Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101849

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Results in Engineering
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/results-in-engineering

A simplified approach of numerical seismic model updating for deep braced

excavation using centrifuge test
Md Mehidi Hassan , Dong Van Nguyen , Yun Wook Choo , Dookie Kim *
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kongju National University, Republic of Korea

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

Keywords: The numerical modeling and centrifuge test are very effective tools in demonstrating the actual behavior of deep
Numerical model excavation, but the preciseness in verification is crucial. This study proposes a Response Surface (RS) based
Centrifuge test technique for updating a deep-braced excavation seismic numerical model based on a small-scale centrifuge test.
Seismic analysis
The proposed method involves establishing a relationship between soil properties and seismic characteristics of
Deep braced excavation
Response surface method
the system and creating an RS model to predict both. The RS model is made via a series of Eigenvalue analyses
Model updating using the Design of Experiments (DOE) approach. The constructed RS model shows excellent goodness of fit. The
seismic characteristics of the model in the centrifuge test are estimated using the Frequency Domain Decom­
position (FDD) approach. By setting that test result as a target in the RS model, soil properties are updated
through back analysis, and minimum error with the numerical response is achieved. The established RS model
predicts seismic characteristics with less than a 1.5 % difference with numerical responses. Thus, an efficient
three-dimensional (3D) numerical model on a prototype scale is made. The efficiency of the seismic response of
the updated model is checked by acceleration time history analysis, and it shows trends similar to those of the
centrifuge test.

1. Introduction
Deep excavation becomes intensive in cities to facilitate the accretive
construction of underground structures, transportation systems, and
basements of skyscrapers. Braced diaphragm walls have been commonly
used to retain backfill in deep excavation. Numerical tools have been
utilized under various static conditions to capture the insight behavior of
excavation. Some numerical studies focused on the effect of soil [1,2],
excavation process, wall penetration depth, and material properties
[3–6] under static conditions.
Despite being temporary, these structures can be used for long pe­
riods during massive construction. If an earthquake happens during this
period, it may lead to a catastrophe. Very few seismic analyses have
been carried out so far for deep excavation. Callisto et al. numerically
investigated the response of propped diaphragm walls for 4 m deep
excavation under static and seismic load [7]. Seismic structural re­
sponses are found to be much higher than static conditions. While the
prop was used at the top for their study, Tropeano and Soccodato
investigated a similar model with an additional prop at the bottom [8].
Their study showed the complex response due to the soil-structure
interaction effect and local seismic response. Chowdhury et al. did
similar investigations with a multi-layered strutted diaphragm wall
model in the sand [9]. They showed that the deformation of the wall is
highly susceptible to seismic loading while the strut consumes signifi­
cantly less effect. Bahrami et al. investigated the seismic effect for a 10 m
deep strutted excavation [10]. They found that the design of the strut
and wall through the peck method exceeds allowable limits in seismic
loading and is acceptable in static conditions. Konai et al. investigated
the effect of groundwater in seismic conditions for an excavation case
supported through the cantilever wall [11]. They found that the
maximum lateral displacement increases in the presence of water under
seismic load. Van Nguyen et al. established a non-linear three-dimen­
sional (3D) braced excavation model under seismic load from the
centrifuge test and numerical study [12]. Their research found that walls
and struts are susceptible to seismic damage, and the increment of wall
and strut stiffness can mitigate it.
Developing and validating numerical models requires extensive skills
and techniques, especially for centrifuge tests. Numerical modeling can
be significantly distorted by uncertain soil properties, which can cause
significant errors with the test. Several approaches have been made for

