted that the published tolerable settlements 共Skempton
were primarily derived based on a limiting angular distortion of
1 / 300 or equivalence. Thus, use of the maximum ground settle-
ment as an indicator for assessing the excavation-induced build-
ing damage potential is deemed acceptable as the “first-order”
approximation. Total settlement is much easier to measure in the
field than its more sophisticated counterparts such as angular dis-
tortion and lateral strain; thus, it has the advantage of being easily
adaptable into a Bayesian updating framework that utilizes
observations/measurements in a staged construction. It must be
emphasized, however, that other more accurate indicators such as
angular distortion and lateral strain should be adopted for assess-
ing building damage potential within the Bayesian updating
framework if they can be measured and judged in the field.
In the reliability-based approach, the observed settlements at
various stages of excavation may be used to update the KJHH

1448 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008

Table 1. Coefficients for Linear Transformation of Five Variables
Linear transformation equation
X = t共x兲 = b1x2 + b2x + b3
Variables x Applicable range b1 b2 b3
He 共m兲 0–30 −0.4 24 −50
ln共EI / ␥whavg
4
兲 艌0 11.5 −295 2,000
B / 2 共m兲 0 艋 B 艋 100 −0.04 4 90
su / ␴⬘v 0.2–0.4 3,225 −2,882 730
Ei / ␴⬘v 200–1,200 0.00041 −1 500

model for the predictions of settlement at the subsequent stages.
Updating model parameters, such as parameters of a soil model in
a finite-element solution, based on the field observations is often
adopted during the construction phase of a deep excavation
project 共Ou and Tang 1994; Calvello and Finno 2004; Hashash
et al. 2004; Finno and Calvello 2005兲. This approach of combin-
ing the numerical capability of the finite-element method with the
observational method has been used successfully in many exca-
vation projects. In this study, however, updating the KJHH model
during construction is carried out with a different approach. Here,
the KJHH model is updated through the change in its model bias
factor based on the recognition that the observed ground re-
sponses reflect the effect of all factors in the field, not just soil
parameters in the model.
The reliability of the building against damage at each stage of
excavation is first evaluated prior to excavation. As the excava-
tion proceeds, the bias factor of the KJHH model is recalibrated at
the end of each stage and prior to the next stage of excavation
based on the observed settlements from the current stage. The
serviceability reliability of the building in subsequent stages can
then be reevaluated with the updated bias factor of the KJHH
model. This serviceability reliability analysis procedure first in-
troduced by Hsiao et al. 共2007兲 is refined and extended herein.
KJHH Model: Overview
In general, an evaluation of excavation-induced wall and ground
movements using empirical methods may proceed as follows:
1. Determine the maximum lateral wall deflection ␦hm;
2. Estimate the deformation ratio R共=␦vm / ␦hm兲; and
3. Calculate the maximum surface settlement ␦vm.
The KJHH model 共Kung et al. 2007b兲 follows this general ap-
proach to predict the wall deflection and ground movement in an
excavation in soft to medium clays. For simplicity, the effect of
the presence of hard stratum is excluded in this study, although
the presence of hard stratum might restrain the displacement of
soil beneath and around the bottom of excavation as indicated
in Kung et al. 共2007b兲. Thus, five basic parameters are consi-
dered essential for predicting the maximum wall deflection 共␦hm兲
caused by excavation in soft to medium clays. These parameters
include the excavation depth 共He兲, the excavation width 共B兲, the
system stiffness 关EI / ␥wh4avg as defined in Clough and O’Rourke
共1990兲, where E = Young’s modulus of wall material; I = moment
of inertia of the wall section; ␥w = unit weight of water; and
havg = average support spacing兴, the ratio of shear strength over
vertical effective stress 共su / ␴⬘v兲, and the ratio of initial Young’s
tangent modulus over vertical effective stress 共Ei / ␴⬘v兲. It should
be noted that the initial tangent modulus, Ei, is similar to that used
in the hyperbolic model 共Duncan and Chang 1970兲. However, in
the KJHH model, this modulus should be measured with a small
strain triaxial test 共at a strain level of less than 10−5兲. The reader
is referred to Kung et al. 共2007a兲 for discussion of the character-
istics of excavation-induced settlement as influenced by the small
strain soil behavior. The maximum lateral wall deflection ␦hm is
calculated as 共Kung et al. 2007b兲
␦hm = a0 + a1X1 + a2X2 + a3X3 + a4X4 + a5X5
+ a 6X 1X 2 + a 7X 1X 3 + a 8X 1X 5 共1兲
where X1 = t共He兲; X2 = t关ln共EI / ␥wh4avg兲兴; X3 = t共B / 2兲; X4 = t共su / ␴⬘v兲;
and X5 = t共Ei / ␴⬘v兲, and t = transformation function defined in
Eq. 共2兲. The coefficients are as follows: a0 = −13.41973,
a1 = −0.49351, a2 = −0.09872, a3 = 0.06025, a4 = 0.23766,
a5 = −0.15406, a6 = 0.00093, a7 = 0.00285, and a8 = 0.00198. It is
noted that variables Xi 共i = 1 , 5兲 are the transformed variables of
the five basic input variables defined as 共Kung et al. 2007b兲
X = t共x兲 = b1x2 + b2x + b3 共2兲
where x = each of the input variables 共He, ln共EI / ␥wh4avg兲, B / 2,
su / ␴⬘v, and Ei / ␴⬘v兲; X = transformed variable; and the coefficients,
b1, b2, and b3 are listed in Table 1.
Kung et al. 共2007b兲 found that the deformation ratio R, the
ratio of the maximum ground settlement over the maximum wall
deflection, in clay-dominant sites is mainly influenced by three
parameters, ⌺Hclay / Hwall, su / ␴⬘v, and Ei / 1,000␴⬘v. The parameter
⌺Hclay / Hwall is illustrated in Fig. 1. The deformation ratio R is
determined as
R = c 0 + c 1Y 1 + c 2Y 2 + c 3Y 3 + c 4Y 1Y 2 + c 5Y 1Y 3
+ c6Y 2Y 3 + c7Y 33 + c8Y 1Y 2Y 3 共3兲
where Y 1 = ⌺Hclay / Hwall, Y 2 = su / ␴⬘v, Y 3 = Ei / 1,000␴⬘v, and the
coefficients for Eq. 共3兲 determined through the least-square
regression, are as follows: c0 = 4.55622, c1 = −3.40151, c2 =
−7.37697, c3 = −4.99407, c4 = 7.14106, c5 = 4.60055, c6 = 8.74863,
c7 = 0.38092, and c8 = −10.58958.
The excavation-induced maximum settlement ␦vm can be ob-
tained by multiplying ␦hm by R. The uncertainty of the entire
model for ␦vm was previously characterized with a model bias
factor that follows a normal distribution with a mean of 1.0 and a
standard deviation of 0.34 共Kung et al. 2007b兲. Including the bias
factor, this model for maximum ground settlement ␦vm can be
expressed as
␦vm = BF · R · ␦hm 共4兲
where BF= model bias factor. Because of the variation of all input
variables, the calculated ␦vm is a random variable.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1449


