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

net/publication/338117009

DESIGN OF DEEP VERTICAL CIRCULAR DIAPHRAGM WALL USING FINITE

ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Conference Paper · December 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 3,801

2 authors:

Sharath Chandra Suresh Kumar Gupta Pasupula

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc Institution of civil engineer UK
2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sharath Chandra on 27 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DESIGN OF DEEP VERTICAL CIRCULAR DIAPHRAGM WALL USING FINITE
ELEMENT ANALYSIS
Sharath C. Kudumula, Sr. Geotechnical Engineer, Jacobs, Hyderabad, India, +9140-66162475,
sharath.kudumula@Jacobs.com
Suresh Kumar Gupta. P, Lead Geotechnical Engineer, Jacobs, Hyderabad, India, +9140-66162449,
suresh.gupta@jacobs.com
ABSTRACT
Diaphragm walls are often used as earth retention support system for enabling excavations especially when
the water table is at shallow depth. Circular diaphragm walls can be used for deep shafts because of their
ability to generate hoop forces and thereby eliminating the necessity of struts or anchors. Earth pressure
acting on circular retention system is expected to be less when compared with plane strain retention systems
because of three-dimensional soil arching effect. This paper presents analysis and design of deep vertical
circular diaphragm wall shaft. A two-dimensional axisymmetric finite element analysis is carried out for
both serviceability (SLS) and ultimate limit state (ULS) as per Eurocode-7 design approach. The
performance of circular diaphragm wall shaft was investigated by simulating various construction stages of
excavation and dewatering. The earth pressures obtained from circular axisymmetric finite element analysis
are compared with available analytical solutions and are found be in reasonable agreement.

Keywords: axisymmetric, finite element analysis, circular diaphragm wall.

INTRODUCTION
With the change in life style and employment opportunities resulted rapid growth of urbanization
throughout world. But, the habitable land is fixed, and humans started using the effective way by either
high raised or deep excavated structures. Deep excavations are often carried out for optimum utilization of
underground space especially for water and sewerage structures. Diaphragm walls are often used as
retention support systems for enabling excavations. Evaluation of earth pressure is one of the important
aspects for the design of earth retention systems. Conventional earth pressure theories like Rankine’s (1857)
or Coulomb’s (1773) are useful for plane strain conditions only. Historically, study of the lateral earth
pressure was focused on plane strain conditions. Previous studies on earth pressure against non-plane strain
sections like circular shaft include Terzaghi (1943), Berezantzev (1958), Prater (1977) etc. which are
based on limit equilibrium methods or slip line solutions. Also, most of the design standards or guidelines
such as Eurocode or CIRIA 760 guidelines used in engineering practice do not adequately address the earth
pressure calculation for retaining systems other than plane strain.

Lateral earth pressure acting on circular retaining walls generate hoop forces as internal reactions. The hoop
forces generated all around the wall yield less bending moment and shear forces in wall due to lateral earth
pressure when compared with plane strain condition and thereby eliminating the necessity of struts or
anchors. In addition, circular retention systems have reduced earth pressures due to three-dimensional soil
arching effect (Kim et al. 2013). Arching is a process of rearrangement of stresses around a region of soil
mass, which then becomes subject of lower stress (Paik and Salgado, 2003).

This paper discusses the design and analysis method adopted for circular diaphragm wall shaft for one of
the projects of Jacobs Engineering. The design generally involves, verification of diaphragm wall for
ultimate Limits state (ULS) and Serviceability limit sate (SLS) conditions. Based on schedule of the project,
availability of machinery and local experience of contractors, diaphragm wall was selected as suitable earth

28 © 2019 Deep Foundations Institute

retention support system. The earth pressures based on axisymmetric finite element analysis were compared
with available theoretical solution of Kim et al. (2013) to verify and demonstrate the effectiveness of finite
element analysis of circular diaphragm walls.

