Theoretical_Study_on_Diaphragm_Wall_and_Surface_De

sustainability
Article
Theoretical Study on Diaphragm Wall and Surface Deformation
Due to Foundation Excavation Based on Three-Parameter
Kerr Model
Kunpeng Li 1 , Shihai Chen 1, *, Rupeng Pei 2 and Yangcai Li 2
1 College of Civil Engineering, Huaqiao University, Xiamen 361021, China; kunpengli@stu.hqu.edu.cn

2 Xiamen Construction Engineering Co., Ltd., China Railway First Group, Xiamen 361100, China
* Correspondence: cshblast@163.com
Abstract: To calculate the horizontal displacement of the diaphragm wall and surface settlement
caused by foundation pit excavation, the three-parameter Kerr foundation model was applied to a
diaphragm wall and derived the flexural differential equations of the diaphragm wall and calculated
the horizontal displacement of the diaphragm wall using the finite difference calculation method.
The boundary element method combined with the Mindlin displacement solution was then used to
invert the additional horizontal stress near the diaphragm wall. Lastly, the Mindlin solution was
used to calculate the surface settlement. The effectiveness of the proposed calculation method was
verified by comparing the horizontal displacement of the diaphragm wall and the surface settlement
between the theoretical calculation and the actual project. The theory proves that there is a certain
connection between the horizontal displacement of the diaphragm wall and the surface settlement,
and the horizontal displacement of the diaphragm wall is larger than the surface settlement. Using
this theory to further analyze the foundation pit construction parameters, the greater the thickness
and elasticity modulus of the diaphragm wall, and the greater the diameter and number of internal
supports, the smaller the horizontal displacement of the diaphragm wall and the surface settlement.
The theory can accurately predict the horizontal displacement of the diaphragm wall and surface
settlement and provides guidance for the construction of foundation pit projects.
Citation: Li, K.; Chen, S.; Pei, R.; Li, Y.

Keywords: foundation engineering; three-parameter Kerr foundation model; horizontal displacement
Theoretical Study on Diaphragm Wall
of diaphragm wall; surface settlement; finite difference method
and Surface Deformation Due to
Foundation Excavation Based on
Three-Parameter Kerr Model.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2295.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ 1. Introduction
su16062295 Excessive deformation caused by pit excavation leads to slope instability, which affects
Academic Editor: Humberto Varum
construction safety and is not conducive to the goal of sustainable development of a
project. At present, research on the horizontal displacement of diaphragm walls caused
Received: 19 January 2024 by foundation excavation mainly includes field monitoring [1], model tests [2], theoretical
Revised: 2 March 2024 calculations [3], and numerical simulations [4,5]. The existing theoretical studies mainly
Accepted: 6 March 2024 include the limit equilibrium method, elastic foundation beam method, and variational
Published: 10 March 2024
method. The limit equilibrium method is applicable only to rigid short piles with little
burial depth, and the application range is relatively narrow. The variational method is based
on the principle of minimum potential energy and calculates the horizontal displacement
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
of diaphragm walls through energy relations, but its boundary conditions are demanding,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. and accuracy cannot be guaranteed [6].
This article is an open access article The elastic foundation beam method is a commonly used method to calculate the
distributed under the terms and displacement of a retaining structure, which is based on the principle of treating the support
conditions of the Creative Commons pile as a Winkler elastic foundation beam placed vertically and calculating the pile bending
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// moment, shearing force, and flexural deformation by the flexural differential equations of
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the beam [7]. However, the model is oversimplified and ignores the shear deformation of
4.0/). the soil, which cannot reflect the continuity of the soil force deformation due to pile–soil
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2295. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062295 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, 2295 2 of 21
interactions. This leads to a smaller calculation result than the on-site monitoring result,
resulting in a safety risk in the on-site construction. For the problems of a Winkler elastic
foundation beam, Zhu et al. [8] employed the two-parameter Pasternak foundation model
to enhance the precision of calculating the horizontal displacement of a retaining structure.
Fu et al. [9] applied the Pasternak foundation model for tunnel force deformation analysis
with good results. Zhang et al. [10] considered the rheological effects in viscoelastic soils
along with the neighboring pile foundations as a Pasternak foundation model and analyzed
the time-domain deformation response of the neighboring pile foundations caused by
foundation excavation. Although Pasternak’s model is an improvement compared with
the Winkler foundation model in considering shear forces, the shear layer and the spring
are independent in this model, and the connection between them cannot be established,
which leads to computational errors in the model. Feng et al. [11] assumed a tunnel
to be a Timoshenko beam placed on a three-parameter Kerr foundation and calculated
the tunnel deformation response resolution. The authors showed better results for the
three-parameter Kerr foundation model, and the calculation error of the three-parameter
Kerr foundation model was obviously smaller than that of the Winkler elastic foundation
beam and Pasternak model. The rationality of the three parameters of the Kerr foundation
model has been proven, but no studies have applied it to the calculation of diaphragm
wall deformation.
In terms of surface subsidence prediction, empirical methods [12–14] and semi-
empirical methods [15] are easy to use and are widely used in engineering. However,
the complexity of the project itself makes empirical and semi-empirical methods sometimes
not applicable [16]. As a commonly used surface settlement prediction method, the ground
loss method has been continuously improved in a large number of studies. Based on the
principle of the ground loss method, Li [17] treated the surface settlement surrounding a
deep foundation pit as a skewed distribution curve and successfully addressed the surface
settlement of the pile-anchor-supported foundation pit. Hong [18] derived an approximate
analytical solution for the tunnel-induced response of a foundation system considering
contact effects by using Sagaseta’s loss-of-ground settlement formulation instead of the
complex solution surface of the elastic half-plane. However, the ground loss method is
based on empirical formulas, and the choice of fitting curve directly affects the final settle-
ment pattern. The error is difficult to avoid, and the theory is not strong. Qian et al. [19] and
Fan et al. [20] used the separation variable method to solve the general solution of the dis-
placement equilibrium equation of the plane strain problem and regarded the displacement
of the retaining wall of the foundation pit as a known displacement boundary in calculating
the surface settlement. This method is a theoretical method for solving surface settlements
outside the pit at present, but it requires many soil parameters, and the derivation process
is very complicated, which is difficult in practical applications. Some theories consider the
unloading of pit excavation to deduce the surface settlement outside the pit but do not
consider the effect of diaphragm walls, which produces a large error [10].
To summarize, most of the existing theories are limited to the study of the diaphragm
wall displacement caused by pit excavation, and there is a relative lack of theories that
further consider the effect of pit excavation on surface settlement. Therefore, it is necessary
to establish a set of theories to calculate the displacement of the diaphragm wall and
surface subsidence. Using the three-stage analysis method, the three-parameter Kerr
foundation model [21] was first applied to a diaphragm wall to accurately calculate the
horizontal displacement of the diaphragm wall and establish the foundation for the later
calculation of surface settlement. Subsequently, the present study introduced the boundary
element method and the Mindlin solution to establish the connection between the horizontal
displacement of the diaphragm wall and the surface subsidence [22], and the boundary
element method was utilized to invert the additional horizontal stresses. Lastly, the Mindlin
solution was used to calculate the surface settlement.
solution was used to calculate the surface settlement.
2. Simplified Calculation Method of the Three-Parameter Kerr Foundation Model [11]

Computational Model and Basic Assumption
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2295 By introducing parameters G and c, the three-parameter Kerr foundation model3con- of 21
siders the shear action of soil and the continuity of soil deformation. Compared with the
Winkler model and the Pasternak model, the Kerr model has better calculation accuracy,
and it has been
2. Simplified proved in Method
Calculation the calculation of tunnel deformation
of the Three-Parameter [11] and pipeline
Kerr Foundation Modeldefor-
[11]
mation [23]. The
Computational three-parameter
Model Kerr foundation model is shown in Figure 1. G is the
and Basic Assumption
foundation soil shearparameters
By introducing stiffness (kPa);
G and c and
c, thek three-parameter
are the foundation reaction
Kerr forcesmodel
foundation of thecon-
left
spring and the right spring (kPa), respectively. P(x,z) is the applied
siders the shear action of soil and the continuity of soil deformation. Compared with load. The basic as-
sumptions of the model include the following:
the Winkler model and the Pasternak model, the Kerr model has better calculation accu-
racy, (1)
andThe unit-width
it has diaphragm
been proved in the wall is usedof
calculation astunnel
a vertically placed elastic
deformation [11] andbeam with
pipeline
thickness
deformation D and[23].flexural stiffness EI [24,25].
The three-parameter Kerr foundation model is shown in Figure 1. G is
(2) The subsurface diaphragm
the foundation soil shear stiffness (kPa); wall is in close
c and k areproximity to the reaction
the foundation foundation soil,
forces ofand
the
its deformation is coordinated with the foundation deformation at the contact
left spring and the right spring (kPa), respectively. P(x,z) is the applied load. The basic point.
(3) The friction
assumptions between
of the model the diaphragm
include the following:wall and foundation is not considered.
Figure 1. Three-parameter Kerr foundation model.
(1) The
The unit-width
differential diaphragm
expression wall
for the is used
shear layer asdeflection
a vertically placedbyelastic
is given [11]: beam with
thickness D and flexural stiffness EI [24,25]. 4
EIG d 6 w2 EI (c + k ) d w d 2 w2 to the foundation soil, and its
(2) The subsurface − diaphragm + −
walli is ini close2 proximity
Gi d + ki dw2 = 0 (1)
deformation is coordinated dz 6 the foundation
ci with ci dz 4deformation
dz 2 at the contact point.
where(3)EThe friction
is the elasticbetween
modulusthe of diaphragm
the diaphragm wallwall
and (kPa),
foundation
and I is is the
not moment
considered.
of inertia
The differential expression for the shear layer deflection
of the diaphragm wall (m ). The horizontal displacement of the diaphragm
4 is given by [11]:wall is calcu-
lated by the following formula:
EIG d6 w2 EI (ci + k i ) d4 w2 d 2 w2
− +  k 4 − G
G idd2
wdz + k i dw2 = 0 (1)
ci dz6 wc=i 1 + dz 2 2
 w2 − (2)
 c 2
cd dz
where E is the elastic modulus of the diaphragm wall (kPa), and I is the moment of inertia of
the diaphragm wall (m4 ). The horizontal displacement of the diaphragm wall is calculated
by the following formula:
G d 2 w2

k
w = 1+ w2 − (2)
c cd dz2
3. Establishment and Solution of the Flexural Differential Equations of Diaphragm Wall

