Cite this article Research Article Keywords: computational mechanics/

Ieronymaki ES, Maniscalco JD and Corral G (2021) Paper 2000113 excavation/retaining walls
Excavation case study in Manhattan, NY with practical approach to predict ground Received 02/06/2020;
movements. Accepted 02/12/2020;
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering 174(4): 446–460, Published online 10/02/2021
https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.20.00113
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Geotechnical Engineering

Excavation case study in Manhattan,

NY with practical approach to predict
ground movements
Evangelia S. Ieronymaki PhD Gonzalo Corral ScD
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, CEO & Founder, Inteligencia Geotécnica SpA, Santiago, Chile
Manhattan College, Riverdale, NY, USA (Orcid:0000-0003-3059-3639)
(corresponding author: ieronymaki@manhattan.edu)
James D. Maniscalco MSc
Project Engineer, Underpinning & Foundation Skanska, Maspeth, NY, USA

This paper presents the case study of the staged excavation for the New York University College of Nursing building
in Manhattan, NY, supported by corner-braced secant pile walls. A commercial finite-element software was used to
simulate the complex supported excavation and predict the retaining wall deflections using simple soil models
calibrated from limited soil data. The results of the two-dimensional (2D) simulations were compared with actual wall
deflections measured by inclinometers during the excavation process. The aim of this research was to determine
whether the complex 3D characteristics of the problem could be captured and accurately simulated by equivalent 2D
models, using soil properties estimated from limited field data, which is typically the case in engineering practice.
Equivalent axial and bending stiffnesses were also estimated for simulating the square bracing system in plane-strain
conditions. The numerical analyses yielded results that correlated with the measured data which indicates that – for
this type of excavation problem – simplified plane-strain analyses can predict sufficiently small wall movements, given
that appropriate stiffness magnitudes are assigned to the earth-retaining system.

Notation is still the most reliable numerical method used by engineers

A cross-sectional area for modelling and predicting soil and structural deformations
c′ soil cohesion in deep excavations. However, the accuracy of these methods
d secant pile wall width depends on the selection of the soil properties and the appro-
E′ elastic stiffness modulus priate constitutive model, as well as proper modelling of the
Eu,r elastic stiffness modulus under unloading/reloading structural elements and selection of the material properties.
I moment of inertia
K0 lateral earth pressure coefficient at rest Many constitutive models have been developed claiming to
k spring stiffness accurately predict soil behaviour (e.g. Pestana and Whittle,
keq perpendicular axial stiffness per node 1999; Schanz et al., 1999; Whittle, 1993; Yuan and Whittle,
L length 2018) and significant research has been conducted on appro-
Lstrut length of strut priately applying these models in numerical simulations for
Lt tributary length deep excavations (Corral and Whittle, 2010; Hashash and
P point load Whittle, 1996; Khoiri and Ou, 2013; Orazalin et al., 2015;
patm atmospheric pressure Whittle et al., 2015). However, their capability relies on the
su undrained shear strength appropriate selection of the necessary input parameters, which
w distributed load are often calibrated against data from laboratory or in situ soil
z depth tests (Ieronymaki et al., 2017; Pestana et al., 2005).
γ soil unit weight The quality of soil data therefore governs the performance of
δ deflection constitutive models and thus the accuracy of the prediction.
δ° interface friction angle The most complex of these soil models requires the calibration
ν′ Poisson’s ratio of parameters that do not have immediate physical meaning
ϕ′ friction angle (e.g. parameters that describe the curvature of failure
envelopes, the small-strain non-linearity in shear, the evolution
1. Introduction of anisotropy, etc.) and are not as easily recognisable as the
Due to the high density and close proximity of buildings in well-known Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, cohesion and
overpopulated urban areas such as New York City, deep friction angle (Lade, 2005). In addition, the calibration of
excavations for building foundations require rigid earth- these parameters is based on high-quality laboratory data,
support systems to limit lateral ground movements and prevent which is a time-consuming procedure and often impractical for
settlements of the surrounding structures. Numerical analysis practising engineers, especially if only field data is available.

