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

net/publication/359506748

Analysis of Excavation Support Systems Considering the Influence of Saturated

and Unsaturated Soil Conditions

Article · March 2022

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002788

CITATIONS READS

0 97

2 authors:

Maha Saleh Sai K. Vanapalli

University of Ottawa University of Ottawa
4 PUBLICATIONS   34 CITATIONS    308 PUBLICATIONS   6,488 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Characterization of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide Input Parameters for the Resilient Modulus of Ontario Subgrade Soils View project

Loess Microstructure and mechanical behaviour View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maha Saleh on 28 March 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Analysis of Excavation Support Systems Considering the
Influence of Saturated and Unsaturated Soil Conditions
Maha Saleh 1 and Sai K. Vanapalli, P.Eng., M.ASCE 2

Abstract: A well-established framework for the design of excavation support systems (ESSs) is not available in the literature. Several guide-
lines that have evolved from engineering practice are conventionally used in the design of ESSs. The key indicators for judging the per-
formance of ESSs are wall deformation, internal wall stresses, and surface soil settlement information. There is evidence from several case
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sai Vanapalli on 03/24/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

studies that the measured wall deformations are typically lower than the predicted values. Such behavior may be attributed to ignoring
the influence of capillary suction. The key objective of the study presented in this paper is twofold; the first is highlighting limitations
in the current design practice and the second is to pave the way for comprehensive design of ESSs. This is achieved by undertaking numerical
analysis on a silty clay taking account of the influence of saturated and unsaturated soil conditions to investigate the performance of ESSs
based on a rational design approach. In addition, the proposed approach is validated based on wall deflections information using the published
results of a case history. The proposed approach is promising for implementing the mechanics of unsaturated soils in geotechnical engineering
practice for the rational design of ESSs. The paper also highlights some limitations of the present study and the need for future studies to
provide verifications using more case histories. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002788. © 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Underground developments; Excavations; Unsaturated soils; Numerical modeling; Geotechnical applications.

Introduction
The projected annual growth rate in urban population is estimated
to reach 2.95% over the next three decades and the number of
inhabitants dwelling in urban regions is expected to surpass
6.68 billion by 2050 (UN, Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, and Population Division 2019). For this reason, the
demand for space is anticipated to increase, prompting significant
underground developments (UDs). Initial costs associated with the
UD can be expensive; however, monetary benefits taking account
of lifetime performance associated with the UD will be rewarding
(Kaliampakos et al. 2016). Effective utilization of underground
space can be pivotal for future developments. From road networks,
water storage and supply facilities, theaters, and other applications,
countries that include Sweden, the UK, Australia, Finland, Canada,
and Singapore are all racing to upgrade existing and planning future
UDs (Sarchenko 2016; WSP 2018).
The UDs usually involve excavations that may be located ad-
jacent to existing structures, roads, or utilities. Therefore, excava-
tion support systems (ESSs) are necessary to ensure the safety and
stability of these existing developments. The current design meth-
ods for ESSs are typically based on the principles of conventional
soil mechanics or guidelines developed based on experience de-
rived from practice. Standard design guidelines for ESSs recom-
mend accounting for the most critical soil conditions (NYSDOT
2013). For this reason, soil is typically assumed to be fully satu-
rated, and its mechanical behavior is interpreted from conventional
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Ottawa, Ottawa,
ON, Canada K1N6N5. Email: msale050@uottawa.ca
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON,
Canada K1N6N5 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000
-0002-3273-6149. Email: vanapall@eng.uottawa.ca
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 15, 2020; approved
on January 13, 2022; published online on March 24, 2022. Discussion per-
iod open until August 24, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
experimental tests (i.e., triaxial tests, direct shear tests) to determine
the key design parameters; namely, effective shear strength param-
eters (c 0 and ϕ 0 ) and stiffness property (E). However, in many sce-
narios, the natural groundwater table (GWT) lies at a relatively
great depth and the soil behind the ESS is typically in an unsatu-
rated state. Within the unsaturated zone, the capillary suction
(ua − uw ), which is also referred to as matric suction, contributes
to an increase in the shear strength and the stiffness of the soil. This
is well recognized from many studies in the literature (e.g., Fredlund
et al. 1978; Jennings and Burland 1962; Oh and Vanapalli 2011). In
many scenarios, practitioners rely on experience and back-analysis
to predict soil parameters, which is likely to provide a more reliable
design approach. However, the current design practice for ESSs
that relies on either conventional experiments, back-analysis, or
field testing does not consider the influence of capillary suction.
Recent field studies conducted by several researchers (Miller
et al. 2018; Russell et al. 2010; Yang and Russell 2015) suggest
that in situ test parameters are sensitive to climatic conditions,
which in turn influence capillary suction values. For this reason,
conventional design methods may lead to erroneous designs. This
is supported by monitoring the performance of several executed
ESSs in which the observed deformations and/or stresses were sig-
nificantly lower than the calculated values (Anderson et al. 2008;
Ng et al. 2020; Nguyen 2013). Such a behavior may be attributed to
the influence of capillary suction in unsaturated soils. The rational
design of ESSs is possible by extending the principles of unsatu-
rated soil mechanics in which the contribution of capillary suction
associated with climate factors can be taken into account to provide
a sustainable design for ESSs.
This study attempts to investigate the performance of ESSs in
unsaturated soils. A numerical modeling technique is proposed to
analyze a cantilever diaphragm wall in Toronto silty clay (TSC),
extending the finite-element analysis (FEA). The technique re-
quires information of the soil water retention curve (SWRC) in ad-
dition to conventional saturated soil properties. The performance of
the wall due to a 6-m-deep staged excavation considering seven
different GWT depths is investigated. Soil and wall deformation,