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kim2kie@kongju.ac.kr (D. Kim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2024.101849
Received 23 November 2023; Received in revised form 22 January 2024; Accepted 26 January 2024
Available online 1 February 2024
2590-1230/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
M.M. Hassan et al.
Fig. 1. Proposed framework for seismic model updating.
model updating of deep excavation by updating soil parameters in static
conditions. Calvello and Finno updated clay soil parameters by inverse
analysis [13]. Their research showed that the calibrated soil models for
the triaxial test need recalibration for numerical validation of supported
excavation. Aboelela et al. established a relationship by genetic pro­
gramming to estimate subgrade reaction (Ks) for deep-braced excava­
tion [14]. Hashash et al. used a supported excavation model to update
multi-layer soil parameters using Genetic Algorithm (GA) techniques
and the Self-learning Simulation method (SelfSim) [15]. GA is an
2
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101849
optimization-based approach that updates the existing soil model by
minimizing error with the measured value. SelfSim combines numerical
responses, field measurements, and a progressive soil model. Their
investigation showed that GA tends to overpredict the surface settle­
ment, and SelfSim matched the observed ones. In the study of Wang
et al., they updated the soil parameters utilizing the maximum values of
settlement and wall deflection for a 19.7 m deep excavation in the ul­
timate likelihood formulation [16]. Juang et al. proposed a Bayesian
framework for staged excavation that utilizes maximum wall deflection
M.M. Hassan et al.
Fig. 2. Full circumscribed CCD.
and ground settlement to update heterogeneous profile soil parameters
[17]. In the research of Huang et al., nine soil parameters are estimated
for three clay layers of 19.7 m deep excavation based on Pareto
multi-objective optimization [18]. Their study also showed that the wall
deflection and ground settlement could be utilized simultaneously. All
these research studies are focused on only the maximum responses, but
Qi et al. updated the sand parameters using the multi-point responses
along the depth of the wall [19]. A maximum of these studies used field
measurement for optimization. Hassan et al. used centrifuge test re­
sponses at multiple points of the diaphragm wall to update non-linear
sand parameters [20]. Bending strains along the depth were utilized to
make the response surface for optimization. They showed that the
response surface method captures the non-linear behavior of sand in
static conditions.
The Response Surface (RS) method using the series of Eigen-value
analyses has effectively been used for model updating in structural en­
gineering [21]. The most advantageous feature of the DOE-based RS
model is that it can simultaneously update multiple parameters utilizing
multiple nonlinear responses.
To the author’s knowledge, all the previous research focused on
model updating for deep excavations in static conditions. This paper
introduces a seismic numerical model updating method. Centrifuge test
responses are utilized to catch the precise response of the model. It is a
very efficient experimental process and has become popular recently.
Fig. 3. Parameter updating flowchart.
3
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101849
This method can be a helpful guide for the numerical modeling of deep
excavation from centrifuge test data.
2. Research method
2.1. Framework
This section outlines the process involved in updating a model. The
framework is briefly explained in Fig. 1.
Firstly, the system’s natural frequency in the centrifuge model is
estimated through the sine sweep test. The geometry of the numerical
model in prototype scale is estimated from the centrifuge scaling laws.
The model’s material properties and wall thickness are calculated based
on equivalent flexural rigidity. Eigen-value analysis of the established
numerical model is carried out. Suitable ranges of soil parameters are
taken to create the DOE. The RS model is created using DOE and cor­
responding seismic characteristics from the numerical model. The cho­
sen soil parameters are updated using the RS model and back analysis
until the numerical model’s natural frequencies reach a minimum error
with experimental values. The back analysis has been conducted using a
software tool (Minitab) [22]. The responses from the centrifuge test
(natural frequencies) are set as a target in the RS model, and then it
provides the updated soil properties for minimum differences between
centrifuge test results and numerical responses. After validating the
model, a time history analysis is done to check the seismic response of
the numerical model. If the seismic response trend shows reasonable
agreement, then the model is said to be efficiently updated. The updated
soil parameters are considered actual parameters generated in the model
under centrifugal acceleration.
2.2. Response surface method
The RS method is a technique that analyzes the relationship between
input variables and output responses. It can update material properties
by optimizing multiple numerical responses in a time and cost-efficient
manner [23]. The relationship can be presented as follows:
C = f (e1, e2, e3………) + d (1)
where e is the input, which can be the structural responses, d is the
offsets or residuals, and C is the optimized output. Output C is the
function of input responses. Equation (1) can be expanded to a second-
M.M. Hassan et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101849

Fig. 4. Centrifuge model.

order polynomial equation for linear surface [24] and a higher order for full CCD is estimated from Eq. (3):
curvature system [25]. The polynomial equation can be presented as
N = 2h + 2h + kc (3)
follows:
∑
h ∑
h h ∑
∑ h where h is the total number of input factors, 2h is the cubical points, 2h is
C = a0 + ar er + arr e2r + ars er es + d (2) the axial points, and kc is the central points. The distance between the
central point and an axial end is termed alpha (α); for an entirely cir­
r=1 r=1 r=1 r<s

where a0 ∼ ar are the corresponding coefficients, those can be esti­
mated by the solutions, h is the total number of input factors, and er and
es are the corresponding input numerical values. The design order and
number of numerical analyses for establishing response surfaces are
designed through the Central Composite Design (CCD) as it efficiently
updates multiple input variables [25,26]. The total design points which
are equivalent to the number of numerical analyses for the completion of
cumscribed CCD, it can be estimated from Eq. (4) [27].
[ ]1/4
α = 2h (4)
where h is the total number of input factors. This Central Composite
Design (CCD) process can utilize multiple variables simultaneously. This
study utilizes two input variables. The design of an entirely circum

4
M.M. Hassan et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101849

responses. The scale-free value ranges from 0 to 1. If the predicted re­

sponses match the targeted experimental responses, the desirability is 1.
If the difference between them are large, the desirability value becomes
0. For optimizing a targeted value, the desirability function can be
expressed by Eq. (5) [28].
⎧
⎪
⎪ ̂ x < Lx or C
C ̂ x > Hx
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ [ ̂x ]R
⎪
⎨ Hx − C
Tx ≤ C ̂ x ≤ Hx
dx = Hx − Tx (5)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ [C ]R
⎪
⎪ ̂ x − Lx
⎪
⎩ Lx ≤ C ̂ x ≤ Tx
Tx − Lx
Here, Tx is the targeted response from the experiment, Lx and Hx are
the highest and lowest numerical responses, Cx is the predicted response
Fig. 5. Sine sweep time histories input motion. from Eq. (2), R is the value that denotes the superior limit preponder­
ance, and x is the number of target points. When the desirability function
is created for each response, composite desirability is formed using Eq.
(6).

D = [d1 (C1 ).d2 (C2 ).d3 (C3 ).………………….dx (Cx )]1/x (6)
This composite desirability expresses the optimized responses and
closeness to the targeted values. The soil properties are set as input
variables, and two consecutive natural frequencies of the systems are
selected as target values in this analysis. The whole process is graphi­
cally explained in Fig. 3.