Fig. 1. Determination of normalized clay layer thickness
共兺Hclay / Hwall兲 for clay dominant site
Reliability Analysis of Ground Surface Settlement
Analysis Steps
In this study, reliability analysis of excavation-induced ground
surface settlement for building serviceability assessment is con-
ducted with the following steps:
1. Estimate the mean values and coefficients of variation
共COVs兲 for all input variables of the KJHH model. The mean
value for the nonsoil parameter can be determined from ex-
cavation specifications. Unless specified, the COV of the
nonsoil parameters is assumed to be 0.05, an assumption that
is indirectly confirmed with sensitivity analysis presented
later. The mean value and COV of the soil parameters can be
determined from small-strain triaxial tests 共Kung 2003兲 and
published literature including Duncan 共2000兲;
2. Calculate the excavation-induced maximum ground settle-
ment ␦vm using the KJHH model;
3. Define the performance function as g共 兲 = ␦lim − ␦vm, where
␦lim = limiting tolerable settlement 共or tolerable settlement for
short兲 and treated as the resistance, and ␦vm is treated as the
load. Thus, g共 兲 艌 0 defines a satisfactory performance re-
gion, while g共 兲 ⬍ 0 defines an unsatisfactory performance
region; and
4. Perform analysis using the first-order reliability method
共FORM兲 to obtain the reliability index 共Hasofer and Lind
Table 2. Mean Values of Excavation Depths and System Stiffness of TNEC Case History
Factor 3 4
Depth, He 共m兲 8.6 11.8
System stiffness, EI / ␥whavg
4
1,023 966
Note: Mean of other factors required for determining maximum ground surface settlement using KJHH model: B / 2 = 20.6 m, su / ␴⬘v = 0.31 and Ei / ␴⬘v
= 650, 兺HcalyHwall = 0.87, model bias factor=1.0, and tolerable settlement 共␦lim兲 = 75 mm; COVs of He, EI / ␥whavg
su / ␴⬘v and Ei / ␴⬘v = 0.16; COV of BF= 0.34; COV of ␦lim = 0.0; and coefficient of correlation of su / ␴⬘v and Ei / ␴⬘v = 0.3.
1450 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008
1974; Ang and Tang 1984兲 and the probability of exceedance
共i.e., the probability of exceeding a tolerable settlement兲 in
each stage of excavation.
Example Application
The Taipei National Enterprise Center 共TNEC兲 case 共Ou et al.
1998兲 is used as an example to illustrate the reliability assessment
of serviceability of an adjacent building. The TNEC is located
near the center of the Taipei basin. In general, the subsurface
deposit at the Taipei basin is represented by a thick alluvium
formation 共Sungshan formation兲 overlain by a gravel formation
共Chingmei formation兲. Typically, the Sungshan formation has six
alternating layers of silty sand and silty clay, but it mainly con-
sists of soft to medium, slightly overconsolidated clay with low
plasticity, and ⌺Hclay / Hwall is estimated to be 0.87. In this case,
the hard stratum is found at 46 m deep from the ground surface,
and thus it has negligible effect on ground deformation 共Kung
et al. 2007b兲. The excavation width is approximately 41.2 m; fur-
ther, a diaphragm wall, 0.9 m thick and 35 m deep, is employed
as the earth-retaining structure. As shown in Table 2, the excava-
tion was completed in seven stages to a maximum depth of
19.7 m. Also included in Table 2 is the system stiffness at differ-
ent stages of excavation. For the convenience of illustration, all
input variables in the KJHH model are assumed to follow a nor-
mal distribution. A normal distribution requires the knowledge of
the mean and standard deviation. For the TNEC case history, the
mean values of su / ␴⬘v and Ei / su are found to be 0.31 and 2,135,
respectively. The COV of both su / ␴⬘v and Ei / su are found to be
0.16 based on the statistical analysis of the data obtained from
Kung 共2003兲. The COV of the model BF is 0.34 共Kung et al.
2007b兲. The COVs of other nonsoil variables in Eq. 共1兲 are gen-
erally small and assumed herein to be 0.05.
Correlations among variables in the KJHH model are consid-
ered in the reliability analysis. Based on statistical analysis of the
data presented in Kung 共2003兲, the correlation coefficient between
su / ␴⬘v and Ei / ␴⬘v is estimated to be 0.3. As shown in Fig. 2, the
effect of the degree of correlation between su / ␴⬘v and Ei / ␴⬘v on the
calculated probability of exceedance is not significant. Other vari-
able pairs are assumed uncorrelated, as there is no evidence to
suggest otherwise. The random variable which represents model
bias factor, BF, is assumed to be uncorrelated with input variables
in the model. In a recent study by Phoon and Kulhawy 共2005兲, the
model bias factor is found to be weakly or moderately correlated
with individual input variables. Further, the assumption of no cor-
relation between input variables and the model bias factor yields
an “upper bound” in the calculated probability of exceedance,
when compared to those analyses with various degrees of corre-
lation. Thus, the assumption of no correlation is deemed accept-
able in this study.
As an example to illustrate the analysis procedure, the toler-
able settlement is first set to be 75 mm as suggested by Skempton
Excavation sequence 共stage number兲
5 6 7
15.2 17.3 19.7
1,109 1,115 1,294
4
, B / 2, and 兺Hclay / Hwall = 0.05; COVs of
Fig. 2. Probabilities of exceedance for various degree of correlation Fig. 3. Computed reliability indices at various excavation depths
between su / ␴⬘v and Ei / ␴⬘v

