Technical Note

Probabilistic Assessment of Serviceability Limit State of

Diaphragm Walls for Braced Excavation in Clays
Wengang Zhang 1; Anthony T. C. Goh 2; and Yanmei Zhang 3

Abstract: Braced excavation systems are commonly required to ensure stability in the construction of basements for shopping malls and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Diego State University on 01/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

underground transportation facilities. For excavations in deposits of soft clays, stiff retaining wall systems such as diaphragm walls help to
restrain ground movements and wall deflections in order to prevent damage to nearby buildings and utilities. It is quite common for designers
to limit the maximum wall deflection to 0.5% times the maximum excavation depth. However, a review of measured diaphragm wall displace-
ments from various published case histories of successful deep excavations show that wall deflections can be up to more than 2% times the
excavation depth. Since the allowable threshold wall displacement depends on various influencing parameters, wall deflections should not be
limited to an arbitrary value. This paper presents a probabilistic framework combining a simplified wall deflection estimation model with
reliability methods to determine the probability of serviceability limit state failure. Consequently, using this approach, the paper presents a
methodology that allows engineers to determine the required threshold limiting ðδ hm =H e ÞT ratios to meet the different target serviceability
reliability indices. DOI: 10.1061/AJRUA6.0000827. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Wall deflection; Braced excavation; Probabilistic assessment; Polynomial regression model; Inverse analysis.

Introduction
For excavations in ground that comprises thick soft clays overlying
stiff clay, braced walls are usually constructed to minimize ground
movements. The maximum wall deflection δ hm is an important
consideration in the design of the wall and in the assessment of
its impact on the adjacent structures. The response of the structures
to the wall displacement depends on many parameters such as the
wall type, the location, the foundation systems, and the existing
condition of the structures. It is common to normalize the
maximum horizontal displacement of the retaining walls, δhm ,
by dividing it by the excavation depth, He .
It is common to use a limiting ratio δ hm =He of 0.5% as a gov-
erning criterion for safety of the works and adjacent buildings.
However, published case histories of successful excavations from
various countries indicate that the measured wall deflections (δ hm )
are in the range of 0.05% to more than 2% of the excavation depth
ðHe Þ (Yoo and Kim 1999, Long 2001, Moormann 2004). Fok et al.
(2012) reported that in actual practice, the performance of retaining
walls for deep excavation depends on various factors such as types
of soil, type of wall, ground water conditions, support systems,
construction method (top down or bottom up method), wall instal-
1
Research Fellow, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Nanyang Technological Univ., Singapore 639798, Singapore (correspond-
ing author). E-mail: zhangwg@ntu.edu.sg
2
Associate Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Nanyang Technological Univ., Singapore 639798, Singapore. E-mail:
ctcgoh@ntu.edu.sg
3
Ph.D. Student, Nanyang Environmental and Water Research Institute,
Interdisciplinary Graduate School, Nanyang Technological Univ.,
Singapore 639798, Singapore. E-mail: yzhang051@e.ntu.edu.sg
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 15, 2014; approved
on March 25, 2015; published online on May 26, 2015. Discussion period
open until October 26, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This technical note is part of the ASCE-ASME Journal
of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engi-
neering, © ASCE, 06015001(7)/$25.00.
lation method, and workmanship. Thus, limiting the ratio to a sin-
gle value δ hm =He may not be appropriate.
The soil parameters used for analysis by numerical methods
are not necessarily the “true” values of these parameters, since such
data obtained are estimated based on limited field tests, laboratory
data, or local experience, generally involving considerable uncer-
tainty. In addition, the wall and ground responses in a supported
excavation may also be influenced by construction quality/
workmanship and other environmental factors. Thus, deterministic
modeling using numerical methods such as the finite element or
finite difference method, even with advanced soil constitutive
models, may not be able to take into account all the uncertainties
and complexities mentioned above. To this end, the probabilistic
framework combining a simplified wall deflection estimation
model with reliability methods that are able to take into account
the soil parameter uncertainties is desirable.
In this paper, a recently developed polynomial regression (PR)
model (Zhang et al. 2015) for estimation of the excavation-induced
wall deflection is adopted for prediction of δ hm . Based on the PR
model, design charts are proposed for preliminary design and
checking. This paper demonstrates that with this PR model, the
first-order reliability method (FORM) and Monte Carlo simulation
(MCS) can be applied to determine the probability of serviceability
limit state failure. Consequently, using this approach, the paper
presents a methodology that allows engineers to determine the
required threshold limiting ðδ hm =He ÞT ratios to meet the different
target serviceability reliability indices.
Review of Polynomial Regression (PR) Model
The polynomial regression (PR) model is a semiempirical model
proposed by Zhang et al. (2015) for predicting the maximum wall
deflection induced by braced excavation in clays. It is based on more
than 1,000 FEM simulations using the hardening small strain (HSS)
model which accounts for the increased stiffness of soils at small
strains. The PR model consists of equations that can be used to
estimate wall deflection using the following parameters: excavation