Table 1
Centrifuge scaling laws.
Fig. 6. Frequency Domain Decomposition (Prototype scale). Item Model (Centrifuge) Prototype

Acceleration N 1
scribed CCD with two variable input responses is depicted in Fig. 2. Duration 1 N
Each point denotes the combination of the samples of numerical Mass density 1 1
model runs. By adopting output responses, a surface can be created for a Force/Load 1 N2
particular input from the polynomial Eq. (2) into this CCD. Each Frequency N 1
Length/Displacement 1 N
response surface or set is transferred to a particular desirability function Modulus 1 1
dx . The desirability is the process of converting actual responses into a Stress 1 1
scale-free value that is used to assess factors and to find optimized Strain 1 1

Fig. 7. Mode shapes (Prototype scale).

5
M.M. Hassan et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101849

Fig. 8. Numerical model in prototype scale (unit: m).

of 240 g-tons. This centrifuge has a maximum capability of achieving a

Table 2 100 g centrifugal acceleration. The installed data acquisition system
Material properties (prototype model). (DAQ) for centrifugal measurements is equipped to capture data from
Item Wall (Concrete) Strut (Steel) Soil (Sand) strain gauges, voltage, accelerometers, and LVDT readings through a
Mass density (Kg/ m3 ) 2700 7800 1478
total of 192 channels.
Elastic modulus (MPa) 27280 200000 64.3 The seismic analyses are done under 40g centrifugal acceleration.
Poisson’s ratio 0.3 0.18 0.3 The diaphragm walls of that small-scale model are framed with three
Frictional angle, φsoil (◦ ) 30 layers of struts on the excavation side. The middle struts row is 0.2 m
apart from the top and bottom rows. The top and bottom rows are at 0.1
m distance from the edge of the wall panels. Hinge connections are given
3. Experiments
between the wall panel and strut. Wall panels are 0.625 m high and
0.625 m wide and made with 0.0154 m thick aluminum plates. The
3.1. Experimental setup
diaphragm wall panels are rigidly attached to a 0.015 m thick aluminum
baseplate. The base plate provides fixed tip conditions for the wall
The centrifuge test of a small-scale model has been conducted in the
panels and depicts them as bedrock in the actual field. Each layer of
Korea Construction Engineering Development (KOCED) centrifuge fa­
struts contains five struts along the length of the wall panel. The struts
cilities. It has a beam centrifuge facility with a 5 m radius and a capacity
are circular pipes of 0.001 m thickened aluminum alloy plate with a

6
M.M. Hassan et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101849

Fig. 9. Seismic characteristics and Operating Deflection Shape (ODS).

geometry are shown in Fig. 4. The obtained acceleration responses from

Table 3 the centrifuge test are used for this analysis.
Design of Experiments (DOE) for input parameters.
Factor Range Cubic Axial Central

Min. Max. Min. Max.

3.2. Sine sweep test

ρsoil (Kg /m3 ) Coded − 1 -α 0

The natural frequencies of the braced excavation system are esti­
+1 +α
Actual 1400 1800 1317.16 1882.84 1600
E soil (MPa) Coded − 1 +1 -α +α 0 mated through the sine-sweep. Before adopting the main seismic load,
Actual 50 250 20.65 289.35 155 the system was excited by sine sweep. The acceleration time histories of
input motion in the centrifuge test, termed a sine sweep wave with a
frequency range of 20–300 Hz, and recorded at the accelerometer
0.01 m outer diameter. The model was placed in an Equivalent Shear attached to the bed (AB) is shown in Fig. 5. The modal properties can be
Beam (ESB) box. The ESB box retains the backfill and provides an effi­ extracted through techniques involving input-output responses [30] and
cient lateral boundary outline for seismic analysis [29]. output-only responses [31].
Hammer-crushed dry silica sand is used as a backfill material. The sands The input has been affected by mechanical vibration and digital
are poured in the gap between the wall and the ESB container and noise. The Frequency Domain Decomposition (FDD) method can accu­
compacted to achieve the desired relative density. A total of 0.221 m3 rately extract the seismic characteristics when the response has strong
sand deposit is used. The mass density of aluminum is 2710 Kg/ m3 , the noise [32]. It is a straightforward and classical approach for modal
elastic modulus is 68900 MPa, and Poisson’s ratio is 0.3. The mass identification with output-only responses. The acceleration time his­
density (ρsoil ), elastic modulus (Esoil ), Poisson’s ratio, frictional angle tories under sine sweep at different wall locations in the centrifuge test
φsoil (◦ ) of the soil materials are 1478 Kg/m3 , 64.3 MPa, 0.3, 30◦ are recorded. Corresponding recorded acceleration along the height of
respectively. the walls (AW00 ~ AW06) under a sine sweep is utilized in the FDD
Accelerometers are attached to the wall panel at the backfill side method. This includes the estimation of the Power Spectral Density
along the depth. The accelerometer arrangement and the model’s (PSD) matrix Q̌mm (f) from the relationship between output responses (m)

7
M.M. Hassan et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101849

Fig. 10. Response surfaces.

Fig. 11. Response contour plots.