3.1. Establishment of Shear Layer Flexural Differential Equations
Based on the three-parameter Kerr foundation model, a computational analysis model
of the internally supported diaphragm wall support structure was established, as shown
in Figure 2. Kt is the stiffness coefficient of the inner support, L1 is the length of the wall
above the excavation surface, and L2 is the length of the wall below the excavation surface.
3.1. Establishment of Shear Layer Flexural Differential Equations
Based on the three-parameter Kerr foundation model, a computational analysis
model of the internally supported diaphragm wall support structure was established, as
shown in Figure 2. Kt is the stiffness coefficient of the inner support, L1 is the length of the
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2295 wall above the excavation surface, and L2 is the length of the wall below the excavation 4 of 21
surface.
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Calculation
Calculation diagram
diagram of
of the
the supporting
supporting structure.
structure.
The soil
The soil on
on both
both sides
sides ofof the
the diaphragm
diaphragm wall wall isis equated
equated to to aa spring,
spring, and
and the
the soil
soil shear
shear
force is considered through the shear layer, the soil compression force through spring kk
force is considered through the shear layer, the soil compression force through spring
and spring
and spring c,c, and
and the
the support
support forceforce through
throughkktt.. The calculation
calculation of of soil pressure
pressure is is based
based on on
static earth
static earth pressure,
pressure,and
and itit is
is stipulated
stipulated that that the
the positive
positive horizontal
horizontal displacement
displacement w w of
of the
the
diaphragm wall
diaphragm wall corresponds to the the active
active deformation
deformation of the the soil
soil and
and that
that the
the negative
negative
horizontaldisplacement
horizontal displacementwwofofthe thediaphragm
diaphragmwall wall corresponds
corresponds to to
thethe passive
passive deformation
deformation of
of the
the soil.soil. Therefore,
Therefore, when whenthe the
activeactive deformation
deformation of soil
of the the soil occurs,
occurs, the increment
the increment in the insoil
the
pressure
soil pressureis negative, and the
is negative, andincrement
the incrementin thein internal support
the internal pressure
support is positive;
pressure when
is positive;
the passive deformation of the soil occurs, the increment in the
when the passive deformation of the soil occurs, the increment in the soil pressure is pos-soil pressure is positive,
and
itive,the
andincrement in the in
the increment internal support
the internal pressure
support is negative.
pressure is negative.
In
In the
the three-parameter
three-parameter Kerr Kerr foundation
foundation model,model, considering
considering the the variation
variation in in the
the soil
soil
pressure
pressure and and internal
internal support
support pressure,
pressure, and and substituting
substituting themthem into
into the
the model,
model, the the shear
shear
layer
layer flexural
flexural differential equations are established for the loaded section above the exca-
vation
vation surface
surface andand the
the embedded
embedded section section below
below thethe excavation
excavation surface,
surface, respectively,
respectively, withwith
the
the excavation surface as the partition interface. For the loaded section, the
excavation surface as the partition interface. For the loaded section, the shear
shear flexural
flexural
differential
differential Equation
Equation (1)(1) can
can be be expressed
expressedas: as:
EIGi d6 w2 EI (ci +−kEIG 4 d 6w EId(2cw
i + k ) d 4 w2 d 2 w2 kti ( ci + ki )
− + i ) di w2 2 +
6− Gi d
2 i
− ( Pi − − G d − (2Pi+− kkitiw(2c)i d++kki )ti w
4 k i wi2 ) d +2k ti w w22 += 0 w2 = 0 (3)
(3)
ci dz6 ci ci dz4dz dzci2 dz dz ci ci
For
For the
the embedded
embedded segment,
segment, flexural
flexural differential
differentialEquation
Equation(1)
(1)can
canbe
beexpressed
expressedas:
as:
6
6 i d w2EI (EI
EIG (c + k ) d 4w d 2w
ci + ik i ) di 4 w2 2 − 2Gi d2 w2 2 + 2ki w2 d − Pd
−
EIG− i d w2
+6 + −4 2G d 2+ 2k w d − ∆P i d= 0 (4)
i =0 (4)
ci cdz i 6 dz ci ci dz4dz i
dzdz
2 i 2
where Pi is the static earth pressure behind the wall above the excavation surface (kN/m),
kti is the coefficient of the elastic modulus of the internal support, ∆Pi is the static earth
pressure difference between the diaphragm wall (kN/m).
3.2. Determination of Calculation Parameters of the Three-Parameter Kerr Foundation Model

The empirical formula proposed by Tanahashi was used to calculate the shear modulus
G [26], where Gi is the shear modulus of the i-th layer soil (kPa):
Eti t
Gi = (5)
6(1 + v i )
where Et i is the elastic modulus of the i-th layer soil (kPa), and v is the Poisson’s ratio of the
i-th layer soil. t is the thickness of the shear layer (m). The thickness of the shear layer can
be selected according to the literature [27]. The influence range of the soil on the pile side is
11D. D is the diameter of the diaphragm wall.
For the selection of the foundation reaction force ki , this study used the formula
proposed by Vesic [28], where the outer spring elastic modulus ki of the three-parameter
Kerr foundation model is three times the inner spring elastic modulus ci according to the
simplified elastic space method.
0.083
Eti d4

Eti
k i = 0.65 · (6)
EI (1 − v i )2
ci = 3k i (7)
The stiffness coefficient of the inner support was selected according to a previous
study [24]:
Fh = k t (wt − wt0 ) (8)
αt Ec Ad
kt = (9)
λl0 s
where wt is the horizontal displacement of the diaphragm wall in the inner support section
(m), wt0 is the initial horizontal displacement of the diaphragm wall in the inner support
section, λ is the adjustment coefficient of the immobile point of the support, αt is the
relaxation coefficient of the support, Ec is the elasticity modulus of the support material
(kPa), A is the cross-sectional area of the support (m2 ), l0 is the length of the supported
member under pressure (m), and s is the horizontal spacing of the support (m).
3.3. Differential Calculation of Flexural Differential Equations

The finite difference method was employed to computationally solve the flexural
differential equation of the shear layer by dividing the wall into n equal sections, where
each section has a length of h. In this paper, h = 0.5 is assumed in the theoretical calculations.
Three virtual nodes are added at the top and bottom of the wall, and the nodes from the
top of the wall to the excavation face are numbered −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3, . . ., K − 3, K − 2,
K − 1, K; the nodes from the excavation face to the bottom of the wall are numbered K, K +
1, K + 2, K + 3, . . ., N − 3, N − 2, N − 1, N, N + 1, N + 2, and N + 3, as shown in Figure 3. K
is the node at the excavation face, and N is the node at the bottom of the wall.
The difference form of the flexural differential equation for the shear layer is first
obtained for different order derivatives using Taylor’s formula [29]. The differentiation of
the flexural differential equations for the loaded and embedded segments is performed to
obtain the differential forms of the flexural differential equations, respectively.
The loaded section is expressed as:
A1,i (w2 )i+3 + B1,i (w2 )i+2 − C1,i (w2 )i+1 + D1,i (w2 )i − C1,i (w2 )i−1 + B1,i (w2 )i−2 + A1,i (w2 )i−3 = Pi d (10)
The embedded section is expressed as:
A2,i (w2 )i+3 + B2,i (w2 )i+2 − C2,i (w2 )i+1 + D2,i (w2 )i − C2,i (w2 )i−1 + B2,i (w2 )i−2 + A2,i (w2 )i−3 = ∆Pi d (11)
where
− EIGi 6EIGi EI (ci + k i ) 15EIGi 4EI (ci + k i ) Gi d
A1,i = , B1,i = + , C1,i = + + 2
c i h6 c i h6 c i h4 c i h6 c i h4 h
20EIGi 6EI (ci + k i ) 2Gi d k (c + k i )

D1,i = 6
+ 4
+ 2 + k i d + ti i
ci h ci h h ci
− EIGi 6EIGi EI (ci + k i ) 15EIGi 4EI (ci + k i ) 2Gi d

A2,i = 6
, B2,i = 6
+ 4
, C2,i = 6
+ + 2
ability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW ci h ci h ci h ci h c i h4 6 hof 22
20EIGi 6EI (ci + k i ) 4Gi d
D2,i = + + 2 + 2k i d
c i h6 c i h4 h
(a) (b)
Figure 3. Differential diagram ofdiagram
Figure 3. Differential the support
of the structure: (a) loaded
support structure: section;
(a) loaded (b) embedded
section; section.
(b) embedded section.
3.4. Horizontal Displacement Solution for Shear Layer of Loaded Section

The difference form of the flexural differential equation for the shear layer is first
The toporder
obtained for different of thederivatives
diaphragm using
wall isTaylor’s
considered to be a[29].
formula freeThe
boundary condition of
differentiation with
wall bending moment M0 = 0, wall shear Q0 = 0, shear layer bending moment M ′0 = 0,
the flexural differential equations for the loaded and embedded segments is performed to
and shear layer shear Q′0 = 0. Given that the diaphragm wall in this pit is embedded
obtain the differential forms of the flexural differential equations, respectively.
in the rock layer, the bottom of the wall is considered to be a fixed boundary condition;
The loaded section is expressed
therefore, the wall as: w N = 0, the wall rotating angle θ N = 0, the shear layer
displacement
( w2 )i +3 + B1,i ( ww2 ′)Ni + 2=− C0,1,and
A1，i displacement i ( w2 the
)i +1 +shear
D1,i ( w 2 )i −rotating
layer C1,i ( w2 )iangle
−1
+ B1,θi (′ N )i − 20.+InA1，ai (previous
w2= w2 )i −3 = Pd
istudy [30],
(10)
the expressions of the deflection, rotating angle, bending moment, and shear force of the
diaphragmsection
The embedded wall were given, and the
is expressed as: displacement of the shear layer of the diaphragm wall
in the loading section was solved by combining the boundary conditions.
A2，i ( w2 )i +3 + B2,i ( w2 )i + 2 − C2,i ( w2 )i +1 + D2,i ( w2 )i − C2,i ( w2 )i −1 + B2,i ( w2 )i − 2 + A2，i ( w2 )i −3 = Pd
In the boundary condition of the top of the wall, according to the boundary condition i
(11)
of the shear layer bending moment M ′0 = 0, letting i = 0, the following can be obtained:
where
A1,i =
− EIGi
, B
(w2 )−1 = a−EI
=
6 EIGi
+
( ci2+)0k−
1 (w
i)
b− 1 ( w2 ) 1 + c − 1 ( w2 ) 2 + d − 1
, C =
15EIGi 4 EI ( ci + ki ) Gi d
+ +
(12)
1，i 1, i
where a−1 =ci2,h6b−1 = 1, cc−i h16 = 0, andci h 4d = 0.
−1
ci h6 ci h 4 h2
According to the boundary condition of the shear layer shear Q′0 = 0, we obtain:
20 EIGi 6 EI ( ci + ki ) 2Gi d k ( c + ki )
D1,i = 6
+ 4
+ 2 + ki d + ti i
ci h (w2 )−2ci= h 2(w2 )−h1 − (w2 )1 + (wc2i)2 (13)
− EIGi 6 EIGi EI ( ci + ki ) 15EIGi 4 EI ( ci + ki ) 2Gi d

A2,i = , B2,i = + , C2,i = + + 2
ci h6 ci h6 ci h 4 ci h6 ci h 4 h
20 EIGi 6 EI ( ci + ki ) 4Gi d
D2,i = + + 2 + 2ki d
ci h6 ci h 4 h
3.4. Horizontal Displacement Solution for Shear Layer of Loaded Section