bution of the input variables are studied. Results of these analyses

and MacDonald 共1956兲, and Simons and Menzies 共2000兲. Other are presented herein. Although not presented herein, these sensi-
criteria may be used, including those by Burland and Worth tivity analyses were also performed using another quality case
共1975兲, Boscardin and Cording 共1989兲, Wahls 共1994兲, Boone history, the Formosa case 共Ou et al. 1993兲, and similar results
共1996兲, and Zhang and Ng 共2005兲. It should be stressed that the were obtained.
tolerable settlement criterion employed here is for general condi-
tions. For special cases, other criteria of tolerable settlement may
be more appropriate. Furthermore, the tolerable settlements rec- Effect of Magnitude and Variation of Limiting Tolerable
ommended for practice are often applied with an additional factor Settlement
of safety in a conventional deterministic approach 共Simons and To determine the effect of the tolerable settlement on the results
Menzies 2000兲. Thus, the criterion of 75 mm for the reliability of reliability analysis, the TNEC case history is reanalyzed using
analysis herein may be considered as being equivalent to a toler- different fixed values of tolerable settlement ranging from
able settlement criterion of 50 mm applied with a factor of safety 60 to 160 mm. As shown in Fig. 4, the reliability index increases
of 1.5. and the probability of exceedance decreases for the same loading
It should be noted that in principle, the total amount of allow- as the tolerable settlement increases. The results indicate that the
able settlement of the buildings adjacent to an excavation should calculated probability of exceedance depends on the choice of
remain the same before and after the excavation. Because the tolerable settlement.
buildings have already experienced settlement before the excava-
tion, the allowable settlement of these buildings caused by the
excavation should be smaller than the total amount specified in
the applicable building codes. However, many practitioners argue
that although some settlement of the buildings will occur due to
self-weights, the redistribution of the stresses in the structural
members over time will increase the capability of the buildings to
sustain additional settlement without serviceability problems.
Thus, the total amount of allowable settlement specified in the
building codes is considered applicable to assessing the service-
ability of buildings adjacent to an excavation.
With the knowledge of the statistical distributions of input
variables and the tolerable settlement, the reliability analyses can
be conducted using FORM. It is noted that the FORM analysis
can be easily implemented in a spreadsheet-based approach 共e.g.,
Low and Tang 1997; Phoon 2004兲. In these analyses, the adjacent
building is assumed to be located where the maximum
excavation-induced settlement occurred. As shown in Fig. 3, the
reliability index 关calculated based on the performance function,
g共 兲 = ␦lim − ␦vm兴 decreases as the excavation proceeds 共i.e., the ex-
cavation depth increases兲, indicating that adjacent buildings are
more likely to undergo settlement greater than the tolerable settle-
ment at the later stage of excavation.

Sensitivity Analyses

A series of sensitivity analyses are performed using the TNEC

case history to study the effect of a number of assumptions
made during the reliability analysis. Particularly, the tolerable Fig. 4. Effect of various tolerable settlements at final depth of
settlement, the COV of su / ␴⬘v, and Ei / ␴⬘v, and the assumed distri- excavation on: 共a兲 reliability index; 共b兲 probability of exceedance

