Transportation Geotechnics 39 (2023) 100945

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Geotechnics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trgeo

Undrained basal stability of braced circular excavations in anisotropic and

non-homogeneous clays
Van Qui Lai a, b, Khamnoy Kounlavong c, Suraparb Keawsawasvong d, *, Rungkhun Banyong d,
Warit Wipulanusat d, Pitthaya Jamsawang e
a
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (HCMUT), 268 Ly Thuong Kiet Street, District 10, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam
b
Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City (VNU–HCM), Linh Trung Ward, Thu Duc District, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam
c
Faculty of Engineering, Savannakhet University, Kayson Phomvihane City, Lao Democratic People’s Republic
d
Department of Civil Engineering, Thammasat School of Engineering, Thammasat University, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand
e
Soil Engineering Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok, Bangkok 10800, Thailand

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper introduces the plastic stability solutions of braced circular excavations in anisotropic and non­
Basal stability –homogeneous clays. Using the framework of Finite Element Limit Analysis (FELA) under axisymmetric condi­
Circular excavation tions, the upper bound (UB) and lower bound (LB) solutions of the stability of excavations can be obtained. The
Anisotropy
clay is set to be anisotropic, where the Anisotropic Undrained Shear (AUS) model is used as a failure criterion of
MARS
FELA
the surrounding soil. The results of this study are the proposed stability number which is the normalized
parameter of the maximum unit weight and the anisotropic undrained shear strength of clay. Four dimensionless
parameters are considered in the study: the anisotropic strength ratio, the depth–radius ratio, the
depth–embedment ratio, and the strength gradient ratio. The impact of all considered dimensionless parameters
on the results of the FELA solutions is examined. A machine learning regression approach, Multivariate Adaptive
Regression Splines (MARS), is employed to develop an empirical design equation to predict the stability number
of braced circular excavations in anisotropic and non–homogeneous clays. The proposed MARS equation can be a
useful and reliable equation to estimate the basal stability of this excavation problem in practice.

Introduction
To launch a tunnel boring machine, a shaft excavation with a circular
shape has been required to install a boring machine into the shaft before
operating the machine. Currently, space is limited in urban areas for the
construction of shafts. As a result, the demand for circular shafts in
tunneling construction has increased significantly compared to the use
of rectangular shafts. In addition to the requested small area for con­
struction, circular shafts require less steel reinforcement than rectan­
gular shafts due to the impact of circumferential hoop forces on the
cylindrical shell of circular shafts.
Previous studies on excavation problems primarily focused on lateral
earth pressures or wall movements (e.g., [1-17]). These previous studies
are limited to the serviceability aspect of excavation works. Early studies
on the basal heave stability of braced plane strain excavations were
carried out by Terzaghi [18] and Bjerrum and Eide [19] using the Limit
Equilibrium Method (LEM) with the assumption of the pattern of basal
heave failure. Numerical solutions of the basal heave stability of exca­
vations under plane strain conditions were also proposed by Goh
[20,21], Faheem et al. [22], and Li et al. [23], where the dis­
placement–based Finite Element Method (FEM) was employed in their
studies. Recently, Yodsomjai et al. [24] presented the use of Upper
Bound (UB) and Lower Bound (LB) Finite Element Limit Analysis (FELA)
to derive the plastic solutions of the basal stability of braced plane strain
excavations. However, only a few studies on the basal heave stability of
braced circular excavations have been carried out in the past by Cai et al.
[25] and Goh [26] using the displacement–based FEM and Keawsa­
wasvong and Ukritchon [27] using the LB FELA.
It has been proven that the partial strength anisotropy of natural
clays results from depositional and sedimentation processes leading to a
specific particle orientation [28]. Thus, the shear strength anisotropy of
clays is directional and can be evaluated based on the major principal
stress rotation relative to the depositional direction [29,30]. By
considering the anisotropic undrained strength of clays under different