SITE CONDITIONS AND SOIL PROPERTIES

Subsurface Stratigraphy
Based on the available site investigation data and laboratory test results, the classification of soil and rock
was arrived as per BS 5930 and local practice. The subsurface stratigraphy consists of reclaimed fill layer
of approximately 15.0m thick from EGL followed by a soft marine clay layer with thickness of 7.0m. The
Marine clay layer is followed by S(VI) grade residual soil formation (stiff silt) of 20.0 m thickness. S(VI)
grade soil is underlain by completely weathered S(V) grade rock formation of maximum thickness 46.0 m
mainly in the form of sandy silt. The S(V) grade rock is resting on medium strong to strong, moderately
weathered S(III) grade formation of Sandstone with interbedded Siltstone with traces of S(IV) grade rock
found in few boreholes. Sandstone and siltstone were encountered independently and interbedded with each
other at different depths in different boreholes. The completely weathered S(IV) grade rock traces are
ignored and are considered as completely weathered S(V) grade rock formation for conservative ground
model. Based on the information revealed from all the boreholes and previous experience, a design ground
model is established for the design of diaphragm walls of circular shaft. The ground water is observed at a
depth of 2.0 m from EGL and design ground water level considered at EGL.

Soil Properties
Table 1 presents the characteristic design parameters of soils/rock used in the present axisymmetric finite
element analysis. Effective shear strength parameters are used for drained analysis. The shear strength
parameters are derived from available laboratory and field test data with due consideration being given to
local experience as well.

Table 1 Characteristic Design Parameters of Soil and Rock

Effective shear strength

Undrained shear Youngs modulus
Thickness parameters
Soil /Rock type strength (Su, Eu (MPa)
(m) Cohesion Friction kPa) (undrained)
(kPa) angle (°)

Reclaimed Fill 15.0 0 30 - 10

Marine clay 7.0 1 22 27 5.5
S(VI) 20.0 3 30 - 47
S(V) 46.0 10 30 - 88
S(III) 97.0 120 35 - 200

29
DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
The diaphragm wall is designed for a maximum depth of excavation of 82.5 m from EGL with diameter of
36.0m as per the project requirement. Additional excavation (unplanned) of 10% of retained height, to a
maximum of 0.5m has been accounted on the passive side for the ultimate limit state case (ULS) as per
Eurocode 7, part 1 (BS EN 1997-1:2004 here after referred as EC-7) design guidelines (Cl. 9.3.2.2). A
general surcharge load of 20 kPa is assumed to act at an offset distance of 2.0m from the outer edge of
diaphragm wall. Ground water level is assumed to be hydrostatic with initial ground water level at EGL.
Dewatering is considered in the analysis and water level during each excavation stage is maintained least
0.5m below the planned excavation level.

DESIGN APPROACH
Serviceability Limit State (SLS) and Ultimate Limit State (ULS) analyses are carried out in the present
axisymmetric finite element modelling in PLAXIS 2D. As per EC-7 design approaches (Cl. 2.4.7.3.4), ULS
calculations are performed by adopting Design approach 1, which includes combination 1 and combination
2 to evaluate the maximum forces in the diaphragm wall. Tables 2 and 3 show the partial factors adopted
in the analysis for actions and materials.

Table 2 Partial Factors (γF) on actions or effects of actions

Action Design Approach

DA1-1 DA1-2
Permanent Unfavourable 1.35 1
Favourable 1 1
Variable Unfavourable 1.5 1.3
Favourable - -

As per EC-7-1 Cl. 2.4.7.3.2, the application of partial factors to actions coming from or through the soil
(such as earth or water pressures) could lead to design values which are unreasonable or even physically
impossible. Hence, factors are applied directly to the effects of actions derived from representative values
of the actions. Therefore, in the current analysis for DA1-1, partial factors are factored down by 1.35
(1.5/1.35 =1.1) i.e. the (γF) for variable – unfavorable actions is 1.1 and rest of partial factors considered as
1.0. Partial factor of 1.35 is applied directly to the effects of actions (computed forces).
Table 3 Partial Factors for soil parameters

Parameter Design Approach

DA1-1 DA1-2
Angle of shearing resistance 1 1.25
Effective cohesion 1 1.25
Undrained shear strength 1 1.4
Unconfined strength 1 1.4
Weight density 1 1

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL DESCRIPTION

A two-dimensional axisymmetric finite element model was developed in PLAXIS 2D (version 2017) to
assess the performance of the circular diaphragm wall and simulate various construction stages including
excavation and dewatering for the construction of diaphragm wall. The proposed construction sequence is