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1451

Fig. 5. Gamma sensitivity index ␥i: 共a兲 tolerable settlement
= 75 mm; 共b兲 tolerable settlement= 123 mm with standard deviation
␴ = 73 mm
Since settlement is most likely an uncertain variable, a subse-
quent analysis is performed to examine the effect of this uncer-
tainty on the results of the reliability analysis. The same
conditions are employed in this analysis as those used previously
except that the tolerable settlement is assumed to have a standard
deviation of 73 mm as suggested by Zhang and Ng 共2005兲. Simi-
lar to the results when the tolerable settlement was a fixed value,
the reliability index increases and the probability of exceedance
decreases as the tolerable settlement increases as shown in Fig. 4.
However, Fig. 4 also illustrates that for the range of tolerable
settlements studied, the reliability index is generally lower and
the probability of exceedance is generally higher when the toler-
able settlement is assumed to be a random variable. This result
demonstrates that the uncertainty in the tolerable settlement has a
significant effect and needs to be properly characterized.
Relative Importance of Input Variables to Calculated
Reliability Index
The sensitivity of the reliability index to a given input variable is
also studied for the two scenarios where the tolerable settlement
is assumed to be a fixed and an uncertain 共random兲 variable. This
sensitivity may be expressed in terms of the gamma sensitivity
index 共Der Kiureghian and Ke 1985兲 defined as follows:
兩␣Jy,xD兩
␥i = 共5兲
储␣Jy,xD储
where ␥i = gamma sensitivity index for input variable xi in
the KJHH model 共x1 = He, x2 = EI / ␥wh4avg, x3 = B / 2, x4 = su / ␴⬘v,
x5 = Ei / ␴⬘v, x6 = 兺Hclay / Hwall, and x7 = BF兲; ␣ = directional cosine;
Jy,x = Jacobian matrix with element of ⳵y / ⳵x; and y = T共x兲 with
T共.兲 being an orthogonal transformation function; and finally
D = diagonal matrix of standard deviation of each random
variable.
The gamma sensitivity index can be calculated for each input
variable with Eq. 共5兲 after the reliability index is calculated with
FORM analysis. It should be noted that the gamma sensitivity
index measures the relative contribution of each input variable to
the calculated reliability index. Therefore, the calculated reliabil-
ity index is most sensitive to the input variables with the highest
gamma sensitivity indices.
1452 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008
Fig. 6. Variation rate index at various COVs of su / ␴⬘v 共tolerable
settlement= 75 mm兲
Fig. 5共a兲 displays the gamma sensitivity indices for different
input variables when tolerable settlement is assumed to be fixed.
Fig. 5共b兲, on the other hand, illustrates the gamma sensitivity
indices for different input variables when the tolerable settlement
is assumed to be a random variable as suggested by Zhang and
Ng 共2005兲. Additionally, a number of other analyses were per-
formed with different values of tolerable settlement and different
levels of uncertainty. For example, one case involved a mean
tolerable settlement of 75 mm with a standard deviation of
45 mm. In all cases, similar results were observed. The analyses
indicate the high importance of the model BF as the calculated
reliability index is most sensitive to this input. Furthermore, the
calculated reliability index is also shown to be sensitive, to a
slightly lesser degree, to the normalized shear strength 共su / ␴⬘v兲
and normalized Young’s modulus 共Ei / ␴⬘v兲, and to be insensitive to
excavation depth 共He兲, excavation width 共B / 2兲, system stiffness
共EI / ␥wh4avg兲, and 兺Hclay / Hwall. These findings are consistent with
the assumptions made previously based on different sensitivity
analyses that the variations in excavation depth 共He兲, excavation
width 共B / 2兲, system stiffness 共EI / ␥wh4avg兲, and 兺Hclay / Hwall have
little effect on the reliability analysis.
The above findings regarding the importance of input variables
also support the conventional approach in the back-analysis of
excavation-induced wall and ground movements, in which only
soil parameters are “updated” in an effort to match the “pre-
dicted” responses with the “measured” responses. Other than the
model bias factor, only the variations in the soil parameters are
found to have significant effects on the calculated reliability
index.
Effect of Variation in Soil Properties
Since the reliability index is found to be sensitive to soil strength
共su / ␴⬘v兲 and stiffness 共Ei / ␴⬘v兲, it is important to study the effect of
the variation 共expressed as COV兲 in su / ␴⬘v and Ei / ␴⬘v on the reli-
ability index. Thus, a subsequent study is performed to determine
the effect that the COV of su / ␴⬘v and Ei / ␴⬘v has on the reliability
index. Fig. 6 demonstrates that the gamma sensitivity index for
su / ␴⬘v increases significantly as the COV of su / ␴⬘v increases. Simi-
larly, Fig. 7 shows that the gamma sensitivity index for Ei / ␴⬘v
increases significantly as the COV of Ei / ␴⬘v increases. This indi-
cates that the reliability index becomes increasingly sensitive to
su / ␴⬘v and Ei / ␴⬘v as the COV of su / ␴⬘v and Ei / ␴⬘v increase. As
shown in Fig. 6, when the COV of su / ␴⬘v 共or Ei / ␴⬘v in the case of