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ksurapar@engr.tu.ac.th (S. Keawsawasvong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2023.100945
Received 15 November 2022; Received in revised form 19 January 2023; Accepted 20 January 2023
Available online 25 January 2023
2214-3912/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
V.Q. Lai et al.
shearing modes, Ladd [28] found that the anisotropic strengths consist
of three undrained shear strengths, which can be acquired via triaxial
compression (Suc), triaxial extension (Sue), and direct simple shear (Sus)
tests. In 2019, Krabbenhøft et al. [31] proposed the Anisotropic Un­
drained Shear (AUS) yield criterion to capture the failure characteristics
of anisotropic clays. The AUS has been successfully implemented in the
FELA and employed to solve several geotechnical problems such as the
bearing and pullout capacity of foundations [e.g., [32–38]], stability of
contiguous pile walls [e.g., [39]], tunnel stability [e.g., [40–41]], slope
stability [e.g., [42]], and stability of unsupported excavations [e.g.,
[43–45]]. However, there is no published solution for the problem of the
basal heave stability of braced circular excavations in anisotropic and
nonhomogeneous clays complying with the AUS failure criterion.
In this paper, the LB and UB FELA software, OptumG2 [45], in
conjunction with the AUS model, is carried out to solve the plastic so­
lutions of the undrained basal stability of circular excavations with fully
braced supports (no horizontal movement and rotation of wall). Even
though the present study and that of Keawsawasvong and Ukritchon
[27] employed the FELA to study the undrained basal stability of cir­
cular excavations, the main difference between both studies is that
Keawsawasvong and Ukritchon [27] considered the vertical distance
between the excavation bottom and rigid base without an embedment of
a wall. However, this study does not consider the rigid base but rather
the wall embedment depth. In addition, Keawsawasvong and Ukritchon
[27] did not model the wall by plate elements. To simulate the wall in
Fig. 1. (a) Model of fully braced circular excavations; (b) Final adaptive meshes; (c) Incremental displacements and movement of soils; (d) AUS failure criterion.
2
Transportation Geotechnics 39 (2023) 100945
Keawsawasvong and Ukritchon [27], only fully-fixed supports were
applied to the vertical plane of the excavated side of the excavation. This
leads to unrealistic simulation in the field situation since the plate ele­
ments were not used in the in-house LB FELA codes by Keawsawasvong
and Ukritchon [27]. Moreover, previous studies of a similar problem
[25-27] did not consider the impact of the anisotropy of clays. The
problem definition of a braced circular excavation is shown in Fig. 1(a).
The geometry parameters include the width of R, the depth of H, and the
wall embedment of D. The wall is assumed to be very rigid and is fully
supported by lateral bracing over the excavated plane. The interface
between the wall and the clay is set to be rough.
As mentioned earlier, the input undrained shear strengths of the AUS
failure criteria are three anisotropic undrained shear strength compo­
nents, including Suc, Sue, and Sus. In addition, two anisotropic strength
ratios are introduced: re = Sue/Suc and rs = Sus/Suc. Based on the finding
by [31], the relationship of re and rs can be computed from rs = 2 re/(1 +
re). As a result, this study uses only re as the dimensionless anisotropic
strength parameter. The undrained shear strength profile of a non­
–homogeneous clay is a linear function of Suc(z) = Suc0 + ρz, where Suc0
denotes a surface undrained shear strength and ρ represents a strength
gradient.
Numerical analyses are performed following the plastic bound the­
orems to achieve the most accurate stability solution for the problem of
fully braced circular excavations in anisotropic and non–homogenous
clays. The completely plastic material and accompanying flow rule is a
V.Q. Lai et al.
fundamental concept of this limit analysis. According to this paradigm,
the precise solutions to the stability problem may be determined by
upper bound (UB) and lower bound (LB) computations [46]. Due to the
limit analysis, the traditional hand calculation approaches are compli­
cated to complete for broad stability challenges such as heterogeneous
soil, unexpected shapes, and complex pressure. For these reasons, Finite
Element Limit Analysis (FELA) techniques are developed by combining
plastic bound theorems, the finite element concept, and mathematical
optimization. This approach has rapidly gained recognition and has
been proposed by many scholars. However, none of those existing
studies address the implications of the heterogeneity and anisotropy of
fully circular braced excavation.
In this study, the FELA technique is employed to solve the UB and LB
solutions of undrained basal stability of braced circular excavations in
anisotropic and non–homogeneous clays. The mesh adaptivity tech­
nique [47] is also used to improve the rigor of LB and UB solutions. Note
that this mesh adaptivity technique has been successfully used by many
works in the past [e.g., [48–54]]. After obtaining the results, a machine
learning technique, multivariate adaptive regression spline (MARS), is
adopted to provide the correlation between the investigated and output
variables. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis is conducted to determine
the relative impact of different input variables on the output. The MARS
results can assist practicing engineers in predicting the undrained basal
stability of braced circular excavations in anisotropic and non­
–homogeneous clays.
Method of analysis
In the FELA program OptumG2, numerical analyses of circular
braced excavations in anisotropic and non–homogenous clay are per­
formed, and an effective simulation model is established to monitor the
plastic behavior of the clay. The computed circular excavation model
with specific dimensions is shown in Fig. 1(a), where the line of axial
symmetry is applied at the left boundary, which acts as the problem
centerline. The circular excavation has a diameter of R, a depth of H, and
a wall embedment of D. The wall is considered to be a fully rigid material
with no failure, and the unit weights of supports and walls are neglected.
Based on Terzaghi [18] and Bjerrum and Eide [19], the assumption of
the basal heave stability problem requires fully braced support at the
wall. As a result, the circular excavation in this study is set to have a fully
braced support so that horizontal movement and rotation of the wall are
not allowed. To ensure the fully braced support condition, the feature of
the plate boundary condition is activated at the top of the wall, as shown
in Fig. 1(b), where only vertical movements are permitted. As demon­
strated in Fig. 1(c), there are only vertical moments of soil masses
without the horizontal and rotation movements of the wall, so the basal
heave failure based on the assumptions by Terzaghi [18] and Bjerrum
and Eide [19] can be simulated. Furthermore, the boundaries of all the
models are identical and considered roller supports at the left and right
boundaries (with no horizontal movements), whereas that at the base
boundary acts as the fixed support (with no vertical and horizontal
movements). The top surface is thought to be a limitless, unfettered
surface. The domain sizes of the models were carefully determined to
prevent any overlapping of the developed plastic yield zone among the
excavation boundaries. As shown in Fig. 1(b), the size of the horizontal
domain is set to 7R, and the size of the bottom domain is D + 2R.
It should be noted that, in all numerical models of this study, all parts
of the wall (the part along the excavated depth and the embedded part)
are assumed to be rigid and have fully horizontal bracing. However, in
practice, the failure of the embedded part is a significant threat when the
diameter of the excavation and the embedded depth of the wall are
large. Hence, the models and the solutions of this study are limited to the
cases where the walls of circular excavations are designed to be rigid and
robust enough so that there is no collapse at the embedded part of the
wall.
The plastic behavior of the surrounding clay is described using the
3
Transportation Geotechnics 39 (2023) 100945
AUS model, where the dimensionless strength parameter of re = Sue/Suc
is considered. Fig. 1(d) demonstrates that a change in re can affect the
development of the AUS failure criterion’s failure surface. Note that the
valuables TC and TE in Fig. 1(d) represent the triaxial compression and
triaxial extension, equal to 2Suc and 2Sue, respectively. The form of the
yield function of the AUS model with the harmonic mean of three un­
drained shear strengths can be expressed by Eq. (1):
Fu = σ1 − σ3 + (re − 1)(σ 2 − σ3 ) − 2Suc = 0 (1)
where σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 are the principal stresses (positive in compression),
and Fu is the yield function. Basically, re ranges from 0.5 to 1, where the
case of re = 1 (i.e., Suc = Sue = Sus) can be used to represent the case of
isotropic undrained shear strength similar to the Tresca failure criterion.
The upper and lower bound solutions were produced using an
automatically adaptable mesh refinement. In addition, the upper and
lower bound solutions predicted by the efficient method of automated
mesh adaptivity with shear dissipation optimization are more accurate.
This feature allows the modification of mesh density in sensitive areas
with high plastic shearing strain. This study employs five adaptive
meshing processes with a minimum mesh size of 5,000 elements and a
maximum mesh size of 10,000 elements. The failure behavior of fully
braced circular excavation in anisotropic and non–homogeneous clays
can be reported using the final adaptive mesh, as shown in Fig. 1(b). It is
essential to remember that adding more elements to the delicate areas
might increase the accuracy of the solutions. The meshing processes
represent the evolution of the initial meshes toward the desired value.
Since there are sufficient numbers of elements and processes, the solu­
tions are unaffected.
Throughout this study, the influence of the following examined pa­
rameters is related to the numerical analysis of braced excavation
anisotropic and non–homogenous clay under axisymmetric conditions,
which includes γ, Suc0, re, ρ, R, H, and D. The definitions of these pa­
rameters are noted previously. In this study, the output from FELA is the
maximum unit weight (γ) that causes a circular excavation to be a basal
heave failure. The dimensionless technique by Butterfield [54] is applied
to reduce the examined dimensional parameters to dimensionless pa­
rameters and to derive the stability solutions in terms of the stability
number (N = γH/Suc0). Therefore, four dimensionless parameters are
utilized to investigate the influences of these variables on the computed
stability number of circular braced excavation in anisotropic and non­
–homogenous clay, which can be set as a function as follows:
R D
N = ( , , re ,
ρH
) (2)
H H Suc0
where R/H is the radius–depth ratio;
D/H is the depth ratio of the embedded wall;
ρH/Suc0 is the strength gradient factor;
re is the anisotropic strength ratio.
To use Eq. (2), the input dimensional parameters (e.g., R, H, Suc0,
Sue0, and ρ) are first given. Then, these dimensional parameters are
normalized to dimensionless parameters, including R/H, D/H, re = Sue0/
Suc0, and ρH/Suc0. After obtaining these dimensionless variables on the
right-hand side of Eq. (2), the dimensionless output variable or the
stability number (N = γH/Suc0) can be determined. Then, the maximum
unit weight (γ) can be computed. If this maximum unit weight (γ) is
greater than the true value (γtrue), the excavation system is safe. In
contrast, if the maximum unit weight is lower than the true value, basal
heave collapse occurs due to the instability of the excavation system.
Note that the design equations for obtaining the stability number N will
be developed later in the following sections. A thorough parametric
study of this issue is conducted utilizing the existing UB and LB FELA to
determine the dependence relationship of the four dimensionless factors
(R/H, D/H, re, and ρH/Suc0) on the stability number as described earlier.
V.Q. Lai et al. Transportation Geotechnics 39 (2023) 100945