Ei and Gi are the corresponding complex conjugate. However, after

Table 4 ˇ
The RS model summary. estimating the spectral density matrix Qmm (f), it is decomposed into a
Response
unitary matrix Zp and diagonal matrix Vp . The matrix Zp holds the sin­
R2 Adjusted R2
gular vectors [zp1 , zp2 ….. zpx ], and Vp has the scalar singular values.
f1 99.79 99.64
f2 99.79 99.65 ˇ ( )
Qmm fp = Zp Vp Zpt (9)

and unknown inputs (n) established by Bendat & Piersol [33]. Here, t represents the complex conjugate and transpose. Then, the sin­
ˇ
gular values of the PSD matrix are plotted, and natural frequency is
Q̌mm (f ) = X(f )Qnn (f )X(f )c (7) estimated through the pick-picking method.
The output response of the accelerometer in the centrifuge test is
ˇ converted to the prototype scale by centrifuge scaling laws [34]. All the
where X(f ) is the frequency response function matrix, Qnn is the PSD
results in this analysis are presented in the prototype scale. The accel­
matrix of input, which remains constant, and superscript c denotes
eration time history responses along the depth of the diaphragm wall
transpose and complex conjugate. Brincker simplified this relationship
panels under sine sweep time histories are recorded in the centrifuge
to a residue form with mathematical manipulation [32]. It can be
test. The first and second natural frequencies and mode shapes are
expressed as follows:
estimated using these responses through the FDD method. The first
ˇ ∑i
Ei Ei Gi Gi singular values of the PSD matrix for this analysis are plotted with
Qmm (f ) = + + + (8) available FDD techniques (Fig. 6).
i=1
f − βi f − βi f − βi f − βi
The estimated prototype scale’s first and second natural frequency is
where the pole is expressed as βi for i number of modes, the output PSD’s 2.20 Hz and 4.80 Hz. It is identified through mode shape by pick-picking
i th residue matrix is denoted by Ei , Gi represents the transpose matrix, in FDD using the multi-paradigm programming software MATLAB [35].

8
M.M. Hassan et al.
Fig. 12. Optimization plot.
The mode shape is estimated through the first singular vector zp1 .
̂ = Zp1
∅ (10)
Where ∅ ̂ is defined as the mode shape.
Fig. 7 depicts the mode shapes in the first and second modes from the
experiment.
4. Simulation
4.1. Prototype model
A non-linear 3D numerical model in the prototype dimension is
constructed using the powerful finite element software ABAQUS [36].
The prototype model is established as equivalent to the actual field from
the small-scaled centrifuge model [37]. The centrifuge scaling laws [38]
are implemented to calculate the dimension of the prototype. The
centrifuge scaling laws used in this analysis are presented in Table 1. A
scale factor equivalent to centrifuge acceleration (N = 40) is applied.
The excavation’s depth and width are 24.8 m and 9.6 m. Each
backfill deposits are 12.2 m wide and 24.8 m deep. The excavation, wall,
and backfill length is 25 m. The wall panels and struts are designed
utilizing equivalent flexural rigidity in the centrifuge model and proto­
type. The height and thickness of the wall panels are 24.8 m and 0.8 m,
respectively. The diameter and thickness of the struts are 0.4067 m and
0.012 m. Each strut is 4.2 m apart from others in the horizontal layers
and 8 m apart vertically. The geometry of the prototype is described in
Fig. 8.
The materials of the walls and the struts are concrete and steel,
respectively. Materials properties for the prototype model are presented
in Table 2. The soil properties are kept the same to maintain a similar
stress level between the model and the prototype [33]. This study ex­
amines the RSM’s effectiveness in updating the soil properties in dy­
namic centrifuge tests. The soil domain is considered homogeneous with
unchanged properties along the soil depth for clearness and simplicity.
The Mohr-Coulomb plasticity model is adopted in this analysis for the
9
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101849
non-linear simulation of sand. It is embedded in ABAQUS and can
simulate sand soil plasticity appropriately. It is noted that the main point
of this study is to determine the elastic properties of the soil medium in
the dynamic centrifuge test. For sine sweep motion in centrifuges test
and corresponding Eigenvalue analysis in the numerical modeling, only
elastic properties of the soil are used. Mohr-Coulomb model is only
adopted for further analyses, including time history analysis using actual
earthquakes. The soil properties are presented in Table 2. Small values of
the additional parameters for the Mohr-Coulomb plasticity model, i.e.,
the cohesion of Csoil = 0.001 MPa and dilation angle of φsoil = 0.01◦ , are
used to avoid numerical instability.
4.2. Mesh and interaction
The walls and soil media are made and meshed with linear brick
elements with reduced integration (C3D8R). These solid elements have
eight nodes. Each element has one integration point at the center of that
element. As the walls are flexural and susceptible to bending, they are
meshed with four elements along the width to capture the wall behavior
effectively. The mesh size is selected in a manner that the computational
time is reasonable and that accuracy can be achieved. In general, the
mesh size of the soil is 0.6 × 0.6 × 0.6 m. The mesh size of the wall is 0.6
× 0.6 × 0.2 m. The struts are made with beam element (B31). These
Tymoshenko beam-type beam elements have two nodes and are the most
effective elements in ABAQUS for analyzing thick beams. Transverse
shear strain can be transferred through these elements.
The struts are connected to the walls with hinge connections. The
constraint forces in the connections act in the three directions in the wall
nodes for 3D analysis. ‘Surface-to-surface’ frictional connection is
adopted in the soil-wall interaction surface. The frictional coefficient is
estimated as tan(2φsoil /3) [10], where φsoil is the internal frictional angle
of the sand. Hard contact is provided for normal behavior.
4.3. Boundary condition
To capture the behavior of the ESB box in numerical simulation, the
degree of freedom of soil nodes is tied at the left and right boundaries,
which are perpendicular to the shaking directions (Fig. 8b). This kind of
boundary condition is prevalent in simulating the ESB box [39–41]. The
Multi-Point Constraint (MPC) tied feature in ABAQUS is utilized. This
kind of feature allows the global displacement of soil nodes at the same
height without relative movement. The tied degree of freedom boundary
can capture the free-field response and perform well in seismic analysis
of the soil-structure interaction model [42]. The lateral movement of the
soil nodes at the boundaries in the shaking direction is restricted in the
direction normal to the boundaries through the roller support (Fig. 8a).
There are several types of boundary conditions for the bottom base of
the model, such as fixed bases and absorbing boundary conditions
[43–46]. To counteract the stiffness difference between the soil and
bedrock, a fixed boundary condition is applied at the soil-bedrock
interface in this study to represent bedrock.
4.4. Eigen-value analysis
The natural frequency of the numerical model could be estimated
from the acceleration time history responses utilizing the FDD method,
which is similar to the process mentioned in section 3.2. Nevertheless,
compared to the time history analysis of a 3D model, the Eigen-value
analysis is a time-efficient process. To make the model updating time
efficient, the constructed numerical model conducts the eigenvalue
analysis. The system’s first and second natural frequencies estimated
from the preliminary numerical analysis are 1.34 Hz and 3.18 Hz,
respectively. The numerical results are presented in Fig. 9. The seismic
characteristics can also be identified by the Operating Deflection Shape
(ODS) as it is close to the mode shape [47]. The ODS of wall panels in the
numerical analysis are shown in Fig. 9.
M.M. Hassan et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101849