© ASCE 04022034-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022034

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sai Vanapalli on 03/24/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Generation of LEP behind cantilever sheet pile walls, where σv0 is the effective vertical overburden pressure, and σh0 is the effective lateral
(horizontal) earth pressure component.
surface settlement, and straining actions [i.e., bending moment
(BM) and shear force] are compared extending the conventional
approach based on saturated soil mechanics and the rational ap-
proach extending the mechanics of unsaturated soils. The results
suggest that neglecting capillary suction overestimates the defor-
mations and influences other straining actions. The proposed tech-
nique was validated using a published case history from the
literature, achieving satisfactory results. However, verification us-
ing additional case histories is needed to further validate the pro-
posed technique such that it can be extended to other types of ESSs.
This study is of interest to practicing geotechnical engineers and
developers because it highlights the importance of considering
the hydromechanical behavior of the soil for the optimized design
of ESSs in unsaturated soils.
Background
Current Practice and Design Considerations for Earth
Retaining Systems
There are many types of ESSs such as diaphragm walls, sheet piles,
and driven or cast in situ piles. Lateral bracing (i.e., anchors,
beams) may also be required in excavations to provide adequate
system rigidity for several scenarios. The selection of a suitable
ESS is achieved after careful consideration of the following factors:
excavation depth, soil type, loads, space constraints, deformation
constrains, time for construction, and system cost. A standard
framework for the design of ESSs is not available in the literature
(Chini and Genauer 1997). Instead, several guidelines have evolved
over the past few decades that are used as general design proce-
dures [i.e., US steel sheet pile design manual (USS) (FHWA 1984),
Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM) (CGS 2006),
and Eurocode 3 (CEN 1993)]. Most of these procedures are based
on limit equilibrium analysis, which allows for the design of the
wall and its components to satisfy overall stability (Bica et al.
1989). The lateral earth pressure (LEP) resulting from the soil
weight and adjacent structures is the main load acting on the retain-
ing system. Typically, LEP is a function of the overburden pressure
(σv0 ) that increases linearly with depth. LEP is usually estimated
using either Rankine’s or Coulomb’s earth pressure theory. Typical
LEP profiles behind cantilever sheet pile walls are illustrated in
© ASCE 04022034-2
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022034
Fig. 1. The US Department of Transportation sheet pile design
manual (FHWA 1984) provides simplified LEP to be used for can-
tilever piles in granular and cohesive soils. Evaluation of existing
methods along with other suggested LEP distribution diagrams
have been extensively discussed in the literature (Bica et al.
1989; BSI 2007; CGS 2006; Day 1999).
In addition to the overall system stability, the serviceability of
the system with respect to the anticipated deformations also needs
to be checked. Excavation-induced soil disturbances behind the
wall may lead to intolerable settlement of adjacent buildings and
roads. It is also likely the wall itself may experience lateral defor-
mations that are beyond its carrying capacity. The overall stability
of the system may be checked with a reasonable accuracy using
limit equilibrium methods; however, it is difficult to predict the soil
settlement and deformations due to the influence of various factors
(e.g., soil type, excavation depth, and system rigidity). Therefore,
the maximum vertical surface settlement and the horizontal wall
deformation that are to be expected due to a known excavation
height are predicted from observations of case histories (Goldberg
et al. 1976; O’Rourke 1981; Peck 1969) having similar soil con-
ditions. Hence, the current state of practice for designing ESSs re-
lies to a large extent on empiricism. For these reasons, current
design procedures have many limitations. To alleviate these limi-
tations, finite-element methods (FEMs) have been recommended
by several researchers (Clough and Mana 1977; Clough and Tsui
1974; Day 1999; Han et al. 2017; Lambe 1970; Simpson 1992).
FEMs provide a reliable solution for complex soil stratifications
(multilayered soil system) and surcharge loadings, and most impor-
tantly they facilitate addressing the spatial variability and allow for
random finite-element modeling (Johari and Gholampour 2018;
Luo et al. 2018).
Both analytical and numerical design approaches applied in
practice extend the principles of saturated soil mechanics. In these
approaches, effective shear strength parameters are used in design
[Fig. 2(a)]. However, in many scenarios, ESSs may be embedded
partially, if not completely, in soil that is in an unsaturated condi-
tion; for this reason, the mechanical behavior of the soil will be
influenced by capillary suction [Fig. 2(b)] (e.g., Fredlund et al.
1978; Jennings and Burland 1962; Rassam and Cook 2002; Wei
et al. 2019). The capillary suction is sensitive to changes in climatic
conditions (i.e., evapotranspiration, rainfall, vegetation cover).
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sai Vanapalli on 03/24/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
Fig. 2. Analysis of earth retaining systems: (a) following conventional practice; and (b) extending unsaturated soil mechanics.
Consequently, soil parameters are also expected to vary due to
temporal changes in the capillary suction profile. Conventional ap-
proaches (including in situ testing) do not usually take into account
these variations. More discussions related to the influence of capil-
lary suction on various properties that influence the performance of
ESSs are provided subsequently.
The research in this paper highlights the need for a rational de-
sign approach for ESSs extending our present understanding of the
principles of unsaturated soil mechanics.
Earth Retaining Systems in Unsaturated Soils
A framework provided by Fredlund et al. (1978) for interpreting the
shear strength of unsaturated soils was used by several scholars for
the analysis of ESSs (Hamid and Tawfik 2006; Li and Yang 2019;
Pufahl et al. 1983; Tavakkoli and Vanapalli 2011). The suction can
be assumed to contribute to the shear strength in the form of ap-
parent cohesion as shown in Fig. 3. For a specific suction profile,
the LEP profiles along the wall can be reasonably estimated by
applying Rankine’s theory and utilizing the total cohesion in the
formulation. The analytic methods quantify the influence of suction
Fig. 3. Mohr-Coloumb failure applied to LEP in unsaturated soils,
where σv is the vertical overburden pressure, σh;a is the active LEP,
and σh;p is the passive LEP.
© ASCE 04022034-3
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022034
(b)
on LEP, extending limit equilibrium methods disregarding soil–
structure interaction. In addition, the influence of deformations as-
sociated with earth pressures is also typically ignored. Moreover,
these approaches do not address the impact of excavation works on
neighboring structures (i.e., surface settlement).
A limited number of experimental and field studies (Borden
et al. 2016; Shwan 2018) were conducted in recent years to inves-
tigate the performance of cantilever sheet piles (i.e., collapse load
and deformation) in unsaturated soils. The focus of these studies
was investigating the performance of cantilever walls under satu-
rated and unsaturated conditions. In these studies, the observed
maximum wall deflection under unsaturated conditions was found
to be significantly less than that reported under saturated condi-
tions. In addition, a number of numerical studies were also under-
taken (Gholampour and Johari 2019; Johari and Gholampour 2018;
Johari and Kalantari 2021). These studies focused on reliability
analysis for excavation support systems considering saturated and
unsaturated conditions. The reliability analysis results suggest there
will be a change to the estimated mean value and a significant re-
duction in the standard deviation for deflection and stresses if the
influence of suction is taken into consideration. Table 1 summarizes
research studies involving ESSs in unsaturated soils along with
significant findings.
Mechanical Behavior of Unsaturated Soils
The shear strength (τ ) and stiffness (E) of unsaturated soils are
the two key parameters required for conducting FEA for ESS in
unsaturated soils. Shear strength τ will mainly govern the magni-
tude of LEP and the resulting stresses on the wall as well as overall
stability of the system. In other words, τ will be the controlling
factor in the determination of the safe embedment depth. On the
other hand, E will mainly influence the soil deformation. Experi-
mental studies have shown that τ and E of unsaturated soils are
influenced by the capillary suction (e.g., Jennings and Burland
1962). In a soil deposit, the capillary suction profile is not neces-
sarily constant within the unsaturated soil zone. Therefore, the soil
properties within the deposit will vary with respect to the capillary
suction profile. Typically, the negative pore water pressure profile,
which is equivalent to the capillary suction above the water table,
is nonlinear. The value of the negative pore water pressure will
increase moving upward from GWT. However, this profile is sub-
jected to seasonal fluctuations. The magnitude of the pore water
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Table 1. Summary of experimental, field, and numerical studies on earth retaining systems in unsaturated soils
Author Model type Type of ESS Soil type Conditions Summary of findings
Borden et al. Field monitoring Cantilever sheet Residual soils Before and after rainfall Increase in wall deformation following rainfall
(2016) pile Rainfall did not result in complete loss of
suction
Shwan (2018) Small-scale physical Cantilever wall Sand Dry, saturated, and Largest wall deformation observed under dry
model unsaturated conditions
Unsaturated conditions resulted in 70%–87%
reduction in observed wall deformation
Numerical model Cantilever wall Sand Dry, saturated, and Wider failure mechanism observed for
unsaturated unsaturated conditions
Collapse load increased by 5.5-fold for
unsaturated conditions
Ng et al. (2020) Numerical analysis 15-m-deep Silty clay Unsaturated conditions Ignoring the influence of suction on the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sai Vanapalli on 03/24/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

excavation small-strain stiffness of the soil overestimates

wall deformation
Gholampour and Conditional random Braced Multilayered Soil property uncertainty Change in mean value and reduction in
Johari (2019) field reliability excavation soil (clay, silt, Saturated and unsaturated standard deviation for deflection and stresses
analysis and gravel) Rough and smooth when suction is considered in the analysis
interface friction
Johari and System reliability Soldier–pile Clay Soil uncertainty Observed improvement in system reliability
Kalantari (2021) analysis wall index when suction is considered

Fig. 4. Mechanical properties of unsaturated soils as influenced by matric suction.

pressure is significantly affected by the changes in moisture content
(ω%) close to the natural ground level due to the influence of envi-
ronmental factors, namely, rainfall and evapotranspiration.
The SWRC, which is the relationship between ω% and capillary
suction (ua − uw ), is considered a reliable tool to predict the
mechanical behavior of the soil with respect to suction, as shown
in Fig. 4. Two variables, air entry value (AEV) and residual suction
ðua − uw Þr , are important for predicting the behavior of unsaturated
soils using the SWRC, as a tool. AEV is the suction value at which
air begins to enter the pore space. This marks the onset of soil
desaturation. Beyond this point, the rate of desaturation accelerates
(i.e., moisture content begins to decrease rapidly). The residual
suction, on the other hand, is the suction value beyond which
the rate of desaturation diminishes significantly and the water phase
becomes discontinuous (Vanapalli et al. 1996). The remainder of
water in the soil is discontinuous and water cannot be removed
in liquid phase any further, despite high suction values. The shear
strength and stiffness of the soil will increase linearly with an in-
crease in the suction up to the AEV. Beyond AEV, the contribution
of suction to shear strength and stiffness starts decreasing, resulting
in a nonlinear variation of the mechanical properties (i.e., shear
strength and stiffness). Due to the discontinuity in the water phase
at residual suction, the mechanical properties are more likely to start
decreasing. Such a behavior is more likely to be encountered in co-
hesionless soils. However, cohesive soils will continue to exhibit an
increase in mechanical properties even beyond residual suction.