To confirm the proposed dimensionless analysis based on the relation in

Eq. (2), four cases in Table 1 are carried out. It can be confirmed from
“Case 1 versus Case 2” and “Case 3 versus Case 4” that as long as the
values of the four dimensionless parameters are the same, the dimen­
sionless output parameter (or the stability number N) is also the same.
The viable values of the parameters that are taken into account for
calculating the stability number of an undrained circular braced exca­
vation are R/H = 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8, D/H = 0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 1, re
= 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, and 1.0 and ρH/Suc0 = 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4. The
results of these FELA investigations are presented as design charts, fig­
ures, and equations, which can then be used to calculate the actual soil
unit weight during the excavation process.

Results and discussion

After several numerical analyses, this study officially proposes the

stability number (N) of undrained circular brace excavation. This
simulation aims to identify the soil unit weight that significantly con­
tributes to the failure of an excavation. Parametric analyses are per­
formed, with a practical range of examined parameters determining the Fig. 2. Comparison between present study and previous studies results from
stability number as a function. Keawsawasvong and Ukritchon [27].
Fig. 2 illustrates a comparison of the stability number between the
current and prior investigations to guarantee the reliability of the cur­
Regarding Figs. 4–8, the plots consist of the same range of parameters
rent proposed FELA solutions. The verification was made up of the
with the variation of re, and the identical trends with Fig. 3 are observed
average result from the UB and LB solution proposed by Kaewsawasvong
along these figures where the increase in D/H results in a higher value of
and Ukritchon [27]. In a prior investigation, they utilized FELA in
N. Another piece of evidence demonstrates that increasing re also results
axisymmetric situations to produce an average FELA solution for the
in slightly higher values of N for all situations.
undrained basal stability of braced circular excavations in non­
Fig. 9 shows the effect of R/H on N with fixed values of re = 0.7 and
–homogeneous clays with a linear increase in strength with depth. The
ρH/Suc0 = 0 and 1. The plots are composed of the ranges of D/H = 0,
difference between the current and prior investigation is in the soil
0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 1. The greatest value of N is therefore attained for a
model, in which the model proposed by Kaewsawasvong and Ukritchon
small excavation (R/H = 0.5), and it starts to decline rapidly as the
[27] utilizes the Tresca model (re = 1). Thus, the comparison is selected
excavation radius increases (R/H = 0.5–2). Its decline rate becomes
in the case of D/H = 0, R/H = 0.2–4, ρH/Suc0 = 0, 1, 2, and re = 1. The
consistently lower as R/H exceeds 2. For the effect of re on N with fixed
correctness of the calculated FELA solutions using OptumG2 with the
values of R/H = 2 and ρH/Suco = 1 and 4. The plots are made up of the
AUS model is dependable, as shown by the significant concordance
variation of D/H = 0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 1, as shown in Fig. 10. A low
between the current study using the AUS failure criterion and the prior
rate of inclination between re and N is observed for both cases. Thus, we
work [27] using the Tresca failure criterion. Moreover, the trend of the
can conclude that re has the least effect compared to other parameters.
stability number on the other examined parameters is identical to that
Fig. 11 shows a linear relationship between ρH/Suco and N for all D/H
proposed by Kaewsawasvong and Ukritchon [27]. However, innovative
values. As a result, N rises together with ρH/Suco. As the strength
appropriate design equations for the current issue that consider the
gradient increases, so does the stability number. This is simply defined
anisotropy effect of clays have not yet been published. Therefore, it can
as the assumption that a higher stability number can be achieved as soil
be claimed that the current solution is accurate and reliable and can be
strength increases.
easily implemented in practice.
Subsequently, as failure mechanisms, the incremental displacements
The numerical result of the completely circular brace excavation in
of clay failure behaviors are presented. The sensitivity zone begins at the
anisotropic and non–homogenous clay is shown in Figs. 3–11. The ef­
excavation base. It extends downward across the wall base before
fects of various examined parameters are investigated using the average
gradually fading upward to the back of the wall, which does not affect
bound solutions. Within these results, Figs. 3–8 demonstrate the effect of
the ground surface, as seen in Fig. 12(a). The decrease in D/H had no
the embedded depth ratio on the stability number with various values of
discernible impact on failure mechanisms except in situations where D/
re = 0.5 – 1.0. In these cases, the selected values of R/H and ρH/Suc0 are
H = 0, as shown in Fig. 12(a–e), because the wall is formed straight from
fixed in the ranges of 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, respectively. As a
the excavation surface with no embedment depth. The most sensitive
result, an almost linear relationship between D/H and N is observed for
area, which extends directly from the excavation site to the ground
all values of ρH/Suc0, as shown in Fig. 3. The increase in D/H results in a
surface, causes the ground surface to become critically unstable. The red
greater value of N where the gradient of the inclination is directly
region displayed in the figure corresponds to the zone with the highest
dependent on R/H, where the smallest value of R/H gives the maximum
sensitivity, where shear dissipation is most commonly observed. Fig. 12
value of N for all situations. This clearly indicates that as the wall is
illustrates the effect of the wall embedment ratio on the incremental
embedded deeper beneath the excavation surface, more passive resis­
displacement. Fig. 13 depicts the effect of the radius–depth ratio on
tance is created, providing excellent support for the excavation system.
incremental displacement, and the identical pattern as described earlier