446
Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [06/07/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 174 Issue 4
To deal with this challenge, several researchers have proposed
inverse modelling for back-calculating soil properties obtained
from monitoring in the construction phase (Calvello and
Finno, 2004; Corral Jofré, 2013; Poeter and Hill, 1997). This
method requires monitoring of ground deformations and uses
the data measured at an early stage of excavation to optimise a
numerical model automatically and therefore predict the
ground deformations for the following stages of construction
(i.e. application of the observational method (Peck, 1969)).
This procedure can become very complicated, depending on
the type of system to be modelled, the number and type of
instrumentation and measured data, the selected constitutive
model, the number of parameters to be optimised and the
interdependence of these constitutive model parameters.
Another challenge is that, among practitioners, two-dimensional
(2D) modelling (usually plane-strain) is still preferred to 3D
analyses as it is less complex and requires much less compu-
tational time. Thus, engineers have to define the appropriate
equivalent properties for the structural elements in order to
accurately simulate 3D problems in 2D plane-strain conditions.
For the majority of typical construction projects involving deep
excavations, geotechnical engineers use (a) in situ soil testing
data to estimate soil properties, (b) simplified 2D numerical
analyses and (c) simple constitutive soil models to predict the
ground response. The aim of this paper is to suggest a direct
method for predicting lateral wall movements of complex
supported deep excavations using simple 2D FE analyses with
soil properties obtained from limited geotechnical information
(in situ test data).
The method presented in this paper is compared against a case
study on the excavation for the construction of the New York
University College of Nursing in Manhattan (Maniscalco and
Ieronymaki, 2018). In this project, a secant pile wall socketed
into rock was installed to serve as the support and water
sealing of the excavation for the construction of the 11-storey
building. The secant pile wall served not only as the temporary
support-of-excavation system, but also as the permanent
foundation walls of the basement of the building. During
construction, the walls were supported by three levels of steel
corner bracing and the lateral deflections were monitored by
inclinometers installed in two secondary piles of the wall.
This case provides various levels of complexity. Its 3D geo-
metry comprises a four-stage square excavation with an
exterior secant pile wall supported by three levels of internal
diagonal bracing and a non-symmetrical external surface
loading resulting from a pile-supported high-rise building on
one side of the excavation only. The system was modelled
using 2D plane-strain numerical analyses and the simple linear
elastic–perfectly plastic Mohr–Coulomb (M–C) soil model,
calibrated against standard penetration test (SPT) data.
The commercial finite-element (FE) program Plaxis 2D
version 2016 (Brinkgreve et al., 2007) was used to obtain
Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [06/07/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Excavation case study in Manhattan, NY
with practical approach to predict ground
movements
Ieronymaki, Maniscalco and Corral
predicted wall deflections (type C1 predictions) (Lambe, 1973).
The results were then compared against the actual measured
inclinometer data obtained during construction and against
the results of limit equilibrium basic elasto-plasticity analysis
undertaken using the commercial software Deepex (version
2017).
2. Project overview and site characteristics
2.1 General project characteristics
The case study selected for analysis is the secant pile wall
supported excavation for the construction of the 11-storey
New York University College of Nursing building in
Manhattan (Figure 1). Secant pile walls are an attractive
option for earth-retaining systems in dense urban environments
as they provide both a rigid support of the excavation and a
means of facilitating water cut-off of the excavated area when
socketed into a relatively impermeable layer (e.g. rock).
Secant pile walls consist of drilled cast-in-place overlapping
circular concrete shafts that form a continuous wall along the
excavation perimeter. Wall construction is sequenced by
initially installing unreinforced concrete ‘primary’ piles, allow-
ing the concrete to harden and then subsequently drilling over-
lapping ‘secondary’ piles between the primary ones. Typically,
a steel reinforcing cage or steel wide-flange section is encased
in the secondary piles to provide flexural rigidity to the wall
and limit lateral deflections during excavation. The continuous
concrete overlap provides wall continuity, which is crucial to
the impermeability of the wall, acts as lagging between the
steel reinforcements and adds to the overall rigidity of the
system.
An existing 25-storey reinforced concrete residential building,
supported on steel H-piles (Figure 2), is located directly
adjacent to the western side of the excavation, while an existing
six-storey brick building is located about 6.1 m south of the
site. Due to the close proximity of the adjacent high-rise build-
ing, inclinometers were installed in two secondary secant piles
of the west wall to monitor lateral deflections during construc-
tion and ensure that ground movements remained within
tolerable limits (Figure 3).
The excavation depth was approximately 13.1 m (square plan
view of 37 m
37 m) to accommodate for the construction of
the two basement levels of the new building. To provide exca-
vation support and a relatively impermeable dewatering
system, both primary and secondary secant piles (1 m diameter
and 1.543 m spacing from centre to centre) were socketed into
rock at a minimum of 0.61 m, or they were extended 0.61 m
below the bottom of the excavation if that was deeper than the
bedrock interface (Figure 4). The depth to rock generally
varied across the site; for the west wall specifically, the depth
to rock was 12–20 m, with an average depth of 16 m.
Inclinometer 1 was installed in pile 164 and inclinometer 2
447
 Geotechnical Engineering Excavation case study in Manhattan, NY
Volume 174 Issue 4 with practical approach to predict ground
movements
Ieronymaki, Maniscalco and Corral

E.
26
th
Str
eet

Approximate site limts

and outline of
secant pile wall

Adjacent 25-storey
building

e
enu
Av
1st
E.
25
th
Str
eet Adjacent six-storey
50 ft
brick building
10 m

Figure 1. Site location plan view (Map Data: Google Maps)

N
5.8 m
8.2 m

(a) (b)

Figure 2. 25-storey building adjacent to the excavation: (a) view of the structure; (b) partial plan view of the steel H-pile foundation and
cross-section of the west secant pile wall

was installed in pile 184, with depths to rock of 16.5 m and
14 m, respectively (Figure 3(b)).
As the excavation proceeded, the secant pile walls were sup-
ported by three levels of internal bracing, with diagonal corner
struts and continuous walers. The bracing system consisted of
steel wide-flange members diagonally bracing walers that
spanned the full length of the wall. For all three levels, the
bracing system layout was the same, but the member sizing
varied at each level. Figure 5(a) shows a view of the first-
level bracing system, while Figure 5(b) shows a schematic
representation and dimensions of all three levels of the system.

448
Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [06/07/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Excavation case study in Manhattan, NY
Volume 174 Issue 4 with practical approach to predict ground
movements
Ieronymaki, Maniscalco and Corral

Inclinometer 2
186
pile 184
185
184
183
182
181
180
25-storey building

179

25-storey building
178
177
176
175
174
173
172
171
170
169
168
167
166
165
164
163
162 Inclinometer 1
pile 164
(a) (b)

Figure 3. (a) Location of the 25-storey building relative to the excavation. (b) Location of the inclinometers in the west secant pile wall

25-storey building
Inclinometer 1 Inclinometer 2

A A

(a)

6
Approximate ground surface
4 elevation 5.2 m

2
0
–2
Elevation: m

–4
–6
Bottom of excavation
–8 elevation –7.8 m

–10 Actual top of rock

–12
–14
–16
–18 (b)

Figure 4. (a) Plan view and (b) elevation view (elevation A–A, looking west) of the west secant pile wall

2.2 Soil stratigraphy was determined by on-site engineers. Based on information

The ground investigation comprised a total of 12 borings. SPT obtained from the borehole logs, the groundwater table sits
N60 values were recorded and visual classification of the soil about 3.5 m below the existing ground surface and the site