According to the boundary condition of the wall bending moment M0 = 0, we obtain:
( w2 ) − 2 = a − 2 ( w2 ) − 1 − b− 2 ( w2 ) 0 + c − 2 ( w2 ) 1 + d − 2 (14)
(c +k )h2 +6G (c +k )h2 +3G (c +k )h2 +2G

where a−2 = 0 02G0 0
, b−2 = 0 0G0 0
, c−2 = 0 02G0 0
, and d−2 = 0.
According to the boundary condition of the wall shear Q0 = 0, we can obtain:
(w2 )0 = a0 (w2 )1 − b0 (w2 )2 + c0 (w2 )3 + d0 (15)
(6A1,0 −4B1,0 ) 2B1,0 −2A1,0

where a0 = − D , b0 = − D , c0 = − D ,
1,0 −2C1,0 +4B1,0 −6A1,0 1,0 −2C1,0 +4B1,0 −6A1,0 1,0 −2C1,0 +4B1,0 −6A1,0
P0 d
and d0 = − .
D1,0 −2C1,0 +4B1,0 −6A1,0
Therefore, imitating Equations (12)–(15) yields:
( w 2 ) i = a i ( w 2 ) i + 1 − bi ( w 2 ) i + 2 + c i ( w 2 ) i + 3 + d i (16)
( w 2 ) i − 1 = a i − 1 ( w 2 ) i − bi − 1 ( w 2 ) i + 1 + c i − 1 ( w 2 ) i + 2 + d i − 1 (17)
( w 2 ) i − 2 = a i − 2 ( w 2 ) i − 1 − bi − 2 ( w 2 ) i + c i − 2 ( w 2 ) i + 1 + d i − 2 (18)
( w 2 ) i − 3 = a i − 3 ( w 2 ) i − 2 − bi − 3 ( w 2 ) i − 1 + c i − 3 ( w 2 ) i + d i − 3 (19)
Substituting Equations (16)–(19) into Equation (10) obtains:
( w 2 ) i = a i ( w 2 ) i + 1 − bi ( w 2 ) i + 2 + c i ( w 2 ) i + 3 + d i (20)
where
ai = −(C1,i − C1,i bi−1 − B1,i bi−1 ai−2 + B1,i ci−2 − A1,i ai−3 ai−2 bi−1 + A1,i ai−3 ci−2 + A1,i bi−3 bi−1 )/ei
bi = ( B1,i + C1,i ci−1 + B1,i ci−1 ai−2 + A1,i ai−3 ai−2 ci−1 − A1,i bi−3 ci−1 )/ei
ci = − A1,i /ei
di = −(C1,i di−1 + B1,i di−1 ai−2 + B1,i di−2 + A1,i ai−3 ai−2 di−1 + A1,i ai−3 di−2 − A1,i bi−3 di−1 + A1,i di−3 − Pi d)/ei
ei = D1,i + C1,i ai−1 + B1,i ai−1 ai−2 − B1,i bi−2 + A1,i ai−1 ai−2 ai−3 − A1,i ai−3 bi−2 − A1,i bi−3 bi−1 + A1,i ci−3
The horizontal displacement of any node in the shear layer of the loaded section of
the wall can be obtained by recursion through Equations (17)–(20).
3.5. Solution of Horizontal Displacement of Shear Layer in Embedded Section

The differential form of the shear layer flexural differential equation for the embedded
section is given in Equation (11).
Given that the underground continuous wall in the foundation pit is embedded in
the rock layer, the bottom of the wall is considered to be a fixed boundary condition. At
this time, the wall displacement w N = 0, the wall rotation angle θ N = 0, the shear layer
displacement (w2 ) N = 0, and the shear layer rotation angle (θ2 ) N = 0. According to the
above boundary conditions and letting i = N − 1, i = N − 2, and i = N − 3, respectively, the
embedded differential equations (w2 ) N −1 , (w2 ) N −2 , and (w2 ) N −3 of the different nodes
can be obtained.
When i = N − 1, the embedded segment differential equation can be expressed as:
(w2 ) N −1 = ( a2 ) N −1 (w2 ) N −2 − (b2 ) N −1 (w2 ) N −3 + (c2 ) N −1 (w2 ) N −4 + (d2 ) N −1 (21)

2,( N −1) −C2,( N −1)

A B2,( N −1)

where ( a2 ) N −1 = − B2,( N −1) + D2,( N −1) ,(b2 ) N −1 = − B2,( N −1) + D2,( N −1)
∆P( N −1) d
! !
A2,( N −1)
( c 2 ) N −1 = − , ( d 2 ) N −1 =
B2,( N −1) + D2,( N −1) B2,( N −1) + D2,( N −1)

A2,( N −2) −C2( N −2) (b2 ) N −1 +C2,( N −2) A2,( N −2) −C2,( N −2) (c2 ) N −1 + B2,( N −2)
where ( a2 ) N −2 = − , (b2 ) N −2 = − , and
A2,( N −2) −C2( N −2) ( a2 ) N −1 + D2,( N −2) A2,( N −2) −C2,( N −2) ( a2 ) N −1 + D2,( N −2)
!
− A2,( N −2) ∆PN −2 d− A2,( N −2) −C2,( N −2) (d2 ) N −1
( c 2 ) N −2 = ( d 2 ) N −2 = −
A2,( N −2) −C2,( N −2) ( a2 ) N −1 + D2,( N −2) A2,( N −2) −C2,( N −2) ( a2 ) N −1 + D2,( N −2)
where
B2,( N −3) ((c2 ) N −1 −( a2 ) N −1 (b2 ) N −2 )+C2,( N −3) ((b2 ) N −2 −1)
( a 2 ) N −3 = − B2,( N −3) (( a2 ) N −1 ( a2 ) N −2 −(b2 ) N −1 )−C2,( N −3) ( a2 ) N −2 + D2,( N −3)
,
B2,( N −3) (( a2 ) N −1 (c2 ) N −2 +1)−C2,( N −3) (c2 ) N −2

(b2 ) N −3 = B2,( N −3) ( a2 ) N −1 (c2 ) N −2 −C2,( N −3) (c2 ) N −2 + B2,( N −3)
,
2,( N −3) A
( c 2 ) N −3 = − B ,
2,( N −3) ( ( a2 ) N −1 ( a2 ) N −2 −( b2 ) N −1 ) −C2,( N −3) ( a2 ) N −2 + D2,( N −3)

B2,( N −3) (( a2 ) N −1 (d2 ) N −2 +(d2 ) N −1 )−C2,( N −3) (d2 ) N −2 −∆P( N −3) d
( d 2 ) N −3 = − B
2,( N −3) ( ( a2 ) N −1 ( a2 ) N −2 −( b2 ) N −1 ) −C2,( N −3) ( a2 ) N −2 + D2,( N −3)
Imitating Equations (21)–(23) yields:
(w2 )i = ( a2 )i (w2 )i−1 − (b2 )i (w2 )i−2 + (c2 )i (w2 )i−3 + (d2 )i (24)
(w2 )i+1 = ( a2 )i+1 (w2 )i − (b2 )i+1 (w2 )i−1 + (c2 )i+1 (w2 )i−2 + (d2 )i+1 (25)
(w2 )i+2 = ( a2 )i+2 (w2 )i+1 − (b2 )i+2 (w2 )i + (c2 )i+2 (w2 )i−1 + (d2 )i+2 (26)
(w2 )i+3 = ( a2 )i+3 (w2 )i+2 − (b2 )i+3 (w2 )i+1 + (c2 )i+3 (w2 )i + (d2 )i+3 (27)
Substituting Equations (25)–(27) into Equation (11) and organizing them yields:
(w2 )i = ( a2 )i (w2 )i−1 − (b2 )i (w2 )i−2 + (c2 )i (w2 )i−3 + (d2 )i (28)
where
C2,i (b2 )i+1 − C2,i − B2,i ( a2 )i+2 (b2 )i+1 + B2,i (c2 )i+2 − A2,i ( a2 )i+3 ( a2 )i+2 (b2 )i+1 + A2,i ( a2 )i+3 (c2 )i+2 + A2,i (b2 )i+3 (b2 )i+1

( a2 )i = −
−C2,i ( a2 )i+1 + B2,i ( a2 )i+2 ( a2 )i+1 − B2,i (b2 )i+2 + A2,i ( a2 )i+3 ( a2 )i+2 ( a2 )i+1 − A2,i ( a2 )i+3 (b2 )i+2 − A2,i (b2 )i+3 ( a2 )i+1 + A2,i (c2 )i+3 + D2,i
−C2,i (c2 )i+1 + B2,i ( a2 )i+2 (c2 )i+1 + A2,i ( a2 )i+3 ( a2 )i+2 (c2 )i+1 − A2,i (b2 )i+3 (c2 )i+1 + B2,i
(b2 )i =
− A2,i
( c2 )i =
−C2,i (d2 )i+1 + B2,i ( a2 )i+2 (d2 )i+1 + B2,i (d2 )i+2 + A2,i ( a2 )i+3 ( a2 )i+2 (d2 )i+1 + A2,i ( a2 )i+3 (d2 )i+2 − A2,i (b2 )i+3 (d2 )i+1 + A2,i (d2 )i+3 − ∆Pi d

( d2 )i = −
The horizontal displacement of any node in the shear layer of the embedded section
can be obtained by recursion through Equations (24)–(27).
3.6. Overall Differential Calculation and Analysis of Wall Displacement

With reference to the differential diagram of the supporting structure in Figure 4, be-
cause the load section and the embedded section of the wall meet the continuous conditions
of the shear layer of the boundary surface and the continuous conditions of the wall at the
excavation surface K, combined with the boundary conditions of the top and bottom of the
wall, the linear equations can be expressed by a matrix:
[ a][(w2 )] = [d] (29)
where
 
1 −1

 −1 1 1 −1 


 1 −2 1 −1 2 −1 


 −1 2 −2 1 1 −2 2 −1 

 1 − L1 − M1 − J1 − J1 − M1 − L1
 J M1 L1 L1 M1 J1 

Sustainability

 2024,
J2 16, x FOR
− L2 PEER REVIEW L2 − J2 − J2 L2 − L2 J2 10 of
 22

1 − aK bK −cK
 
[ a] = 
 
1 − a K −1 bK −1 − c K −1

 
1 − a K −2 bK −2 − c K −2
 
 
 1 − a K −3 bK −3 − c K −3
 
G c +k G0 c +k

J1 = 0
H1 = 0 30 , J 2 = = c02 )K 0
H 2 −( (,bL21)K= H1 + 5−( )K1 = 2 H
1 1 + 7 J1 , L2 = H 2 + 2 J 2 .
 