© ASCE 04022034-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022034

 Development of a Framework for the Design of
ESSs in Unsaturated Soils
The design of ESSs in unsaturated soils considering climatic con-
ditions can be extended by a simplified 5-step framework, as shown
in Fig. 5, and elaborated in the following.
Step 1: Conventional Soil Tests
First, information regarding the soil conditions in the field shall
be collected (i.e., soil profile). The conventional soil properties
are then determined from laboratory tests on representative soil
samples collected from the field. The effective shear strength
parameters are typically determined either from conventional direct
shear or triaxial tests. The modulus of elasticity can also be deter-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sai Vanapalli on 03/24/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
mined either using the triaxial, the unconfined compression, or the
oedometer tests. Other properties that assist in the soil classification
(i.e., grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, natural moisture con-
tent, void ratio, specific gravity and soil density) are also gathered,
which are useful and are discussed in subsequent steps.
Step 2: SWRC
The SWRC can be used as a tool for interpreting the hydromechani-
cal behavior of unsaturated soils. The accuracy by which the
SWRC is determined will have a significant influence on the pre-
dicted soil properties used in the design of geotechnical structures.
Ideally, the SWRC is measured in the laboratory using the hanging
column, pressure extractor, chilled mirror hygrometer, or centrifuge
[ASTM D6836 (ASTM 2016)]. However, the experimental deter-
mination of the SWRC requires specialized equipment and it can be
time consuming, especially for fine-grained soils. For this reason,
numerous alternative procedures have been developed in the
literature to predict the SWRC from conventional soil properties.
For instance, the SWRC can be reliably estimated from grain size
analyses and other soil classification properties using prediction
tools from the literature (e.g., Chin et al. 2010; Houston et al. 2006;
Vanapalli and Catana 2005). Table 2 summarizes common predic-
tion tools and their applications. These prediction tools provide
a simple yet reliable alternative to the cumbersome experimental
Fig. 5. Conceptual framework for analyzing ESSs in unsaturated soils.
© ASCE 04022034-5
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022034
testing. The validation of these models has been extensively inves-
tigated (Vaz et al. 2005; Vanapalli and Catana 2005; Catana et al.
2006; Houston et al. 2006). Nonetheless, prediction tools are asso-
ciated with some limitations and uncertainties. Therefore, it is im-
portant to understand the limitations associated with the use of
these prediction tools in practice. Mayor et al. (2018) provides a
comparison between different SWRC prediction tools and their
applicability to field conditions.
Step 3: Critical Suction Profile
The variation in moisture content associated with environmental
conditions (i.e., infiltration and evapotranspiration) significantly
contributes to variations in capillary suction. For this reason, infor-
mation of the critical suction (i.e., lowest suction) profile is required
in the design of ESSs, considering the climatic conditions prevail-
ing during the service life of the system. Climatic conditions mainly
influence the uppermost layers close to the natural ground surface.
The active depth (depth of seasonal variation in moisture content) is
typically limited by the presence of a surface cover (e.g., pavement,
adjacent building, vegetation) and by the hydraulic conductivity of
the underlying soil. Also, the design life of an ESS is usually for a
limited period (1–2 years) because these systems that act as tem-
porary supports are no longer needed following the construction
completion of the underground structures. This serves as an addi-
tional motivation for relying on capillary suction in the design of
temporary ESSs. However, for reliable implementation of this ap-
proach, information of the active depth and critical suction profile is
required because the suction profile used in the design will have a
major influence on the predicted performance of ESSs. Therefore,
careful consideration needs to be given to the in situ suction within
the zone of influence of the retaining structure. Measurement and
estimation of the critical suction profile and other considerations
are discussed in the following section.
First, an accurate measurement of the in situ suction versus
depth needs to be obtained. Then consideration should be given
to the temporal variations of suction due to environmental factors
(i.e., rainfall, evaporation, evapotranspiration, dewatering, rise in
GWT), as shown in Fig. 6. There are several tools to measure
the in situ capillary suction in the field. The tensiometer is a widely
used instrument for suction measurements within the low range
(i.e., <100 kPa). Also, the suction profile (suction versus depth)
can be measured in situ using moisture probes, which are usually
buried in the ground for a period of time (e.g., MP406, ICT
International, Armidale, Australia). One of the main advantages
of this device is that it can provide real-time monitoring for changes
in volumetric water content for a large suction range by connecting
it to a data logger.
However, the temporal variation of in situ suction is controlled
by the atmosphere–ground surface flux and the hydraulic conduc-
tivity of the soil. Monitoring of the temporal variation of in situ
capillary suction over a significant period of time is considered
the most reliable approach in providing the critical suction profile.
However, in many situations it is impractical. A more reasonable
alternative is to predict critical suction extending a seepage analysis
in unsaturated soils considering climatic and environmental condi-
tions. Such analysis can be undertaken using available commercial
software such as Seep/W from Geostudio, SVFlux from SoilVision,
and USEPA HELP. Typical information such as the hydraulic con-
ductivity function and climatic data (for example, vegetation cover,
annual rainfall records, humidity) are required to conduct a seepage
analysis (Wilson et al. 1997; GEO-SLOPE 2017). The hydraulic
conductivity function is related to the SWRC and it can be deter-
mined using one of models available in the literature (Fredlund
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Table 2. Summary of semiempirical models for predicting SWRC
Author Method/relevant equations Remarks
Fredlund (2000) From knowledge database Selection of a matching SWRC by comparing soil properties

 Applicable to any soil
1
Vanapalli and ww ¼ wr þ ðws − wr Þ One-point method
Catana (2005) lnðfÞ
 ψn mf Applicable to coarse-grained soils in the low suction range
f ¼ eþ (0–10 kPa)
a One suction measurement is needed to estimate mf
ww = gravimetric water content GSD information and basic index properties
wr = residual gravimetric water content
ws = saturated gravimetric water content
a = fitting parameter related to particle size
n = fitting parameter related to uniformity coefficient and
void’s ratio
Catana et al. C ¼ 0.12ðLL × CFÞ þ 4.5 Two-point method
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sai Vanapalli on 03/24/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(2006) 1 Applicable to fine-grained soils

θw ¼ θr þ ðθs − θr Þ
1 þ ðaψb Þnb GSD information and basic index properties are needed to
estimate C
LL = liquid limit Graphical representation of the SWRC using the slope C to
CF = clay fraction intersect the suction axis between 300 and 500 MPa
C = slope of the desorption line Two suction measurements needed preferrabley b=w
ab and nb = fitting parameters (50–500 kPa) and (1,000–3,000 kPa)
θs
Houston et al. θv ¼ Ch Requires one data point measurement
(2006) ½lnðeð1Þ þ ðahf Þbf Þcf GSD information and basic index properties
lnð1 þ hhr Þ Applicable to both plastic and nonplastic soils
Ch ¼ 1 − 6
lnð1 þ 10
hr Þ
af , bf , and cf = fitting parameters estimated from PI or
grain size data
hr ¼ 100 for nonplastic soils and 500 for plastic soils
" #
lnð1 þ ψψr Þ 1
Chin et al. S¼ 1− × Requires one data point measurement
þ ðψa Þn Þm
6
(2010) lnð1 þ 10
ψr Þ ½lnðexpð1Þ Applicable to coarse-grained and fine-grained soils
if Requires one suction measurement
a, n, and m = fitting parameters function of x There is only one variable for fine-grained soils and two
ψr ¼ 100 kPa for percent passing No. 200 < 30% variables for coarse-grained soils
ψr ¼ 914 × expð−0.002xÞ if percent passing No. 200 ≥ 30% n can be determined empirically depending on the soil type
x = variable determined by forcing the curve through the measured Reliable for suction range between 10 and 500 kPa
suction point
Note: PI = plasticity index; GSD = grain size distribution; and b/w = between.

et al. 1994; Green and Corey 1971; van Genuchten 1980) and sum-
marized in Table 3.

Step 4: Unsaturated Soil Properties

The variation of shear strength with respect to suction can be in-
terpreted using Fredlund et al.’s (1978) equation as follows:

τ unsat ¼ c 0 þ ðσ − ua Þ tan ϕ 0 þ ðua − uw Þ tan ϕb ð1Þ

where (σ − ua ) = net normal stress; c 0 = effective cohesion; ϕ 0 =

effective angle of internal friction; ua = pore air pressure; uw = pore
water pressure; and ϕb = angle of internal friction with respect to
suction.
The shear strength of unsaturated soils can be measured using Fig. 6. Influence of environmental conditions on the matric suction
suction-controlled experiments. However, these procedures are profile.
time consuming and expensive. Therefore, several prediction meth-
ods were developed in the literature that provide a reliable estimate

of shear strength using saturated soil properties and SWRC giving 0 0 θ − θr
τ unsat ¼ c þ ðσ − ua Þ tan ϕ þ ðua − uw Þ tan ϕ 0 ð2Þ
due consideration to its uncertainties (Taylor et al. 2020). Among θs − θr
these methods, the model developed by Vanapalli et al. (1996) was
used in the present study. It alleviates the need for determining ϕb where θ = volumetric water content; θs = saturated volumetric water
and requires a limited number of parameters content; and θr = residual volumetric moisture content.