449
Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [06/07/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 174 Issue 4
Lace
(a)
Figure 5. (a) First-level corner bracing at 2.7 m depth. (b) Schematic representation and dimensions of the three levels of the bracing
system
stratigraphy consists of (a) manmade fill (typically encountered
in Manhattan) consisting of granular soil with varying
amounts of construction debris, (b) alternating layers of silty
sand, sandy/silty clay and sandy/clayey silt, (c) decomposed
mica schist rock with varying amounts of clay and silt and
(d) Manhattan schist bedrock with an average total core
recovery value of 83% and an average rock quality designation
of 63%. Of the 12 borings at the site, the four closest to the
west wall were used to determine the stratigraphy at the west
side of the excavation, as shown in Figure 6.
The manmade fill layer gave SPT N60 values in the range of
4–20, with an average of 10, indicating a loose to medium
dense condition (with the higher N values most likely from
construction debris). A varved layer is present directly below
the fill and was found to consist of alternating layers of
silty/clayey sand and silty/sandy clay with SPT N60 values of
5–22, with an average of 12, indicating a stiff clay condition.
Below the varved soils, there is a decomposed rock layer with
N60 values increasing with depth, z, starting from 9 to
‘refusal’, with an average of 30. Mica schist bedrock was
encountered below the decomposed rock in three of the bore-
holes. The actual rock head encountered in the field at each
secant pile location is shown in Figure 6 and was used in the
stratification considered in the analysis.
3. Numerical modelling
3.1 Soil properties
Due to the changing stratigraphy along the west wall, a
generalised soil stratigraphy was considered in the 2D analysis;
this was taken at the centre of the adjacent 25-storey building,
between the two inclinometers, to represent average soil
450
Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [06/07/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Excavation case study in Manhattan, NY
with practical approach to predict ground
movements
Ieronymaki, Maniscalco and Corral
Waler
Excavation level Bracing system
ce
a
Br
Walers W21 × 111
First level at depth 2.7 m
and Braces W24 × 76
Second level at depth 5.2 m
Laces W18 × 50
Walers W24 × 146
Third level at depth 9.1 m Braces W27 × 114
Laces W18 × 86
(b)
conditions. It should be noted that, given the alternate layers
of sand and clay encountered in this middle section, a uniform
sandy clay layer was assumed, as shown in Figure 7.
The soil properties, shown in Table 1, were determined
exclusively from the measured SPT data, with average values
estimated from empirical correlations and typical values
suggested in the literature. The unit weights (γ) for the top
three layers (fill, clay and decomposed rock) were estimated
based on average values suggested by Hough (1969). More
specifically, the fill unit weight was taken as the average dry
unit weight of a well-graded gravel, sand, silt and clay soil
(γ = 18.8 kN/m3). The unit weight of the clay layer (represent-
ing the varved deposit of sand, silt and clay) was taken as the
average saturated unit weight of silty sand, sandy clay and
clayey silt (γ = 18 kN/m3). The decomposed rock layer was
also assumed to be equivalent to well-graded gravel, with
an average saturated unit weight of γ = 22 kN/m3. Finally,
γ = 27.5 kN/m3 for mica schist (Zhang et al., 2011) was
selected for the bedrock.
The drained elastic Young’s moduli (E′) were selected for all
soil layers, based on empirical correlations with the SPT values
available in the literature. A constant value of E′ was assigned
to the fill layer, based on Equation 1a (Mitchell and Gardner,
1975) assuming a constant, C = 12 (suggested for gravelly sand)
and an average N60 = 10. The Young’s modulus of the clay
layer was estimated from Equations 1a and 1b for N60 values
varying with depth, z, between 4 and 23 (Figure 6) and
assuming C = 3, as suggested for clayey/silty soils. Similarly, for
the decomposed rock with N60 varying with depth between 9
and 84, E′ was estimated by averaging the values computed
from Equations 1 and 2 (Bowles, 1996) for gravelly sand (with
 Geotechnical Engineering Excavation case study in Manhattan, NY
Volume 174 Issue 4 with practical approach to predict ground
movements
Ieronymaki, Maniscalco and Corral

Inclinometer 1 Stratification Inclinometer 2

location mid-building location
LB-5 B-1 LB-7 B-2
6
15 12
4 6
20 7 8
4 4 16 16 6
8 N60 value
5 4
11
5
(typ.)
11
2
7 8 18 Ref.

0
13 15 22 9

–2 13 11 9 15

14 14 13
–4 11
Elevation: m

15 23 28 23
–6
25 24 35 Ref.

–8 29 29 41

–10 40 28

46
–12
84
Actual top
of rock
–14

–16

–18

Decomposed
Fill Sand Clay Rock
rock

Figure 6. Soil stratigraphy and location of inclinometers on the west secant pile wall

C = 12) and overconsolidated sand soils, respectively. Finally, a average N60 = 10. For the decomposed rock with
constant value of E′ = 11.4 GPa, representative for mica schist, average N60 = 30, an average value of ϕ′ = 38° was selected, as
was assigned to the bedrock, as suggested by Zhang et al. suggested by Peck et al. (1974). Undrained strength properties
(2011). These results are also shown in Table 1. were assigned to the clay layer, with ϕ′ = 0° and undrained
shear strength (su) computed using Equation 4 (Hara et al.,
1a: E 0 ðkPaÞ ¼ 100 CðN60 þ 6Þ for N60  15 1974), for N60 values between 4 and 23. Finally, typical values
of Poisson’s ratios were assigned for each soil layer (Bowles,
1996), while K0 values (lateral earth pressure coefficient at rest)
were computed using the classic Jaky (1944) equation
1b: E 0 ðkPaÞ ¼ 4000 þ 100 CðN60  6Þ for N60 . 15
(Equation 5). These values are also listed in Table 1.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3: ϕ¼ 20 ðN60 Þ þ 20
2: E 0 ðkPaÞ ¼ 2900N60