5 , 3 ,
J1a,2M 

 2c0 h 2c0 h 2c0 h 2c0 h−(c2 )K+1 (b2 )K+1 −( a2 )K+1 1


 
−(c2 )K+2 (b2 )K+2 −( a2 )K+2 1
( w2 )K −3 − ( w2 )K +3
 
is the displacement at point K of −( thec2 )excavation
K +3 ( b2 ) surface
K +3 −( a and
2 ) K +3
its1seven
( w2 ) K −3 − ( w2 ) K +3
' '
adjacent nodes calculated by the loaded section; is the displacementTat

(w2 )k−3 (w2 )k−2 (w2 )k−1 (w2 )k (w2 )k+1 (w2 )k+2 (w2 )k+3 (w2 )′k−3 (w2 )′k−2 (w2 )′k−1 (w2 )′k (w2 )′k+1 (w2 )′k+2 (w2 )′k+3

[ w2 ] =
point K of the excavation surface and its seven adjacent nodes calculated by the embedded
section. The displacement at the excavation surface can be calculated by Equation (29),
T
[d] = 0 0 0 0and0then 0 the displacement at any node of the shear layer can be solved iteratively by Equa-

dK − 3 d K −2 d K −1 d K ( d 2 ) K ( d 2 ) K +1 ( d 2 ) K +2 ( d 2 ) K +3
tions (20) and (28). Finally, the horizontal displacement at any node of the diaphragm wall
G0 c0 can
+ k0be obtainedG0 using cEquation
0 + k0
(2). This process needs to be solved with the help of
J1 = , H1 = ,
MATLAB J2 = software, H2 =
(MATLAB , L
R2017a
1 =H ).1 + 5J1 , M1 = 2H1 + 7J1 , L2 = H2 + 2J2 .
2c0 h5 2c0 h3 2c0 h3 2c0 h
Figure4.4.Computational
Figure Computationalmodel
modelof
ofMindlin
Mindlinsolution
solutionunder
underhorizontal
horizontalload.
load.
(w2 )K−3 − of
4. Calculation (wSurface
2 )K +3 is Settlement
the displacement
Causedatbypoint K of theofexcavation
Excavation Foundation surface
Pit and its
′ ′
seven adjacent nodes calculated by the loaded section; (w2 )K −3 − (w2 )K +3 is the displace-
4.1. Virtual Force Inversion
ment at point K of the excavation surface and its seven adjacent nodes calculated by the
embeddedAccording to the
section. Theboundary element
displacement at themethod, the pit
excavation boundary
surface can begenerates
calculatedthe
byvirtual
Equa-
stress field and virtual displacement field corresponding to the soil outside
tion (29), and then the displacement at any node of the shear layer can be solved iterativelythe pit under
theEquations
by influence (20)
of the
andvirtual
(28). force. When
Finally, the pit boundary
the horizontal conditions
displacement at any in node
the virtual
of the dis-
di-
aphragm wall can be obtained using Equation (2). This process needs to be solved with theit
placement field are consistent with the actual pit displacement boundary conditions,
can be
help consideredsoftware
of MATLAB that the(MATLAB
virtual displacement
R2017a). field and virtual force field are generated
by the virtual force in response to the boundary effect caused by the pit excavation.
Mindlin [22] gave a displacement solution at any position when a horizontal concen-
trated load is applied in an elastic semi-infinite space, For a composite soil layer, weighted
average parameters can be used for the soil layer, as shown in Figure 4.
The horizontal displacement of point A caused by the horizontal concentration force
Px ( B ) at point B inside the semi-infinite space is expressed as
U ( A) = K x ( A, B )  Px ( B )
(30)
2
4. Calculation of Surface Settlement Caused by Excavation of Foundation Pit

4.1. Virtual Force Inversion
According to the boundary element method, the pit boundary generates the virtual
stress field and virtual displacement field corresponding to the soil outside the pit under
the influence of the virtual force. When the pit boundary conditions in the virtual displace-
ment field are consistent with the actual pit displacement boundary conditions, it can be
considered that the virtual displacement field and virtual force field are generated by the
virtual force in response to the boundary effect caused by the pit excavation.
Mindlin [22] gave a displacement solution at any position when a horizontal concen-
trated load is applied in an elastic semi-infinite space, For a composite soil layer, weighted
average parameters can be used for the soil layer, as shown in Figure 4.
The horizontal displacement of point A caused by the horizontal concentration force
Px ( B) at point B inside the semi-infinite space is expressed as
U ( A) = Kx ( A, B) · Px ( B) (30)
 
3−4vd 1 X2 (3−4vd ) X 2 2lz 3X 2
1  R1 + R2 + R31
+ R32
+ R32
1− R32
Kx ( A, B) = (31)

16πGd (1 − vd )
 
+ 4(1−Rvd2 )( 1−2vd ) 2
+ Z2 1 − R ( RX +Z )
2 2 2
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 22
where vd is the equivalent Poisson’s ratio of the soil layer. Gd is the equivalent shear modu-
lus of the soil layer. x, y, and z represent the coordinates of the displacement calculation
point A, and u, v, and l represent the coordinates of the load point B, respectively: X = x − u,
point A, and u, v, and l represent the coordinates
q of2 the load
2
point B, q
respectively: X = x −u
2
Y = y − v, Z1 = z − l, Z2 = z + l, R1 = 2 X 2 + Y2 + Z1 , and R2 = X 2 + 2Y + Z22 .
2
Z2 = z + l R = X + Y + Z R2 = on + Yboundary
+ Z2 . where the
, Y =As
y −shown
2 2
v , Z1 =inz −Figure
l, , 1
5, assuming 1 , and
that a virtual force acts
X the
As shown
pit enclosure is in Figurethe
located, 5, assuming
followingthat a virtual
boundary force acts
integral on thecan
equation boundary where the
be constructed by
pit enclosure is located, the following
integrating Equation (30) along this boundary:boundary integral equation can be constructed by
integrating Equation (30) along this boundary:
Z
U)( =
U( A A) = KKx ( (A,A,BB)) · PPx((BB))dL

LL x x
dL (32)
(32)
and Px (x (B))is is
P B
where LL is
where is the
the pit
pit boundary,
boundary, and the virtual
the virtualforce acting
force pointB BononL.L.
actingatatpoint
Figure 5. Virtual forces on the boundary of the foundation pit.

Figure
If LL is
If is subdivided
subdivided sufficiently to consider
sufficiently to consider the
the virtual
virtual forces
forces on
on each
each segment
segmentto
to be
be
uniformly
uniformly distributed,
distributed, then
then Equation (32) can
Equation (32) can be
be rewritten
rewritten as:
as:
m
( A) = 
∑ iP=1x (xB( i )·i ) L Kxx(( A, iB)i )dL
m
P B  K A, B dLi
Z
U ( AU
)= i i
(33)
(33)
i =1 Li
where Li is the i-th segment of L; x ( i ) is the horizontal uniform concentration force act-
P B
ing on the i-th segment; and i = 1~m, where m is the total number of segments of the pit
boundary.
Taking the calculated displacement of the diaphragm wall as the actual displacement
boundary condition, and considering that point A is located on the boundary, the follow-
where Li is the i-th segment of L; Px ( Bi ) is the horizontal uniform concentration force

acting on the i-th segment; and i = 1~m, where m is the total number of segments of the
pit boundary.
Taking the calculated displacement of the diaphragm wall as the actual displacement
boundary condition, and considering that point A is located on the boundary, the following
matrix expression can be obtained from Equation (34):
Ux ( A1 ) G11 ··· G1j ··· G1m Px ( B1 )

     
..   .. .. .. . ..   .. 
..

.  .
  . . .   . 
   

 Ux A j  =  Gj1
   ··· Gjj ··· Gjm  ·
 
 Px Bj 
 (34)
..   .
  .. . .. .. ..   . 
.. .

 . . . .   . 
Ux ( A m ) Gm1 ··· Gmj · · · Gmm Px ( Bm )
R
where Gji = L Kx ( A, Bi )dLi
i
Equation (34) can be abbreviated as:
Px = G −1 · Ux (35)
In this equation, the matrix Gji and the actual boundary conditions Ux are known, and
the virtual additional horizontal stress Px on the boundary of the pit can be obtained by
solving the matrix relation equation using the MATLAB software (MATLAB R2017a).
4.2. Calculation
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW of the Surface Settlement 12 of 22
Pit excavation creates additional stresses, which lead to surface settlement, as shown
in Figure 6.
4.2. Calculation of the Surface Settlement
" #
PX Z1 (3 − 4vd ) Z1 6wzZ2 4(1 − vd )(1 − 2vd )
Pit excavation
wz = creates additional
+ stresses, which
− lead to+surface settlement, as shown
(36)
16πG (1 − vd ) R31 R32 R52 R2 ( R2 + Z2 )
in Figure 6.
Figure
Figure6.6.Additional
Additionalstress
stresscalculation
calculationsettlement
settlementdiagram.
diagram.
Using the obtained additional horizontal stress and the Mindlin vertical displacement
PX  Z1 ( 3 − 4vd ) Z1 6wzZ 2 4 (1 − vd )(1 − 2vd ) 
wz =
solution, the following settlement +
 calculation − expression
matrix + is obtained: (36)
16 G (1 − vd )  R13 R23 R25 R2 ( R2 + Z 2 ) 
Uz (C1additional
) K11 · · · K1j · · · K1m Px ( B1 )vertical displace-
     
Using the obtained horizontal stress and the Mindlin
..   .. .. .. .. ..   .. 
ment solution, thefollowing settlement calculation .matrix . expression
  . is obtained:

.  .
  . .
 
   
  U z ( C )   P( B )  
 Uz Cj  =  K j1 · · · K jj · · · K jm  ·  Px Bj  (37)
 . 1   .K11 K1 j
.
K1m  
.  x 1 . 
.   .. ..
. .. . .. ..    .. 
.     

Uz (C Umz )( C j )  =Km1
K j1 · · · K Kmj · · · KKjmmm    Px ( P
Bxj ()B
 m) (37)
   jj
  
     
  K   
U z ( Cm )     Px ( Bm )
m1 K mj K mm
where K ji = 
Li  K (C, B ) dL dv .
v z i i
R R
where K ji = L v Kz (C, Bi )dLi dv.
i
Uz Cj is the settlement at different locations. The surface settlement caused by the
foundation excavation can finally be calculated using Equation (37).
A flowchart for calculating the displacement of the diaphragm wall and surface
settlement is shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Calculation flowchart.

Figure7.
Figure 7. Calculation
Calculation flowchart.
flowchart.
5. Engineering Example Analysis
5.
5. Engineering
Engineering Example
Example Analysis
Analysis
5.1. Project Overview
5.1. Project Overview
5.1. For
Project
the Overview
subway station in Xiamen, the diaphragm wall is made of C30 concrete with
a depthFor the
ofthe subway
24.5 m and station
astation in Xiamen,
thickness of 1000themm.diaphragm
The first iswall is madesupport,
a concrete of C30 concrete with
with a hori-
For subway in Xiamen, the diaphragm wall is made of C30 concrete with
a depth of 24.5 m and a thickness of 1000 mm. The first is a concrete support, with a
zontal
a depthspacing
of 24.5ofm5 and
m and an elasticity
a thickness modulus
of 1000 mm. Theof 30first
GPa; is athe secondsupport,
concrete and thirdwith
supports
a hori-
are
 spacing
horizontal
zontal
spacing of 5 m and an elasticity modulus of 30 GPa; the second and third
= 609, of 5t m
with = 16andmman steel
elasticity modulus
support, of 30 GPa; the second 5 m,and thirdelasticity
supports
supports are φ = 609, with t = 16 mm steel asupport,
horizontal spacing
a horizontal ofspacingand
ofan
5 m, and an
modulus of 200 with
GPa.oftThe
= 16foundation support aform is shown in
are
elasticity =modulus
609, 200 mm steel
GPa. support,
The foundation horizontal
support form is Figure
spacing of 5 8.
shown m, and an8.elasticity
in Figure
modulus of 200 GPa. The foundation support form is shown in Figure 8.
Figure
Figure8.8.Section
Sectionofoffoundation
foundationpit
pitsupport
supportstructure.
structure.
Figure 8. Section of foundation pit support structure.
According to the monitoring program of this project, the horizontal displacement is
monitored by theto
According inclinometer tube,program
the monitoring which isoflaid
thisalong the the
project, depth direction
horizontal of the wholeis
displacement
diaphragm
monitoredwall.
by theThe surface settlement
inclinometer is monitored
tube, which by a level
is laid along meter,direction
the depth and the monitoring
of the whole
points are setwall.
diaphragm at 3 The
m, 8surface
m, 13 m, 18 m, and
settlement 23 m fromby
is monitored the diaphragm
a level wall,the
meter, and as monitoring
shown in
Figure
points9are
for set
the at
field measurement
3 m, 8 m, 13 m, 18point layout.
m, and 23 m from the diaphragm wall, as shown in
Figure 9 for the field measurement point layout.
According to the monitoring program of this project, the horizontal displacement is