© ASCE 04022034-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022034

 Table 3. Summary of models for predicting unsaturated hydraulic conductivity function
Author Method/relevant equation
PN θðey Þ−θðΨÞ 0 yi
i¼j yi θ ðe Þ
Fredlund et al. (1994) kw ¼ ks P θðeey Þ−θ
N
i¼1 eyi
s
θ 0 ðeyi Þ
kw = calculated hydraulic conductivity for a specified water content or negative pore water pressure (m=s)
ks = measured saturated hydraulic conductivity (m=s)
θs = volumetric water content
e = natural number 2.71828
y = dummy variable of integration representing the logarithm of negative pore water pressure
i = interval of the range of j to N
j = least negative pore water pressure to be described by the final function
N = maximum negative pore water pressure to be described by the final function
Ψ = suction corresponding to the jth interval
θ 0 = first derivative of the equation
θs
θ ¼ CðΨÞ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sai Vanapalli on 03/24/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

½lnðe þ ðΨa Þn Þm

Green and Corey (1971)
van Genuchten (1980)
a = approximately the air entry value
n = parameter that controls slope at inflection point in the volumetric water content function
m = parameter that is related to the residual water content
lnð1 þ CΨr Þ
CðΨÞ ¼ 1 − 6
lnð1 þ 10Cr Þ
Cr = constant related to matric suction corresponding to residual water content
ks 30T 2 ξ p X
m
kðθÞi ¼ ½ð2j þ 1 − 2iÞh−2
i 
ksc μgη n2 j¼i
kðθÞi = calculated conductivity for a specified water content or negative pore water pressure (cm=min)
ks
= matching factor (measured saturated hydraulic conductivity/calculated saturated hydraulic conductivity)
ksc
i = last water content class on the wet end
hi = negative pore water pressure head for a given class of water-filled pores (cm of water)
n = total number of pore classes between i and m
θ = volumetric water content (cm3 =cm3 )
η = water viscosity (g=cm=s)
g = gravitational constant
μ = water density (cm=s)
p = parameter to account for interaction of pore classes (1 or 3)
½1 − ðaΨn−1 Þð1 þ ðaΨn Þ−m Þ2
kw ¼ ks
½ðð1 þ aΨÞn Þm=2 
a, n, m = curve-fitting parameters, n ¼ 1=ð1 − mÞ
Ψ = required suction range

Several models are available in the literature to predict the varia-
tion of the modulus of elasticity with respect to suction in unsatu-
rated soils. In this paper, the modulus of elasticity of unsaturated
soils (Eunsat ) was estimated from SWRC using the model proposed
by Oh and Vanapalli (2009)
 
ðu − uw Þ β
Eunsat ¼ Esat 1 þ α a ðS Þ ð3Þ
ðPa =101.3Þ
where Esat = modulus of elasticity under saturated conditions; α =
fitting parameter related to plasticity index; and β = fitting param-
eter related to soil type and can be taken equal to 1.0 and 2.0 for
cohesionless and cohesive soils respectively.
Step 5: Analytical or Numerical Methods
Once the required soil properties have been determined, taking into
account the influence of capillary suction, the design of the exca-
vation support system can be carried out based on the unsaturated
soil properties. The soil model can be discretized into several
layers, as shown in Fig. 7. Each layer will be associated with the
corresponding unsaturated modulus of elasticity and the apparent
unsaturated cohesion estimated from Step 4, corresponding to the
average suction at the center of each discretized layer. The calcu-
lated soil properties can then be used to estimate the lateral earth
pressure acting on the wall using conventional methods (for exam-
ple, Peck’s diagrams or Rankine’s Theory). Alternatively, finite-
element analysis also can be used for addressing this objective.
More details on numerical modeling are discussed in the following
section.
Numerical Modeling
Numerical analysis was carried out to investigate the performance
of ESSs both in saturated soils and in unsaturated soils by varying
the GWT depths. A cantilever diaphragm wall with a thickness of
0.40 m and a length of 13 m that provides supports for a layer of
TSC was used for the analysis (Fig. 8). The toe of the wall was
assumed to be embedded in a stiff soil layer. The soil properties
for TSC are summarized in Table 4. The SWRC for TSC is shown
in Fig. 9. This SWRC measured by Han (2016) in the laboratory
using the modified null pressure plate apparatus was fitted using the
Fredlund and Xing (1994) model. The unsaturated hydraulic

© ASCE 04022034-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022034

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sai Vanapalli on 03/24/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Discretization of unsaturated soil deposit.

Fig. 9. Soil water retention curve for Toronto silty clay.

Fig. 8. Geometry and cross section for the cantilever diaphragm wall
used in the FEM.

Table 4. Properties of Toronto silty clay

Soil properties TSC
Sand (%) 3.5
Silt (%) 81.5
Clay (%) 16
Liquid limit, wL (%) 19.6
Plasticity index, I P (%) 6
Unified soil classification system CL-ML
AASHTO soil classification A-4
Specific gravity, Gs 2.68
Maximum dry unit weight, γ (kN=m3 ) 19.15
Effective cohesion, c 0 (kPa) 5 Fig. 10. Hydraulic conductivity function for Toronto silty clay, as
Effective friction angle, ϕ 0 (degrees) 30 predicted from SWRC.
Interface friction angle, δ (degrees) 20
Saturated modulus of elasticity, Esat (MPa) 5.2
Saturated coefficient of hydraulic conductivity, ksat (m=s) 6 × 10−8
Saturated volumetric water content, θsat 0.285 plane-strain FEA for the ESS. The modified effective stress ap-
Fitting parameter, α 0.2 proach was adopted in the analysis, and the soil was modeled using
Fitting parameter, β 2 the elastic-perfectly plastic Mohr-Coulomb soil model. This model
is widely used for analyzing geotechnical engineering problems.
However, in case of problems involving excavation activities, it
conductivity was deduced from the SWRC and the saturated hy- may result in an overestimation of basal heave at the bottom of
draulic conductivity (Fig. 10) using Fredlund et al. (1994). The the excavation because it uses the same elastic modulus for loading
commercial software SIGMA/W (which is one of the modules and unloading conditions. The hyperbolic soil model (or hardening
in Geostudio 2020) was used to conduct a two-dimensional soil model) may provide a better estimate of heave but it requires