4: su =patm ¼ 0:29ðN60 Þ0:72

The friction angles (ϕ′) were also defined from empirical corre-
lations using average SPT values. More specifically, the friction
angle for the fill layer was estimated as ϕ′ = 32°, which is
the average of 30° suggested by Peck et al. (1974) and 34° com- 5: K0 ¼ 1  sin ϕ0
puted using Equation 3 (Hatanaka and Uchida, 1996) for an

451
Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [06/07/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Excavation case study in Manhattan, NY
Volume 174 Issue 4 with practical approach to predict ground
movements
Ieronymaki, Maniscalco and Corral

et al., 1999; Duc et al., 2019). Researchers have shown that the
3.4 m
3m

Fill unloading/reloading stiffness (Eu,r) can be between two and

five times the loading stiffness (E50). However, the proposed
soil model assumes inherent isotropy. To impose induced
mechanical anisotropy, increased stiffnesses were manually
4.7 m

Clay
assigned: Eu,r = 3E ′ to the soil layers that entered unloading/
reloading conditions as the excavation proceeded (i.e. fill, clay
and decomposed Rock; Table 1). More specifically, increased
stiffness was assigned in stage 1 only to the fill layer, in stages
2 and 3 to both the fill and clay layers, and in stage 4 to all
6.9 m

Decomposed top three layers. It should be noted that increased stiffness was
rock
assigned to the entire soil layer with the condition that the
excavation level was greater in depth than half the height of
the corresponding layer.

Rock 3.2 Modelling of structural elements

One of the biggest challenges was to simulate the various struc-
tural components of the square 3D system to a plane-strain
2D model. These structures included the secant pile wall
Figure 7. Average soil stratigraphy between the two around the excavation, the three levels of corner-braced struts
inclinometers and the adjacent 25-storey building, supported on H-piles.

3.2.1 Secant pile wall

In the numerical analyses, the bedrock was modelled as linear
elastic, while the linear elastic–perfectly plastic M–C soil
model was used for the top three soil layers, as is widely used
in engineering practice. The fill and decomposed rock were
assumed drained, while the clay layer was modelled as
undrained (undrained B). The input parameters selected for
the linear elastic and M–C soil models are summarised in
Table 1. One of the limitations of the M–C model is that it
cannot capture the small-strain non-linear stiffness that more
advanced soil models can (hardening soil model, Modified
CamClay, MIT-S1, etc.), but the latter require many more
input parameters that are obtained from project-specific lab-
oratory testing.
It has been shown that soil stiffness is higher in the
unload/reload path than in loading (Brinkgreve, 2005; Schanz
Plate elements were used to model the secant pile wall in
Plaxis, using an equivalent elastic stiffness of the composite
wall (i.e. steel core beam in secondary piles and concrete
‘lagging’ in between). The overall wall moment of inertia was
calculated per unit length based on the geometry of the secant
pile wall. A composite modulus of elasticity was computed to
account for the presence of the steel beam by taking a
weighted average of each material’s contribution to the stiffness
(i.e. concrete and steel). Thus, the elastic modulus used was
increased from the elastic modulus of concrete alone. The
equivalent cross-section of the wall is shown in Figure 8 and
the structural properties of the wall are summarised in Table 2.
Finally, interface elements were placed on both sides of the
wall with the interface friction angle (δ°) between the soil and
the concrete wall equal to two-thirds the friction angle of the
soil (δ° = 2/3 ϕ′).

Table 1. Soil properties and input parameters for the linear elastic and M–C soil models
Fill Decomposed rock Clay Rock

M-C (drained) soil model M-C (undrained B) soil model Linear elastic soil model

Range of N60 4–20 9–84 4–23 —

Average N60 10 30 13 —
γ: kN/m3 18.8 22 18 27.5
E0 : MPa 19 74 + 6.3z 7.6 + 0.5z 11 400
Eu,r: MPa 57 222 + 19z 22.8 + 1.5z —
v0 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2
c0 : MPa 0.0 0.0 — —
ϕ0 : degrees 32 38 — —
K0 1 − sinϕ 1 1
su: kPa — — 42 + 3z —