Fig. 7. Variation rate index at various COVs of Ei / ␴⬘v 共tolerable
settlement= 75 mm兲
Fig. 7兲 exceeds a certain value, the reliability index becomes
more sensitive to su / ␴⬘v 共or Ei / ␴⬘v兲 than it is to the model bias
factor. Therefore, it is important to accurately characterize the
COV of su / ␴⬘v and Ei / ␴⬘v.
Figs. 8 and 9 illustrate the effect that the COV of su / ␴⬘v and
Ei / ␴⬘v has on the probability of exceedance. Generally, at a pre-
scribed tolerable settlement, the probability of exceedance in-
creases as the COV of su / ␴⬘v or Ei / ␴⬘v increases. However, the
difference is less significant in the case of lower prescribed toler-
able settlement than in the case of higher prescribed tolerable
settlement. Therefore, limiting the variation in the soil properties
共COV of su / ␴⬘v or Ei / ␴⬘v兲 will lead to a lower probability of ex-
ceedance, especially when the prescribed tolerable settlement is
high. At a given COV level, the probability of exceedance de-
creases as the tolerable settlement increases. This trend is more
profound at lower COV levels than at higher COV levels, which
demonstrates that the selection of an appropriate tolerable settle-
ment is more important as the variation in the soil properties is
reduced.
Effect of Assumed Distribution of Input Random
Variables
Fig. 10 shows the effect of the assumed distribution 共normal ver-
sus lognormal兲 of input variables, mainly those of the soil
strength and stiffness 共su / ␴⬘v and Ei / ␴⬘v兲, on the probability of
exceedance. The input variables for both the normal and lognor-
mal distribution were determined based on the TNEC case history
Fig. 8. Probability of exceedance at various COVs of su / ␴⬘v
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1453
Fig. 9. Probability of exceedance at various COVs of Ei / ␴⬘v
except that the COVs of the input variables were assumed to vary
between 10 and 60%. When the COVs of these variables are
relatively low 共⬍20% 兲, the effect of the assumed distribution is
negligible 共⬍1 % 兲. When the COVs of these variables become
greater 共say at the level of 40–60%兲, the difference in the result-
ing probability of exceedance becomes noticeable 共⬇5 % 兲 but not
very significant 共⬍10% 兲. Overall, the effect of the assumed dis-
tribution is quite modest 共⬇0 – 5 % 兲.
Updating Settlement Predictions and Serviceability
Reliability
As an excavation proceeds, the settlement may be observed at
various stages of excavation, and thus these observed settlements
at various stages of excavation may be used to update the KJHH
model for the predictions of settlement at the subsequent stages
using the Bayesian updating approach 共e.g., Ang and Tang 2006兲.
Accordingly, the reliability analysis may be repeated or updated
using the updated settlement prediction.
As mentioned previously, engineers often adopt the approach
of combining the numerical capability of the finite-element
method with the observational method in excavation projects.
This is usually carried out by updating soil parameters based on
field observations during the construction. The soil parameters are
updated through back-analysis using the finite-element method so
Fig. 10. Probabilities of exceedance for various distributions under
assumption of fixed tolerable settlement
Table 3. Mean Values of Excavation Depths and System Stiffness of Formosa Case History
Factor 3 4
Depth, He 共m兲 6.9 10.2
System stiffness, EI / ␥whavg
4
1,757 2,043
Note: Mean of other factors required for determining maximum ground surface settlement using KJHH model: B / 2 = 16.7 m, su / ␴⬘v = 0.30, and Ei / ␴⬘v
= 510, 兺HclayHwall = 0.87, model bias factor=1.0, and tolerable settlement 共␦lim兲 = 75 mm; COVs of He, EI / ␥whavg
su / ␴⬘v and Ei / ␴⬘v = 0.16; COV of BF= 0.34; COV of ␦lim = 0.0; and coefficient of correlation of su / ␴⬘v and Ei / ␴⬘v = 0.3.
that the responses of the wall and soil match the field observa-
tions. In this study, however, the settlement calculated with the
KJHH model is updated through the change in its model bias
factor since the observed ground responses reflect the effect of all
factors in the field, not just soil parameters in the model. Thus, for
the same excavation case, the variable R and ␦hm in Eq. 共4兲 will
not be updated but the variable BF will be updated.
Since the KJHH model is developed on the basis of the exten-
sive artificial cases and real-world case histories, the model may
be treated as a global empirical correlation. Thus, the standard
deviation of the model BF may be attributable to the combined
effects of the “within-site” variability and the “cross-site” vari-
ability 共e.g., Zhang and Tang 2002兲. The sources of the within-site
variability 共␴w兲 of the predicted excavation-induced settlement
may include: inherent variability of soil properties and the uncer-
tainty associated with construction effects such as dewatering ac-
tivity and overexcavation prior to support installation.
Furthermore, the sources of the cross-site variability 共␴o兲 may be
generated from the differences in soil and construction details,
and other factors at the different sites. Therefore, the variance of
the predicted settlement using the KJHH model at a particular site
becomes: ␴BF 2
= ␴20 + ␴2w.
Bayesian Updating of Predicted Ground Settlement
and Serviceability Reliability
In the reliability analysis, it is essential to incorporate the uncer-
tainty not only in the input variables, but also in the predictive
model expressed in terms of a model bias factor. To increase the
confidence in the reliability assessment of the serviceability of
adjacent buildings, a more precise and accurate model is desir-
able. As the excavation proceeds, the site-specific observed settle-
ments become available. Using the observed settlements, the
uncertainty in the predictions could be reduced with a Bayesian
approach. Use of the Bayesian updating techniques in geotechni-
cal engineering is of course not new 共e.g., Kay 1976; Baecher and
Rackwitz 1982; Lacasse et al. 1990; Tang et al. 1999; Zhang and
Tang 2002; and Zhang et al. 2004兲. In particular, Zhang et al.
共2004兲 formalized procedures for three levels of uncertainty re-
duction associated with the use of the empirical predictive model
based on regional data and site-specific observations. In this
study, the procedures for Level 3 共Bayesian updating for a spe-
cific site using limited observations兲 are employed for updating
the model bias factor of the KJHH model. The model bias factor
represents the uncertainty of a predictive model and thus, ideally,
it should not depend on the observations. However, the KJHH
model is a data-driven model, meaning that it is not a theoretical
model but rather, a semi-empirically model developed based on
observed data. Thus, the performance of the predictive model
such as the KJHH model could vary as the excavation proceeds
and the model bias factor is more appropriately referred to herein
as the apparent model bias factor.
1454 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008
Excavation sequence 共stage number兲
5 6 7
13.2 16.2 18.45
1,456 1,367 1,320
4
, B / 2, and 兺Hclay / Hwall = 0.05; COVs of
In this paper, the updating of settlement is performed through
an updated model bias factor, as the model bias factor back-
calculated from the observed settlement reflects the overall effect
of all changes in the ground conditions during the excavation. To
fully illustrate the capabilities of this updating procedure, the For-
mosa case history 共Ou et al. 1993兲 is selected here for application.
Similar to the TNEC case history, the Formosa case involved a
seven-stage construction in the Taipei basin. Table 3 summarizes
the details about the Formosa case relevant to the procedure. Ad-
ditionally, it is assumed that the building adjacent to the excava-
tion is located where the maximum settlement occurs. The
updating procedure described herein is applicable to other cases,
although the improvement in the updated “predictions” of the
settlement may not be as drastic as the one presented in the fol-
lowing. After all, the degree of improvement resulting from the
updating procedure also depends on the accuracy of the prediction
prior to the excavation, which in turn depends on the accuracy of
the estimated soil parameters employed in the design analysis
among many other factors.
As the excavation proceeds, observed maximum settlements at
various stages of the Formosa excavation are used to update the
model BF of the KJHH model using the Bayesian approach. As
noted previously, most site-specific uncertainty such as the varia-
tion of soil properties and construction effects shall be reflected
in the field observations. Therefore, the model BF of the KJHH
model at a particular stage of excavation of the Formosa case
can be recalibrated by comparing the observed settlement with the
predicted settlement. In addition, in order to carry out Bayesian
updating analysis, knowledge of prior distribution of the mean
of the model bias factor of the KJHH model first needs to
be obtained. As discussed earlier, the model BF of the KJHH
model is found by Kung et al. 共2007b兲 to be normally distributed
with a mean of 1.0 共␮BF = 1.0兲 and a standard deviation of 0.34
共␴BF = 0.34兲. Thus, prior to excavation, the parameters of the prior
distribution of the mean bias factor 共Zhang and Tang 2002兲 can be
determined with
␮⬘ = ␮BF 共6兲
␴⬘ = 冑␴BF
2
− ␴2w 共7兲
where ␴w = within-site variability of BF. Based on the observed
settlements in the various stages of excavation in both the TNEC
and Formosa cases, and other local experience in Taipei Basin,
the within-site variability ␴w is estimated to be 0.20. This value is
assumed to be a prior knowledge for similar excavations in the
Taipei Basin. Now, suppose that at the end of the third stage of
excavation, the observed mean of the apparent model bias factor
is BF. Then, according to the Bayesian theory 共e.g., Ang and Tang
2006兲, the updated mean of apparent model bias factor 共␮⬙兲 and
Table 4. Apparent Model Bias Factors Used in Prediction of Formosa Case History
Excavation sequence
Prior to End of End of End of End of
excavation 3rd stage 4th stage 5th stage 6th stage
Mean of model bias factor 1.000 0.791 0.738 0.684 0.656
Standard deviation of model bias factor 0.340 0.257 0.236 0.227 0.221