© ASCE 04022034-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022034

 the determination of unload/reload elastic modulus. The main ob-
jective of this study is to compare the behavior of the wall under
different wetting conditions rather than obtain a precise estimate for
deformations. The Mohr-Coulomb model is considered satisfactory
for fulfilling this objective. The 0.4-m-thick diaphragm wall was
modeled as a beam element and the input parameters required in-
clude the elastic modulus for concrete (Ec ¼ 21 MPa) as well as
the cross-sectional area (Ac ¼ 0.4 m2 ) and the moment of inertia
(I c ¼ 0.00533 m4 ). An interface element was added between the
wall and the soil to account for interface friction. The interface fric-
tion angle should be selected taking into account the nature of
the interface surface between the soil and the structural element
(i.e., smooth versus rough) as well as material type (concrete, tim-
ber, steel) among other factors. For this example, the soil–wall in-
terface was modeled as a line-area feature in SIGMA/W using the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sai Vanapalli on 03/24/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
elastic-perfectly plastic Mohr-Coulomb soil model. The interface
element thickness used in the analysis for this example is 0.2 m.
The following material properties were assigned to the interface
element: E ¼ 5,200 kPa, c ¼ 5 kPa, ϕ ¼ 20°. The selected mesh
type consists of quadrilateral and triangular elements with a size
of 0.4 m.
A typical cantilever diaphragm wall with a length of 13 m and a
thickness of 0.4 m was considered in the present study. The model
size adopted in the analysis had a height of 20 m and a length
of 60 m. The adopted model size was chosen after careful consid-
eration of the influence of the dimensions on the calculated results. A
sensitivity analysis was completed for the following dimensions
(L × W): 20 × 40 m, 20 × 60 m, 20 × 80 m, and 30 × 60 m. Com-
parison of the lateral wall deformation for the different model dimen-
sions is shown in Fig. 11. It can be seen that no significant change in
the lateral wall deformation is observed between the last three di-
mensions. Based on this study, 20 × 60 m was considered satisfac-
tory. Staged excavation down to 6-m depth was performed in three
stages, each having a depth of 2 m. The left and right boundaries
were restrained in the horizontal direction while the bottom boun-
dary was restrained in both the vertical and horizontal directions.
A total of seven different GWT depths were studied (0, 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, and 6 m below ground surface). The model is shown in Fig. 12.
The critical suction profile in the unsaturated zone should be
determined and used in the design of ESSs. Such a profile can
be estimated using a seepage analysis from local climatic data and
the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the soil, ksat . The measured
initial in situ suction profile is required for estimating the critical
suction profile. Typically, the in situ capillary suction profile is non-
linear. In the present study, the key objective is to compare the per-
formance of the wall under saturated and unsaturated conditions.
Therefore, seepage analysis was not undertaken. Instead, a
Fig. 11. Sensitivity analysis: Influence of model dimensions on lateral
wall deformation.
© ASCE 04022034-9
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022034
Fig. 12. FEA model and boundary conditions for the cantilever
diaphragm wall.
hydrostatic pore water pressure profile was assumed above and be-
low the water table for simplicity reasons. The negative pore water
pressure, which is the height above the water table multiplied by the
unit weight of water, corresponds to the capillary suction. The pore
water pressure is positive below the GWT and is equal to the unit
weight of water multiplied by the water table depth. Such an
assumption of negative hydrostatic pore water pressure was used
in the present study based on controlled laboratory tests results
performed on a cohesionless soil that exhibited approximately
negative pore water pressure above GWT that was hydrostatic
(Vanapalli et al. 2018; Vanapalli and Mohamed 2013). For practical
applications, the critical suction profile can be measured or pre-
dicted taking account of the influence of environmental factors
such as the rainfall, evaporation, and evapotranspiration using
commercial software such as SIGMA/W and VADOSE/W. The
input data include climatic parameters (e.g., recorded rainfall
data, GWT location, and surface runoff data) and soil properties
(e.g., SWCC, permeability functions, and thermal conductivity
functions). Adem and Vanapalli (2013) provide more information
of such an approach.
The change in stress state due to excavation results in changes in
the initial capillary suction profile. These changes can be accounted
for by considering a coupled stress analysis type in which the equi-
librium (displacement) and continuity (flow) equations are solved
simultaneously (GEO-SLOPE 2017). In this case, the hydraulic
boundary condition can be implemented as a total head at the left
model boundary. The pore water pressure across the soil due to
excavation is then automatically calculated by the software. The
apparent cohesion can be calculated using the defined SWRC and
the calculated capillary suction profile. The commercial software
adopts Eq. (2) and facilitates the calculation of apparent cohesion.
Such a feature is not available for calculating the modulus of elas-
ticity in the software used. Therefore, the unsaturated modulus of
elasticity is calculated manually using Eq. (3) for the corresponding
initial suction profile. The fitting parameters α ¼ 0.2 and β ¼ 2 for
the unsaturated modulus of elasticity function were found to pro-
vide a suitable fit for the experimental data for TSC measured by
Han (2016) as shown in Fig. 13. The nonlinear modulus of elas-
ticity function can be defined in the numerical model as a variable Y
versus E function (elevation versus modulus of elasticity). The
variation of the modulus of elasticity with respect to depth for each
GWT depth is shown in Fig. 14.
Results and Discussion
The key indicators for the performance of ESSs are the surface set-
tlement of the soil behind the wall, the wall deformation, and the
straining actions (moments and shear). Other parameters that also
need to be checked are the global safety factor and the heave of the
bottom of the excavation. The magnitude of these variables is used
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

Fig. 13. Variation of modulus of elasticity with respect to suction for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sai Vanapalli on 03/24/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Toronto silty clay.
Fig. 14. Variation of Eunsat with respect to elevation due to the
contribution of suction for different GWT scenarios.
to check the serviceability and overall stability of the selected sys-
tem. If the estimated variables exceed the capacity of the system
under consideration, then a second iteration is required by consid-
ering a more rigid system. For example, if the soil or wall defor-
mation is found to be relatively high, then internal struts or tie-back
anchors are deemed necessary to control the deformations. The em-
bedment depth of the wall may also be increased to ensure overall
stability and reduce wall deformation. These relevant variables
were determined for the different GWT depth scenarios (0, 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, and 6 m below ground surface), following the staged ex-
cavation down to 6 m below initial ground surface (i.e., elevation
14 m). Based on the analysis, the contribution of capillary suction
to shear strength and stiffness for the deeper GWT depths resulted
in a significant reduction in the overall deformations and the mag-
nitude of bending moments and shear force acting on the wall and
enhanced the performance of the system. In addition, the global
stability of the system was observed to improve significantly for
the deeper GWT depths. However, a marginal heave at the bottom
of the excavation was observed for deeper GWT tables.
Fig. 15 shows the variation in soil deformation for the different
GWT depths. As expected, the maximum soil deformation profile
was observed for the case of saturated condition (i.e., GWT ¼
0 m). The soil deformation was found to decrease gradually as the
GWT depth increased. A failure zone was observed for saturated
conditions for the soil behind the wall close to ground surface level.
The deformation of the wall along its depth was plotted for the
different GWT scenarios, as shown in Fig. 16(a). For saturated
© ASCE 04022034-10
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022034
conditions, excavation contributed to a significantly higher wall de-
formation compared GWT with greater depths. The resulting wall
deformation suggests the need for additional lateral support (brac-
ing or tie-back anchors) to limit wall deformations induced by the
6-m-deep excavation. Moreover, the shape of deflection for the wall
was observed to vary significantly. The maximum wall deformation
was found to be at the top of the wall for the saturated soil con-
ditions. However, the maximum wall deflection was observed to
be located just above the midspan of the wall for the unsaturated
conditions. Fig. 16(b) summarizes the surface settlement in the soil
adjacent to the zone of excavation. It is evident that the surface
settlement profile changes significantly with the lowering of GWT.
The capillary suction contributes to a significant decrease in surface
settlement behind the wall as well as the location of maximum set-
tlement. The surface settlement was found to be 10 times higher for
a 1.0-m-deep GWT as compared to the deepest GWT (i.e., GWT
at þ14.0 m).
The structural capacity of the wall was checked by estimating
the bending moment and shear force resulting from the LEP.
Fig. 17(a) shows the variation in the BM diagram along the wall
following the 6-m-deep excavation. The results suggest that the
shape of BM diagram can vary significantly for the various GWT
scenarios that were considered. The negative moment generally de-
creased with an increase in the GWT depth below ground surface,
whereas the positive moment did not follow a uniform trend. How-
ever, the maximum BM was observed for the saturated conditions
while the lowest BM was observed for the deepest GWT depth.
Similar trends were also observed for the shear force diagram
[Fig. 17(b)]. Figs. 18 and 19(a and b) show the variation of top
wall deflection, maximum positive and negative bending moments,
and maximum positive and negative shear force with respect to
GWT, respectively. From these figures, it can be seen that the var-
iables vary nonlinearly with respect to GWT. The factor of safety
against global failure FSG for the different GWT depths is shown in
Fig. 20. As expected, the safety factor improves for deeper GWT
depths. This is mainly due to the contribution of capillary suction to
the shear strength for the soil. In addition, the ground heave at the
bottom of excavation for the different GWT depths is given in
Fig. 21. It is observed that the ground surface at the bottom of the
excavation for deeper GWT depths will experience a much larger
heave than the saturated and shallow GWT depths, after the com-
pletion of the excavation. This can be attributed to the higher stress
relief due to the significantly large quantity of excavated soil under
unsaturated soil conditions. For deeper GWT, the weight of the ex-
cavated soil is larger than for saturated and shallow GWT.
The influence of capillary suction was observed to be significant
at low suction values corresponding to shallow GWT. However, the
contribution of capillary suction to the overall performance of the
cantilever wall appears to reduce for deeper GWT levels despite
the increase in the suction profile. While the conclusion regarding
wall deformation is predictable and straightforward, the prediction
of wall internal stresses under unsaturated conditions requires a
more comprehensive analysis. Maximum internal stresses may not
always decrease with respect to suction associated with the influ-
ence of soil–structure interaction. For this reason, the location of
the critical section will be influenced by many parameters.
Verification of the Proposed Framework
The research involving ESSs in unsaturated soils is still evolving
and data are scarce. To the best of our knowledge, comprehensive
case histories are not available in the published literature for ESSs
in unsaturated soils, in which both capillary suction measurement
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sai Vanapalli on 03/24/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. Soil deformation as influenced by matric suction, considering different GWT depths below ground surface.

