This article was downloaded by: [Princeton University]

On: 18 August 2014, At: 10:02

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiea20

Application of the Hardening Soil model in deep

excavation analysis
a a
P.L. Teo & K.S. Wong
a
WKS Geotechnical Consultants , 60 Kallang Pudding Road #02-00 Tan Jin Chwee Industrial
Building, 349320, Singapore
Published online: 18 Jul 2012.

To cite this article: P.L. Teo & K.S. Wong (2012) Application of the Hardening Soil model in deep excavation analysis, The IES
Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering, 5:3, 152-165, DOI: 10.1080/19373260.2012.696445

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19373260.2012.696445

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering
Vol. 5, No. 3, August 2012, 152–165

TECHNICAL PAPER
Application of the Hardening Soil model in deep excavation analysis
P.L. Teo* and K.S. Wong
WKS Geotechnical Consultants, 60 Kallang Pudding Road #02-00 Tan Jin Chwee Industrial Building, 349320, Singapore
(Received 6 January 2012; final version received 16 April 2012)

The Mohr–Coulomb model (MC) is commonly used in deep excavation analysis for its simplicity. However, it
has shortcomings that may produce unrealistic soil behaviour. The Hardening Soil model (HS) is an advanced
soil model that is able to generate more realistic soil response in terms of non-linearity, stress dependency and
inelasticity. This article highlights some of the shortcomings of the MC model and presents a simplified
approach to determine the HS parameters for drained and undrained analysis of deep excavations. Three case
studies were back-analysed to validate the application of the HS model for practical excavation analysis. The
HS model suffers the same problems as the MC model in using effective stress parameters c0 and f0 to determine
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 10:02 18 August 2014

the undrained shear strength.

Keywords: Hardening Soil model; Mohr-Coulomb soil model; excavation; constitutive model; nonlinearity; back-
analysis

1. Introduction
The Mohr–Coulomb model (MC) is commonly used in
practice despite of its many shortcomings (Wong 2011).
The Hardening Soil model (HS) is an advanced soil
model that can better simulate real soil behaviour. It is a
big improvement over the MC model in several aspects.
This article presents an overview of the HS model and
highlights its strengths over the MC model in excavation
analysis. Back-analysis of deep excavation case records
in Singapore are presented to compare the predicted wall
and ground movements between both soil models and
against measured data. This article also discusses short-
comings of the HS model.
2. The Hardening Soil model
2.1. An overview
The HS model is an elastic-plastic soil model based on
the classical plasticity theory (Brinkgreve et al. 2004).
For every stress increment, there is a corresponding
incremental elastic and plastic strain if the soil is
undergoing primary loading or only elastic strain if it is
under unloading-reloading. The main attraction of this
model is its ability to simulate the nonlinear, inelastic
and stress dependent behaviour of soil.
The model adopts the MC failure criterion.
 0  2.2.
2c cos f0 þ 2s03 sin f0
ðs1  s3 Þf ¼ ð1Þ
1  sin f0
It has two yield surfaces as shown in Figure 1(a). The first
one deals with yielding due to shear stress. The second
one handles the expansion of the cap due to changes in
mean effective stress p0 . Figure 1(b) shows the yield
surfaces in three-dimensional principle stress space.
The hardening law for shear is given in Equation
(2). For a given shear stress increment, the plastic shear
strain increment can be computed from this equation
and the corresponding plastic volumetric strain incre-
ment can be computed from the flow rule in Equation
(3). The hardening law for the cap is given in Equation
(4). For a given increment in mean stress, the plastic
volumetric strain increment can be computed using
this equation with no shear strain generated.
1 q 2q
fs ¼   gp  0 ð2Þ
E50 1  q=qu Eur
Depv ¼ sin cm Dgp ð3Þ
Dp Dp 1
Depv ¼  ¼ Dp ð4Þ
Kc Ks H
where Kc is related to the compression index Cc and Ks
is related to the recompression index Cr.
Parameters of the Hardening Soil model
The required soil parameters are summarised in Table
1. Most of the soil parameters can be determined from