Table 1
Dimensionless analysis.
Cases R (m) H (m) D (m) Suc0 (kPa) Sue0 (kPa) ρ (kPa/m) R/H D/H re ρH/Suc0 γ (kN/m3) γH/Suc0

1 2 2 0.5 20 12 10 1 0.25 0.6 1 159.50 15.95

2 4 4 1 10 6 2.5 1 0.25 0.6 1 39.88 15.95
3 2 1 0.75 12 6 0 2 0.75 0.5 0 72.43 6.04
4 6 3 2.25 16 8 0 2 0.75 0.5 0 32.19 6.04

4
V.Q. Lai et al. Transportation Geotechnics 39 (2023) 100945

Fig. 3. Effect of D/H on N, where re = 0.5; R/H = 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8; ρH/Suc0 = 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4.

is observed. As the radius of the circular excavation increases, the failure
zone expands wider across the embedded wall to the ground surface. The
variation in the radius–depth ratio directly affects the incremental
displacement for every single value, as seen in Fig. 13(a–e), in contrast
to the variation in the wall embedment ratio, where the effect can be
observed only in the cases of D/H = 0. The effects of both re and ρH/Suc0
are not demonstrated in the paper because no significant incremental
displacement information is observed with the variation in re and ρH/
Suc0.

5
V.Q. Lai et al. Transportation Geotechnics 39 (2023) 100945

Fig. 4. Effect of D/H on N, where re = 0.6; R/H = 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8; ρH/Suc0 = 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Proposed empirical equation from MARS
For more convenience in predicting the investigated stability num­
ber, MARS is adopted to formulate the empirical model for generating
the complex relationship between input and output variables. It has
been applied successfully in much geotechnical research for this purpose
(i.e., [55-59]). Furthermore, previous studies have employed MARS and
other machine learning techniques in braced excavation works (i.e., [60-
63]). In short, the MARS algorithm consists of two main steps, as shown
in Fig. 14. In the first step, MARS partitioned the training data and
generated the multi–linear regression model using splines. The multi–­
linear regressions are mathematically presented in terms of basic

6
V.Q. Lai et al. Transportation Geotechnics 39 (2023) 100945

Fig. 5. Effect of D/H on N, where re = 0.7; R/H = 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8; ρH/Suc0 = 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4.

functions. In the second step, MARS eliminated the insignificant term
based on the CGV criterion to build a sufficient model. A more detailed
MARS model can be found in previous studies [35,55,63-66].
In this study, the numerical results from the plastic stability solutions
are used for the MARS model, where the investigated variables of R/H,
D/H, re, ρH/Suc0, and the output variable of N are considered input and
target values. The optimal MARS model is first selected by varying the
initial number of splines. The performance of the examined MARS model
is investigated through classical regression variables, including the Root
Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and Coefficient

7
V.Q. Lai et al. Transportation Geotechnics 39 (2023) 100945

Fig. 6. Effect of D/H on N, where re = 0.8; R/H = 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8; ρH/Suc0 = 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4.

of Determination (R2).
Fig. 15 illustrates the performance of the investigated MARS models
when the number of basic functions is changed. Consequently, as the
number of BFs changes from 10 to 30, the value of R2 rapidly increases,
and the values of RMSE and MAE explicitly decrease. In contrast, these
values vary insignificantly when the number of BFs exceeds 30. Thus, in
this study, the MARS model with 30 BFs is selected as the optimal MARS
model to formulate the empirical equation and conduct the sensitivity
analysis.
The generated empirical equation from the optimal MARS model is

8
V.Q. Lai et al. Transportation Geotechnics 39 (2023) 100945

Fig. 7. Effect of D/H on N, where re = 0.9; R/H = 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8; ρH/Suc0 = 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4.

expressed by combining all basic functions as shown in Eq. (3). The
details of the basic function are presented in Table 2. To validate this
empirical equation, a comparison is performed between the predicted
stability numbers from the empirical equation and those from the nu­
merical results. As depicted in Fig. 16, there is good agreement between
the predicted and verified values, with an R2 of 99.95%. This indicates
that the proposed empirical equation can be successfully applied in
practical design.
N = –1.63854 + 6.77849 × BF1 + 10.3635 × BF2 – 1.44788⋅BF3 +
5.69174 × BF4 + 20.5376 × BF5 – 2.80889 × BF6 + 25.9618 × BF7 +

9
V.Q. Lai et al. Transportation Geotechnics 39 (2023) 100945

Fig. 8. Effect of D/H on N, where re = 1; R/H = 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8; ρH/Suc0 = 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4.