Fig. 13. Seismic characteristics and Operating Deflection Shape (ODS).

Table 5
Seismic characteristics comparison (numerical and centrifuge test).
Item Experiment Before updating Predicted (RS model) Updated numerical model

Value Error Value Error Value Error

Frequency, f1 (Hz) 2.2 1.36 38.18 % 2.16 1.81 % 2.15 2.27 %

Frequency, f2 (Hz) 4.8 3.18 33.75 % 5.09 6.04 % 5.02 4.58 %

The numerical result shows 39.09 % and 33.75 % errors for the first
and second natural frequencies with the experimental results (Section
3.2). There are substantial numbers of uncertainties that may cause the
numerical simulation to differ from the experiment, such as noise, data
acquisition system, material properties, mesh size, interaction, and
boundary conditions. Among them, soil property is one of the most
important and challenging factors that can significantly influence the
accuracy of numerical simulations compared to experiments. Thus, soil
material properties should be updated to achieve accurate results in
numerical analyses. For that, the response surface method is applied in
this study.
5. Parameter updating
5.1. Design of Experiments (DOE)
The soil elasticity and density are taken as the parameters for
updating. The study also could be conducted for the soil stiffness varying
with depth. In that case, an empirical formula would be used, and
suitable components of that formula could be used as input parameters.
However, for simplicity, this study considers soil deposits as homoge­
nous. The ranges of the values for these two input parameters are taken
as 1400–1800 Kg/m3 and 50–250 MPa, respectively. The elasticity
ranges are taken considering that the seismic soil elasticity can be more
than three times from static conditions [10]. The DOE is established for
the input variables using Eq. (3), and the α value is calculated from Eq.
(4). The number of axial, cubic, and center points for these two pa­
rameters are 4, 4, and 5, respectively. The ranges and design of

10
M.M. Hassan et al.
Fig. 14. Acceleration time history and response spectrum (5 % damping) of input motions.
parameters are presented in Table 3.
The total number of design points for the experiments for a fully
circumscribed DOE is calculated from Eq. (3). The seismic characteris­
tics for each design point are taken from corresponding numerical
simulations. The natural frequency responses from these simulations are
utilized to create response surfaces.
5.2. Response surface model
The design from the DOE and corresponding numerical responses are
used to create response surfaces utilizing Eqs. (1) and (2). Minitab
software is used for mathematical solutions [22] and visualization. The
established response surfaces for optimizing frequency responses f1 and
f2 are presented in Fig. 10.
The brighter portions in the surfaces are the optimized response area.
The output-input relationships can be intensively captured through the
contour plots. The contour plots are expressed in Fig. 11. Cubic, axial,
and center points are shown in Fig. 11. For the given ranges of soil pa­
rameters, the frequency in the first mode varies from less than 1 Hz to
slightly greater than 2.5 Hz, and in the second mode, it ranges from
marginally less than 2 Hz to somewhat higher than 6 Hz.
The model’s fitness can be efficiently checked by the Analysis Of
Variance (ANOVA) [48]. The model can be acceptable if the ANOVA’s
goodness of fit (R2 ) exceeds 95 % [49]. R2 is the percentage of variation
in the response. Model fit is determined by the R2 coefficient. Data fit is
better with a higher R2 value. In all cases, R2 is between 0 % and 100 %.
It is determined by subtracting the ratio of the error sum of squares
(representing unexplained variation by the model) to the total sum of
squares (indicating the overall variation in the model) from 1.
Adjusted R2 is the percentage of the variation in the response which
11
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101849
is adjusted for the number of predictors in the model relative to the
number of observations. Adjusted R2 is calculated as 1 minus the ratio of
the mean square error (MSE) to the mean square total (MS Total). The RS
model summary is shown in Table 4.
5.3. Updated properties
The natural frequencies estimated from the sine sweep test are set as
targets in the RS model. From the mathematical solution of Eqs. (5) and
(6), the desirability for each response and composite desirability are
estimated. The updated materials properties are taken for the best
composite and individual desirability. The desirability curves are shown
in Fig. 12.
In Fig. 12., there are two x-axes. The first represents the soil density
(ρsoil ) and the latter represents the soil elasticity (Esoil ). The maximum
and minimum values are denoted as High and Low. There are three
numbers on the y-axis. The top axis presents the composite desirability.
Consequently, the other two present the natural frequencies f2 and f1.
The composite desirability is achieved at 0.86 when the soil density and
elasticity are 1483.56 Kg/m3 and 178.98 MPa, respectively. In the
figure, the blue-colored y shows the predicted natural frequencies, and d
is individual; the current levels with red lines in the figure depict the
updated input variables (ρsoil & Esoil ). The predicted seismic character­
istics from the RS model are 2.16 Hz and 5.09 Hz.
6. Results & discussion
6.1. Updated model & validation
These updated soil properties are adopted in the numerical model,
M.M. Hassan et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101849