30
simulated to estimate the probable maximum structural forces and lateral deflections in the circular
diaphragm wall shaft. Diaphragm walls are constructed as panels and are discontinuous in circumferential
direction. The discontinuity can be accounted in modelling by considering diaphragm wall as orthotropic
element Zdravkovic et al. (2005). Orthotropic analysis can be carried out by reducing stiffness in
circumferential direction. Previous Studies on stiffness reduction include Cabarkapa et al. (2003),
Zdravkovic et al. (2005) and Cui Jian et al. (2017). The value of reduction factor adopted in previous studies
varied from 1 (i.e. isotropic) to a maximum of 10. In the current analysis, to estimate maximum forces along
the diaphragm wall, the stiffness in circumferential direction is reduced by factor of 10 for orthotropic
analysis. The ring beams are modelled as plate element at every 5.0m vertical spacing, which provides an
additional stiffness to stabilize the circular diaphragm wall. To generate maximum hoop forces, the
diaphragm wall is also modelled as isotropic element for evaluation of hoop forces.
The dimensions of the axisymmetric finite element model used in the analysis are 110.0m (width) x 185.0m
(depth). The edges of the model are kept far away from outer edge of shaft to reduce the boundary effects.
Figure 1 shows 2D axisymmetric finite element model including diaphragm wall, ring beams and soil
stratigraphy. The bottom boundary was fixed in both vertical and horizontal axis directions and the vertical
boundaries were fixed only in horizontal direction. The soil layers are modelled using Hardening-soil (HS)
model which, best represents soil behavior for deep excavation problems. Several PLAXIS runs are carried
out to find the feasible thickness of diaphragm wall from construction and strength and ended up with 1.20
m thick. Hence, uniform thickness of 1.2 m of diaphragm wall is considered for stability of the excavation
support system. The dimensions of the ring beam are 0.5m thick and 1.0m deep. The diaphragm wall and
ring beam are modelled as plate element with Young’s modulus of 34 GPa. The excavation of soil is planned
to carry out in 5.0m intervals with installation of ring beams at every 5.0m depth along the depth of
diaphragm wall.

FILL
MARINE CLAY

S (VI)

S (V)
DIAPHRAGM
WALL WITH RING
BEAMS
185.0m

S (III)

110.0m
Fig. 1. Axisymmetric PLAXIS 2D Finite element mesh showing soil stratigraphy and diaphragm wall

31
After reaching final excavation level, base raft is activated. Design ground water level is considered at
existing ground surface on soil retaining side. On excavation side, it is assumed that dewatering shall be
performed during excavation by maintaining at least 0.5m below excavation level.

For Drained analysis, the sub-soils are defined as drained materials and assigned effective stress parameters
(C’ & φ’). For undrained analysis, two approaches have been carried out in the present analysis; undrained-
A and undrained-B. As recommended by PLAXIS manual, modelling of undrained-A analysis is carried
out using effective stress parameters (C’ & ϕ’) and marine clay layer is set as undrained-A. In this case,
pore pressure provides right effective stress path that leads to failure at a realistic value of undrained shear
strength (Cu or Su). For undrained-B analysis, undrained shear strength parameters and effective stiffness
parameters are used for marine clay layer.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results of finite element analysis
Table 4 summarizes bending moment and shear forces obtained from finite element analysis. Isotropic
analysis yielded critical forces for hoop compression whereas, orthotropic analysis yielded critical forces
in bending, shear and deflection. Figure 2 shows critical bending moment and shear force envelopes of
diaphragm wall for design approaches. For orthotropic analysis, the earth pressure is transferred through
bending and shear because of reduced stiffness in circumferential direction due to discontinuities of
diaphragm wall during construction. Due to uniform stiffness in horizontal and vertical direction of circular
diaphragm wall, isotropic analysis yielded critical values for hoop forces indicating that major force due to
earth pressure is transferred by hoop action. Figure 3 show results of displacements for serviceability limit
state analysis. The maximum deflection of the diaphragm wall for serviceability limit state is within the
acceptable limits of client’s project specifications. The maximum hoop forces envelope along the length of
the diaphragm wall is shown in Fig. 4.