monitored by the inclinometer tube, which is laid along the depth direction of the whole
diaphragm wall. The surface settlement is monitored by a level meter, and the monitoring
points are set at 3 m, 8 m, 13 m, 18 m, and 23 m from the diaphragm wall, as shown in
Figure 9 for the field measurement point layout.
Figure
Figure 9. 9. Layout
Layout of of monitoring
monitoring points.
points.
5.2. Engineering Geology
5.2. Engineering Geology
The soil layers are, from top to bottom, plain fill, 1–2 residual sand cohesive soil,
The soil layers are, from top to bottom, plain fill, 1–2 residual sand cohesive soil, 1–3
1–3 residual sand cohesive soil, completely weathered granite, and scattered strongly
residual sand cohesive soil, completely weathered granite, and scattered strongly weath-
weathered granite. The mechanical parameters are shown in Table 1.
ered granite. The mechanical parameters are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Mechanical parameters of soil layers.
Table 1. Mechanical parameters of soil layers.
Thickness Cohesion Internal Friction Elastic Poisson’s
Soil Layer Gravity γ/(kN ·m−3 ) Gravity  /( Cohesion ◦Internal Elastic Mod- Poisson’s Ra-
Thickness
/m Soil Layer c/kPa Angle φ/ FrictionModulus/MPa Ratio/v
/m kN  m−3 ) c/kPa ulus/MPa tio/v
Plain fill 1.6 17.8 8 10 Angle φ/° 7 0.3
1–2 residual sand Plain fill 1.6 17.8 8 10 7 0.3
4 1–2 residual sand18.5 20 15 5.26 0.3
cohesive soil 4 18.5 20 15 5.26 0.3
cohesive soil
1–3 residual sand
4.21–3 residual sand18.4 22 16 5.58 0.3
cohesive soil 4.2 18.4 22 16 5.58 0.3
cohesive soil
Completely
7.7 Completely 19.7 28 19 8.21 0.28
weathered granite
weathered gran- 7.7 19.7 28 19 8.21 0.28
Scattered strongly ite
7 20.5 21 28 9.56 0.25
weathered granite Scattered
strongly weath- 7 20.5 21 28 9.56 0.25
ered When
graniteMindlin’s theory is used to calculate layered soils, the weighted average param-
eters of the soil layers are usually required. The properties of the weighted average soil
When
layer Mindlin’s
are shown theory
in Table is used to calculate layered soils, the weighted average pa-
2 [31,32].
rameters of the soil layers are usually required. The properties of the weighted average
soil layer
Table are shown
2. Weighted in Table
average 2 [31,32].of soil layer.
parameters
Table 2. Weighted average parameters

Thickness of soil layer.
Cohesion Internal Friction Elastic Modulus Poisson’s
Soil Layer Name Gravity γ/(kN·m−3 )
/m c/kPa Angle φ/◦ E/MPa Ratio/v
Internal Elastic
Weighted average Soil Layer Thickness Gravity  /( Cohesion Poisson’s
24.5 19.39 22.36 Friction
19.82 An- Modulus
7.58 0.28
soil layer Name /m kN  m−3 ) c/kPa Ratio/v
gle φ/° E/MPa
Weighted
average soil 24.5 19.39 22.36 19.82 7.58 0.28
layer
5.3. Theoretical Validation

5.3. Theoretical Validation

The calculation results of comparing the theoretical calculation and the two-parameter
Pasternak model with the actual measured data in the field to verify the rationality of the
theory of calculating the horizontal displacement are shown in Figure 10a. The results
show that the theoretical calculation results based on Kerr’s three-parameter model in
this paper are more accurate and closer to the field monitoring results compared with the
theoretical calculation results of Pasternak’s two-parameter model. The maximum horizon-
tal displacement calculated by the two theories is 17.13 mm and 16.99 mm, respectively,
which are very close to each other. However, the development trend of the horizontal
displacement varies greatly, and the theoretical calculation results of the three-parameter
Kerr model are more accurate compared with the monitoring results. As for the depth of
the maximum horizontal displacement, the Kerr model’s value was calculated to be 9.5 m,
and the Pasternak model’s value was calculated to be 11.5 m. The Kerr model’s
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW
value is
16 of 22
closer to the field data, which proves that the three-parameter Kerr model has a better
calculation accuracy.
(a) (b)
Figure 10. 10.
Figure Theoretical–experimental comparison:
Theoretical–experimental (a)(a)
comparison: horizontal displacement
horizontal comparison;
displacement comparison;(b)
(b)set-
settle-
tlement comparison.
ment comparison.
5.4. Influence of Wall Thickness

The theoretical calculations show that the displacement at the top is 2.4 mm, and the
This study further analyzed at thethe
position
effects 9.5 m below
of five the ground
variables, namely,isthe
thethickness
largest, which
of di- is
17.1 mm, and the bottom of the diaphragm wall, because of being
aphragm wall D, the elasticity modulus of diaphragm wall E, the diameter of internal embedded in the rock,
has a φ,
support displacement
the numberofof0.internal
As for the on-site S,
supports monitoring, the horizontal
and the geological displacement
conditions of the soilat the
top When
strata. of the one
diaphragm wall is 1.69
of the variables mm, and
is studied, thethe horizontal
other displacement
four variables at the position
are consistent with
the10 m below
actual the conditions
working ground is (D the= largest,
1.0 m, Ewhere the φhorizontal
= 30 GPa, = 609 mm,displacement
S = 3 sections,isand18.1the
mm,
and the displacement
site soil layer). at the bottom is 0. In terms of the size and the trend of horizontal
displacement,
Five workingthe theoretical
conditions calculation
were set: D = is 0.6basically
m, 0.8 m,the1.0
same as the
m, 1.2 m, field data,
and 1.4 m.and
Thethe
distribution law of displacement of the diaphragm wall and settlement under differentare
maximal error is not more than 5.5%. The theoretical calculation and the field data
basicallyof
thicknesses consistent,
the wall waswhich provesFigure
analyzed. the reasonableness of the prediction
11 shows the horizontal of the horizontal
displacement curves
displacement of the diaphragm wall.
and surface settlement curves with different wall thicknesses, respectively.
As for the surface settlement, the surface settlement data were analyzed by comparing
the three-parameter Kerr model, the two-parameter Pasternak model, and the field mea-
surement results, as shown in Figure 10b. In terms of the surface settlement distribution, the
settlement distribution of the three-parameter Kerr model is closer to the field monitoring
data than that of the two-parameter Pasternak model. In terms of the maximum settlement,
the settlements calculated by the two theories are 15.54 mm and 15.62 mm respectively,
which are very close to the calculated results. As for the location of the maximum settle-
ment, the maximum settlement of the three-parameter Kerr model is 6.5 m away from the
diaphragm wall, the maximum settlement of the two-parameter Pasternak model is 13 m
away from the diaphragm wall, and the maximum settlement of the on-site monitoring
is 8 m away from the diaphragm wall. It is obvious that the results of the calculation of
(a) (b)
Figure 11. Deformation curves of foundation pit with different thicknesses of diaphragm wall: (a)
influence of D on horizontal displacement; (b) influence of D on settlement.
the surface settlement based on the three-parameter Kerr model are closer to the actual
situation. This proves that the three-parameter Kerr model has a better calculation accuracy
than the two-parameter Pasternak model.
The theoretical calculations show that the surface settlement shows a trend of “in-
creasing first and then decreasing” with the increase in the distance from the diaphragm
wall, and the size of the surface settlement ranges from 0 to 15.54 mm, and the range of
the surface settlement is from 0 to 36 m. The maximum settlement is 15.54 mm at 6.5 m
from the diaphragm wall. As the distance from the diaphragm wall increases, the surface
settlement slowly decreases, and the displacement is 0 at the position of 36 m from the
diaphragm wall. The (a) on-site monitoring data show the same(b) trend, with a maximum
settlement of 14.9 mm, and the maximum error is not more than 4.3%. The measured values
Figure
of the10.surface
Theoretical–experimental
settlement and thecomparison:
theoretical (a) horizontal
predicted displacement
values are givencomparison; (b) set-
in Figure 10b. This
tlement comparison.
theory can accurately reflect the surface settlement of the pit on site.
5.4. Influence
5.4. Influenceof of
Wall
WallThickness
Thickness
This study further
This study further analyzed
analyzedthetheeffects of five
effects variables,
of five namely,
variables, the thickness
namely, of di-of
the thickness
aphragm wall D, the elasticity modulus of diaphragm wall E, the
diaphragm wall D, the elasticity modulus of diaphragm wall E, the diameter of internal diameter of internal
support
support φ,φ,
thethenumber
number ofof
internal
internalsupports
supports S, S,
and the
and geological
the geological conditions
conditions ofofthe
thesoil
soil
strata.
strata.When
Whenone oneofofthe
thevariables
variablesisis studied,
studied, the other four
the other fourvariables
variablesare areconsistent
consistentwith
withthe
the actual
actual working
working conditions
conditions (D(D = 1.0
= 1.0 m,m,E= E 30
= 30 GPa,
GPa, φφ = 609
= 609 mm,mm, S= S 3= sections,
3 sections, and
and thethe
site
site soil layer).
soil layer).
Five
Fiveworking
working conditions
conditions were
were set:
set:D D
= 0.6
= 0.6m,m, 0.80.8
m,m,1.01.0m,m,1.21.2m,m,and
and1.4
1.4m.m.TheThe
distribution
distribution lawlawofofdisplacement
displacement ofofthe
thediaphragm
diaphragm wall
walland
andsettlement
settlement under
under different
different
thicknesses
thicknesses ofofthethewall
wall was
wasanalyzed.
analyzed. Figure
Figure1111shows
showsthethe
horizontal
displacement curves
curves
and
and surface
surfacesettlement
settlement curves
curveswith
withdifferent
differentwall
wall thicknesses,
thicknesses, respectively.
respectively.
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure11.11.
Deformation curves
Deformation of foundation
curves pit with
of foundation different
pit with thicknesses
different of diaphragm
thicknesses wall: (a)
of diaphragm wall:
influence of D on horizontal displacement; (b) influence of D on settlement.
(a) influence of D on horizontal displacement; (b) influence of D on settlement.
AsAs
shown
shown in Figure 11a,11a,
in Figure the horizontal
the horizontaldisplacement of theof
displacement wall
thedecreases by increas-
wall decreases by in-
ing the thickness of the wall, which is due to the increased bending
creasing the thickness of the wall, which is due to the increased bending stiffness stiffness of the dia-
of the
phragm wall. wall.
diaphragm The maximum
The maximum displacements of theofwalls
displacements all appear
the walls at a depth
all appear of about
at a depth 9.5
of about
m.9.5
This
m. is because
This the soil
is because the pressure andand
soil pressure support force
support areare
force fixed, andand
fixed, thethe
magnitude
magnitude and
and
location of the loads are the same; thus, changing the thickness only increases
location of the loads are the same; thus, changing the thickness only increases the resistance the re-
sistance to deformation
to deformation at the of
at the depth depth of the corresponding
the corresponding groundground linkThe
link wall. wall. The maximum
maximum horizon-
horizontal displacements
tal displacements aremm,
are 14.55 14.55 mm,
15.87 mm, 15.87 mm,
17.13 mm,17.13 mm,
18.38 mm,18.38
and mm,
19.39 and
mm,19.39 mm,
respectively.
respectively.
The maximum Thedifference
maximumisdifference is 4.84ismm,
4.84 mm, which which
28.3% of theis horizontal
28.3% of the horizontal under
displacement dis-
placement under field
field conditions, conditions,
and the and the effect
effect of increasing of increasing
the wall thickness the wall thickness
on controlling on con-
the horizontal
trolling the horizontal
displacement displacement
of the diaphragm of is
wall the diaphragm wall is obvious.
obvious.
As shown in Figure 11b, the wall thickness increases, and the corresponding surface
settlement decreases. This is because an increase in the thickness of the diaphragm wall