Fig. 15. Acceleration time history and response spectrum (5 % damping) of the sinusoidal wave.

and results are compared with the centrifuge test results. The natural
frequencies at the first and second modes in the updated numerical
models are 2.15 Hz and 5.02 Hz, respectively (Fig. 13). In comparison,
the prediction from the RS model was 2.16 Hz and 5.09 Hz, respectively.
The RS model prediction shows less than 1.5 % differences in the
numerical seismic characteristics.
After model updating, less than a 5 % error between the numerical
and experimental results is achieved. The results are presented in
Table 5.
The model is validated and ready for seismic analysis. The updated

12
M.M. Hassan et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101849

Fig. 16. Acceleration time history and response spectrum (5 % damping) of the artificial earthquake.

numerical values are so close to the predicted response in the response strains in the system. The Rayleigh damping can be described as [50]:
surface model.
[C] = α[M] + β[K] (10)

6.2. Time history analysis
Seismic loads are adopted in the updated model to check the seismic
responses of the updated numerical model. The Rayleigh damping
formulation is adopted for the materials to dissipate energy for small
where α & β are the Rayleigh damping coefficients, [K] denotes the
stiffness matrix, and [M] denotes the mass matrix. The Rayleigh damping
coefficients can be estimated as follows:

13
M.M. Hassan et al.
α = 2ξ
ωi ωj
(11)
ωi + ωj
β=
2ξ
(12)
ωi + ωj
where ωi and ωj are the consecutive angular natural frequencies, the first
and second natural frequencies from the sine sweep test (Section 3.2) are
considered in this analysis; ξ is the damping ratio.
The damping ratio is usually taken at the lowest value to counteract
numerical instability or as the damping for small strains [51]. The
damping ratio for soil is usually assigned 1 %–5 % for the soil deposit of
lower natural frequencies [52], and it is taken as 5 % in this analysis.
As mentioned in Section 4.3, the bottom of the numerical model is
fixed. Earthquake loads are applied as acceleration in the shaking di­
rection at the bottom nodes of the model.
The time history analysis is conducted in four sequential steps. First
is the initial step, which can be referred to as the geostatic step. Initial
stresses for soil deposits are adopted in this step. Then, gravity load is
applied in the static step. In the dynamic analysis step, the seismic load is
applied. The applied input motions are taken from the response at the
bottom of the model in the centrifuge test. The input motions in the
prototype scale are presented in Fig. 14.
The trend of the updated model’s acceleration response and corre­
sponding response spectra is similar to the response from the centrifuge
test. Figs. 15 and 16 compares results from numerical analysis and
centrifuge experiments.
7. Conclusion
The article presents a finite element model updating technique of
deep-braced excavation for seismic analysis utilizing small-scale
centrifuge test data, which has not yet been carried out in previous
studies. It enables users to establish the constitutive relationship be­
tween soil properties and seismic characteristics of the braced excava­
tion system and achieve a minimum difference between the test and
numerical model. A fully circumscribed Central Composite Design
(CCD) is utilized in the Design Of the Experiment (DOE) to establish that
constitutive relationship. Numerical responses from a series of Eigen­
value analyses estimate the seismic characteristics for constructing the
relationship and corresponding response surfaces. Response surface-
based back-analysis approach is applied by setting the experimental
results as the target to achieve the updated soil. The experimental
seismic characteristics are estimated through the Frequency Domain
Decomposition (FDD) method from the sine-sweep test. Efficient 3D
numerical models in prototype scale were made with nonlinear contact
and nonlinear soil properties. Significant conclusions of this study are
given as follows.
1. The established CCD and DOE-based constitutive relationship (RS
model) between soil properties and the system’s natural frequencies
can predict the soil properties and corresponding natural fre­
quencies. The predicted response from the RS model has shown less
than a 1.5 % difference from the numerical results.
2. The efficiency of the RS model is checked through the ANOVA. The
Goodness of fit for the RS model is achieved by more than 99.5 %.
Therefore, the RS model can be used to predict seismic
characteristics.
3. The nonlinear 3D deep excavation model is updated and validated by
the proposed model updating method. The seismic characteristics of
the updated numerical model show less than a 5 % error with the
centrifuge test.
4. Instead of just analyzing soil frequencies like previous studies, the
proposed framework takes a more comprehensive approach by
considering the natural frequencies of the entire system. Frequency
Domain Decomposition techniques estimate the system’s natural
14
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101849
frequency from the centrifuge test. Eigenvalue analysis has been
conducted considering complex soil-structure interaction.
5. The effectiveness of the updated model through the proposed