and all relevant variables for wall performance (i.e., wall deforma-
tion, bending moment, shear force) are reported.
A case history from the literature for an anchored-diaphragm
wall in Hanoi, Vietnam (Nguyen 2013) was used to validate the
suitability of the proposed framework in predicting serviceability
of ESSs. The study did not include monitoring of the capillary suc-
tion in the field; however, the groundwater table level at this site
was noted to be at a greater depth. The excavation support system
consisted of a diaphragm wall having a thickness of 600 mm and
braced by two layers of anchors, supporting multiple layers of soil
with low plasticity. The soil properties for the different soil layers
(including unit weight, moisture content, specific gravity, void ra-
tio, Atterberg limits, and modulus of elasticity) are summarized in
Table 5. The SWRC for the different soil layers was estimated from
the available soil classification data following the method sug-
gested by Houston et al. (2006). The relevant calculated fitting
parameters used for estimating the SWRC for the different soil
layers above the water level using this method are given in Table 6.
Some missing information (i.e., fines content, shear strength
parameters) that is needed in the prediction of the SWRC has been
reasonably assumed and reported in Tables 5 and 6.
As reported in the case history, the groundwater table was en-
countered at a depth of 17.0 m below the ground surface. In the
absence of capillary suction measurements, a hydrostatic negative
pore water pressure profile was assumed for the unsaturated zone
above the groundwater table. The unsaturated shear strength was
calculated by the software based on the estimated SWRC and
the assumed effective strength parameters (c 0 and ϕ 0 ) for the differ-
ent clay layers [i.e., Eq. (2)]. On the other hand, the unsaturated
modulus of elasticity Eunsat for the different layers above the water
level was estimated manually using the semiempirical model sug-
gested by Oh and Vanapalli (2009) [i.e., Eq. (3)]. The fitting param-
eters used in the estimation of the unsaturated modulus of elasticity
function were α ¼ 0.15 and β ¼ 2. The values for Esat measured
from oedometer testing and reported in Nguyen (2013) along with
the SWRC predicted in this study based on the reported soil proper-
ties were used to estimate Eunsat .
In this case study, only the measured wall deformation informa-
tion was reported. Other variables such as the bending moment and
shear stresses acting on the wall, which are also important for the
validation process, were not available. For this reason, the verifi-
cation of the proposed framework in this paper was limited to the

© ASCE 04022034-11 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022034

 (a)
Fig. 18. Variation of top wall deflection with respect to GWT depths.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sai Vanapalli on 03/24/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b)

Fig. 16. Variation of (a) wall deformation; and (b) surface settlement
due to the influence of the GWT depth. (a)

(b)

Fig. 19. Variation of (a) maximum þve and −ve bending moment; and
(b) maximum þve and −ve shear force with respect to GWT depth.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 17. Variation of (a) bending moment; and (b) shear force along the Fig. 20. Variation of global safety factor FSG with respect to GWT
wall due to the influence of the GWT depth. depth.

© ASCE 04022034-12 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022034

 Table 6. Estimated fitting parameters for the prediction of SWRC using the
clay layers above the groundwater table level from Hanoi site in Vietnam
Layer 1a Layer 2 Layer 3
Parameter Fill and CL1 CL2 CL3
af 120 110 118
bf 0.60 0.65 0.61
cf 0.12 0.2 0.15
hr 500 500 500
PI × %#200b
w PI ¼ 15 12 14
100
Source: Data from Houston et al. (2006).
a
No properties were provided for the fill layer in the case history. A
relatively thin fill layer was merged with the underlying clay layer CL1
due to lack of properties’ information.
Fig. 21. Heave at the bottom of the excavation for different GWT b
No. 200 sieve. was not reported in the case history. Therefore, a value of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sai Vanapalli on 03/24/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

depths. 90% was adopted in the estimation of the fitting parameters.

wall deformations, which is one of the key pieces of information.
As shown in Fig. 22, the observed (measured) wall deformation
agrees well with the wall deformation calculated using the sug-
gested procedure. However, the conventional design method results
in a significant overestimation of the wall deformations. The behav-
ior of most ESSs is mainly governed by serviceability (i.e., wall
deformation) rather than ultimate failure (bending moment and
shear stresses). An ESS will suffer from noticeable deformation
before it actually undergoes structural failure. However, it is highly
unlikely for a system to fail if the observed deformations are neg-
ligible. In practice, excessive wall deformation is commonly used
as an indicator for potential structural system failure, while little to
no deformation indicates the system is overly designed. For this
reason, most recorded data for executed ESSs are limited to wall
deformation. Nonetheless, the structural stability of the wall needs
to be considered in design. Based on the results of the case history,
and the preceding discussion, the suggested framework is consid-
ered promising for the rational design of ESSs involving unsatu-
rated soils.
Limitations of the Present Study and Proposed
Future Research
Limitations and Uncertainties
The framework presented in this paper was formulated based on
recent advancements in unsaturated soil research for predicting
τ unsat and Eunsat using the SWRC as a tool. A clear understanding
of these semiempirical models, their applicability, and their limita-
tions is required for application of this framework in practice.
Reference to the validation and limitations of these models is sum-
marized in the “Development of a Framework for the Design of
ESSs in Unsaturated Soils” section. Some of the key parameters
used in the semiempirical models are associated with a level of
uncertainty (i.e., the fitting parameters in the SWRC and Eunsat
models). Furthermore, the critical (design) suction profile is also
associated with some uncertainties related to the in situ suction
measurement method, estimation of temporal variations of suction
due to climatic conditions. Therefore, careful consideration needs
to be given to the determination of local climatic conditions, soil
type, hydraulic conductivity of the soil, and ground surface cover.
However, temporary ESSs are often associated with a short life
span of less than 2 years, which serves to reducing the level of un-
certainty or predicting the critical suction profile. Some of the un-
certainties can be addressed by using reliable soil properties and
parameters. Also, probabilistic analysis is gaining more attention
as a reliable approach for addressing uncertainties in various geo-
technical applications (Luo et al. 2018; Gholampour and Johari
2019; Johari and Kalantari 2021). However, probabilistic analysis
is beyond the scope of the study presented in this paper.
Based on the results of the validation process, the implemented
numerical technique is promising for use in geotechnical engineer-
ing practice, provided the discussed limitations are properly ad-
dressed. However, it is necessary to clarify that the framework
was validated based on only one case study. Sufficient verification

Table 5. Soil properties used in verification of the framework

Low-plasticity clay
Soil property Fill CL1 CL2 CL3 CL4
Layer thickness (m) 0.9 2.3 5.5 7.9 3.8
Unit weight, γ (kN=m3 ) 16 19.1 18.3 19.5 19.5
Specific gravity, Gs 2.72a 2.72 2.67 2.73 2.72
Void ratio, e 0.86a 0.86 0.91 0.77 0.75
Saturated volumetric water content, θsat b 0.46 0.46 0.48 0.44 0.43
Effective cohesion, c 0 (kPa) 20a
Effective friction angle, ϕ 0 (degrees) 15a
Plasticity index, I P (%) 16.5a 16.5 12.9 15.3 11.8
Modulus of elasticity, Eoed (MPa) 3,500 6,500 3,500 13,000 18,000
Source: Data from Nguyen (2013).
a
Values not reported in the case history but assumed by authors.
b
θsat was estimated from the void ratio.