As shown in Figure 11b, the wall thickness increases, and the corresponding surface
settlement decreases. This is because an increase in the thickness of the diaphragm wall
leads
leadsto atodecrease
a decreasein in
thethe
horizontal
displacementofofthethediaphragm
diaphragmwallwalland
andaadecrease
decrease in
in the additional stress, so the surface settlement decreases. The maximum
the additional stress, so the surface settlement decreases. The maximum surface surface settle-
settlements
ments are 12.89 mm, 14.26 mm, 15.54 mm, 16.79 mm, and 17.64 mm,
are 12.89 mm, 14.26 mm, 15.54 mm, 16.79 mm, and 17.64 mm, respectively. The maximum respectively. The
maximum
settlement difference is 4.75 mm, which is 30.6% of the maximum settlement at theatsite,
settlement difference is 4.75 mm, which is 30.6% of the maximum settlement
theindicating
site, indicating that increasing
that increasing the thickness
the thickness of the of the diaphragm
diaphragm wall
wall has has a significant
a significant effect on
effect on controlling
controlling surfacesurface settlement.
settlement.
5.5.5.5.
Influence of Elasticity
Influence Modulus
of Elasticity Modulus
Four working
Four workingconditions areare
conditions setset
forfor
thethe
elastic modulus
elastic modulusof the diaphragm
of the diaphragmwall, with
wall, with
elastic
elastic moduli of Eof= E
moduli 28=GPa,
28 GPa, 30 GPa,
30 GPa, 31.5 and
31.5 GPa, GPa,32.5
andGPa,
32.5and
GPa,
theand the corresponding
corresponding con-
concrete
crete gradesgrades areC30,
are C25, C25,C35,
C30,and
C35, and
C40, C40, respectively.
respectively. Figure Figure
12 shows12 the
shows the horizontal
horizontal dis-
displacement curves and surface settlement curves with different elasticity
placement curves and surface settlement curves with different elasticity moduli of the moduli of the
wall, respectively.
wall, respectively.
(a) (b)
Figure 12. 12.
Figure Deformation curves
Deformation of foundation
curves pit pit
of foundation with different
with elastic
different moduli
elastic of diaphragm
moduli wall:
of diaphragm wall:
(a) (a)
influence of E on horizontal displacement; (b) influence of E on settlement.
influence of E on horizontal displacement; (b) influence of E on settlement.
As As
shown
shown ininFigure
Figure12a,
12a,the
the displacement decreasesasasthe
displacement decreases the elasticity
elasticity modulus
modulus in-
increases
creases because
because the flexural
the flexural stiffness
stiffness of theof the diaphragm
diaphragm wall increases
wall increases when thewhen the elasticity
elasticity modulus
modulus increases,
increases, and, therefore,
and, therefore, the horizontal
the horizontal displacement
displacement of the diaphragm
of the diaphragm wall de-
wall decreases.
creases.The displacement of the diaphragm wall decreases as the elasticity modulus increases.
Theis displacement
This due to the increase of the indiaphragm wall decreases
flexural stiffness, as the
and, hence, theelasticity
horizontal modulus in-
displacement
creases. This is due to the increase in flexural stiffness, and, hence,
of the diaphragm wall decreases. The maximum displacement of the wall appears at the the horizontal displace-
ment of the
depth diaphragm
of the diaphragm wall decreases.
wall, at aboutThe 9.5 maximum
m. The maximum displacement of the
horizontal wall appearsare
displacements
at the
15.62 depth
mm, of16.37the mm,
diaphragm
17.13 mm, wall,
andat 18.05
aboutmm, 9.5 m. The maximum
respectively. horizontaldisplacement
The maximum displace-
difference
ments is 2.43
are 15.62 mm, mm, which
16.37 mm,is 17.13
14.2%mm, of theandhorizontal
18.05 mm, displacement
respectively.of the
Thefield condition,
maximum
indicating that
displacement using is
difference higher-grade
2.43 mm, which concrete andof
is 14.2% increasing the modulus
the horizontal displacementof elasticity
of the is
effective in controlling the horizontal displacement of a diaphragm
field condition, indicating that using higher-grade concrete and increasing the modulus wall.
As shown
of elasticity in Figure
is effective 12b, the increase
in controlling in the displacement
the horizontal elastic modulus of areduces
diaphragmthe surface
wall. set-
tlement,
As shownwhich is because
in Figure 12b,the
theincrease
increaseininthe theelastic
elasticmodulus
modulusofreduces
the diaphragm
the surfacewallset-
leads
to a reduction
tlement, in the horizontal
which is because the increasedisplacement
in the elastic ofmodulus
the diaphragm wall and a wall
of the diaphragm reduction
leads in
to aadditional
reductionstresses, which eventually
in the horizontal produces
displacement of the reduction
diaphragm in wall
the surface settlement.inThe
and a reduction
maximum surface settlements are 14.11 mm, 14.83 mm, 15.54
additional stresses, which eventually produces the reduction in the surface settlement. mm, and 16.59 mm, respec-
tively. The maximum settlement difference is 2.48
The maximum surface settlements are 14.11 mm, 14.83 mm, 15.54 mm, and 16.59mm, which is 16.0% of the maximum
mm,
settlement under field conditions, indicating that increasing the
respectively. The maximum settlement difference is 2.48 mm, which is 16.0% of the maxi- modulus of elasticity of the
diaphragm wall has a significant effect on controlling the surface
mum settlement under field conditions, indicating that increasing the modulus of elastic- settlement.
ity of the diaphragm wall has a significant effect on controlling the surface settlement.
5.6. Influence of Internal Support Diameter
To analyze
5.6. Influence the Support
of Internal influence of the diameter of the internal support on the horizontal
Diameter
displacement of the diaphragm wall, four working conditions were set up, with the di-
ameter of the second steel support as the representative. The diameters of the internal
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2295 To analyze the influence of the diameter of the internal support on the horizontal 17 of 21
displacement of the diaphragm wall, four working conditions were set up, with the diam-
eter of the second steel support as the representative. The diameters of the internal sup-
port were
support taken
were as φas= φ500
taken mm,mm,
= 500 φ=φ 609 mmmm
= 609 (consistent withwith
(consistent the field), φ = 700
the field), φ = mm, and and
700 mm,
φ = 800 mm to analyze the influence of the change in the stiffness of the internal
φ = 800 mm to analyze the influence of the change in the stiffness of the internal support support
on the
on the horizontal
displacement of of the
thediaphragm
diaphragmwall walland
andsurface
surfacesettlement
settlementwith
withdiffer-
different
ent diameters. Figure 13 shows the horizontal displacement curves and surface
diameters. Figure 13 shows the horizontal displacement curves and surface settlement settlement
curves with
curves with different
differentdiameters
diametersofofthe theinternal
internalsupport, respectively.
support, respectively.
(a) (b)
Figure 13.
Figure 13. Deformation
Deformation curves
curves of
of foundation
foundation pit
pit with
with different
different inner
inner support
support diameters:
diameters:(a)
(a)influ-
influence
ence of φ on horizontal displacement; (b) influence of φ on settlement.
of φ on horizontal displacement; (b) influence of φ on settlement.
As shown
As shownininFigure
Figure13a, thethe
13a, displacement decreases
displacement whenwhen
decreases the diameter of the second
the diameter of the sec-
internal support increases. The maximum horizontal displacements are
ond internal support increases. The maximum horizontal displacements are 15.88 15.88 mm, 16.48mm,
mm, 17.13 mm, and 17.65 mm, respectively. The maximum displacement difference is 1.77
16.48 mm, 17.13 mm, and 17.65 mm, respectively. The maximum displacement difference is
mm, which is 10% of the horizontal displacement under the current working conditions,
1.77 mm, which is 10% of the horizontal displacement under the current working conditions,
indicating that using a larger diameter internal support and increasing the compressive
indicating that using a larger diameter internal support and increasing the compressive
stiffness of the support has an obvious effect on controlling the horizontal displacement
stiffness of the support has an obvious effect on controlling the horizontal displacement of
of the diaphragm wall.
the diaphragm wall.
As shown in Figure 13b, the diameter of the second internal support increases, the
As shown in Figure 13b, the diameter of the second internal support increases, the
surface settlement decreases, and the maximum surface settlements are 14.19 mm, 14.92
surface settlement decreases, and the maximum surface settlements are 14.19 mm, 14.92 mm,
mm, 15.54 mm, and 16.02 mm respectively. The maximum settlement difference is 1.83
15.54 mm, and
mm, which 16.02ofmm
is 11.8% respectively.
the maximum The maximum
settlement under thesettlement difference
site conditions, is 1.83
indicating thatmm,
which
increasing the diameter of the internal support and changing the compressive stiffness of that
is 11.8% of the maximum settlement under the site conditions, indicating
increasing
the supportthe diameter
have obviousofeffects
the internal supportthe
on controlling and changing
surface the compressive stiffness of
settlement.
the support have obvious effects on controlling the surface settlement.
5.7. Influence of the Number of Internal Supports
5.7. Influence of the Number of Internal Supports
Four working conditions were set for the number of internal supports, and the num-
ber ofFour working
internal conditions
supports were set
was adjusted for3,the
to 2, number
4, and of internal
5, as shown supports,
in Table and14the
3. Figure number
shows
of
the horizontal displacement curves and surface settlement curves under different num- the
internal supports was adjusted to 2, 3, 4, and 5, as shown in Table 3. Figure 14 shows
bers of internal supports, curves and surface settlement curves under different numbers of
respectively.
internal supports, respectively.
TableAs shown in Figure
3. Arrangement 14a, the
of internal displacement
support of the
under different wall decreases
working conditions.as the number of inter-
nal supports increases. The maximum horizontal displacements are 14.68 mm, 15.50 mm,
Construction Construction Condition Construction Condition Construction Condition
17.13 mm, and 19.45 mm, respectively. The maximum displacement difference is 4.77 mm,
Condition 1 2 3
Construction Con- which is 27.8% of the horizontal displacement under the current working4conditions.
dition Support Depth
As shown in Figure Depth Support
Support Type14b, the(m)
Depth surface
Supportsettlement
Type decreases as the number Depthof internal
(m)
Typesupports (m)increases because the horizontal displacement (m) Type
of the diaphragm wall decreases
Concrete sup-
as the number Concrete sup- supports increases,
of internal Concrete andsup- the additional Concrete
stress decreases,
The first support 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 which
port eventually leads to port port
a decrease in the surface settlement. The maximum support surface settlements
are 13.06 mm, 14.05 mm, 15.54 mm, and 18.42 mm, respectively. The maximum settlement
difference is 5.36 mm, which is 34.5% of the maximum settlement under the site working
conditions, and increasing the number of internal supports has a significant effect on
controlling the surface settlement.
Table 3. Arrangement of internal support under different working conditions.
Construction
Construction Condition 2 Construction Condition 3 Construction Condition 4
Construction Condition 1
Condition Support Support Support Support
Depth (m) Depth (m) Depth (m) Depth (m)
Type Type Type Type
The first Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
support support support support support
The second Concrete Concrete
Steel support 4 Steel support 7.4 4 4
support support support
The second sup- Concrete sup- Concrete
The third Steel support 4 Steel support 7.4 4 4
port Steel support 12.9 port
Steel support 7.4 Steelsupport
support 7.4
support
The third support Steel support 12.9 Steel support 7.4 Steel support 7.4
The fourth
The fourth support Steel support
Steel support 12.912.9 Steel
Steelsupport
support 12.9
12.9
support
The
The fifth
fifth support Steel support 16
Steel support 16
support
(a) (b)
Figure14.
Figure 14.Deformation
Deformationcurve
curveofoffoundation
foundationpitpit with
with different
different numbers
numbers of of internal
internal supports:
supports: (a) (a) in-
influ-
fluence
ence of SofonS horizontal
on horizontal displacement;
displacement; (b) influence
(b) influence of Sof
onSsettlement.
on settlement.
As shown
5.8. Influence in Figure
of Soil Properties14a, the displacement of the wall decreases as the number of
internal supports
According increases.
to the propertiesTheofmaximum horizontal
the soil layer, displacements
four working conditions are
are14.68 mm,
set up: the15.50
site
mm, 17.13 mm, and 19.45 mm, respectively. The maximum displacement
soil layer, 1–2 residual sandy clay soil, scattered strongly weathered granite, and medium difference is 4.77
mm, which is 27.8% of the horizontal displacement under the current
− 3
coarse sand. The medium coarse sand layer weight is 17.7 kN · m , the cohesion is 24 kPa, working conditions.
As shown
the internal in Figure
friction angle is14b,21◦ the
, thesurface settlement
compression decreases
modulus is 7.53asMPa,the and
number of internal
Poisson’s ratio
issupports increases
0.25. Figure because
15 shows the the horizontal of
displacement displacement
the diaphragm of the diaphragm
wall and surface wallsettlement
decreases
as the in
curves number of internal
different supports increases, and the additional stress decreases, which
soil layers.
eventually
As shown leadsinto a decrease
Figure in the
15a, the surface settlement.
displacement The maximum
of the ground link wall and surface
the settlements
horizontal
are 13.06 mm,of14.05
displacement mm,of15.54
the top mm,are
the wall and1–2
18.42 mm, respectively.
residual sand cohesive The maximum
soil > the sitesettlement
soil layer
difference is 5.36 mm, which is 34.5% of the maximum settlement
> medium coarse sand > scattered strongly weathered granite. The maximum horizontal under the site working
conditions, and
displacements areincreasing
11.53 mm,the number
15.87 of internal
mm, 17.13 mm, andsupports
22.38 has
mm,a respectively.
significant effect on con-
The greater
trolling
the the surface
strength of the soilsettlement.
layer, the smaller the horizontal displacement.
As shown in Figure 15b, the surface settlement near the diaphragm wall in the residual