5.38857 × BF8 – 8.33981 × BF9 + 0.0659546 × BF10 + 4.58593 × BF27 + 5.15467 × BF29 – 19.6357⋅BF30 (3).
BF11 + 17.6117 × BF12 – 2.12705 × BF13 + 2.42215 × BF14 – The sensitivity analysis results are presented in terms of the critical
8.01509 × BF16 + 12.4826 × BF17 + 8.96883 × BF18 – 2.61055 × relative index (RI, %), as shown in Fig. 17. The critical relative index is
BF19 + 4.15874 × BF20 – 8.01231 × BF21 + 1.17749 × BF22 + 100 percent, indicating that the corresponding input parameter is the
3.78956 × BF24 – 2.06993 × BF25 + 7.66372 × BF26 + 7.61055 × most crucial. As illustrated in Fig. 17, the strength gradient factor (ρH/

10
V.Q. Lai et al. Transportation Geotechnics 39 (2023) 100945

Fig. 9. Effect of B/H on N, where re = 0.7, ρH/Suco = 0 and 1, D/H = 0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 1.

Fig. 10. Effect of re on N, where R/H = 2, ρH/Suc0 = 1 and 4, D/H = 0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 1.

Fig. 11. Effect of ρH/Suc0 on N, where R/H = 2, re = 0.7 and 1, D/H = 0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 1.

11
V.Q. Lai et al. Transportation Geotechnics 39 (2023) 100945

Fig. 12. Effect of D/H on incremental displacements, where, re = 0.5, ρH/Suc0 = 1, R/H = 2.

Suc0) is the most significant parameter, whereas the size parameters (D/
H, R/H) of the excavation are less critical, with RI values of 75.12% and
64.23%, respectively. Finally, the anisotropic strength ratio (re) is the
least important parameter, with RI values of 35.38%. It is noted, how­
ever, that these parameters should be considered in practical design,
with RIs being more significant than 30%.
Notably, the proposed empirical equation and sensitivity analysis
results from the MARS model are derived using the investigated range of
input parameters. Consequently, the results from ANN may be less ac­
curate if the input value of the parameters is outside the investigated

12
V.Q. Lai et al. Transportation Geotechnics 39 (2023) 100945

Comparison with previous studies

In this section, the MARS solutions from the present study are vali­
dated with the previous studies by Goh [26] and Keawsawasvong and
Ukritchon [27]. Goh [26] proposed a design equation based on the
displacement-based FEM, while Keawsawasvong and Ukritchon [27]
presented a design equation based on the LB FELA solutions of the basal
stability of supported circular excavations in isotropic and homogeneous
clays (re = 1 and ρ = 0). Note that the value of D is set to zero in this
comparison. The empirical equation by Goh [26] is presented below.
[ ( )2 ( ) ]
H H
N = − 0.4187 + 2.769 + 6.5443 (4)
2R 2R

In addition, the empirical equation developed by Keawsawasvong

and Ukritchon [27], for the case in which there is no rigid base, is pre­
sented below.
√̅̅̅̅ ( √̅̅̅̅ )( )
H H H ρH
N = 2.2893 + 7.5196 + 0.0968 + 1.0485 (5)
R R R su0
R/H =
Table 3 shows the comparison of N between the present study and
Goh [26] and Keawsawasvong and Ukritchon [27]. Between the present
MARS equation and the previous studies, good agreement in N can be
observed.

Conclusions

This paper begins by analyzing the effect of anisotropy and hetero­

geneity on the undrained circular braced excavation problem using the
FELA and comparing it with MARS. The FELA model numerically sim­
ulates half of the circular excavation model embedded in AUS soil. This
study investigated the effects of four dimensionless parameters: the
anisotropic strength ratio, the depth–radius ratio, the depth–embedment
ratio, and the strength gradient ratio, which impact the stability number
and incremental displacement (failure mechanism). As a result, the
R/H = R/H = stability number increases linearly as the anisotropic strength ratio, the
depth–radius ratio, and the strength gradient ratio increase. In contrast,
increasing the depth–embedment ratio results in a lower stability
number. Variations in the radius–depth ratio and depth–radius ratio
significantly affect the failure mechanism, whereas the anisotropic
strength ratio and strength gradient ratio have no significant effects.
MARS, such as the data-driven model, is adopted to propose an empir­
ical equation and conduct sensitivity analysis. The proposed MARS
equation proved its effectiveness with an R2 of 99.95% agreement be­
tween their estimated value and those from FELA. The results of the
MARS sensitivity analysis indicate that the impact on the stability
number of the investigated dimensionless parameters increases in the
order of re, R/H, D/H, ρH/Suc0 and cannot be neglected in practical
design.