452
Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [06/07/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 174 Issue 4
Ixx_total = 9 433 844 cm4 EC = 34 GPa
Atotal = 13 716 cm2
W24 × 131
Ixx = 167 325 cm4
ES = 200 GPa
Figure 8. Equivalent composite cross-section of the secant pile wall as modelled in Plaxis 2D
Table 2. Structural properties of secant pile wall
Structural type Plate
Axial stiffness, EA : MN/m 33 405
Bending stiffness, EI: MN·m2/m 2 260 148
Width, d: m 0.9
Poisson’s ratio, ν0 0.15
3.2.2 Bracing system
The bracing system consisted of three levels of internal corner
bracing continuous walers supported by diagonal wide-flange
corner struts (Figure 5). The member layout was the same for
each bracing level, but the member sizing varied per level. In
order to model the support system in 2D FE analyses, each
member was resolved into an equivalent spring acting perpen-
dicular to the wall (Figure 9(a)) using Plaxis elastic fixed-end
anchor elements. The continuous nature of the bracing support
along the wall was incorporated in the model by inputting the
tributary spacing of each strut (Lspacing) to provide an average
strut stiffness per unit length of the secant wall. It is noted that
beam elements could alternatively be used for representing the
support system.
The average strut stiffness was calculated by considering an
external distributed unit load (w) acting along the perimeter of
the frame (Figure 9(b)) for each bracing level. This distributed
load was resolved into perpendicular point loads at each node
(P), where the diagonal struts connect to the wall. Hence,
the resulting perpendicular axial stiffness per node (keq) was
estimated by the corresponding perpendicular deflection (δ)
caused by the point load at each node. The frame was loaded
equally on all sides and thus the bracing system was under
compression throughout (Figure 9(c)). This is important to
consider when computing the axial strut stiffness, as the
required length has to be half the actual length of the strut
(Lstrut). Thus, half the axial deflection was computed at each
end of the strut as the point of zero axial deflection occurs in
Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [06/07/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Excavation case study in Manhattan, NY
with practical approach to predict ground
movements
Ieronymaki, Maniscalco and Corral
Ixx_total = 9 433 844 cm4
Atotal = 13 716 cm2
Ecomp = 37 GPa
the middle of the member. Using the full strut length in
this calculation would decrease the member’s perpendicular
stiffness contribution on the wall by half.
Another important factor to consider when determining
the overall perpendicular stiffness at a node is the axial
flexibility of the waler supporting the diagonal struts. As
shown by the red hatching (representing axial load) in
Figure 9(c), the walers were axially compressed by the axial
loading of the diagonal struts. To determine the perpendicular
stiffness provided by the diagonal struts accurately, the spring
of the waler support has to be incorporated at each node as
an additional spring in series (Figure 9(a) – springs at nodes B,
C and D). Considering the additional waler support spring
accurately reduces the overall stiffness provided by each strut
and takes into account the bracing system compressing in on
itself. Ignoring this axial waler spring results in doubling the
calculated stiffness of the bracing for each level.
A representative hand calculation of the spring stiffness
(equivalent axial strut stiffness) at node B′ (keq-B′) is explained
below. The spring stiffness keq-B′ (Figure 9(a)) was computed
using Equation 6a, where PB′ is the point load and δB′ is the
corresponding axial deflection at node B′ . The point load PB
′ = wB′Lt, where wB′ is the unit distributed load corresponding
to node B′ and Lt is its tributary length. The axial deflection
δB′ was computed using Equation 6b, in which δBB′ is the
perpendicular deflection component of strut BB′ at node B′,
calculated using half the length of the strut (Lstrut,BB′) as it is
symmetrically loaded from both sides, and δBC, δCD and δDD
are the axial waler deflections of spans BC, CD and DD,
respectively (Equation 6c). It is noted that the axial waler
deflection of span DD was calculated using half the length of
the span because of load symmetry. The same procedure was
followed for estimating the spring equivalent axial stiffnesses
of nodes C′ and D′ (keq-C′ and keq-D′, respectively). Finally,
the overall equivalent axial stiffness of each strut level in the
453
 Geotechnical Engineering Excavation case study in Manhattan, NY
Volume 174 Issue 4 with practical approach to predict ground
movements
Ieronymaki, Maniscalco and Corral

25-storey building Y
Lt P P P P P P
s
re
P

w
A B' C' D' D' C' B' A

X
B'
tB
ru

keq-B'
st
L

B Z
P B
LBC
5°
s4

w
co
P/

C C
=

LCD
s
re
P

D D
LDD
2

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 9. (a) Schematic representation of symmetric bracing layout showing connection types at each node and the input parameters for
estimating the strut axial stiffness on one node (node B0 representatively). (b) 3D modelling of support system in Staad software. (c)
Bracing system axial load magnitude graph (Staad output) and visualisation of spring supports for one side of secant wall

2D numerical model (EA in Table 3) is the average of keq-B′, P= cos 45° P

δB0 ¼ þ
keq-C′ and keq-D′. ½AEstrut;BB0 cos ð45°Þ=ðLstrut;BB0 =2Þ ðAEÞBC =LBC
6c:
2P 3P
þ þ
PB0 ðAEÞCD =LCD ðAEÞDD =ðLDD =2Þ
6a: keqB0 ¼
δB0

To confirm the stiffness computed based on classical structural

analysis equations, the commercial structural engineering soft-
6b: δB0 ¼ δBB0 þ δBC þ δCD þ δDD ware Staad was used to model the bracing system and estimate
its stiffness. The secant pile wall corners were considered to be
rigidly connected to their corresponding perpendicular sections
and did not apply any axial load to the walers (Figure 9(c)).
Additionally, the corner nodes in the Staad analysis allowed
Table 3. Structural properties of the bracing system the waler sections to deform axially but prevented perpendicu-
Strut: levels 1 and 2 Strut: level 3 lar movement in the direction of loading. These methods of
calculation (Staad analysis and hand calculations) yielded
Structure type FE anchor
overall bracing stiffness results at each node within 5% of each
Axial stiffness, EA: MN/m 120 168.8
Spacing, Lspacing: m 4.85 4.85 other. The structural properties of the bracing system are
summarised in Table 3.

454
Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [06/07/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Excavation case study in Manhattan, NY
Volume 174 Issue 4 with practical approach to predict ground
movements
Ieronymaki, Maniscalco and Corral

N
5.8 m
8.2 m

Figure 10. Pile group layout from project contract drawings and representation in FE analysis as embedded beam row