5.8. Influence
sandy clay soilofisSoil
theProperties
largest, and the settlement of the remaining soil layers is equal, which
is dueAccording
to the largetohorizontal
the propertiesdisplacement
of the soiloflayer,
the top of the
four diaphragm
working wall in
conditions the
are setresidual
up: the
sand
site soil layer, 1–2 residual sandy clay soil, scattered strongly weathered granite, andnear
cohesive soil and the weak soil quality, so there is a large surface settlement me-
the diaphragm wall. The size of the surface
dium coarse sand. The medium coarse sand layer weight is 17.7 settlement is in the kN order
 m −3 of 1–2 residual
, the cohesion is
sand cohesive soil, the site soil layer, medium coarse sand layer, and scattered strongly
24 kPa, the internal friction angle is 21°, the compression modulus is 7.53 MPa, and Pois-
weathered granite. The maximum surface settlements are 11.10 mm, 14.87 mm, 15.54 mm,
son’s ratio is 0.25. Figure 15 shows the displacement of the diaphragm wall and surface
and 20.50 mm, respectively. The overall distribution rule is that the greater the strength of
settlement curves in different soil layers.
the soil layer, the smaller the soil settlement, and the location of the maximum settlement is
farther from the foundation pit.
Sustainability2024,
Sustainability 2024,16,
16, 2295
x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 22
19 of 21
(a) (b)
Figure 15.
Figure 15. Deformation
Deformation curves
curves of
of foundation
foundation pit
pit with
with different
differentsoil
soil properties:
properties:(a)
(a)influence
influenceof
ofsoil
soil
properties on horizontal displacement; (b) influence of soil properties on settlement.
properties on horizontal displacement; (b) influence of soil properties on settlement.
As shown in Figure 15a, the displacement of the ground link wall and the horizontal
6. Conclusions
displacement of the
In this paper, thetop of the wall areKerr
three-parameter 1–2 residual
foundationsand cohesive
model was soil > thetosite
applied soil layer
a diaphragm
> medium
wall coarse
structure, and sanda new> scattered
methodstrongly weathered
for calculating the granite.
horizontal Thedisplacement
maximum horizontalof the di-
displacements are 11.53 mm, 15.87 mm, 17.13 mm, and 22.38
aphragm wall was proposed. We established the connection between the horizontal mm, respectively. The greater
dis-
the strength
placement ofofthethe soil layer, wall
diaphragm the smaller
and thethe horizontal
surface displacement.
settlement outside the pit by introducing
As shownelement
the boundary in Figure 15b, the
method surface
and settlement
the Mindlin near the
solution anddiaphragm
inverted the wall in the resid-
additional hori-
ual sandy clay soil is the largest, and the settlement of the remaining
zontal stress. The Mindlin solution was then used to calculate the surface settlement soil layers is equal,
caused
which
by is due to theoflarge
the excavation horizontal
the pit. displacement
The specific conclusions of the
from topthe
of findings
the diaphragm wall in the
are as follows:
residual sand cohesive soil and the weak soil quality, so there is a large surface settlement
1. The proposed method obtained the horizontal displacements of the diaphragm wall
near the diaphragm wall. The size of the surface settlement is in the order of 1–2 residual
and surface settlement and compared them with the two-parameter Pasternak model
sand cohesive soil, the site soil layer, medium coarse sand layer, and scattered strongly
as well as the measured values on site. The findings show that the horizontal dis-
weathered granite. The maximum surface settlements are 11.10 mm, 14.87 mm, 15.54 mm,
placement of the diaphragm wall and surface settlement outside the pit theoretically
and 20.50 mm, respectively. The overall distribution rule is that the greater the strength of
predicted by Kerr’s model are in good agreement with the site monitoring results, the
the soil layer, the smaller the soil settlement, and the location of the maximum settlement
horizontal displacement of the diaphragm wall is 17.13 mm and 18.1 mm, and the sur-
is farther from the foundation pit.
face settlement is 15.54 mm and 14.9 mm, respectively, with the error being less than
5.4%, which proves the reasonableness of the proposed theoretical prediction method.
6. Conclusions
2. There is a certain connection between the horizontal displacement of the diaphragm
In
wallthis
and paper, the three-parameter
the surface settlement outside Kerrthe foundation
pit due tomodel was applied
the unloading of thetopit
a exca-
dia-
phragm wall structure, and a new method for calculating the
vation. Under the same conditions, the maximum horizontal displacement of the horizontal displacement of
the diaphragm wall was proposed. We established the connection between
diaphragm wall is greater than the value of the surface settlement outside the pit. The the horizontal
displacement
depth of of thethe diaphragm
maximum wall and
horizontal the surface settlement
displacement outside wall
of the diaphragm the pit
hasbyanintro-
effect
ducing the boundary element method and the Mindlin solution
on the position of the maximum surface settlement outside the pit, and the greaterand inverted the addi-
the
tionaldepth
horizontal
of thestress.
maximum The Mindlin
horizontalsolution was then the
displacement, used to calculate
further away fromthe surface
the pitset-
the
tlement caused
location ofbythethe excavation
maximum of thesettlement.
surface pit. The specific conclusions from the findings are
as follows:
3. Analysis of the influencing factors, such as the thickness of the diaphragm wall, the
1. The proposed
elastic modulus method
of the obtained
diaphragm thewall,
horizontal displacements
the diameter of the diaphragm
of the internal support, and wall
the
and surface settlement and compared them with the two-parameter
number of internal supports, revealed that the greater the thickness of the diaphragm Pasternak model
as well
wall, theashigher
the measured
the elasticvalues on site.
modulus, theThe findings
larger show that
the diameter theinternal
of the horizontal dis-
support,
placement
the greaterofthe thenumber
diaphragm wall and
of internal surface the
supports, settlement
higher the outside the pit
strength of theoretically
the soil layer,
predicted by Kerr’s
and the smaller themodel
value are in good
of the agreement
horizontal with the site
displacement monitoring
of the diaphragm results,
wall
the
andhorizontal
the valuedisplacement
of the surface ofsettlement
the diaphragm wallthe
outside is 17.13 mm and
pit. The 18.1 mm,
maximum and the
horizontal
surface settlement
displacement is 15.54 are
differences mm4.84
andmm,14.9 2.43
mm,mm,respectively,
1.77 mm,with 4.77 the
mm,errorand being
10.85 less
mm,
than 5.4%,
and the which proves
maximum surfacethesettlement
reasonableness of the are
differences proposed
4.75 mm, theoretical
2.48 mm, prediction
1.83 mm,
method.
5.36 mm, and 9.4 mm, respectively, which proves that these parameters have a good
controlling
2. There effectconnection
is a certain on the horizontal
between displacement
the horizontal of the diaphragm
displacement of thewall and the
diaphragm
surface settlement.
wall and the surface settlement outside the pit due to the unloading of the pit exca-
Author Contributions: K.L. conceived and performed this research; R.P. and Y.L. provided funding
support and guidance; S.C. helped revise this paper; K.L. wrote this paper. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available upon request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: We are very grateful for the data and technical support of Xiamen Construction
Engineering Co., Ltd., China Railway First Group, and the authors would like to thank the reviewers
for their useful comments and the editors for improving this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: Authors Rupeng Pei and Yangcai Li were employed by the company Xiamen
Construction Engineering Co., Ltd., China Railway First Group. The remaining authors declare that
the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be
construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1. Liu, L.L.; Cai, G.J.; Liu, S.Y.; Chen, Y. Deformation characteristics and control for foundation pits in floodplain areas of Nanjing,
China. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2021, 80, 5527–5538. [CrossRef]
2. Su, T.T.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, Z.Z.; Ye, S.H. Large Scale Model Test Study of Foundation Pit Supported by Pile Anchors. Appl. Sci. 2022,
12, 9792. [CrossRef]
3. Guo, P.P.; Gong, X.N.; Wang, Y.X. Displacement and force analyses of braced structure of deep excavation considering unsymmet-
rical surcharge effect. Comput. Geotech. 2019, 113, 103102. [CrossRef]
4. Mohamed, N.H.; Fabrice, E.; Abderahim, B. Three-dimensional numerical back-analysis of a monitored deep excavation retained
by strutted diaphragm walls. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2019, 83, 153–164.
5. Liu, J.W.; Xue, B.S.; Wang, H.B.; Zhang, X.M.; Zhang, Y.X. Numerical Study on the Behavior of an Existing Tunnel during
Excavating Adjacent Deep Foundation Pit. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9740. [CrossRef]
6. Ou, Q.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, M.H.; Wang, Y.X. Lateral Displacement and Internal Force in Diaphragm Walls Based on Principle of
Minimum Potential Energy. Int. J. Geomech. 2019, 19, 04019055. [CrossRef]
7. Xu, C.J.; Luo, Z.Y. Internal Force and Deformation Analysis of Pile-Brace Support Structure of Foundation Pit Considering
Deformation Compatibility. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2011, 1446, 446–452.
8. Zhu, Y.P.; Wu, L.P.; Shi, D.B.; Zhao, Z.F.; Lv, X.X.; Duan, X.G. Application of nonlinear soil resistance-pile lateral displacement
curve based on Pasternak foundation model in foundation pit retaining piles. Rock Soil Mech. 2022, 43, 2581–2591. (In Chinese)
9. Fu, Y.B.; Wang, B.L.; Wu, H.; Chen, X.S.; Sun, X.H.; Bian, Y.W.; Shen, X.X. Theoretical analysis on horizontal rectification of tunnel
near deep foundation pit by grouting. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2023, 133, 104977. [CrossRef]
10. Zhang, Z.G.; Huang, M.S.; Zhang, C.P.; Lu, M.H. Time-domain analyses for pile deformation induced by adjacent excavation
considering influences of viscoelastic mechanism. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2019, 85, 392–405. [CrossRef]
11. Feng, G.H.; Chen, Q.S.; Xu, C.J.; Wan, P.; Sun, F.; Li, Y.J.; Sun, Z.H. Improved Theoretical Solutions for Estimating the Tunnel
Response Induced by Overlying Excavation. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2589. [CrossRef]
12. Bowles, J.E. Elastic foundation settlements on sand deposits. J. Geotech. Eng. 1987, 113, 846–860. [CrossRef]
13. Lough, G.W.; O’rourke, D.T. Construction induced movements of insitu walls. Int. J. Geotech Eng. 1992, 4, 665–666.
14. Zhang, H.B.; Chen, J.J.; Zhao, X.S.; Hao, H. Displacement Performance and Simple Prediction for Deep Excavations Supported by
Contiguous Bored Pile Walls in Soft Clay. J. Aerospace Eng. 2014, 28, A4014008. [CrossRef]
15. Kung, G.T.; Juang, C.H.; Hsiao, E.C.; Hashash, Y.M. Simplified model for wall deflection and ground-surface settlement caused
by braced excavation in clays. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2007, 133, 731–747. [CrossRef]
16. Wang, L.; Ravichandran, N.; Juang, C.H. Bayesian updating of KJHH model for prediction of maximum ground settlement in
braced excavations using centrifuge data. Comput. Geotech. 2012, 44, 1–8. [CrossRef]
17. Li, Y.X.; Zhang, W.Y.; Jiang, N.S.; Li, H. Surface Settlement Damage Model of Pile-Anchor Supporting Structure in Deep Excavation.
Adv. Civ. Eng. 2020, 2020, 1907526. [CrossRef]
18. Hong, X.F.; Zhang, D.L.; Zhou, M.Z.; Fang, Q.; Hou, Y.J.; Fang, H.C.; Sun, Z.Y. Approximate analytical solution of tunneling-
induced responses of a soil–foundation system using contact mechanics. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods. Geomech. 2022, 46,
3442–3464. [CrossRef]
19. Qian, J.G.; Tong, Y.M.; Mu, L.L.; Lu, Q.; Zhao, H.Q. A displacement controlled method for evaluating ground settlement induced
by excavation in clay. Geomech. Eng. 2020, 20, 275–285.
20. Fan, X.Z.; Phoon, K.; Xu, C.J.; Tang, C. Closed-form solution for excavation-induced ground settlement profile in clay. Comput.
Geotech. 2021, 137, 104266. [CrossRef]
21. Kerr, A.D. On the Determination of Foundation Model Parameters. J. Geotech. Eng. 1985, 111, 1334–1340. [CrossRef]
22. Mindlin, R.D. Force at point in the interior of a semi-infinite solid. Physics 1936, 7, 195–202. [CrossRef]
23. Guan, L.X.; Xu, C.J.; Ke, W.H. Calculation method of pipeline deformation adjacent to single well dewatering based on the Kerr
foundation model. J. Harbin Inst. Technol. 2023, 55, 107–114. (In Chinese)
24. Ma, H.L.; Liang, F.Y. Foundation Pit Engineering; Tsinghua University Press: Beijing, China, 2018.
25. Yan, T.F.; Chen, B.G.; Zhang, L.; He, J.X.; Zhang, Y.Q. Dynamic adjustment method of diaphragm wall supporting system in deep
foundation pit and its application. J. Zhejiang Univ. (Eng. Sci.) 2022, 56, 356–367.
26. Tanahashi, H. Formulas for an Infinitely Long Bernoulli-Euler Beam on the Pasternak Model. Soils Found. 2004, 44, 109–118.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Yao, W.J.; Yin, W.X. Numerical simulation and study for super-long pile group under axis and lateral loads. Int. J. Adv. Struct.
Eng. 2010, 13, 1139–1151. [CrossRef]
28. Vesic, A.S. Bending of beams resting on isotropic elastic solids. J. Soil Mech. Found. Eng. 1961, 87, 35–53.
29. Feng, G.H.; Dou, B.J.; Zhang, G.F.; Ding, S.L.; Xu, C.J. Simplified calculation method for lateral displacement of passive pile
caused by tunneling. J. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2021, 43, 10–18. (In Chinese)
30. Zhang, Z.G.; Lu, M.H.; Xu, C.; Gong, J.F.; Zhao, Q.H. Simplified Solution for Tunnelling-Induced Pile Foundation Deformation
Based on the Kerr Foundation Model. Mod. Tunn. Technol. 2016, 53, 55–66. (In Chinese)
31. Zhang, Z.G.; Chen, J.; Zhu, Z.G.; Wei, G.; Wu, Z.T.; Chen, Z.K. Analysis of ground settlement induced by small radius curve
tunnel excavation considering shield articulation effect. Rock Soil Mech. 2023, 44, 1165–1178.
32. Zhou, J.; Zhou, W.; Chen, B.Q. Calculation of Additional Stress of Metro Tunnel Caused by Adjacent Irregular Foundation Pit
Excavation. J. Chongqing Jiaotong Univ. (Nat. Sci.) 2017, 36, 17–21.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Theoretical_Study_on_Diaphragm_Wall_and_Surface_De