© ASCE 06015001-1 ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.

ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2015, 1(3): 06015001
 B/2
Eq. (1) is applicable for the case with the ground water table at
the ground surface, which is the most unfavorable condition. Addi-
strut tional analyses performed to investigate the influence of the ground
2m EA=3.8 × 106 kN
water table indicate that the maximum wall deflections decrease
5m almost linearly with decreasing ground water level and that the
Final h
excavation
8m water table correction factor μw can be approximated as μw ¼
E=2.0 × 107 kN/m2
depth He 11 m 1 − 0.1l, where l is the depth of the ground water table below
14 m T the ground surface.
17 m Soft Clay The developed PR model was validated through a total of 21
20 m well-documented excavation case histories in Zhang et al.
Wall (2015). The plot of predicted wall deflections versus the measured
values indicates that the PR model is able to predict reasonably well
penetration depth 3~5 m the excavation-induced wall deflections.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Diego State University on 01/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

d
Stiff Clay c u =500 kPa
Eu =500c u 20 m
γ =20 kN/m3 Design Charts Based on PR Model

Based on Eq. (1) and Table 1, a series of charts relating δ h to

Fig. 1. Cross-sectional soil and wall profile
width B; excavation depth H e ; soft clay thickness T; soil unit weight
γ; the system stiffness lnðSÞ [S ¼ EI=w h4avg , as defined in Clough
and O’Rourke (1990), where E is the Young’s modulus of wall
material, I is the moment of inertia of the wall section, γ w is the unit
weight of water, and havg is the average spacing of the struts]; the
relative soil shear strength ratio cu =σv0 , where cu is the undrained
shear strength and σv0 denotes the vertical effective stress; and the
relative soil stiffness ratio E50 =cu , where E50 is the secant stiffness
in a standard drained triaxial test. For illustration, Fig. 1 presents the
cross-sectional soil and wall profile considered. The maximum wall
deflection estimated by the PR model δ h takes the following form:
B; T=B, and He =B for general excavation widths with common soil
relative shear strength ratio cu =σv0 and stiffness ratio E50 =cu have
been developed as shown in Figs. 2–7, assuming μw ¼ 1. The pro-
posed charts are potentially useful for preliminary estimation of the
maximum wall deflections for given excavation geometries, soil
parameters, and support conditions.
Example
This example considers the case of Bugis MRT in Singapore, one of
the 21 case histories presented in Zhang et al. (2015). Based on the
PR model, the probability density of the wall deflection can be

δ h ðmmÞ ¼ a0 þ a1 B þ a2 B2 þ a3 T þ a4 T 2 þ a5 He þ a6 H2e
þ a7 ðcu =σv0 Þ þ a8 ðcu =σv0 Þ2 þ a9 ðE50 =cu Þ
þ a10 ðE50 =cu Þ2 þ a11 lnðSÞ þ a12 lnðSÞ2 þ a13 γ
þ a14 γ 2 þ a15 γ lnðSÞ þ a16 ðcu =σv0 Þ lnðSÞ
þ a17 He lnðSÞ þ a18 He T ð1Þ

The values of the coefficients are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Response Surface Coefficient for δh

Coefficients Values
a0 2,816.7
a1 3.2659
a2 −0.0255
a3 2.7198
a4 −0.1515
a5 11.634
a6 −0.2348
a7 −3,089.0
a8 1,691.0
a9 −0.7102
a10 9.8 × 10−4
a11 −259.91
a12 5.1584
a13 −136.76
a14 2.1079
a15 7.0204
a16 213.27
a17 −2.5553 Fig. 2. Charts relating δh to T=B and He =B for given soil parameters
a18 0.6817 E50 =cu ¼ 200, cu =σv0 ¼ 0.25, and lnðSÞ: (a) B ¼ 30 m; (b) B ¼ 40 m

© ASCE 06015001-2 ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.

ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2015, 1(3): 06015001
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Diego State University on 01/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Charts relating δ h to T=B and H e =B for given soil parameters
E50 =cu ¼ 300, cu =σv0 ¼ 0.3, and lnðSÞ: (a) B ¼ 30 m; (b) B ¼ 40 m
determined through MCS. The analysis involved 1,000,000 realiza-
tions assuming that parameters E50 =cu and cu =σv0 are random var-
iables while the other parameters are deterministic and that both
E50 =cu and cu =σv0 follow a lognormal distribution with a coefficient
of variation (COV) of 0.15. The values for deterministic parameters
are γ ¼ 16.5 kN=m3 ; B ¼ 21 m; H e ¼ 18 m, lnðSÞ ¼ 8.18, and
T ¼ 35 m. The mean values of cu =σv0 and E50 =cu are 0.25 and
150, respectively. Fig. 8 shows the plot of the probability density
of δ h based on the parameter statistics and the PR model. As can be
seen from Fig. 8, the variation of δ h best follows the normal dis-
tribution, ranging from 75 mm to 275 mm. The most probable δ h
value is 136 mm, very near the actual measured value of 150 mm.
This section shows that the combined use of the PR model and
MCS can be used to determine the distribution of the wall deflec-
tions and to perform reliability analysis.
Reliability Analysis on Serviceability Limit State
Statistical Information of Input Variables
Among the seven input variables for the PR model, the soil unit
weight γ, the soft clay thickness T, the excavation width B and
depth He , and the system stiffness lnðSÞ are simply treated as
constants, as they have rather limited influence on the results of
probabilistic analysis due to their low uncertainty (Hsiao et al.
2008). The two key soil parameters E50 =cu and cu =σv0 are treated
as random variables and are assumed as lognormal (LN) distribu-
tion. The COV values for the two soil parameters are assumed to be
0.15. Useful guidelines on typical COVs of many common soil
© ASCE 06015001-3
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2015, 1(3): 06015001
Fig. 4. Charts relating δh to T=B and He =B for given soil parameters
E50 =cu ¼ 200, cu =σv0 ¼ 0.3 and lnðSÞ: (a) B ¼ 30 m; (b) B ¼ 40 m
strength properties have been summarized by Phoon and Kulhawy
(1999) and Duncan (2000). The statistics of the random variables
and values used for the deterministic variables are listed in Table 2.
Serviceability Criterion and Threshold
δhm =H e T
The ratio δ hm =H e is adopted as the serviceability limit state cri-
terion and in assessing the serviceability limit state of diaphragm
walls for braced excavation, the limit state function based on the PR
model can be expressed as
gðxÞ ¼ R − S ¼ ðδhm =H e ÞT − δ h =He ð2Þ
in which ðδ hm =He ÞT is the limiting threshold value while δ h =He is
derived from the PR model. Serviceability limit state failure is
deemed to occur if the predicted δ h =H e is greater than the limiting
ðδ hm =He ÞT .
Reliability Assessment Methods: FORM and MCS
The probability that the serviceability limit state Pf is exceeded can
be determined using Eq. (2). Such calculation of Pf involves the
determination of the joint probability distribution of the resistance
R and the loading S and the integration of the Probability Density
Function (PDF) over the failure domain gðxÞ < 0. Considering that
the PDFs of the random variables are not known in engineering
applications and the integration is computationally demanding
when multiple variables are involved, an approximate method
known as the first-order reliability method (Hasofer and Lind
1974), is commonly used to assess Pf . The approach involves
the transformation of the limit state surface into a space of standard
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Diego State University on 01/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Charts relating δ h to T=B and H e =B for given soil parameters