3.2.3 Adjacent 25-storey pile-supported building
Limited information on the adjacent 25-storey building and its
foundations was available. Test pits excavated adjacent to the
building during the site investigation revealed that the building
was supported by groups of H-piles (the bottom of the base-
ment being 4 m below the existing ground surface). The piles
were described as HP10
57 wide-flange beams with a 26 cm
web and a flange width of 26 cm. H-piles are typically used in
New York City as end bearing piles; they were thus assumed
to be bearing on rock.
Based on the available drawings (Figure 10), the piles were
installed in groups of eight, in a square formation. To incor-
porate their effect in the numerical analyses, the pile groups
were modelled in Plaxis 2D using embedded beam row
elements that allow the soil to flow around them (Figure 10).
The axial and bending stiffness of the pile group was estimated
using the properties of an HP10
57 beam and the geometry
was determined from the foundation layout in the contract
drawings. The structural properties of the pile foundation
system are shown in Table 4.
The length of the building perpendicular to the secant pile
wall was estimated from Google Maps images as 45.4 m and
the out-of-plane spacing of the pile group was assumed to be
constant. The pile groups were spaced every 6.4 m and were
connected to a rigid plate element by a hinged top connection
and extended to bedrock. It was assumed that all pile loads
were transferred to the bedrock. Finally, the building load was
calculated assuming a 10 kPa areal load per floor, for 25
floors plus roof and basement.
4. Interpretation of results
The excavation sequence was divided into four stages: a 3.4 m
cut with the wall behaving as a cantilever (stage 1), a 5.8 m cut
with braces at 2.7 m depth (stage 2), a 9.8 m cut with braces at
2.7 m and 5.2 m (stage 3) and, finally, a 13.1 m cut with
bracing at 2.7 m, 5.2 m and 9.1 m depth (stage 4). Figure 11
shows the excavation sequence in stages, as it was modelled in
the two commercial software programs, Plaxis 2D and Deepex.
The excavation process was completed in 75 days, while there
were monitoring data of horizontal movements available for
another 45 days after completion of the excavation (total avail-
able monitoring data for 120 days).

The 25-storey building, with its basement and piles embedded

Table 4. Structural properties of H-pile foundation system of to bedrock are shown on the left of the retaining wall, while the
adjacent building locations of the bracing levels are shown with arrows on the
Structure type FE embedded beam row right side of the wall. It has to be mentioned that the building
Modulus of elasticity, E : MPa 7464 was modelled only in Plaxis 2D. The excavation levels were con-
Unit weight, γ: kN/m3 21.4 sidered to be 0.61 m below each bracing level. It is important to
Area, A: m2 2.3
note that, for excavation stages below the water level, the water
Moment of inertia, I: cm4 5007
Spacing, Lspacing: m 4.3 table was drawn down 0.61 m below the excavation level to
account for the sequential dewatering of the excavation.

455
Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [06/07/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 174 Issue 4
Stage 0: Stage 1:
secant wall installed 3.4 m cantilever 5.8 m excavation
Figure 11. Excavation sequence in stages as modelled in numerical simulations
4.1 Plaxis analyses
Figure 12 shows the geometric model of the full-scale
excavation at the final stage 13.1 m cut (with three bracing
levels): the high-rise building is adjacent to the west wall with its
4 m basement and the assumed pile foundation layout. The
lateral movement data available from the inclinometers were
compared with the Plaxis predictions at three excavation levels:
5.8 m cut with one bracing system (Figure 13(a)), 9.8 m cut
with two bracing systems (Figure13(b)) and 13.1 m cut with
three bracing systems (Figure13(c)). Figure 13 shows the inclin-
ometer data up to completion of the last stage of the excavation,
which lasted for 75 days. Given the short duration of the exca-
vation process, the numerical analyses were performed assuming
undrained conditions. Although long-term horizontal movement
data were not available, the last stage of the excavation (stage 4
in Figure 11) was further simulated, ignoring the undrained
Superstructure load
Piles
Figure 12. Plaxis 2D FE geometric model for the excavation at 13.1 m
456
Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [06/07/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Excavation case study in Manhattan, NY
with practical approach to predict ground
movements
Ieronymaki, Maniscalco and Corral
Stage 2: Stage 3: Stage 4:
9.8 m excavation 13.1 m excavation
behaviour, to account for potential drainage during the 45 days
after completion of the excavation. Figure 14(a)) compares the
wall deflections immediately after the excavation completion
with those 45 days later (Figure 14(b)). In both cases the calcu-
lated deflections matched the inclinometer data both in terms of
shape and magnitude.
Comparing the west wall deflections with the east side of the
box (where there is no building surcharge), the east-side move-
ments were much larger (Figure 15). This can be considered
counter-intuitive given that the building essentially applies
additional surcharge on the horizontal stresses; however, the
building vertical load is transferred down to bedrock through
its pile foundation system. In addition, the pile groups serve as
soil reinforcement, preventing lateral ground movements
through their passive resistance. Capturing this reduction in
Fill
Clay
Decomposed rock
Rock
 Geotechnical Engineering Excavation case study in Manhattan, NY
Volume 174 Issue 4 with practical approach to predict ground
movements
Ieronymaki, Maniscalco and Corral

Plaxis prediction Inclinometer 1 Inclinometer 2

0
Fill Fill Fill
2

4
Clay Clay Clay
6
Depth: m

10 Decomposed Decomposed
rock rock
12
Decomposed
14 rock

16 Rock Rock Rock

18
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Horizontal displacement: cm Horizontal displacement: cm Horizontal displacement: cm
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 13. Comparison of measured and predicted horizontal wall movements (west-side wall) using Plaxis 2D FE analyses for excavations
of: (a) 5.8 m; (b) 9.8 m; (c) 13.1 m

Inclinometer 1 Inclinometer 1
Inclinometer 2 Inclinometer 2
Plaxis Plaxis (undrained behaviour ignored)

0
Fill Fill
2

4
Clay Clay
6
Depth: m

10

12
Decomposed Decomposed
14 rock rock

16 Rock Rock

18
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Horizontal displacement: cm Horizontal displacement: cm
(a) (b)

Figure 14. Comparison of measured and predicted wall deflections using Plaxis 2D FE analyses: (a) immediately after excavation
completion (undrained behaviour); (b) 45 days excavation completion (ignoring undrained behaviour)

horizontal loading on the west wall is essential in generating 4.2 Deepex analyses
realistic deflections, which were also verified by the inclin- In order to make a fast and efficient comparison of the wall
ometer data. movements predicted by the two commercial software