the updated standard deviation of the apparent model bias factor
共␴⬙兲 at the end of the third stage can be computed as follows:
␮⬘␴2w + BF␴⬘2
␮⬙ =
␴2w + ␴⬘2
␴2w␴⬘2
␴⬙ =
␴2w + ␴⬘2
The updated distribution 共or more precisely, mean ␮⬙ and stan-
dard deviation ␴⬙兲 of the apparent model bias factor BF based on
the observation at the end of the third stage is then used for the
prediction of settlements at the subsequent stages. As the excava-
tion proceeds and additional observed settlements are obtained,
the distribution of the apparent model BF is updated by treating
the posterior result of the previous update as the prior result for
the next update until the completion of excavation.
Table 4 shows the mean and standard deviation of the updated
apparent model bias factors that are used in the subsequent settle-
ment predictions. As the excavation proceeds, both the mean and
standard deviation of the updated model bias factor decrease.
However, it is interesting to note that the coefficient of variation
of the updated model bias factor at various stages remains ap-
proximately the same in this particular case. The implication of
this result is that the “precision” of the KJHH model remains
constant throughout the updating process, which is expected.
Table 5 shows the observed maximum ground settlements and
the predicted mean maximum settlements at various stages of
excavation using the updated apparent model bias factors. It is
noted that the predictions made after the third stage and prior to
the fourth stage of excavation are those based on the updated
apparent model bias factor that has incorporated the observed data
from the third stage of excavation. In other words, the mean
maximum settlement is still calculated from Eq. 共4兲 but with an
updated apparent model actor BF. The predictions made at the
end of subsequent stages are interpreted in the same way. The
results 共Table 5兲 show that as the excavation proceeded and with
each stage of observation and updating, the settlement predictions
for the subsequent excavations became more accurate, compared
to the observations.
It should be noted that the settlement readings for the first two
stages of excavation are not used in this analysis because the
mechanism of the excavation-induced wall deflection and ground
movement of the first stage, or the first two stages, of excavation
共8兲
are generally different than those of the subsequent stages, which
is a well understood and observed phenomenon in a braced exca-
vation. Fortunately, under normal construction conditions, the
共9兲 damage caused by the excavation-induced ground settlement in
the first two stages of excavation has rarely been reported and is
generally negligible.
To further examine the improvement of the updated settlement
predictions over the predictions made prior to excavation, the
updated settlement predictions and their variations prior to each
excavation stage are plotted. Fig. 11 shows the settlement predic-
tions at various excavation stages, Stages 4, 5, 6, and 7 共or their
corresponding target depths: 10.15, 13.20, 16.20, and 18.45 m兲.
Prior to the fourth stage of excavation, the observed data from
Stage 3 are available, and based on these data, the apparent model
bias factor is updated, and the settlements at various target depths
共10.15, 13.20, 16.20, and 18.45 m兲 are updated or recalculated.
These results 共i.e., settlements predicted at four target depths兲 are
represented with a “triangle” symbol as shown in Fig. 11. As the
excavation proceeds beyond Stage 4, there is no need to “predict”
the settlement at the depth of 10.15 m, the target depth of Stage 4.
Thus, in Fig. 11, only one settlement prediction is made at the
depth of 10.15 m. Similarly, prior to Stage 5 of the excavation,
with the observed data from Stage 4, the settlements at the depths
of 13.2, 16.2, and 18.45 m 共the target depths at Stages 5, 6, and 7兲
are recalculated based on the updated apparent model bias factor.
The settlement predictions at these three target depths are also
shown in Fig. 11. In a similar manner, two settlements predictions
are made at the target depths of 16.2 and 18.45 m prior to Stage 6
of excavation, and one settlement prediction is made at the target
depth of 18.45 m prior to Stage 7 of excavation. Also shown
in Fig. 11 is the observed settlement at the final stage 共Stage 7兲
of excavation, which is at the depth of 18.45 m. The results
shown in Fig. 11 indicate that as the excavation proceeds, and
with more and more observed data, the settlement prediction be-
comes more accurate compared to the final observed settlement at
the depth of 18.45 m. Finally, it should be mentioned that the

Table 5. Observed and Predicted Maximum Settlements of Formosa Case History

Mean maximum settlement 共mm兲
Excavation Prediction
Depth Prior to End of End of End of End of
Stage 共m兲 Observation excavation 3rd stage 4th stage 5th stage 6th stage
3 6.9 12 18 — — — —
4 10.2 25 38 30 — — —
5 13.2 31 57 45 42 — —
6 16.2 40 72 57 53 49 —
7 18.45 47 78 62 58 53 51