© ASCE 04022034-13 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022034


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sai Vanapalli on 03/24/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 22. Application of suggested framework to Hanoi site. (Data from
Nguyen 2013.)
for various types of ESSs against more case histories of excavations
involving unsaturated soils is needed before this framework is ex-
tended for analyzing other types of complex ESSs (i.e., multiple
layers of bracings and tie-back anchors).
Future Research
The focus of this paper was to analyze ESSs under saturated and
unsaturated conditions from numerical analysis. Based on the find-
ings of this study, and on the limitations discussed, the following
steps are recommended for future research:
1. Validation with more case histories: To the best of our knowl-
edge, there are no case histories for ESSs that provide in situ
suction values before and during execution. Nonetheless, a sig-
nificant number of executed retaining systems are found to be
overdesigned based on the measured wall deformations. For this
reason, there is a need for verification of this framework for
more case histories with measured data.
2. Verification with real-time ESSs: In the absence of sufficient
case studies to further validate the framework and extend it to
other types of ESSs, it is suggested to implement the suggested
framework in an actual real-time ESS and apply the observatio-
nal method to validate the design. Typically, the observational
method involves proceeding with a system designed based on
the most probable behavior complemented by observation of the
performance indicators (i.e., wall deflection, soil displacement,
and stresses). The serviceability of ESSs during construction
© ASCE 04022034-14
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022034
can then be observed by implementing a monitoring system
to measure wall deformations and stresses and investigate the
need for further modifications, if deemed necessary. A staged
excavation is often flexible and can tolerate design modifica-
tions during the progress of the construction works. The sug-
gested framework can be used in the design, combined with
a well-planned monitoring system during execution to enable
system modifications during the construction stage in compari-
son to conservative designs that do not tolerate or accommodate
further modifications. The use of the observational method is
acceptable in practice as a legitimate design verification ap-
proach (Yeow et al. 2014; Hardy et al. 2018). It also alleviates
the risks associated with the previously discussed uncertainties.
3. Sensitivity analysis: The key parameters in the presented frame-
work rely heavily on the SWRC. Also, the SWRC, which is
typically predicted using semiempirical models, is often associ-
ated with some uncertainties. Therefore, it is important to com-
plete a sensitivity analysis to quantify and better understand the
influence of the SWRC on the predicted performance of ESSs.
4. Bridging the gap and building up the database: Research involv-
ing ESSs in unsaturated soils is still evolving and relevant data
(wall deformation, suction, wall stresses, and soil deformation)
are scarce. We hope this paper will pave the way for more
detailed research in this field in the future and encourage the
adoption of a holistic approach for monitoring of ESSs in prac-
tice (i.e., monitoring suction, deflection, bending moment, and
shear force). The extensive database will enable extending the
framework to other ESS types.
Conclusions
There is evidence in the literature to suggest the conventional ap-
proach for the design of ESSs has several limitations (i.e., the mea-
sured wall deformations are typically much less than anticipated
values). This inconsistency may be strongly related to the contri-
bution of capillary suction to the shear strength and stiffness of
unsaturated soils. Therefore, this paper focused on investigating
the influence of capillary suction on ESSs using numerical analysis.
In the present study, a cantilever diaphragm wall in Toronto silty
clay was analyzed considering different GWT depths to simulate
both saturated and several unsaturated soil conditions. A signifi-
cantly improved overall wall performance was observed for the
deeper GWT levels due to the role of capillary suction. Both the
soil deformation as well as the wall deflection and stresses under
unsaturated conditions were typically found to be lower in compari-
son with saturated soil conditions. However, the resulting changes
in the distribution of straining actions (i.e., bending moment and
shear force) along the wall length suggest there are other factors
that also influence the performance of the wall (i.e., soil–structure
interaction). Moreover, a threshold GWT depth is identified below
which the change in the wall performance becomes negligible. The
relatively high capillary suction values (corresponding to a deep
GWT) that develop near the ground surface do not always contrib-
ute to enhancing the mechanical behavior of the soil. Therefore, a
clear understanding of the SWRC is necessary to explain the behav-
ior of ESSs in unsaturated soils. A case history for an anchored
pile wall in multilayered soil was used to validate the proposed
methodology. The wall deformation estimated using the numerical
model, considering unsaturated conditions, showed good agree-
ment with the observed wall deformation.
The results of the present study suggest that ignoring the con-
tribution of capillary suction in the design of cantilever diaphragm
walls can be significantly conservative. Conventional methods
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 typically overestimate ground movement and wall deflection. The
false assumption of potential instability or excessive deformations
suggests the need for increasing the rigidity of the system. As a
result, additional lateral support (i.e., internal bracings or tie-back
anchors) or a deeper embedment depth are required. Moreover, the
overestimated straining actions entail a larger wall section to satisfy
the structural stability of the system. Therefore, understanding the
role of capillary suction and considering its contribution to the
mechanical properties (i.e., shear strength and stiffness) of the soil
contribute to a reliable and optimized design. Most ESSs have a
short design life span (typically 1–2 years) and they generally serve
as temporary structures. It is unlikely for the initial suction profile
to vary significantly throughout this short life span. Therefore, con-
sidering suction in the design of ESSs would be a reliable approach,
provided the limitation discussed in the “Limitations of the Present
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sai Vanapalli on 03/24/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Study and Proposed Future Research” section are identified and
addressed with utmost care.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request. These items include detailed output for all analyzed
scenarios.
Acknowledgments
We appreciate the anonymous reviewers’ comprehensive com-
ments and constructive criticism that contributed significantly to
improve this paper.
References
Adem, H. H., and S. K. Vanapalli. 2013. “A simple approach for predicting
vertical movements of expansive soils using the mechanics of unsatu-
rated soils.” In Proc., 18th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotech-
nical Engineering. London: International Society for Soil Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering.
Anderson, J. B., V. Ogunro, J. Detwiler, J. Starnes, and R. Burrage. 2008.
Development of an earth pressure model for design of earth retaining
structures in piedmont soil. Rep. No. FHWA/NC/2006-51. Raleigh,
NC: North Carolina DOT.
ASTM. 2016. Standard test methods for determination of the soil water
characteristic curve for desorption using a hanging column, pressure
extractor, chilled mirror hygrometer, and/or centrifuge. ASTM D6836.
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Bica, A. V. D., H. Blum, C. Clayton, P. Rowe, H. Krey, and J. Brinch
Hansen. 1989. “Limit equilibrium design methods for free embedded
cantilever walls in granular materials.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 86 (5):
879–898. https://doi.org/10.1680/iicep.1989.3161.
Borden, R. H., M. A. Gabr, J. Lee, C.-T. Tang, and C. Wang. 2016. Design
of temporary slopes and excavations in NC residual soils. Rep. No.
FHWA/NC/2013-07. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina DOT.
BSI (British Standards Institution). 2007. Design of steel structures. EN
1993-5. London: BSI.
Catana, M. C., S. K. Vanapalli, and V. K. Garga. 2006. “The water retention
characteristics of compacted clays.” In Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Unsatu-
rated Soils 2006, 1348–1359. Reston, VA: ASCE.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 1993. Design of steel
structures. Eurocode 3. Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
CGS (Canadian Geotechnical Society). 2006. Canadian foundation engi-
neering manual. Richmond, BC, Canada: CGS.
Chin, K. B., E. C. Leong, and H. Rahardjo. 2010. “A simplified method to
estimate the soil-water characteristic curve.” Can. Geotech. J. 47 (12):
1382–1400. https://doi.org/10.1139/T10-033.
© ASCE 04022034-15
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022034
Chini, S. A., and G. Genauer. 1997. “Excavation support systems for con-
struction operations.” J. Construct. Educ. 2 (3): 156–170.
Clough, G. W., and A. I. Mana. 1977. “Lessons learnt in finite element
analysis of temporary excavations in soft clay.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Conf.
on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, 496–510. New York: ASCE.
Clough, G. W., and Y. Tsui. 1974. “Performance of tied-back walls in clay.”
J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 100 (12): 1259–1273. https://doi.org/10.1061
/AJGEB6.0000128.
Day, R. A. 1999. “Net pressure analysis of cantilever sheet pile walls.” Géo-
technique 49 (2): 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1999.49.2.231.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 1984. Steel sheet piling design
manual. Washington, DC: FHWA.
Fredlund, D. G. 2000. “The 1999 R.M. Hardy Lecture: The implementation
of unsaturated soil mechanics into geotechnical engineering.” Can.
Geotech. J. 37 (5): 963–986.
Fredlund, D. G., N. R. Morgenstern, and R. A. Widger. 1978. “The shear
strength of unsaturated soils.” Can. Geotech. J. 15 (3): 313–321. https://
doi.org/10.1139/t78-029.