E50 =cu ¼ 150, cu =σv0 ¼ 0.25 and lnðSÞ: (a) B ¼ 30 m; (b) B ¼ 40 m
Fig. 7. Charts relating δh to T=B and He =B for given soil parameters
E50 =cu ¼ 250, cu =σv0 ¼ 0.3 and lnðSÞ: (a) B ¼ 30 m; (b) B ¼ 40 m

normal uncorrelated variables, wherein the shortest distance from

the transformed limit state surface to the origin of the reduced var-
iables is the reliability index β (Cornell 1969). For normal distrib-
uted random variables, Pf ≈ 1 − ΦðβÞ, in which Φ = cumulative
probability of a standard normal distribution. Mathematically, Low
and Tang (2004) have shown that β can be computed using
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
   ffi
xi − μi T −1 xi − μi
β ¼ minx∈F ½R ð3Þ
σi σi

in which xi = the set of n random variables; μi = the set of mean

values; σi = the standard deviation; R = the correlation matrix; and

Fig. 6. Charts relating δ h to T=B and H e =B for given soil parameters

E50 =cu ¼ 250, cu =σv0 ¼ 0.3 and lnðSÞ: (a) B ¼ 30 m; (b) B ¼ 40 m Fig. 8. Distribution of the predicted δ h values for Bugis MRT

© ASCE 06015001-4 ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.

ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2015, 1(3): 06015001
 Table 2. Statistics of Random Variables and Values Used for Deterministic Table 3. Hypothetical Cases and Parameters Considered
Variables
Case number Parameters considered
Parameter Values considered
1 B ¼ 30 m; T ¼ 15 m; H e ¼ 18 m; lnðSÞ ¼ 7.30;
Random variables γ ¼ 16.7 kN=m3
cu =σv0 Mean ¼ 200, 300; COV ¼ 0.15 E50 =cu ¼ LNð200,30Þ; cu =σv0 ¼ LNð0.25; 0.04Þ
E50 =cu Mean ¼ 0.25, 0.29; COV ¼ 0.15 2 B ¼ 40 m; T ¼ 30 m; H e ¼ 24 m; lnðSÞ ¼ 8.18;
Deterministic variables γ ¼ 17.5 kN=m3
γðkN=m3 Þ 16.7, 17.5 E50 =cu ¼ LNð300,45Þ; cu =σv0 ¼ LNð0.29; 0.045Þ
B (m) 30, 40 3 B ¼ 30 m; T ¼ 15 m; H e ¼ 12 m; lnðSÞ ¼ 6.10;
T (m) 15 (for B ¼ 30 m), 30 (for B ¼ 40 m) γ ¼ 16.7 kN=m3
H e (m) 18 (for B ¼ 30 m), 24 (for B ¼ 40 m) E50 =cu ¼ LNð200,30Þ; cu =σv0 ¼ LNð0.25; 0.04Þ
lnðSÞ 7.30, 8.18
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Diego State University on 01/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

F = the failure region. Low (1996) has shown that a Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet can be used to perform the minimization and
determine β.
As an alternative to the FORM method, MCS is adopted for
comparison. In this study, the Microsoft Excel add-in program
@RISK (http://www.palisade.com) was used.
The Developed FORM_PR and MCS_PR Frameworks
For each MCS simulation, the number of iterations is 1,000,000
and Latin hypercube sampling is adopted. The MCS procedures
and the calculation of probability failure Pf for the case
with B ¼ 30 m, γ ¼ 16.7 kN=m3 , H e ¼ 18 m, lnðSÞ ¼ 7.30,
T ¼ 15 m, mean value of E50 =cu ¼ 200, and average value of
cu =σv0 ¼ 0.25 are illustrated in Fig. 9(a). It can be observed that
for a limiting threshold ðδ hm =He ÞT ¼ 0.5%, the probability that
this value is exceeded is 4.3%, while for ðδ hm =He ÞT ¼ 0.2%,
the Pf value can be as high as 56%. The typical FORM procedures
and the calculation of Pf are illustrated in Fig. 9(b). Cells D3:G4
are parameters which are set corresponding to the variable
distribution types. For normal distributions, cells D3:D4 corre-
spond to the mean values and cells E3:E4 correspond to the

Fig. 9. The developed reliability assessment frameworks: (a) MCS_PR; (b) FORM_PR

© ASCE 06015001-5 ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.

ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2015, 1(3): 06015001
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Diego State University on 01/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Influence of ðδ hm =H e ÞT on Pf and determination of

ðδhm =H e ÞT according to the target β SLS , Case 2
Fig. 10. Influence of ðδ hm =H e ÞT on Pf and determination of
ðδhm =H e ÞT according to the target β SLS , Case 1

standard deviations. For non-normal distributions, the non-normal

parameters are replaced by an equivalent normal ellipsoid, centered
at the equivalent normal mean. The correlation matrix R cells K3:
L4 are used to define the correlations between E50 =cu and cu =σv0 .
The dimensionless xi0 vector in cells M3:M4 contains equations for
ðxi − ui Þ=i . Cell I3 contains the estimations of the maximum wall
deflection based on the predictive PR model δ h . Cell N3 contains
the serviceability limit state function gðxÞ ¼ ðδ hm =He ÞT − δh =He .
The design point (xi values) was obtained by using the spread-
sheet’s built-in optimization routine SOLVER to minimize the cell,
by changing the xi0 values, under the constraint that gðxi Þ ¼ 0. Prior
to invoking the SOLVER search algorithm, the xi0 values in cells
M3:M4 were set equal to the mean values (0, 0), corresponding
to the mean values (200, 0.25) of the original two random variables.
Iterative numerical derivatives and directional search for design
point xi were automatically carried out in the spreadsheet. It is ob-
vious from Figs. 9(a–b) that both methods give the same Pf value
of 4.3%.

Probabilistic Analyses and Target Reliability Indices

Based on the MCS_PR and FORM_PR frameworks illustrated in
the section above, three hypothetical cases were adopted to show
the influence of the chosen threshold ðδ hm =H e ÞT values on the Pf
results and the determination of ðδhm =H e ÞT according to the target
serviceability reliability index β SLS . The assumed statistics of the
seven input variables for the three cases are listed in Table 3. The
lognormal distribution was assumed for the two random variables
since it avoids allowing negative values in modeling material prop-
Fig. 12. Influence of ðδ hm =H e ÞT on Pf and determination of
erties. Furthermore, the lognormal distribution has the advantage in
ðδhm =H e ÞT according to the target β SLS , Case 3
modeling the right-hand tail of the distribution. The right-hand tail

© ASCE 06015001-6 ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.

ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2015, 1(3): 06015001
 is important because it governs the probability of excessive defor-
mations and the reliability of the serviceability limit state (SLS)
design. Typical values for reliability index for ultimate limit state
(ULS) β ULS and the corresponding Pf have been proposed by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1997). Wang and Kulhawy (2008)
stated that although ULS design codes apply reliability principals,
serviceability limit state designs are still evaluated using conven-
tional approaches where the serviceability reliability index β SLS re-
mains unknown. That is, there are no guidelines with regard to the
target β SLS , though Wang and Kulhawy (2008) presented for the
first time a relationship between β SLS and β ULS and applied it
to augered cast-in-place piles. In this study, β SLS values of 2.0,
2.3, 2.6, and 3.1 are selected as the target reliability indices since
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Diego State University on 01/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
their corresponding Pf values are 2%, 1%, 0.5%, and 0.1%, respec-
tively, which are commonly used for serviceability considerations.
Figs. 10–12(a) show the significant influence of ðδ hm =He ÞT on
Pf . It is obvious that small limiting ðδhm =H e ÞT will result in higher
Pf since low thresholds are easily exceeded. The Pf decreases with
the increase of the ðδhm =H e ÞT values. Figs. 10–12(b) plot the
curves of the threshold ðδ hm =He ÞT values versus the target β SLS
of 2.0, 2.3, 2.6 and 3.1. It can be observed that ðδ hm =He ÞT increases
with the increase of the target β SLS , indicating that the choice of
target β SLS has a significant effect on determination of the threshold
ðδ hm =He ÞT values.
Conclusions and Discussions
This paper presents a probabilistic framework combining a recently
proposed polynomial regression model used for estimating wall
deflections induced by excavation with reliability methods MCS
and FORM to determine the probability of serviceability limit state
failure. The main work and findings include the following:
1. A series of design charts are proposed, which are potentially
useful for preliminary estimation of the maximum wall deflec-
tions for given excavation geometries, soil parameters, and
support conditions. In addition the example case of Bugis
MRT station shows that the combined use of the PR model
and MCS can be used to determine the distribution of the wall
deflections and to perform reliability analysis.
2. Probabilistic frameworks FORM_PR and MCS_PR are devel-
oped for reliability assessment of the probability of service-
ability limit state failure.
3. The influence of the threshold ðδhm =H e ÞT values on probabil-
ity of serviceability limit state failure is significant. The choice
of the threshold ðδ hm =H e ÞT values can be determined through
the target serviceability reliability index β SLS .
It should be noted that the focus of this paper is on the proposed
probabilistic framework combining a simplified empirical estima-
tion model with reliability methods to determine the probability of
serviceability limit state failure, and thus its application is limited to
© ASCE 06015001-7
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2015, 1(3): 06015001
soil deposits that can be modeled with the set of soil parameters
used in this study. In addition, the error in the maximum wall de-
flection measurements will also influence the reliability results.
Furthermore, as the hypothetical cases to build the PR model as-
sume a single layer of soft clay for numerical simulations, conse-
quently, the PR model and the proposed framework are not
applicable to excavations in heterogeneous or layered clay deposits.
References
Clough, G. W., and O’Rourke, T. D. (1990). “Construction induced
movements of in situ walls.” Proc., Design and Performance of Earth
Retaining Structures, ASCE, Reston, VA, 439–470.
Cornell, C. A. (1969). “A probability-based structural code.” ACI Struct. J.,
66(12), 974–985.
Duncan, J. M. (2000). “Factor of safety and reliability in geotechnical
engineering.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,10.1061/(ASCE)1090
-0241(2000)126:4(307), 307–316.
Fok, P., Neo, B. H., Veeresh, C., Wen, D., and Goh, K. H. (2012). “Limiting
values of retaining wall displacements and impact to the adjacent
structures.” IES J. Part A Civ. Struct. Eng., 5(3), 134–139.
Hasofer, A. M., and Lind, N. (1974). “An exact & invariant first-order
reliability format.” J. Eng. Mech., 100(1), 111–121.
Hsiao, E. C. L., Schuster, M., Juang, C. H., and Kung, T. C. (2008).
“Reliability analysis of excavation-induced ground settlement for build-
ing serviceability evaluation.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:10(1448), 1448–1458.
Long, M. (2001). “Database for retaining wall and ground movements due
to deep excavations.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2001)127:3(203), 203–224.
Low, B. K. (1996). “Practical probabilistic approach using spreadsheet.”
Proc., Uncertainty in the Geologic Environment—From Theory to
Practice, ASCE, Madison, WI, 2, 1284–1302.
Low, B. K., and Tang, W. H. (2004). “Reliability analysis using object-
oriented constrained optimization.” Struct. Saf., 26(1), 69–89.
Moormann, C. (2004). “Analysis of wall and ground movements due to
deep excavations in soft soil based on a new worldwide database.” Soils
Found., 44(1), 87–98.
Phoon, K. K., and Kulhawy, F. H. (1999). “Characterization of geotechnical
variability.” Can. Geotech. J., 36(4), 612–624.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1997). “Engineering and design: Introduc-
tion to probability and reliability methods for use in geotechnical
engineering.” Dept. of the Army, Washington, DC.
Wang, Y., and Kulhawy, F. H. (2008). “Reliability index for serviceability
limit state of building foundations.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:11(1587), 1587–1594.
Yoo, C. S., and Kim, Y. J. (1999). “Measured behaviour of in situ walls in
Korea.” Proc., 5th Int. Symp. on Field Measurements in Geomechancis,
A. A. Balkema, ed., Rotterdam, Netherlands, 211–216.
Zhang, W. G., Goh, A. T. C., and Xuan, F. (2015). “A simple prediction
model for wall deflection caused by braced excavation in clays.”
Comput. Geotech., 63, 67–72.
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.