*Corresponding author. Email: tpl@wks.sg

ISSN 1937-3260 print/ISSN 1937-3279 online

Ó 2012 The Institution of Engineers, Singapore
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19373260.2012.696445
http://www.tandfonline.com
 The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering 153

consolidated drained triaxial compression test (CD) modulus E50 can be determined from each sample. By
and consolidation test. In the absence of consolidation c0 cos f0 þs0 sin f0
plotting ln(E50) versus ln ðc0 cos f0 þpref3 sin f0 Þ on a natural
test, the parameter Eoedref can be set equal to E50ref. If
scale and fitting a straight line through the data, the y-
the unloading–reloading cycle is not carried out in the
intercept gives the value of ln(E50ref) and the slope
CD test, the parameter Eurref can be set equal to
gives the value of the parameter m. An illustration is
3E50ref.
shown in Figure 2(a). The parameter Eoedref can be
Once these parameters are known, the modulus of
determined from consolidation test. If the preconsoli-
a soil under any stress condition can be computed
dation pressure sc0 is not greater than 100 kPa, Eoedref
using the following equations in Table 2.
is the tangent modulus at s10 ¼ 100 kPa as illustrated
The parameter E50ref can be determined from the
in the stress–strain curves in Figure 2(b). If sc0 is
CD test. Assuming that the test is carried out on three
greater than 100kPa, Eoed can be determined at any s10
samples under different confining pressures, the secant
greater than 100 kPa as illustrated in Figure 2(c). The
corresponding Eoedref can be computed using the
equation in Table 2 (column 3).
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 10:02 18 August 2014

2.3. Proposed correlations for analysis of deep

excavations
In the absence of CD test or consolidation test data,
the following approach is proposed to determine the
parameters.

Figure 1. (a) Illustration of double yield surfaces of HS

model and (b) Yield surfaces of HS model in 3D.
Table 1. Parameters for the HS model.
Parameter Description
c0 Effective apparent cohesion
f0 Effective peak friction angle
E50ref Effective secant modulus (50%
stress level) at confining
pressure of 100 kPa
Eoedref Effective 1-D compression
modulus at a vertical stress
of 100 kPa. Typically set
equal to E50ref in the absence
of test data
Eurref Effective unloading-reloading
modulus at a confining
pressure of 100 kPa
Typically set equal to 3E50ref
in the absence of test data.
m Modulus exponent controlling
the stress-dependency of the
modulus with values
typically varying between 0
and 1
n Unloading-reloading Poisson’s
ur
ratio. Typically set equal to
0.2
C Angle of dilation. Typically set
equal to zero for undrained
analysis and (f0 7 308) for
drained analysis
Ko,nc Coefficient of earth pressure at-
rest. Typically set equal to
(1 7 sin f0 )
2.3.1. Sand
Based on the data from Wong and Duncan (1974) and
Kulwawy and Mayne (1990), the parameters E50ref and
m were determined for several sands. Results of the
E50ref and m are plotted against the relative density
Type of test Dr(%) in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. The proposed
HS parameters for sand are summarised in Table 3.
CD or CU
CD or CU
CD
2.3.2. Clay
For analysis involving undrained behaviour in clay, it
Oedometer
is proposed to adopt the parameters shown in Table 3.
By setting f0 ¼ 0, the stiffness parameters become
independent of stress, which is valid for undrained
CD
behaviour. When f0 ¼ 0, the value of m has no effect
on the moduli. But the HS model still captures the
nonlinear and inelastic response.
CD
3. Limitations of the MC model and improvements by
the HS model
A comparison between the stress–strain behaviour of
CD real soil, MC and HS models is illustrated in Figure 5.
The MC soil is elastic before failure and only switches
to plastic upon reaching failure. In contrast, real soil
CD response is elastic-plastic (i.e. nonlinear) even before
failure. The HS model captures this nonlinear beha-
viour by varying the modulus during primary loading.
– It also captures the inelastic response during unload-
ing-reloading by using the unloading-reloading mod-
ulus. The MC model does not capture the inelastic
 154 P.L. Teo and K.S. Wong

Table 2. Equations for stiffness parameters.

E50 Eur Eoed

c0 cos f0 þs0 sin f0 m c0 cos f0 þs0 sin f0 m c0 cos f0 þs0 sin f0 m
¼ Eref
50 ðc0 cos f0 þpref sin f0 Þ
3
¼ Eref
ur ðc0 cos f0 þpref sin f0 Þ
3
¼ Eref
oed ðc0 cos f0 þpref sin f0 Þ
1

Note: *pref ¼ reference pressure of 100 kPa.

Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 10:02 18 August 2014

Figure 2. Illustration on determination of: (a) E50ref and m; (b) and (c) Eoedref.
 The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering 155

Table 3. Proposed correlations of HS parameters for

excavation analysis in sand and clay.

Proposed value/correlation
Parameter Sand Clay
c0 (kPa) 0 cu
f0 (8) 28 þ 0.15 Dr (%) 0
E50ref 6 e0.025 Dr (%) 0.8 Eu
(MPa) (Eu based on
Eu/cu ratio)
Eoedref E50ref E50ref
(MPa)
Eurref 3 E50ref 3 E50ref
(MPa)
m 0.45 þ 0.003 Dr (%) 0  m 1 (for f0 ¼ 0)
nur 0.2 0.2
c(8) f0 – 308 0
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 10:02 18 August 2014

0
Figure 3. Plot of E50ref against relative density. Ko Ko ¼ (1 – sinf ) OCR Ko ¼ (1 – sinf0 ) OCR

Figure 6(b). The HS model, on the other hand,

captured the reduction in stiffness in this zone and
yielded a non-symmetrical response as shown in Figure
6(c). The nonlinearity attribute can be important in
many practical problems.

3.2. MC model cannot model stress-dependent stiffness

Figure 4. Plot of m against relative density.
response. Under drained condition, the modulus is
stress-dependent for both sand and clay. This stress-
dependency behaviour is captured by the HS (for non-
zero f0 values) but not by the MC model.
3.1. Importance of modelling nonlinear behaviour
before failure
A case study to illustrate the importance of the
nonlinearity attribute is shown in Figure 6(a). A
surcharge of 13 kPa was applied on the steel plates
behind the shallow excavation. In the zone nearer to
the excavation, the soil was sheared to a higher stress
level but not to failure. Since there were no failures, the
MC soil behaved elastically and produced a near
symmetrical ground settlement response as shown in
Under drained condition, the stiffness of real soil is
stress-dependent; while the stiffness of a MC soil is
stress independent as illustrated in Figure 5.
Figure 7 illustrates the settlement of a rigid footing
on sand with the modulus increasing with depth.
Figure 7(a) shows that the MC model generated large
ground surface settlement because the sand modulus
near the surface was small and remained constant.
Consequently, Figure 7b shows a zone of large
settlement immediately below the footing. The stress-
dependent stiffness is not captured in the MC model
but is captured in the HS model. When the applied
load and stresses below the footing were increased, the
HS model responded with an increase in soil stiffness
and hence resulted in a smaller settlement.
In excavations, Figure 8 illustrates that due to stress-
dependency, the stiffness of soil inside the excavation
decreases as the excavation depth increases. The modulus
of a soil element is initially 20 MPa and is reduced to 3
MPa at the end of excavation. This change in modulus is
captured by HS model but not by the MC model.
3.3. MC model cannot properly model unloading-
reloading behaviour
Figure 9 presents a case study of a hypothetical
excavation in sand. In the MC analysis, the sand was
 156 P.L. Teo and K.S. Wong

Figure 5. Stress–strain behaviour of real soil, MC soil and HS soil.

Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 10:02 18 August 2014

Figure 6. (a) Case study to illustrate the importance of nonlinearity attribute; (b) response computed by MC model and (c)
response computed by HS model.

Figure 7. Rigid footing in sand (a) load-settlement curves; and (b) stress contours of vertical displacement.

divided into layers to simulate the increase in the initial in stress and the stress-path involved. While the MC
modulus with depth. During excavation, the modulus model produced larger wall deflection, toe movement,
remained unchanged. The modulus of a HS soil bottom heave and ground settlement, the HS model
however, changed continuously according to the change produced a more reasonable response.
 The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering 157

Figure 8. Stress-dependent behaviour of soil under drained condition.

Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 10:02 18 August 2014

Figure 9. Case study of excavation in sand (a) finite element model; (b) wall deflection; (c) ground settlement and (d) ground
heave.