Fredlund, D. G., and A. Xing. 1994. “Equations for the soil-water charac-
teristic curve.” Can. Geotech. J. 31 (4): 521–532. https://doi.org/10
.1139/t94-061.
Fredlund, D. G., A. Xing, and S. Huang. 1994. “Predicting the permeability
function for unsaturated soils using the soil-water characteristic curve.”
Can. Geotech. J. 31 (4): 533–546. https://doi.org/10.1139/t94-062.
GEO-SLOPE. 2017. Stress-strain modelling with GeoStudio. Calgary, AB,
Canada: GEO-SLOPE Institution.
Gholampour, A., and A. Johari. 2019. “Reliability-based analysis of braced
excavation in unsaturated soils considering conditional spatial variabil-
ity.” Comput. Geotech. 115 (Nov): 103163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.compgeo.2019.103163.
Goldberg, D. T., W. E. Jaworski, and M. D. Gordon. 1976. Lateral support
systems and underpinning. Washington, DC: Federal Highway
Administration.
Green, R. E., and J. C. Corey. 1971. “Calculation of hydraulic conductivity: A
further evaluation of some predictive methods.” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 35 (1):
3–8. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1971.03615995003500010010x.
Hamid, T. B., and E. F. Tawfik. 2006. “Deep excavation retaining systems
in unsaturated soils.” In Proc., 10th Int. Conf. on Piling and Deep Foun-
dations, 135–143. Hawthorne, NJ: Deep Foundations Institute.
Han, J. Y., W. Zhao, Y. Chen, P. J. Jia, and Y. P. Guan. 2017. “Design analy-
sis and observed performance of a tieback anchored pile wall in sand.”
Math. Probl. Eng. 2017: 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8524078.
Han, Z. 2016. “Modelling stiffness and shear strength of compacted sub-
grade soils.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Ottawa.
Hardy, S., D. Nicholas, P. Ingram, A. Gaba, Y. Chen, and G. Biscontin.
2018. “New observational method framework for embedded walls.”
Geotech. Res. 5 (3): 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgere.18.00013.
Houston, W. N., H. B. Dye, C. E. Zapata, Y. Y. Perera, and A. Harraz. 2006.
“Determination of SWCC using one point suction measurement and
standard curves.” In Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils,
1482–1493. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Jennings, J. E. B., and J. B. Burland. 1962. “Limitations to the use of ef-
fective stresses in partly saturated soils.” Géotechnique 12 (2): 125–144.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1962.12.2.125.
Johari, A., and A. Gholampour. 2018. “A practical approach for reliability
analysis of unsaturated slope by conditional random finite element
method.” Comput. Geotech. 102 (Oct): 79–91. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.compgeo.2018.06.004.
Johari, A., and A. R. Kalantari. 2021. “System reliability analysis of soldier-
piled excavation in unsaturated soil by combining random finite element
and sequential compounding methods.” Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 80 (3):
2485–2507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-020-02022-3.
Kaliampakos, D., A. Benardos, and A. Mavrikos. 2016. “A review on the
economics of underground space utilization.” Tunnelling Underground
Space Technol. 55 (May): 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015
.10.022.
Lambe, T. W. 1970. “Braced excavations.” In Proc., Specialty Conf. on
Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Struc-
tures, 149–218. New York: ASCE.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Li, Z. W., and X. L. Yang. 2019. “Active earth pressure from unsaturated
soils with different water levels.” Int. J. Geomech. 19 (7): 06019013.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001471.
Luo, Z., Y. Li, S. Zhou, and H. Di. 2018. “Effects of vertical spatial variability
on supported excavations in sands considering multiple geotechnical and
structural failure modes.” Comput. Geotech. 95 (Mar): 16–29. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.11.017.
Mayor, P. A., S. M. Springman, and W. F. Morales. 2018. “Water retention
curves of a dyke: In-situ vs laboratory determination.” In Proc., 7th Int.
Conf. on Unsaturated Soils (UNSAT2018), 753–758. London:
International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.
Miller, G. A., N. K. Tan, R. W. Collins, and K. K. Muraleetharan. 2018.
“Cone penetration testing in unsaturated soils.” Transp. Geotech.
17 (Dec): 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2018.09.008.
Ng, C. W. W., G. Zheng, J. Ni, and C. Zhou. 2020. “Use of unsaturated
small-strain soil stiffness to the design of wall deflection and ground
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sai Vanapalli on 03/24/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
movement adjacent to deep excavation.” Comput. Geotech. 119 (Mar):
103375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.103375.
Nguyen, V. H. 2013. “Influence of unloading soil modulus on horizontal
deformation of diaphragm wall.” In Proc., Int. Symp. on New Technol-
ogies for Urban Safety of Mega Cities in Asia, 1247–1255. Tokyo:
International Center for Urban Safety Engineering, Institute of Indus-
trial Science.
NYSDOT (New York State DOT). 2013. Geotechnical design manual-
Chapter 6: Engineering properties of soil and rock. New York:
NYSDOT.
Oh, W. T., and S. Vanapalli. 2009. “A simple method to estimate the bearing
capacity of unsaturated fine-grained soils.” In Proc., 62nd Canadian
Geotechnical Conf., 234–241. Baghdad, Iraq: Ministry of Higher
Education and Scientific Research.
Oh, W. T., and S. Vanapalli. 2011. “The relationship between the elastic and
shear modulus of unsaturated soils.” In Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Unsatu-
rated Soils, 341–346. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
O’Rourke, T. D. 1981. “Ground movements caused by braced excavations.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 107 (9): 1159–1178. https://doi.org/10
.1061/AJGEB6.0001183.
Peck, R. B. 1969. “Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground.” In
Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
Mecanica, Mexico: Sociedad Mexicana de.
Pufahl, D. E., D. G. Fredlund, and H. Rahardjo. 1983. “Lateral earth pres-
sures in expansive clay soils.” Can. Geotech. J. 20 (2): 228–241. https://
doi.org/10.1139/t83-027.
Rassam, D. W., and F. Cook. 2002. “Predicting the shear strength envelope
of unsaturated soils.” Geotech. Test. J. 25 (2): 215–220. https://doi.org
/10.1520/GTJ11365J.
Russell, A., M. Pournaghiazar, and N. Khalili. 2010. “Interpreting CPT
results in unsaturated sands.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Symp. on Cone Penetra-
tion Testing. Huntington Beach, CA: CPT’10 Organizing Committee.
Sarchenko, V. 2016. “The economic essence of underground development.”
Procedia Eng. 165 (Jan): 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng
.2016.11.745.
Shwan, B. J. 2018. “Physical and numerical modelling of sheet pile wall
for unsaturated sand.” In Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils.
© ASCE 04022034-16
View publication stats J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(6): 04022034
London: International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering.
Simpson, B. 1992. “Retaining structures: Displacement and design.” Géo-
technique 42 (4): 541–576. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1992.42.4.541.
Tavakkoli, N., and S. K. Vanapalli. 2011. “Rational approach for the design
of retaining structures using the mechanics of unsaturated soils.” In
Proc., 14th Pan-American Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering. Richmond, BC, Canada: Canadian Geotechnical Society.
Taylor, O. D. S., L. A. Walshire, and W. W. Berry. 2020. “Reducing
uncertainties and improving sand soil-water retention curve (SWRC)
predictions for hazard screening analyses.” Can. Geotech. J. 57 (10):
1518–1533.
UN (United Nations), Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and
Population Division. 2019. World urbanization prospects: The 2018
revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/420). New York: UN.
Vanapalli, S. K., and M. C. Catana. 2005. “Estimation of the SWCC of
coarse-grained soils using one point measurement and simple proper-
ties.” In Proc., Int. Symp. on Advanced Experimental Unsaturated Soil
Mechanics, 401–410. London: Taylor & Francis.
Vanapalli, S. K., D. G. Fredlund, D. E. Pufahl, and A. W. Clifton. 1996.
“Model for the prediction of shear strength with respect to soil suction.”
Can. Geotech. J. 33 (3): 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1139/t96-060.
Vanapalli, S. K., and F. Mohamed. 2013. “Bearing capacity and settlement
of footings in unsaturated sand.” Int. J. GEOMATE 5 (9): 595–604.
https://doi.org/10.21660/2013.9.3k.
Vanapalli, S. K., M. Sheikhtaheri, and W. T. Oh. 2018. “Experimental and
simple semiempirical methods for interpreting the axial load versus set-
tlement behaviors of single model piles in unsaturated sands.” Geotech.
Test. J. 41 (4): 698–716. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20170152.
van Genuchten, M. T. 1980. “A closed-form equation for predicting the hy-
draulic conductivity of unsaturated soils.” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44 (5):
892–898. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x.
Vaz, C. M. P., M. de Freitas Iossi, J. de Mendonça Naime, Á. Macedo,
J. M. Reichert, D. J. Reinert, and M. Cooper. 2005. “Validation of
the Arya and Paris water retention model for Brazilian soils.” Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 69 (3): 577. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.0104.
Wei, Y., X. Wu, J. Xia, G. A. Miller, C. Cai, Z. Guo, and A. Hassanikhah.
2019. “The effect of water content on the shear strength characteristics
of granitic soils in South China.” Soil Tillage Res. 187 (Apr): 50–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.11.013.
Wilson, G. W., D. G. Fredlund, and S. L. Barbour. 1997. “The effect of soil
suction on evaporative fluxes from soil surfaces.” Can. Geotech. J.
34 (1): 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1139/t96-078.
WSP. 2018. Taking urban development underground. Montréal: WSP.
Yang, H., and A. Russell. 2015. “Cone penetration tests in unsaturated silty
sands.” Can. Geotech. J. 53 (Sep): 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj
-2015-0142.
Yeow, H. C., D. Nicholson, C. L. Man, A. Ringer, P. Glass, and M. Black.
2014. “Application of observational method at Crossrail Tottenham
court road station, UK.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng. 167 (2):
182–193. https://doi.org/10.1680/geng.13.00035.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.