Funding
R/H =
Fig. 13. Effect of R/H on incremental displacements, where, D/H = 1, re = 0.5,
This research was funded by the National Science, Research and
ρH/Suc0 = 1. Innovation Fund (NSRF), and King Mongkut’s University of Technology
North Bangkok with Contract no. KMUTNB–FF–66–12. This work was
supported by the Thailand Science Research and Innovation Funda­
range. Another limitation of the MARS results is the length of the pro­
mental Fund fiscal year 2023.
posed empirical equation (Eq.3). As presented in Fig. 15, the proposed
equation can be shortened by 10 or 20 BFs with R2 values of 98.6% and
CRediT authorship contribution statement
99.83%, respectively. However, the purpose of this paper is to propose
the best empirical equation based on the optimal MARS model, such that
Van Qui Lai: Methodology, Software, Investigation, Conceptuali­
the proposed empirical equation has 30 BFs. Although it can be difficult
zation, Writing – original draft, Data curation. Khamnoy Kounlavong:
to calculate by hand, it can be programmed as the Marco function in
Methodology, Software, Investigation, Conceptualization. Suraparb
Microsoft Excel, such as the MAX or MIN function. Thus, the proposed
Keawsawasvong: Methodology, Software, Investigation, Conceptuali­
empirical equation can be an easily applicable engineering tool for
zation, Writing – original draft, Data curation. Rungkhun Banyong:
predicting the stability number.
Software, Investigation, Writing – original draft. Warit Wipulanusat:

13
V.Q. Lai et al. Transportation Geotechnics 39 (2023) 100945

suc0 R/H D/H, re

suc0 R/H D/H re

suc0 R/H D/H, re

N
Fig. 14. Two main step of MARS algorithm.

Table 2
Basic function of the optimal MARS model.
BF Equation BF Equation

BF1 Max (0, ρH_suc0 – 0.0000001192) BF16 Max (0, R/H – 2)

BF2 Max (0, D/H – 0.0000000298023) × BF17 Max (0, 2 – R/H)
BF1
BF3 Max (0, R/H – 2) × BF2 BF18 Max (0, D/H – 0.75) ×
BF17
BF4 Max (0, 2 – R/H) × BF2 BF19 Max (0, 0.75 – D/H) ×
BF17
BF5 Max (0, re – 0.5) × BF2 BF20 Max (0, re – 0.8) × BF17
BF6 Max (0, R/H – 1) × BF5 BF21 Max (0, 0.8 – re) × BF17
BF7 Max (0, 1 – R/H) × BF5 BF22 Max (0, R/H – 4) × BF2
BF8 Max (0, re – 0.7) × BF1 BF24 Max (0, D/H – 0.25)
BF9 Max (0, 0.7 – re) × BF1 BF25 Max (0, 0.25 – D/H)
BF10 Max (0, R/H – 1) × BF1 BF26 Max (0, re – 0.5)
BF11 Max (0, 1 – R/H) × BF1 BF27 Max (0, R/H – 1)
BF12 Max (0, D/H – 0.5) × BF11 BF28 Max (0, 1 – R/H)
BF13 Max (0, 0.5 – D/H) × BF11 BF29 Max (0, D/H – 0.5) ×
BF28
Fig. 15. Performance of the investigated MARS model. BF14 Max (0, R/H – 4) × BF5 BF30 Max (0, 0.5 – D/H) ×
BF28
Methodology, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Data curation. N = –1.63854 + 6.77849 × BF1 + 10.3635 × BF2 – 1.44788⋅BF3 + 5.69174 × BF4 +
20.5376 × BF5 – 2.80889 × BF6 + 25.9618 × BF7 + 5.38857 × BF8 – 8.33981 ×
Pitthaya Jamsawang: Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & BF9 + 0.0659546 × BF10 + 4.58593 × BF11 + 17.6117 × BF12 – 2.12705 × BF13
editing. + 2.42215 × BF14 – 8.01509 × BF16 + 12.4826 × BF17 + 8.96883 × BF18 –
2.61055 × BF19 + 4.15874 × BF20 – 8.01231 × BF21 + 1.17749 × BF22 +
3.78956 × BF24 – 2.06993 × BF25 + 7.66372 × BF26 + 7.61055 × BF27 +
Declaration of Competing Interest 5.15467 × BF29 – 19.6357⋅BF30