Table 4 Summary of Bending moment and Shear Forces for Ultimate Limit State (ULS)

Forces in Diaphragm wall

Limit state Analysis type Bending Moment Shear force

(kN.m/m) (kN/m)

DA1C1 DRAINED 2321 511

UNDRAINED A 2345 473
UNDRAINED B 2335 509

DA1C2 DRAINED 1344 241

UNDRAINED A 1355 241
UNDRAINED B 1356 258

Table 5 Summary of Deflections for Serviceability Limit State

Deflection (mm)
Limit state Analysis type

DRAINED 93
SLS UNDRAINED A 92
UNDRAINED B 92

32
 (a) (b)
Fig. 2. a) Bending Moment envelope (unfactored) Fig. 2. b) Shear force envelope (unfactored) of
of diaphragm wall for Undrained A analysis diaphragm wall for Drained analysis (DA1-C1)
(DA1-C1)

Fig. 3. Horizontal deflection of diaphragm wall Fig. 4. Hoop force (unfactored) on diaphragm wall
for drained analysis (SLS) for Drained Analysis (DA1-C1)

33
The reduction of stiffness in circumferential direction to simulate orthotropic behavior of has shown
considerable effect on bending moment in the diaphragm wall. Table 6 shows bending moment values for
both isotropic and orthotropic analysis. It can be observed that due to reduction of stiffness by factor of 10
in circumferential direction, the increase in bending moment is more than 5 times for DA1C1 and more
than 2 times for DA1C2. Figure 5 shows bending moment envelopes for undrained A analysis of governing
combination DA1C1 for both isotropic and orthotropic analysis. However, orthotropic analysis generated
less hoop force in circumferential direction as expected when compared with isotropic analysis. The
reduction of hoop forces due to orthotropic behavior from isotropic behavior of diaphragm wall in the
present analysis is approximately 25 to 35 percent. Table 7 shows hoop forces calculated for various
analysis. This shows that the force transfer behavior is changing from hoop in circumferential direction for
isotropic analysis to bending action in the diaphragm wall for orthotropic analysis.
Table 6 Comparison of bending moments for orthotropic and isotropic analysis

Bending Moment (kN.m /m)

DA1C1 DA1C2
Analysis
ISOTROPIC ORTHOTROPIC ISOTROPIC ORTHOTROPIC
DRAINED 437 2321 603 1344
UNDRAINED
A 440 2345 546 1355
UNDRAINED
B 440 2336 573 1356

Bending Moment (kN.m/m)

-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000
0.00

-10.00

-20.00

-30.00
DEPTH (m)

-40.00

-50.00

-60.00

-70.00

-80.00

-90.00
Isotropic- Undrained A-DA1C1 Orthotropic-Undrained A-DA1C1

Fig.5. Bending moment envelopes for Isotropic and

Orthotropic analysis for Undrained A analysis (DA1C1)

34
Table 7 Comparison of hoop forces for orthotropic and isotropic analysis

Hoop Force (kN/m)

DA1C1 DA1C2
Analysis
ISOTROPIC ORTHOTROPIC ISOTROPIC ORTHOTROPIC
DRAINED 27680 20345 24966 15824
UNDRAINED A 27318 20380 24090 15830
UNDRAINED B 27544 20393 24511 15749

Comparison with analytical solution

To verify the appropriateness and demonstrate the effectiveness of axisymmetric finite element analysis of
circular diaphragm wall, the lateral earth pressures obtained from the analysis are compared with theoretical
solution of Kim et al. (2013). Figure 6 shows lateral earth pressures acting on vertical circular shaft
calculated by theoretical approach given by Kim et al. (2013) and earth pressures obtained in the present
finite element analysis of circular diaphragm wall. The earth pressure from results of finite element analysis
correspond well with theoretical solution given by Kim et al. (2013) and a reasonably good agreement
between finite element analysis and theoretical method is observed. The maximum lateral earth pressure
occurred at approximately 40.0-42.0m below the existing ground level for both finite element analysis and
theoretical solution results. Decrease in lateral earth pressure from maximum value is observed indicating
soil arching effect from both theoretical approach and finite element analysis.