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theoretical_Study_on_Diaphragm_Wall_and_Surface_De

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

1 College of Civil Engineering, Huaqiao University, Xiamen 361021, China; kunpengli@stu.hqu.edu.cn

Citation: Li, K.; Chen, S.; Pei, R.; Li, Y.

Sustainability 2024, 16, 2295. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062295 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2. Simplified Calculation Method of the Three-Parameter Kerr Foundation Model [11]

Figure 1. Three-parameter Kerr foundation model.

3. Establishment and Solution of the Flexural Differential Equations of Diaphragm Wall

3.2. Determination of Calculation Parameters of the Three-Parameter Kerr Foundation Model

3.3. Differential Calculation of Flexural Differential Equations

20EIGi 6EI (ci + k i ) 2Gi d k (c + k i )

− EIGi 6EIGi EI (ci + k i ) 15EIGi 4EI (ci + k i ) 2Gi d

3.4. Horizontal Displacement Solution for Shear Layer of Loaded Section

− EIGi 6 EIGi EI ( ci + ki ) 15EIGi 4 EI ( ci + ki ) 2Gi d

3.4. Horizontal Displacement Solution for Shear Layer of Loaded Section

According to the boundary condition of the wall bending moment M0 = 0, we obtain:

(c +k )h2 +6G (c +k )h2 +3G (c +k )h2 +2G

(w2 )0 = a0 (w2 )1 − b0 (w2 )2 + c0 (w2 )3 + d0 (15)

(6A1,0 −4B1,0 ) 2B1,0 −2A1,0

3.5. Solution of Horizontal Displacement of Shear Layer in Embedded Section

(w2 ) N −1 = ( a2 ) N −1 (w2 ) N −2 − (b2 ) N −1 (w2 ) N −3 + (c2 ) N −1 (w2 ) N −4 + (d2 ) N −1 (21)

2,( N −1) −C2,( N −1)

When i = N − 2, the embedded segment differential equation can be expressed as:

(w2 ) N −2 = ( a2 ) N −2 (w2 ) N −3 − (b2 ) N −2 (w2 ) N −4 + (c2 ) N −2 (w2 ) N −5 + (d2 ) N −2 (22)

When i = N − 3, the embedded segment differential equation can be expressed as:

(w2 ) N −3 = ( a2 ) N −3 (w2 ) N −4 − (b2 ) N −3 (w2 ) N −5 + (c2 ) N −3 (w2 ) N −6 + (d2 ) N −3 (23)

B2,( N −3) (( a2 ) N −1 (c2 ) N −2 +1)−C2,( N −3) (c2 ) N −2

3.6. Overall Differential Calculation and Analysis of Wall Displacement

[ a][(w2 )] = [d] (29)

adjacent nodes calculated by the loaded section; is the displacementTat

4. Calculation of Surface Settlement Caused by Excavation of Foundation Pit

Figure 5. Virtual forces on the boundary of the foundation pit.

where Li is the i-th segment of L; Px ( Bi ) is the horizontal uniform concentration force

Ux ( A1 ) G11 ··· G1j ··· G1m Px ( B1 )

Figure 7. Calculation flowchart.

According to the monitoring program of this project, the horizontal displacement is

Table 2. Weighted average parameters

5.3. Theoretical Validation

5.3. Theoretical Validation

5.4. Influence of Wall Thickness

Sustainability 2024, 16, 2295 15 of 21

Sustainability 2024, 16, 2295 16 of 21

Table 3. Arrangement of internal support under different working conditions.

You might also like