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

14
V.Q. Lai et al.
Fig. 16. The comparison between the MARS equation and FELA results.
Fig. 17. The impact of dimensionless parameter on the stability number.
Table 3
Comparison between the present MARS equation and previous equations by
[26,27].
No. R/H
1 0.5
2 1
3 2
4 4
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology
(HCMUT), VNU–HCM for supporting this study.
Transportation Geotechnics 39 (2023) 100945
References
[1] Li MG, Zhang ZJ, Chen JJ, Wang JH, Xu AJ. Zoned and staged construction of an
underground complex in Shanghai soft clay. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2017;67:
187–200.
[2] Zhang Z, Huang M, Wang W. Evaluation of deformation response for adjacent
tunnels due to soil unloading in excavation engineering. Tunn Undergr Space
Technol 2013;38:244–53.
[3] Tan Y, Wang D. Structural behaviours of large underground earth–retaining
systems in Shanghia. I: Unpropped circular diaphragm wall. J Perform Constr Facil
2015;29(2):04014059.
[4] Mu L, Huang M. Small strain based method for predicting three–dimensional soil
displacements induced by braced excavation. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2016;
52:12–22.
[5] Zhang W, Zhang Y, Goh AT. Multivariate adaptive regression splines for inverse
analysis of soil and wall properties in braced excavation. Tunn Undergr Space
Technol 2017;64:24–33.
[6] Arai Y, Kusakabe O, Murata O, Konishi S. A numerical study on ground
displacement and stress during and after the installation of deep circular
diaphragm walls and soil excavation. Comp Geotech 2007;35(5):791–807.
[7] Kim KY, Lee DS, Cho J, Jeong SS, Lee S. The effect of arching pressure on a vertical
circular shaft. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2013;37:10–21.
[8] Cho J, Lim H, Jeong S, Kim K. Analysis of lateral earth pressure on a vertical
circular shaft considering the 3D arching effect. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2015;
48:11–9.
[9] Borges JL, Guerra GT. Cylindrical excavations in clayey soils retained by jet grout
walls: Numerical analysis and parametric study considering the influence of
consolidation. Comp Geotech 2014;55:42–56.
[10] Peng FL, Wang HL, Tan Y, Xu ZL, Li YL. Field measurements and finite–element
method simulation of a tunnel shaft constructed by pneumatic caisson method in
Shanghai soft ground. J Geotech Geoenviron 2010;137(5):516–24.
[11] Walton G, Delaloye D, Diederichs MS. Development of an elliptical fitting
algorithm to improve change detection capabilities with applications for
deformation monitoring in circular tunnels and shafts. Tunn Undergr Space
Technol 2014;43:336–49.
[12] Huynh QT, Lai VQ, Boonyatee T, Keawsawasvong S. Verification of soil parameters
of hardening soil model with small–strain stiffness for deep excavations in medium
dense sand in Ho Chi Minh City. Vietnam Innovative Infrastruct Solut 2022;7:15.
[13] Huynh QT, Lai VQ, Boonyatee T, Keawsawasvong S. Behavior of a deep excavation
and damages on adjacent buildings: A case study in Vietnam. Transport Infrastruct
Geotechnol 2021;8:361–89.
[14] Likitlersuang S, Chheng C, Keawsawasvong S. Structural modelling in finite
element analysis of deep excavation. J GeoEng 2019;14(3):121–8.
[15] Zhang W, Hou Z, Goh ATC, Zhang R. Estimation of strut forces for braced
excavation in granular soils from numerical analysis and case histories. Comput
Geotech 2019;106:286–95.
[16] Goh ATC, Zhang F, Zhang W, Chew OYS. Assessment of strut forces for braced
excavation in clays from numerical analysis and field measurements. Comput
Geotech 2017;86:141–9.
[17] Goh ATC, Zhang F, Zhang W, Zhang Y, Liu H. A simple estimation model for 3D
braced excavation wall deflection. Comput Geotech 2017;83:106–13.
[18] Terzaghi K. Theoretical soil mechanics. New York: Wiley; 1943.
[19] Bjerrum L, Eide O. Stability of strutted excavations in clay. Géotechnique 1956;6
(1):32–47.
[20] Goh ATC. Estimating basal heave stability for braced excavations in soft clay.
J Geotech Eng 1994;120(8):1430–6.
[21] Goh ATC. Deterministic and reliability assessment of basal heave stability for
braced excavations with jet grout base slab. Eng Geol 2017;218:63–9.
[22] Faheem H, Cai F, Ugai K, Hagiwara T. Two–dimensional base stability of
excavations in soft soils using FEM. Comput Geotech 2003;30(2):141–63.
[23] Li Y, Zhang W, Zhang R. Numerical investigation on performance of braced
excavation considering soil stress-induced anisotropy. Acta Geotech 2022;17(2):
563–75.
[24] Yodsomjai W, Lai VQ, Banyong B, Chauhan VB, Thongchom C, Keawsawasvong S.
A machine learning regression approach for predicting basal heave stability of
braced excavation in non–homogeneous clay. Arab J Geosci 2022;15:873.
[25] Cai F, Ugai K, Hagiwara T. Base stability of circular excavations in soft clay.
N [26] N [27] N (MARS) J Geotech Eng 2002;128(8):702–6.
[26] Goh ATC. Basal heave stability of supported circular excavations in clay. Tunn
3.860 8.750 13.801 Undergr Space Technol 2017;61:145–9.
4.044 7.804 13.032 [27] Keawsawasvong S, Ukritchon B. Undrained basal stability of braced circular
4.438 7.134 9.286 excavations in non–homogeneous clays with linear increase of strength with depth.
6.884 6.660 8.477 Comput Geotech 2019;115:103180.
[28] Ladd CC. Stability evaluations during stage construction. J Geotech Eng 1991;117
(4):540–615.
[29] Zhang R, Goh ATC, Li Y. A simple estimation model for basal heave stability of
braced excavations in anisotropic clay. Acta Geotech 2022;17:5789–800.
[30] Zhang R, Goh ATC, Li Y. Assessment of apparent earth pressure for braced
excavations in anisotropic clay. Acta Geotech 2021;16:1615–26.
[31] Krabbenhøft K, Galindo-Torres SA, Zhang X, Krabbenhøft J. AUS: Anisotropic
undrained shear strength model for clays. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2019;
43(17):2652–66.
[32] Keawsawasvong S, Yoonirundorn K, Senjuntichai T. Pullout capacity factor for
cylindrical suction caissons in anisotropic clays based on Anisotropic Uundrained
Shear failure criterion. Transport Infrastruct Geotechnol 2021.
15
V.Q. Lai et al.
[33] Keawsawasvong S. Bearing capacity of conical footings on clays considering
combined effects of anisotropy and non–homogeneity. Ships Offshore Struct 2021.