framework is checked through the time history analyses with
different types of input motions with various PGA. A sinusoidal wave
with 0.11g PGA and an artificial earthquake with 0.237g PGA are
adopted in the updated model. The acceleration responses and cor­
responding response spectra along the depth of the diaphragm wall
show a good agreement with the centrifuge test’s responses.
One of the limitations of this research is that the soil is considered
homogenous to avoid complexity. The study will be updated for layered
soil medium in the future.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Md Mehidi Hassan: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original
draft, Visualization, Validation, Software, Methodology, Conceptuali­
zation. Dong Van Nguyen: Writing – review & editing, Visualization,
Validation, Supervision, Software. Yun Wook Choo: Supervision, Re­
sources, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Data curation.
Dookie Kim: Supervision, Project administration, Investigation, Fund­
ing acquisition, Conceptualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through
the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Min­
istry of Education (No. RS-2023-00241517).
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program
through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the
Ministry of Education (No. RS-2023-00241517).
References
[1] S.K. Bose, N.N. Som, Parametric study of a braced cut by finite element method,
Comput. Geotech. 22 (2) (1998) 91–107.
[2] K. Karlsrud, L. Andresen, Loads on braced excavations in soft clay, Comput.
Geotech. 5 (2) (2005) 107–113.
[3] R. Schäfer, T. Triantafyllidis, The influence of the construction process on the
deformation behavior of diaphragm walls in soft clayey ground, Num. Analy.
Methods Geomech. 30 (7) (2006) 563–576.
[4] R.J. Finno, J.T. Blackburn, J.F. Roboski, Three-dimensional effects for supported
excavations in clay, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 133 (1) (2007) 30–36.
[5] M. Bahrami, M.I. Khodakarami, A. Haddad, 3D numerical investigation of the
effect of wall penetration depth on excavations behavior in sand, Comput. Geotech.
98 (2018) 82–92.
[6] S.S. Chowdhury, K. Deb, A. Sengupta, Estimation of design parameters for braced
excavation: Numerical study, Int. J. Geomech. 13 (3) (2013) 234–247.
[7] L. Callisto, F.M. Soccodato, R. Conti (Eds.), Analysis of the Seismic Behaviour of
Propped Retaining Structures, 2008, pp. 1–10.
[8] G. Tropeano, F. Soccodato, Dynamic analyses of propped retaining structures, in:
Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Numerical Methods in
Geotechnical Engineering (NUMGE 2014), 2014.
[9] S.S. Chowdhury, K. Deb, A. Sengupta, Behavior of underground strutted retaining
structure under seismic condition, Earthquakes Structures 8 (5) (2015) 1147–1170.
[10] M. Bahrami, M.I. Khodakarami, A. Haddad, Seismic behavior and design of strutted
diaphragm walls in sand, Comput. Geotech. 108 (2019) 75–87.
[11] S. Konai, A. Sengupta, K. Deb, Seismic behavior of cantilever wall embedded in dry
and saturated sand, Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 14 (3) (2020) 690–705.
[12] D. Van Nguyen, D. Kim, Y. Choo, Seismic responses, damage mechanisms and
retrofitting methods for deep braced excavation: centrifuge test and numerical
analysis, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 168 (2023) 107829.
M.M. Hassan et al.
[13] M. Calvello, R.J. Finno, Selecting parameters to optimize in model calibration by
inverse analysis, Comput. Geotech. 31 (5) (2004) 410–424.
[14] A.E. Aboelela, A.M. Ebid, A.L. Fayed, Estimating the subgrade reaction at deep
braced excavation bed in dry granular soil using genetic programming (GP),
Results in Engineering 13 (2022) 100328.
[15] Y.M.A. Hashash, S. Levasseur, A. Osouli, R. Finno, Y. Malecot, Comparison of two
inverse analysis techniques for learning deep excavation response, Comput.
Geotech. 37 (3) (2010) 323–333.
[16] L. Wang, Z. Luo, J. Xiao, C.H. Juang, Probabilistic inverse analysis of excavation-
induced wall and ground responses for assessing damage potential of adjacent
buildings, Geotech. Geol. Eng. 32 (2) (2014) 273–285.
[17] C.H. Juang, Z. Luo, S. Atamturktur, H. Huang, Bayesian updating of soil parameters
for braced excavations Using Field Observations, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139
(3) (2013) 395–406.
[18] Z.H. Huang, L.L. Zhang, S.Y. Cheng, J. Zhang, X.H. Xia, Back-analysis and
parameter identification for deep excavation based on Pareto multiobjective
optimization, J. Aero. Eng. 28 (6) (2015) A4014007.
[19] X.-H. Qi, W.-H. Zhou, An efficient probabilistic back-analysis method for braced
excavations using wall deflection data at multiple points, Comput. Geotech. 85
(2017) 186–198.
[20] M.M. Hassan, J.S. Yun, M.M. Rahman, Y.W. Choo, J-t Han, D. Kim, Centrifugal test
replicated numerical model updating for 3D strutted deep excavation with the
response-surface method, Applied sciences 12 (20) (2022) 10665.
[21] M.M. Rahman, T.T. Nahar, D. Kim, D.W. Park, Location sensitivity of non-
structural component for channel-type auxiliary building considering primary-
secondary structure interaction, Int. J. Eng. 35 (7) (2022) 1268–1282.
[22] A. Alin, Minitab. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: Comput. Stat. 2 (6) (2010)