457
Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [06/07/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Excavation case study in Manhattan, NY
Volume 174 Issue 4 with practical approach to predict ground
movements
Ieronymaki, Maniscalco and Corral

East side (no adjacent building)

West side (with adjacent building)
0

2 Fill Fill Fill

4
Clay Clay Clay
6
Depth: m

10
Decomposed Decomposed
rock rock
12
Decomposed
14 rock

16 Rock Rock Rock

18
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Horizontal displacement: cm Horizontal displacement: cm Horizontal displacement: cm
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 15. Comparison of predicted horizontal wall movements using Plaxis 2D FE analyses for the west-side wall (with building) and the
east-side wall (no building) for excavations of: (a) 5.8 m; (b) 9.8 m; (c) 13.1 m

programs, a full 2D section was modelled using Deepex soft-
ware (version 2017), as shown the representation in Figure 16.
Deepex is based on limit equilibrium and basic elasto-
plasticity, while the computational time for the analyses is
minimal (a few minutes). The elasto-plastic analyses are con-
ducted using spring models but with the flexibility of varying
the stiffness of the soil layers in different directions (i.e. loading,
unloading, pressure-dependent etc.).
All the soil and structure properties applied in the Deepex ana-
lyses were equivalent to those assumed in the Plaxis 2D analyses;
the same construction sequence was also used. Figure 17 shows
a comparison of the east-side wall deflections obtained using
Plaxis and Deepex, neglecting the neighbouring 25-storey build-
ing. The figures show that both wall movements were almost
identical for the three excavation stages. To some extent, this is
an important outcome as the limit equilibrium results indepen-
dently validate the suggested FE analysis procedure.
5. Conclusions
This article has presented a procedure to simulate complex 3D
deep supported excavations, using simple numerical models