3.4. MC model cannot generate the correct 1D
compression behaviour
The nonlinear stiffness of real soil is evident from
consolidation test. The stiffness increases with stress as
the soil becomes more compact. The MC model
produces a linear response as shown in Figure 10
because it does not have a cap yield surface. The HS
model is able to capture the nonlinear behaviour
because of the presence of cap yield surface.
3.5. MC model may produce an incorrect response
under certain stress paths
There are certain stress paths where an elastic soil will
produce an incorrect response. Figure 11 illustrates one
of them where a soil sample is subjected to a
simultaneous reduction in s30 and (s10 7 s30 ). An elastic
MC soil sample rebounded upwards whereas the real
soil actually moved downwards. The elastic-plastic HS
model is able to simulate the correct response.
 158 P.L. Teo and K.S. Wong

3.6. MC model under-estimates the horizontal stress in issue in the HS model. The Poisson’s Ratio only affects
certain stress paths the elastic strain but not the plastic strain. The unloading-
Consolidation tests were simulated to compare the reloading Poisson’s Ratio value of real soil is typically
horizontal stresses generated by the MC and HS models between 0.15 and 0.25. A value of 0.2 is commonly used
and the empirical relationship Ko,OC ¼ Ko,nc OCR0.5. to simulate the near elastic response during soil unloading
Figure 12 shows that the MC underestimated the (more reduction in sv0 compared to sh0 ).
horizontal stress during loading and unloading. The HS
gave better agreement with the empirical relationship.
4. Case studies
Back-analysis of the three case studies of deep
3.7. MC model results may be sensitive to Poisson’s excavations in Singapore was carried out using the
Ratio in a drained analysis finite element (FE) program Plaxis version 9.02. They
For some problems, results can be very sensitive to the
Poisson’s Ratio when using the MC model. Figure 13
shows an example of excavation in sand. By varying the
Poisson’s Ratio from 0.2 to 0.4, the wall deflection
doubled and strut forces increased by up to 1.5 times. The
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 10:02 18 August 2014

uncertainty and sensitivity of the Poisson’s Ratio is not an

Figure 10. Stress–strain curves for one-dimensional Figure 12. Comparison of horizontal stresses computed
consolidation. using empirical relationship, the MC and the HS models.

Figure 11. Behaviour in a drained triaxial test subjected to reduction in s30 and (s10 7 s30 ).
 The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering 159

Figure 13. Effect of Poisson’s Ratio on the performance of an excavation in sand.

Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 10:02 18 August 2014

Figure 14. Cross-section of excavation at the Rochor Complex (Lim et al. 2003, Halim and Wong 2005).

Figure 15. Comparison of results from analysis using the MC and HS models at the final excavation level of Rochor Complex
(a) and (b) wall deflection; (c) ground settlement and (d) bottom heave.
 160 P.L. Teo and K.S. Wong

Figure 16. Comparison of plastic points of the Rochor Complex at final excavation level for (a) HS model and (b) MC model.
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 10:02 18 August 2014

Figure 17. Soil profile and cross section of excavation at the Lavender Station.

Table 4. Parameters used in the Lavender Station excavation case study.

Both models HS model MC model

Unit
ref ref
weight E50 ¼ Eoed
Soil type (kN/m3) cu (kPa) f0 (deg) c0 (kPa) (MPa) Eurref (MPa) m E0 (MPa) Eu (MPa)
Fill 18 80 – 0.8 Eu 0 – 300 cu; 400 cu
Upper 16 25 Eu ¼ 250 cu; 300 cu
marine clay
Lower 35
marine clay
Medium dense 20 – 38 1 37 3 E50ref 0.67 40 –
silty sand
Dense silty 42 1 73 0.75 95
sand
Very dense 500 – 0.8 Eu 0 – 300 cu; 400 cu
clayey silt Eu ¼ 250 cu; 300 cu
 The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering 161
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 10:02 18 August 2014

Figure 18. Comparison of results from analyses using the MC and HS models at the final excavation level of Lavender Station:
(a) and (b) wall deflection; (c) ground settlement and (d) bottom heave.

Figure 19. Soil profile and cross-section of excavation at Hougang–Buangkok cut-and-cover tunnel.
 162 P.L. Teo and K.S. Wong

were the Rocher Complex, the Lavender MRT Station
and the Hougang-Buangkok cut-and-cover tunnel.
Results of analysis using the MC and the HS model
were compared with the measured data. The HS
parameters were determined according to section 2.
The total stress approach (Method C) was used in the
MC analyses. The effective stress approach with
specified cu (Method B) was adopted in the HS analyses.
4.1. The Rochor complex
The Rochor complex excavation was 95-m wide and
6.3-m deep. The excavation was retained using
sheetpiles and three levels of preloaded struts. The
ground water level was at 1.5 m below ground level. A
cross-section of the excavation and the soil profile are
shown in Figure 14 (Lim et al. 2003, Halim and Wong
2005).
In the FE model, the Upper Marine Clay and
Lower Marine Clay layers were divided into sub-layers
(2–3 m thick) with increasing undrained shear strength
and stiffness. The HS stiffness parameters E50ref, Eoedref
and Eurref were determined for each Eu/cu ratio.
Results shown in Figure 15 indicate that the Eu/cu
ratio of 250 for the HS model and 300 for the MC
model produced a reasonable match with the measured

Table 5. Parameters used in the Hougang–Buangkok cut-and-cover tunnel excavation case study.