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE (kPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250
0

10

20
DEPTH (m)

30

40

50

60

70

THEORETICAL (Kim et al)

80
FEM ANALYSIS

90
Fig.6.Comparison of earth pressure distributions

35
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This manuscript highlights the use of axisymmetric finite element analysis for the design of deep vertical
circular diaphragm wall as per Eurocode-7. Isotropic and orthotropic analysis of circular diaphragm wall is
carried out to evaluate maximum bending moment, shear force and hoop forces. Due to uniform stiffness
in isotropic analysis of diaphragm wall, maximum hoop forces are generated. To account for discontinuities
in diaphragm wall panels during construction, orthotropic analysis is carried out which yielded maximum
bending moment, shear forces and deflection. The reduction of stiffness in circumferential direction by
factor of 10 has shown to increase bending moment by more than 5 times, which shows the importance of
analyzing orthotropic behavior of circular diaphragm walls. Orthotropic analysis has generated less hoop
forces in the diaphragm wall by 25 to 35 percent approximately when compared with isotropic analysis as
the force transfer due to earth pressure is predominantly through bending action in orthotropic behavior of
diaphragm wall. The present study considers reduction factor of 10 for stiffness for orthotropic analysis to
evaluate maximum forces in the diaphragm wall, however the realistic reduction factor of stiffness in
circumferential direction will be less than 10 and depends on construction of the diaphragm wall panels.
The lateral earth pressures thus obtained from axisymmetric finite element analysis are compared with
available theoretical solution and a good agreement is observed indicating the efficacy of finite element
analysis for deep circular excavations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work described here forms a part of design project undertaken by Jacobs Engineering Group. The authors
would like to extend their gratitude to Jacobs Engineering management for their encouragement. Their support
is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

Berezantzev, V. G. (1958). Earth pressure on the cylindrical retaining wall. In: Proceedings Conference on
Earth Pressure Problems, volume 2, pages 21–27. Brussels.
BS 5930 BSI (1999) BS 5930:1999+A2:2010: Code of practice for site investigations. London, UK, BS.
BS EN 1997-2004, Eurocode 7, Geotechnical Design- Part 1 General Rules.
Cabarkapa, Z., Milligan, G.W. E., Menkiti, C. O., Murphy, J., and Potts, D. M. (2003). Design and
performance of a large diameter shaft in Dublin boulder Clay. In: Newson, T. A. (ed.), Proceedings of the
BGA International Conference on Foundations, pages 175–185. Thomas Telford Ltd., London.
Coulomb, C. A. (1776). Essai sur une application des regles des maximis et minimis a quelques problems
de statique relatifs a l’architecture. In: Memoires de Mathématique et de Physique, Présentés a l’Académie
Royale des sciences, par divers Savants, et lûs dans ses Assemblées, Paris, pages 343–382.
CUI Jian-feng, HU Jian-hua, HE Wei, HE Yao-bei. Hoop stiffness and its reduction factor of diaphragm
wall panels for circular excavation Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Vol.39 No.11, Nov 2017
Gaba, A., Hardy, S., Doughty, L., Powrie, W.,and Selemetas, D. (2017). CIRIA C760 Guidance on
embedded retaining wall design. CIRIA, London.
Kim, D.H., Cha, M.H., Lee, D.S., Kim, K.Y., Lee, I.M., 2009. Earth pressure acting on vertical circular
shafts considering arching effects in soils. Tunell. Technol. 12 (2), 129–144.

36
 Kim, K.Y., Lee, D.S., Cho, J.Y., Jeong, S.S., 2013. The effect of arching pressure on a vertical circular
shaft. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology. 37, 10–21.
Paik, K.H., Salgado, R., 2003. Estimation of active earth pressure against rigid retaining walls considering
arching effects. Geotechnique 53 (7), 643–653.
PLAXIS 2D (2017) Plaxis reference manual 2017, Delft, the Netherlands.
Prater, E. G. (1977). Examination of some theories of earth pressure on shaft linings. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 14(1):91–106.
Rankine, W.J.M., 1857. On the stability of loose earth. Philos. Trans. Royal. Soc., Lond. 147 (1), 9–27.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Wong, R. C. K. and Kaiser, P. K. (1988). Behaviour of vertical shafts: Reevaluation of model test results
and evaluation of field measurements. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 25(2):338–352.
Zdravkovic, L., Potts, D. M., and St. John, H. D. (2005). Modelling of a 3D excavation in finite element
analysis. Geotechnique, 55(7):497–513.

37

View publication stats