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1455


Fig. 11. Bayesian updating of settlement predictions
settlement predictions shown in Fig. 11 are the “mean” maximum
settlements.
Fig. 12 shows the updated settlement predictions only at the
target depth of 18.45 m prior to Stage 4, 5, 6, and 7 of excava-
tions. Also shown in this figure are the settlement prediction at the
target depth of 18.45 m prior to Stage 3 of excavation 共i.e., before
any updating兲, and the observed settlement at the completion of
the final stage 共Stage 7兲 of excavation. The results shown in this
figure clearly demonstrate the improvement in the settlement pre-
diction using the updated model bias factor.
Fig. 13 shows the probability of exceedance 共exceeding the
limiting tolerable settlement of 75 mm兲 predicted at the target
depth of 18.45 m prior to Stages 4, 5, 6, and 7, respectively.
These probabilities of exceedance were updated prior to Stages 4,
5, 6, and 7 of excavations 共using the observed data at the end of
Stages 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively兲. Also shown in this figure is
the probability of exceedance at the target depth of 18.45 m prior
to Stage 3 of excavation 共which is before any updating兲. It should
be noted that at the completion of the final stage 共Stage 7兲 of any
excavation, the probability of exceedance should be either 1 共yes兲
or 0 共no兲. In this particular case, the probability of exceedance is
Fig. 12. Updated settlement predictions at target depth of 18.45 m
prior to Stages 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of excavations
1456 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008
Fig. 13. Probabilities of exceedance updated with observed data
0 at the completion of the final stage of excavation. Thus, the
updating yielded more and more accurate estimates of the prob-
ability of exceedance. However, it should be noted that the “zero”
probability would never be “predicted” prior to any stage of ex-
cavation, including the final stage of excavation, because of the
within-site variability and the random nature of the input param-
eters. Finally, it should also be noted that this probability of ex-
ceedance depends in large part on the specified limiting tolerable
settlement.
Conclusions
1. A simple reliability-based framework is established where
the probability of exceedance 共i.e., exceeding the specified
tolerable settlement兲 can be calculated for buildings adjacent
to an excavation. This framework involves a simplified limit
state that relies only on the maximum ground settlement and
a recently developed semiempirical model for the calculation
of ground settlement induced by an excavation. The results
presented in this paper show that this simple framework can
yield meaningful assessments of the probability of exceed-
ance and building serviceability caused by an excavation,
although further study to adopt more advanced limit states in
the reliability analysis for assessing building serviceability is
warranted;
2. Sensitivity analyses are performed to determine the effects of
a number of assumptions, including the magnitude and varia-
tion of the limiting tolerable settlement, the apparent model
bias factor, COV of soil properties, and assumed distribution
of input variables. The results indicate that the calculated
probability of exceedance depends on the choice of tolerable
settlement, as expected. The results also showed that the un-
certainty in the limiting tolerable settlement has a significant
effect, and thus the limiting tolerable settlement needs to be
properly characterized for a given case with a given set of
conditions;
3. The calculated reliability index and probability of exceed-
ance is most sensitive to the model bias factor, which indi-
cates the importance of the accuracy and precision of
the deterministic settlement model adopted for reliability
analysis. Furthermore, the calculated reliability index is
also sensitive, albeit to a lesser degree, to the normalized
shear strength 共su / ␴⬘v兲 and normalized Young’s modulus
 共Ei / ␴⬘v兲, and to be insensitive to excavation depth 共He兲, ex-
cavation width 共B / 2兲, system stiffness 共EI / ␥wh4avg兲, and
兺Hclay / Hwall. However, the reliability index becomes increas-
ingly sensitive to su / ␴⬘v and Ei / ␴⬘v as the COV of su / ␴⬘v and
Ei / ␴⬘v increase relative to the other input variables. There-
fore, it is important to accurately characterize the COV of
su / ␴⬘v and Ei / ␴⬘v;
4. Excluding the model bias factor, which is not a “real” input
variable in a given problem, the soil parameters, su / ␴⬘v
and Ei / ␴⬘v, are found to have most important effects on
the calculated reliability index and probability of exceed-
ance. This finding supports the conventional approach in the
back-analysis of excavation-induced wall and ground move-
ments, in which only soil parameters are “updated” in an
effort to match the “predicted” responses with the “mea-
sured” responses;
5. The effect of the assumed distribution of input variables on
the probability of exceedance is found to be insignificant,
particularly when the COVs of these variables are relatively
low 共⬍20% 兲. Even at higher COV levels, the effect is still
quite modest. Consequently, the input variables can be as-
sumed to be normally distributed to simplify the reliability
analysis; and
6. A new technique is presented by which the excavation-
induced settlement prediction and the probability of exceed-
ance can be updated using the observed data from the prior
excavation stages. While the updating of information based
on newly observed data through Bayesian theorem is nothing
new, the proposed technique, in which the predicted settle-
ment and probability of exceedance are updated through the
model bias factor, is new and quite innovative. The imple-
mentation of this updating technique is straightforward and
can easily be carried out in a spreadsheet. The effectiveness
of the updating technique that involves the model bias factor
is demonstrated with the example presented.
Acknowledgments
The study on which the paper is based was supported by the
National Science Foundation through Grant No. CMS-0300198
under Program Director Dr. Richard J. Fragaszy. This financial
support is greatly appreciated. The views and opinions expressed
in this paper, however, do not necessarily reflect the policies or
views of the National Science Foundation. The fourth author
wishes to acknowledge support by the National Science Council
of Taiwan through Grant No. NSC 96-2218-E-006-291. Dr. Eng
Hui Khor of the Probabilistic Design and Optimization Group of