Unit Both models HS model MC model

Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 10:02 18 August 2014

weight
Soil type (kN/m3)
cu (kPa) f0 (deg) c0 (kPa) E50ref ¼ Eoedref (MPa) Eurref (MPa) m E0 (MPa) Eu (MPa)
Fill 19 – 33 0.1 14.4 3 E50ref 0.555 15.6 –
E 13 15 – 0.8 cu 0 – 300 cu;
Eu ¼ 250 cu; 350 cu;
300 cu 400 cu
F1 19 – 31 0.1 9.9 0.510 10.7 –
OA1 20 – 31.5 0.1 11.2 0.525 12.1
OA2 20 135 – 0.8 cu 0 – 300 cu;
OA3 20 400 Eu ¼ 250 cu; 350 cu;
OA4 20 600 300 cu 400 cu
OA5 20 900

Figure 20. Comparison of results from analysis using the MC and HS models at the final excavation level of Hougang–
Buangkok cut-and-cover tunnel (a) deflection; (b) ground settlement and (c) bottom heave.
 The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering 163
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 10:02 18 August 2014

Figure 21. Comparison of wall deflections from analyses using MC and HS models (a) and (b) deflection and (c) strut force.

Figure 22. Stress paths of a CU test.

deflection. The MC model produced larger ground
settlement, toe movement and bottom heave. It is
interesting that the MC model also produced more
plastic points (Figure 16), which indicated more soil
reaching failure.
4.2. The Lavender Station
The excavation at Lavender Station was 15.7-m deep and
23-m wide. It was supported using 1-m thick diaphragm
Figure 23. Effect of yield surface on cu.
wall at 28 m penetration depth and six levels of preloaded
struts. The excavation section and soil profile are shown
in Figure 17 (Halim and Wong 2005). The ground water
level is at 1.5 m below ground level. Soil parameters used
in the back-analysis are shown in Table 4.
The computed wall and measured deflection
profiles (Lim et al. 2003, Halim and Wong 2005) are
shown in Figure 18. HS model gave a close prediction
 164 P.L. Teo and K.S. Wong
Figure 24. Prediction of cu/p0 ratio under (a) different OCR and (b) different test conditions.
of the wall deflection profile using Eu/cu ratio of 250
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 10:02 18 August 2014
and 300. Similar agreement was also achieved using the
MC model at Eu/cu ratio of 300 and 400. The HS
model predicted larger ground settlement but smaller
ground heave than the MC model. The MC model
produced more plastic points.
4.3. The Hougang–Buangkok cut-and-cover tunnel
The Hougang–Buangkok cut-and-cover tunnel was a
16-m wide, 13.3-m deep excavation retained using
sheet pile wall and four levels of struts (Figure 19). The
ground water level was 1.5 m below ground level (Li
2001). Strut preloading was not modelled in the back-
analysis. Table 5 summarises the soil parameters used.
Figure 20(a) shows that at the final excavation
level, both the HS and the MC models gave reasonable
agreement with the measured deflection. The larger
predicted than measured deflection at the lower wall
portion could be due to underestimation of the soil
stiffness. For the HS model, Eu/cu ratios of both 250
and 300 yielded good agreement with the measure-
ment. Using the MC model with Eu/cu of 400 appeared
to work well. As for ground settlement and bottom
heave, the HS model generated more reasonable
results.
Figure 21 shows the wall deflection profiles at
different stages of excavation. The differences in wall
deflection generated by both models were not sig-
nificant and comparisons with measured deflection for
both models were reasonable. Figure 20(c) shows the
comparison of strut force. The HS model gave slightly
better agreement with the measured strut forces.
5. Shortcomings of the Hardening Soil model
The HS model is a great improvement over the MC
model. However, it has its own set of short comings.
Some of them are listed below.
(1) Over-estimation of undrained shear strength, cu
of soft clay when using c0 and f0 .
(2) Under-estimation of pore pressure of soft clay.
(3) Over-estimation of cu/p0 ratio for normally
consolidated clay.
(4) Under-estimation of cu/p0 ratio for over-con-
solidated clay.
(5) Over-estimation of undrained shear strength cu
under simple shear and triaxial extension
condition.
(6) For stress paths below yield surface, the HS soil
becomes elastic and has all the shortcomings