723–727.
[23] M. Yousefi, H. Safikhani, E. Jabbari, M. Yousefi, V. Tahmsbi, Numerical modeling
and optimization of respirational emergency drug delivery device using
computational fluid dynamics and response surface method, Int. J. Eng. 34 (2)
(2021) 547–555.
[24] G.E.P. Box, K.B. Wilson (Eds.), On the Experimental Attainment of Optimum
Conditions, Springer, New York, NY, 1992, pp. 270–310. New York.
[25] Y. Hang, M. Qu, S. Ukkusuri, Optimizing the design of a solar cooling system using
central composite design techniques, Energy Build. 43 (4) (2011) 988–994.
[26] B. Ashok, A. Tamilvanan, R. Vignesh, P. Saiteja, P.V. Kumar, C. Nikhil, D. Nikhil,
Engine vibration and noise characteristics of common rail direct injection engine
fuelled with orange peel oil by response surface methodology based multi-objective
optimization, Results in Engineering 20 (2023) 101406.
[27] M. Rahman, T. Nahar, D. Kim, D. Park, Location sensitivity of non-structural
component for channel-type auxiliary building considering primary-secondary
structure interaction, International Journal of Engineering, Transactions A: Basics
35 (2022) 1268–1282.
[28] C.D. Pimenta, M.B. Silva, R.L. de Morais Campos, W.R. de Campos Junior,
Desirability and design of experiments applied to the optimization of the reduction
of decarburization of the process heat treatment for steel wire SAE 51B35, Am. J.
Theor. Appl. Stat. 7 (1) (2018) 35–44.
[29] S.-H. Lee, Y.-W. Choo, D.-S. Kim, Performance of an equivalent shear beam (ESB)
model container for dynamic geotechnical centrifuge tests, Soil Dynam. Earthq.
Eng. 44 (2013) 102–114.
15
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101849
[30] J. Cara, Modal identification of structures from input/output data using the
expectation–maximization algorithm and uncertainty quantification by mean of
the bootstrap, Struct. Control Health Monit. 26 (1) (2019) e2272.
[31] B.H. Kim, N. Stubbs, T. Park, A new method to extract modal parameters using
output-only responses, J. Sound Vib. 282 (1–2) (2005) 215–230.
[32] R. Brincker, L. Zhang, P. Andersen, Modal identification from ambient responses
using frequency domain decomposition, in: Proceedings of the 18th International
Modal Analysis Conference (IMAC), 2000. San Antonio, TX, USA.
[33] J.S. Bendat, A.G. Piersol, Random Data: Analysis and Measurement Procedures,
John Wiley & Sons, 1986.
[34] R. Taylor, Geotechnical Centrifuge Technology, CRC Press, 2018.
[35] D.J. Higham, N.J. Higham, MATLAB Guide, SIAM, 2016.
[36] Abaqus. Abaqus documentation. 6 (2014) 1–5.
[37] D. Van Nguyen, D. Kim, Y. Choo, Optimized extreme gradient boosting machine
learning for estimating diaphragm wall deflection of 3D deep braced excavation in
sand, Structures 45 (2022) 1936–1948.
[38] R.e. Taylor, Geotechnical Centrifuge Technology, CRC Press, 2018.
[39] Z. Karimi, S. Dashti, Numerical and centrifuge modeling of seismic
soil–foundation–structure interaction on liquefiable ground, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 142 (1) (2016) 04015061.
[40] G. Tsinidis, E. Rovithis, K. Pitilakis, J.L. Chazelas, Seismic response of box-type
tunnels in soft soil: experimental and numerical investigation, Tunn. Undergr.
Space Technol. 59 (2016) 199–214.
[41] G. Tsinidis, K. Pitilakis, G. Madabhushi, C. Heron, Dynamic response of flexible
square tunnels: centrifuge testing and validation of existing design methodologies,
Geotech. 65 (5) (2015) 401–417.
[42] Y. Li, M. Zhao, C-s Xu, X-l Du, Z. Li, Earthquake input for finite element analysis of
soil-structure interaction on rigid bedrock, Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 79
(2018) 250–262.
[43] J. Lysmer, R.L. Kuhlemeyer, Finite Dynamic Model for Infinite Media, J. Eng.
Mech. Div. 95 (4) (1969) 859–877.
[44] D. Forcellini, A resilience-based methodology to assess soil structure interaction on
a benchmark bridge, Infrastructures 5 (11) (2020) 90.
[45] D.V. Nguyen, D. Kim, Perfectly matched discrete layers with analytical
wavelengths for soil–structure interaction analysis, Int. J. Struct. Stabil. Dynam. 18
(9) (2018) 1850103.
[46] D.V. Nguyen, D. Kim, Dynamic soil-structure interaction analysis in time domain
based on a modified version of perfectly matched discrete layers, J. Rock Mech.
Geotech. Eng. 12 (1) (2020) 168–179.
[47] M.H. Richardson, Is it a mode shape, or an operating deflection shape? Sound Vib.
31 (1) (1997) 54–67.
[48] N.K. Sahu, A.B. Andhare, Multiobjective optimization for improving machinability
of Ti-6Al-4V using RSM and advanced algorithms, Journal of Computational
Design and Engineering 6 (1) (2018) 1–12.
[49] A.M. Joglekar, A. May, E. Graf, I. Saguy (Eds.), Product Excellence through
Experimental Design, Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 1991.
[50] A.K. Chopra, Dynamics of Structures, Pearson Education India, 2007.
[51] A.O.L. Kwok, J.P. Stewart, Y.M.A. Hashash, N. Matasovic, R. Pyke, Z. Wang,
Z. Yang, Use of exact solutions of wave propagation problems to guide
implementation of nonlinear seismic ground response analysis procedures,
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (11) (2007) 1385–1398.
[52] Q. Sun, D. Dias, Significance of Rayleigh damping in nonlinear numerical seismic
analysis of tunnels, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 115 (2018) 489–494.