Fill

Clay

Decomposed
rock

Rock

Figure 16. Deepex geometric model for the excavation at 13.1 m

458
Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [06/07/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 174 Issue 4
East side - no building
0
2 Fill
4
Clay
6
Depth: m
10 Decomposed
rock
12
14
16 Rock
18
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Horizontal displacement: cm
(a)
Figure 17. East-side wall deflections (no building in place) predicted using Plaxis 2D and compared with Deepex predictions for
excavations of: (a) 5.8 m, (b) 9.8 m and (c) 13.1 m
with plane-strain conditions, and accurately predict retaining
wall deflections. The case of the staged excavation of the
New York University College of Nursing building in
Manhattan was used in the current analyses. This problem
involved several levels of complexity that needed to be care-
fully modelled in plane-strain conditions. These complexities
included the square geometry of the excavation, the secant pile
walls with three levels of corner bracing and the asymmetry of
the project, with a high-rise building on the west side sup-
ported on piles founded on bedrock.
An additional difficulty encountered was the lack of infor-
mation about the soil properties, with the only available
data from in situ SPT tests. The soil properties in the current
study were thus defined based on empirical correlations with
SPT data and typical values used in past projects in the
vicinity.
For the soil properties estimated from the SPT data, the simple
(and widely used in practice) linear elastic M–C soil model was
adopted in the numerical analyses. While the M–C model is
generally adequate for this type of project, more advanced soil
models can account for the stiffer behaviour of soils under
unloading/reloading conditions, which is essential for this
problem. Given that the M–C model does not allow for
varying stiffness, it was manually induced in these analyses by
assigning to the soil layers entering the unloading/reloading
condition a Young’s modulus three times higher than the
initial value as excavation proceeded.
Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [06/07/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Excavation case study in Manhattan, NY
with practical approach to predict ground
movements
Ieronymaki, Maniscalco and Corral
Plaxis results
Deepex results
Fill Fill
Clay Clay
Decomposed
rock
Decomposed
rock
Rock Rock
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Horizontal displacement: cm Horizontal displacement: cm
(b) (c)
Another key element that had to be carefully modelled was the
foundation of the high-rise building. It was found from
the numerical analyses that the fact that the piles were founded
on rock minimised the induced horizontal stress that the
building applied on the retaining wall, thus reducing its lateral
movement. Finally, the last important element that had to be
correctly modelled in the numerical analyses was the bracing
system. More specifically, the bracing system was simulated
as fixed-end anchors or cross-lots, with equivalent stiffness
to that of the corner braces. Assigning the appropriate
connection type at the nodes of each strut of the bracing
system was a key component for accurate estimation of the
bracing stiffness. A structural analysis with unit loading was
conducted to confirm the equivalent stiffness for each level of
support.
When arching effects, anisotropic and non-homogeneous
properties are present, and one of the dimensions is compar-
able in magnitude to the others (e.g. box excavation), it is
expected that the ground behaviour of a complex 3D exca-
vation problem cannot be fully captured in a 2D plane-strain
condition. Nevertheless, this study suggested a practical
approach to simplify that complexity, assuming proper stiff-
nesses for the support system and the soil layers, especially
when there is limited soil testing data available.
The results from the plane-strain FE analyses using Plaxis 2D
were in good agreement with the measured wall deflections.
This indicates that complex 3D problems of braced deep
459
 Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 174 Issue 4
excavations can be reasonably portrayed using simple 2D
models with soil property correlations readily available to
engineers in practice and the well-known and widely used M–
C soil model. However, to create an adequately representative
numerical model that will produce accurate predictions it is
important to understand the physical effect of each component
of the system, avoid over-simplifying the problem and accu-
rately model the involved structural systems in two dimensions.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Underpinning and
Foundation Skanska and Laquila Group, Inc. for providing
construction information and Langan Engineering for provid-
ing soil investigation data.
REFERENCES
Bowles LE (1996) Foundation Analysis and Design. McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY, USA.
Brinkgreve RB (2005) Selection of soil models and parameters for
geotechnical engineering application. In Soil Constitutive Models:
Evaluation, Selection, and Calibration (Yamamuro JA and Kaliakin
VN (eds). ASCE, Reston, VA, USA, GSP 128, pp. 69–98.
Brinkgreve RBJ, Broere W and Waterman D (2007) Plaxis 2D, V8. Delft
University of Technology & Plaxis BV, Delft, the Netherlands.
Calvello M and Finno RJ (2004) Selecting parameters to optimize in
model calibration by inverse analysis. Computers and Geotechnics
31(5): 410–424.
Corral G and Whittle AJ (2010) Re-analysis of deep excavation collapse
using a generalized effective stress soil model. In Proceedings of
Earth Retention Conference. American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, VA, USA, vol. 3, pp. 720–731.
Corral Jofré GA (2013) Methodology for Updating Numerical
Predictions of Excavation Performance. Doctoral dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Duc TN, Vo P and Thi TT (2019) Determination of unloading–reloading
modulus and exponent parameters (m) for hardening soil model of
soft soil in Ho Chi Minh city. In Proceedings of International
Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering and Architecture
(Reddy JN, Wang CM, Luong VH and Le AT (eds)), Springer
Nature, Singapore, pp. 677–689
Hara A, Ohta T, Niwa M, Tanaka S and Banno T (1974) Shear modulus
and shear strength of cohesive soils. Soils and Foundations 14(3):
1–12.
Hashash YM and Whittle AJ (1996) Ground movement prediction for
deep excavations in soft clay. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
122(6): 474–486.
Hatanaka M and Uchida A (1996) Empirical correlation between
penetration resistance and internal friction angle of sandy soils.
Soils and Foundations 36(4): 1–9.
Hough BK (1969) Basic Soils Engineering, 2nd edn. Ronald Press,
New York, NY, USA.
Ieronymaki ES, Whittle AJ and Sureda DS (2017) Interpretation of
free-field ground movements caused by mechanized tunnel
construction. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 143(4): 04016114.
Jaky J (1944) The coefficient of earth pressure at rest. Journal of the
Society of Hungarian Architects and Engineers 78(22): 355–358.
Khoiri M and Ou CY (2013) Evaluation of deformation parameter for
deep excavation in sand through case histories. Computers and
Geotechnics 47: 57–67.
Lade PV (2005) Overview of constitutive models for soils. In
GeoFrontiers 2005: Calibration of Constitutive Models
460
Downloaded by [ University of Hong Kong] on [06/07/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Excavation case study in Manhattan, NY
with practical approach to predict ground
movements
Ieronymaki, Maniscalco and Corral
(Yamamuro JA and Kaliakin VN (eds). ASCE, Reston, VA, USA,
GSP 139, pp. 1–34.
Lambe TW (1973) Predictions in soil engineering. Géotechnique 23(2):
151–202, https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1973.23.2.151.
Maniscalco JD and Ieronymaki ES (2018) Performance and analysis of a
braced secant pile wall for a multistory building in Manhattan,
NY. In Proceedings of DFI-EFFC International Conference on
Deep Foundations and Ground Improvement, Rome, Italy. Deep
Foundation Institute, Hawthorne, NJ, USA, article no. 3013.
Mitchell JK and Gardner WS (1975) In situ measurement of volume
change characteristics. In Proceedings of the ASCE Geotechnical
Specialty Conference on In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties.
ASCE, Reston, VA, USA, p. 279–345.
Orazalin ZY, Whittle AJ and Olsen MB (2015) Three-dimensional
analyses of excavation support system for the Stata Center
basement on the MIT campus. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 141(7): 05015001.
Peck RB (1969) Advantages and limitations of the observational
method in applied soil mechanics. Géotechnique 19(2): 171–187,
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1969.19.2.171.
Peck RB, Hanson WE and Thornburn TH (1974) Foundation Engineering.
Wiley, New York, NY, USA.
Pestana JM and Whittle AJ (1999) Formulation of a unified constitutive
model for clays and sands. International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 23(12): 1215–1243.
Pestana JM, Nikolinakou M and Whittle AJ (2005) Selection of material
parameters for sands using the MIT-S1 model. In Soil Constitutive
Models: Evaluation, Selection, and Calibration (Yamamuro JA and
Kaliakin VN (eds). ASCE, Reston, VA, USA, GSP 128,
pp. 425–439.
Poeter EP and Hill MC (1997) Inverse models: a necessary next step in
ground-water modeling. Groundwater 35(2): 250–260.
Schanz T, Vermeer PA and Bonnier PG (1999) The hardening soil model:
formulation and verification. In Beyond 2000 in Computational
Geotechnics (Brinkgreve RB (ed.)). Balkema, Rotterdam, the
Netherlands. pp. 281–296.
Whittle AJ (1993) Evaluation of a constitutive model for
overconsolidated clays. Géotechnique 43(2): 289–313, https://doi.
org/10.1680/geot.1993.43.2.289.
Whittle AJ, Corral G, Jen LC and Rawnsley RP (2015) Prediction and
performance of deep excavations for courthouse station, Boston.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
141(4): 23.
Yuan Y and Whittle AJ (2018) A novel elasto-viscoplastic formulation
for compression behaviour of clays. Géotechnique 68(12): 1044–1055.
Zhang XP, Wong LNY, Wang SJ and Han GY (2011) Engineering properties
of quartz mica schist. Engineering Geology 121(3): 135–149.
How can you contribute?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial board, it will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions from the
civil engineering profession (and allied disciplines).
Information about how to submit your paper online
is available at www.icevirtuallibrary.com/page/authors,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.