associated with an elastic soil.
Figure 22 shows the stress paths of a CU test. The
MC model greatly over-predicts the cu when using c0
and f0 . The HS model fares a little better. The over-
prediction by the HS model is due to the location of
the elliptical cap adopted by the model as shown in
Figure 23. The Modified Cam Clay also uses an
elliptical yield surface but it predicts a much lower cu
than the HS model.
This problem could be overcome by using a lower
friction angle or by setting c0 ¼ cu and f0 ¼ 0. This
method works well for excavation analysis in most
cases. However, it would not be appropriate for
problems involving consolidation and changes in
strength with time.
Figure 24(a) shows that the HS model over-predicts
the cu/p0 ratio for normally consolidated clay and
under-predicts the ratio for over-consolidated clay.
This issue may not be crucial for excavation analysis.
However, for problems with complex stress paths
involving unloading–reloading and changes in effective
stress, it may be prudent to scrutinise the results
carefully.
The HS model also over-predicts cu tested under
simple shear or triaxial extension conditions as
compared to the cu from real soils as shown in Figure
24(b).
 The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering
It is interesting to note that from tests on real soil
and simulations on HS soil, the moduli obtained from
the simple shear, triaxial extension and triaxial
compression tests are different. Test results also show
that the strength and modulus obtained under plane
strain condition are also different from those obtained
from triaxial test. Therefore, it should be reminded
that the parameters obtained from the conventional
UU, CU, CD and consolidation tests can only be used
as a crude approximation.
6. Conclusions and recommendations
The HS model overcomes some of the shortcomings of
the MC model. The three case studies show that the
HS model can produce reasonable wall deflection and
ground movement that compared well with measured
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 10:02 18 August 2014
data. Highlights from the back-analyses are sum-
marised below.
(1) For the HS model, the application of Eu/cu
ratio of 250 to the clayey soils seemed to work
well for these three case studies.
(2) To achieve a similar agreement with the
measured deflection using the MC model, it
would be necessary to vary the Eu/cu ratio, as in
the case of the three back-analyses, to 300 or
400.
(3) The HS model produced a more realistic
ground settlement profile. The consideration
of nonlinear and inelastic stiffness in the HS
model gave a better prediction of the settlement
near the excavation, as shown in the Hougang–
Buangkok cut-and-cover tunnel case study.
165
(4) The HS model produced smaller toe movement
than the MC model.
(5) The HS model predicted smaller bottom heave
than the MC model.
(6) The HS model generated lesser plastic points
because the model is able to simulate the softer
soil behaviour as the soil approaches failure.
The MC model generated more plastic points
which gave a false impression on the extent of
soil yielding.
References
Brinkgreve, R.B.J., et al., 2004. Plaxis Version 9, Material
Model Manual. Plaxis b.v. Netherlands.
Lim, K.W. et al., 2003. Comparison of results of excavation
analysis using Wallap, Sage Crisp and Excav97. In:
Proceedings of the conference on underground Singapore,
27–29 Nov 2003. Singapore, 83–94.
Halim, D. and Wong K.S., 2005. Evaluation of modified cam
clay parameters for deep excavation analysis. In:
Proceedings of the conference on underground Singapore,
1–2 Dec 2005. Singapore, 188–200.
Li, W., 2001. Braced excavation in old alluvium in Singapore.
Thesis (PhD). School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore.
Wong, K.S. and Duncan, J.M., 1974. Hyperbolic stress–
strain parameters for nonlinear finite element analyses of
stresses and movements in soil masses. Geotechnical
Engineering Report. Berkeley: Department of Civil
Engineering, University of California.
Wong, K.S., 2011. Things you should know about the Mohr–
Coulomb Model. In: Seminar on infrastructure in soft
ground – challenges and solutions. 16 Aug 2011, ed.
Singapore.