ANSYS, Inc. is thanked for many helpful discussions on reliabil-
ity and sensitivity analysis. The journal reviewers are thanked for
their thorough and constructive comments that have helped
sharpen this paper.
References
Ang, A. H.-S., and Tang, W. H. 共1984兲. Probability concepts in engineer-
ing planning and design. Design, risk and reliability, Vol. II, Wiley,
New York.
Ang, A. H.-S., and Tang, W. H. 共2006兲. Probability concepts in engineer-
ing: Emphasis on applications to civil and environmental engineering,
2nd Ed., Wiley, New York.
Baecher, G. B., and Rackwitz, R. 共1982兲. “Factors of safety and pile load
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1457
tests.” Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Meth. Geomech., 6共4兲, 409–424.
Boone, S. J. 共1996兲. “Ground-movement-related building damage.”
J. Geotech. Engrg., 122共11兲, 886–896.
Boscardin, M. D., and Cording, E. J. 共1989兲. “Building response to
excavation-induced settlement.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 115共1兲, 1–21.
Burland, J. B., and Worth, C. P. 共1975兲. “Settlement of buildings and
associated damage.” Proc., Conf. on Settlement of Structures, Cam-
bridge Pentech Press, London, 611–654.
Calvello, M., and Finno, R. J. 共2004兲. “Selecting parameters to optimize
in model calibration by inverse analysis.” Comput. Geotech., 31共5兲,
411–425.
Clough, G. W., and O’Rourke, T. D. 共1990兲. “Construction-induced
movements of in-situ walls.” Proc., ASCE Conf. on Design and Per-
formance of Earth Retaining Structure, Geotechnical Special Publica-
tion No. 25, ASCE, New York, 439–470.
Der Kiureghian, A., and Ke, J.-B. 共1985兲. “Finite-element-based reliabil-
ity analysis of framed structures.” Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Structural
Safety and Reliability, Vol. 1, International Association for Structural
Safety and Reliability, New York, 395–404.
Duncan, J. M. 共2000兲. “Factors of safety and reliability in geotechnical
engineering.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 126共4兲, 307–316.
Duncan, J. M., and Chang, C. Y. 共1970兲. “Nonlinear analysis of stress and
strain in soils.” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 96共5兲, 1629–1651.
Finno, R. J., and Calvello, M. 共2005兲. “Supported excavations: Observa-
tional method and inverse modeling.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
131共7兲, 826–836.
Finno, R. J., Voss, F. T., Jr., Edwin, R., and Blackburn, J. T. 共2005兲.
“Evaluating damage potential in buildings affected by excavations.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 131共10兲, 1199–1210.
Hashash, Y. M. A., Jung, S., and Ghaboussi, J. 共2004兲. “Numerical imple-
mentation of a neural network based material model in finite-element
analysis.” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 59共8兲, 989–1005.
Hasofer, A. M., and Lind, N. C. 共1974兲. “Exact and invariant second-
moment code format.” J. Engrg. Mech. Div., 100共1兲, 111–121.
Hsiao, E. C. L., Juang, C. H., Kung, G. T. C., and Schuster, M. J. 共2007兲.
“Reliability analysis and updating of excavation-induced ground
settlement for building serviceability evaluation.” Geotechnical Spe-
cial Publication No. 170, ASCE, Reston, Va.
Kay, J. N. 共1976兲. “Safety factor evaluation for single piles in sand.” J.
Geotech. Engrg. Div., 102共10兲, 1093–1108.
Kung, G. T. C. 共2003兲. “Surface settlement induced by excavation with
consideration of small strain behavior of Taipei silty clay.” Ph.D.
dissertation, National Taiwan Univ. of Science and Technology,
Taipei, R.O.C.
Kung, G. T. C., Hsiao, E. C. L., and Juang, C. H. 共2007a兲. “Evaluation of
a simplified small-strain soil model for estimation of excavation-
induced movements.” Can. Geotech. J., 44共6兲, 726–736.
Kung, G. T. C., Juang, C. H., Hsiao, E. C. L., and Hashash, Y. M. A.
共2007b兲. “A simplified model for wall deflection and ground surface
settlement caused by braced excavation in clays.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Eng., 133共6兲, 731–747.
Lacasse, S., Guttormsen, T. R., and Goulois, A. 共1990兲. “Bayesian updat-
ing of axial capacity of single pile.” Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Structural
Safety and Reliability, H.-S. Ang, M. Shinozuka, and G. I. Schuller,
eds., ASCE, New York, 287–290.
Lambe, T. W. 共1973兲. “Prediction in soil engineering.” Geotechnique,
23共2兲, 149–202.
Low, B. K., and Tang, W. H. 共1997兲. “Efficient reliability evaluation
using spreadsheet.” J. Eng. Mech., 123共7兲, 749–752.
Ou, C. Y., Hsieh, P. G., and Chiou, D. C. 共1993兲. “Characteristics of
ground surface settlement during excavation.” Can. Geotech. J.,
30共5兲, 758–767.
Ou, C. Y., Liao, J. T., and Lin, H. D. 共1998兲. “Performance of diaphragm
wall using top-down method.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 124共9兲,
798–808.
Ou, C. Y., and Tang, Y. G. 共1994兲. “Soil parameter determination for
deep excavation analysis by optimization.” J. Chin. Inst. Eng., 17共5兲,
671–688.
Phoon, K. K. 共2004兲. “General non-Gaussian probability models for first
order reliability method 共FORM兲: A state-of-the art report.” ICG Rep.
No. 2004-2-4 共NGI Rep. No. 20031091-4兲, International Center for
Geohazards, Oslo, Norway.
Phoon, K. K., and Kulhawy, F. H. 共2005兲. “Characterization of model
uncertainties for laterally loaded rigid drilled shafts.” Geotechnique,
55共1兲, 45–54.
Simons, N. E., and Menzies, B. K. 共2000兲. A short course in foundation
engineering, 2nd Ed., Thomas Telford, London.
Skempton, A. W., and MacDonald, D. H. 共1956兲. “The allowable settle-
ment of buildings.” Proc.-Inst. Civ. Eng., 3共5兲, 727–768.
Son, M., and Cording, E. J. 共2005兲. “Estimation of building damage due
to excavation-induced ground movements.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 131共2兲, 162–177.
1458 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008
View publication stats
Tang, W. H., Stark, T., and Angulo, M. 共1999兲. “Reliability in back analy-
sis of slope failures.” Soils Found., 39共5兲, 73–80.
Wahls, H. E. 共1994兲. “Tolerable deformations.” Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 40, ASCE New York, 1611–1628.
Zhang, L. M., and Ng, A. M. Y. 共2005兲. “Probabilistic limiting tolerable
displacement for serviceability limit state design of foundations.”
Geotechnique, 55共2兲, 151–161.
Zhang, L. M., and Tang, W. H. 共2002兲. “Use of load tests for reducing
pile length.” Deep Foundations 2002, Geotechnical Special Publica-
tion No. 116, ASCE, Reston, Va., 993–1005.
Zhang, L. M., Tang, W. H., Zhang, L. L., and Zheng, J. G. 共2004兲.
“Reducing uncertainty of prediction from empirical correlations.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130共5兲, 526–534.