[34] Keawsawasvong S, Shiau J, Ngamkhanong C, Lai VQ, Thongchom C. Undrained
stability of ring foundations: axisymmetry, anisotropy, and non–homogeneity. Int J
Geomech 2022.
[35] Nguyen DK, Nguyen TP, Keawsawasvong S, Lai VQ. Vertical uplift capacity of
circular anchors in clay by considering anisotropy and non–homogeneity.
Transport Infrastruct Geotechnol 2022;9:653–72.
[36] Van CN, Keawsawasvong S, Nguyen DK, Lai VQ. Machine learning regression
approach for analysis of bearing capacity of conical footings in heterogenous and
anisotropic clay. Neural Comput Applic 2020.
[37] Jearsiripongkul T, Lai VQ, Keawsawasvong S, Nguyen TS, Van CN, Thongchom C,
et al. Prediction of uplift capacity of cylindrical caissons in anisotropic and
inhomogeneous clays using multivariate adaptive regression splines. Sustainability
2022;14(8):4456.
[38] Lai VQ, Banyong B, Keawsawasvong S. Stability of limiting pressure behind soil
gaps in contiguous pile walls in anisotropic clays. Eng Fail Anal 2022;134:106049.
[39] Keawsawasvong S, Ukritchon B. Design equation for stability of a circular tunnel in
an anisotropic and heterogeneous clay. Underground Space 2022;7(1):76–93.
[40] Lai VQ, Jamshidi CR, Banyong R, Keawsawasvong S. Undrained stability of
opening in underground walls in anisotropic clays. Int J Geomech, ASCE 2022.
[41] Shiau J, Lai VQ, Keawsawasvong S. Multivariate adaptive regression splines
analysis for three–dimensional slope stability in anisotropic and heterogenous clay.
J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 2022.
[42] Lai VQ, Shiau J, Keawsawasvong S, Seehavong S, Cabangon LT. Undrained stability
of unsupported rectangular excavations: anisotropy and non–homogeneity in 3D.
Buildings 2022;12(9):142.
[43] Lai VQ, Nguyen DK, Banyong B, Keawsawasvong S. Limit analysis solutions for
stability factor of unsupported conical slopes in clays with heterogeneity and
anisotropy. Int J Comput Mater Sci Eng 2022;11(1):2150030.
[44] Yodsomjai W, Keawsawasvong S, Senjuntichai T. Undrained stability of
unsupported conical slopes in anisotropic clays based on Anisotropic Undrained
Shear failure criterion. Transport Infrastruct Geotechnol 2021;8(4):557–68.
[45] OptumCE OptumG2. Copenhagen, Denmark: Optum Computational Engineering.
See https://optumce.com/. Accessed 1 Dec 2020.
[46] Sloan SW. Geotechnical stability analysis. Géotechnique 2013;63(7):531–72.
[47] Ciria H, Peraire J, Bonet J. Mesh adaptive computation of upper and lower bounds
in limit analysis. Int J Numer Meth Eng 2008;75(8):899–944.
[48] Yodsomjai W, Keawsawasvong S, Lai VQ. Limit analysis solutions for bearing
capacity of ring foundations on rocks using Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Int J
Geosynthetics Ground Eng 2021;7:29.
[49] Keawsawasvong S, Lai VQ. End bearing capacity factor for annular foundations
embedded in clay considering the effect of the adhesion factor. Int J Geosynthetics
Ground Eng 2021;7:15.
[50] Keawsawasvong S, Ukritchon B. Undrained stability of a spherical cavity in
cohesive soils using finite element limit analysis. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 2019;
11(6):1274–85.
16
Transportation Geotechnics 39 (2023) 100945
[51] Shiau J, Chudal B, Mahalingasivam K, Keawsawasvong S. Pipeline burst–related
ground stability in blowout condition. Transp Geotech 2021;29:100587.
[52] Yodsomjai W, Keawsawasvong S, Likitlersuang S. Stability of unsupported conical
slopes in Hoek-Brown rock masses. Transport Infrastruct Geotechnol 2021;8:
278–95.
[53] Keawsawasvong S, Thongchom C, Likitlersuang S. Bearing capacity of strip footing
on Hoek-Brown rock mass subjected to eccentric and inclined loading. Transport
Infrastruct Geotechnol 2021;8:189–200.
[54] Butterfield R. Dimensional analysis for geotechnical engineering. Géotechnique
1999;49(2):357–66.
[55] Lai VQ, Shiau J, Keawsawasvong S, Tran DT. Bearing Capacity of Ring Foundations
on Anisotropic and Heterogenous Clays: FEA, NGI-ADP, and MARS. Geotech Geol
Eng 2022;40:3929–41.
[56] Pramanik R, Mukherjee S, Babu GS. Deterministic and probabilistic prediction of
maximum wall facing displacement of geosynthetic-reinforced soil segmental walls
using multivariate adaptive regression splines. Transp Geotech 2022;36:100816.
[57] Alzabeebee S, Chapman DN. Evolutionary computing to determine the skin friction
capacity of piles embedded in clay and evaluation of the available analytical
methods. Transp Geotech 2020;24:100372.
[58] Hasthi V, Raja MNA, Hegde A, Shukla SK. Experimental and Intelligent Modelling
for Predicting the Amplitude of Footing Resting on Geocell-Reinforced Soil Bed
under Vibratory Load. Transp Geotech 2022:100783.
[59] Nguyen VQ, Tran VL, Nguyen DD, Sadiq S, Park D. Novel hybrid MFO-XGBoost
model for predicting the racking ratio of the rectangular tunnels subjected to
seismic loading. Transp Geotech 2022;37:100878.
[60] Zhang R, Wu C, Goh ATC, Böhlke T, Zhang W. Estimation of diaphragm wall
deflections for deep braced excavation in anisotropic clays using ensemble
learning. Geosci Front 2021;12(1):365–73.
[61] Wu C, Hong L, Wang L, Zhang R, Pijush S, Zhang W. Prediction of wall deflection
induced by braced excavation in spatially variable soils via convolutional neural
network. Gondw Res 2022.
[62] Zhang W, Zhang R, Wu C, Goh ATC, Wang L. Assessment of basal heave stability for
braced excavations in anisotropic clay using extreme gradient boosting and
random forest regression. Underground Space 2022;7(2):233–41.
[63] Zhang W, Zhang R, Wang W, Zhang F, Goh ATC. A Multivariate Adaptive
Regression Splines model for determining horizontal wall deflection envelope for
braced excavations in clays. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2019;84:461–71.
[64] Zhang W, Zhang R, Wu C, Goh ATC, Lacasse S, Liu Z, et al. State-of-the-art review
of soft computing applications in underground excavations. Geosci Front 2020;11
(4):1095–106.
[65] Zhang R, Goh ATC, Zhang W. MARS inverse analysis of soil and wall properties for
braced excavations in clays. Geomech Eng 2018;16(6):577–88.
[66] Lai VQ, Sangjinda K, Keawsawasvong S, Eskandarinejad A, Chauhan VB, Sae-
Long W, et al. A machine learning regression approach for predicting the bearing
capacity of a strip footing on rock mass under inclined and eccentric load. Front
Built Environ 2022;8:962331.