BULLETIN OF THE POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

TECHNICAL SCIENCES, Vol. 66, No. 5, 2018

DOI: 10.24425/125342

Parametric study of deep excavation in clays

M. MITEW-CZAJEWSKA*
Warsaw University of Technology, Lecha Kaczyńskiego 16 St., 00-637 Warsaw, Poland

Abstract. The most challenging issue when analyzing geotechnical structures by means of finite element method is the choice of appropriate
constitutive soil model, especially with reference to serviceability limit states. The paper presents parametric study of a deep excavation in clays
aiming to qualify the applicability of different soil constitutive models in such specific soil conditions. Three types of constitutive models are
considered in the paper: linear elastic – perfectly plastic model (Mohr-Coulomb) as a simple and well recognized reference, hypoplastic model
(Hypoplastic Clay) and nonlinear elasto-plastic cap models (Hardening Soil and Hardening Soil Small). Numerical analysis was performed using
two finite element codes – Plaxis and GEO5 FEM both in 2D space and the results were compared to in-situ displacements measurements. The
discussion on the suitability of chosen constitutive models for advanced modelling of deep excavation in preconsolidated clays is presented.

Key words: numerical analysis, constitutive models, hypoplasticity, hardening soil model.

1. Introduction Based on these works it was concluded that in the specific

Nowadays, in the era of fast digitization development, spec-
tacular progress in hardware and software development, the
use of computer methods in geotechnical design and displace-
ment prediction is gaining more and more popularity. Finite
element method, is the most suitable for all geotechnical tasks
giving information about stresses and strains in the soil body
and modelling soil-structure interaction. On the other hand, it
imposes higher demands on the engineer, requiring the pro-
found knowledge of numerical methods, geotechnics and soil
mechanics [1, 2].
One of the most challenging issues when analyzing geotech-
nical structures by means of finite element method is the choice
of adequate constitutive soil model, especially in consideration
of the serviceability limit states. The main issue is the choice
of advanced, robust constitutive model describing complex soil
behavior on the other hand being a convenient engineering tool,
relatively simple to be defined by an engineer [3‒7].
2. Choice of the constitutive model
In previous works, author made attempts to verify the suit-
ability of the most common, conventional soil constitutive
models for finite element modelling of displacements induced
by deep excavations (horizontal wall displacements, uplift of
the bottom of the excavation, as well as or rather most of all,
the displacements of soil body and structures in the influence
zone) in varied soil conditions [8‒11].
*e-mail: m.mitew@il.pw.edu.pl
Manuscript submitted 2018-03-14, initially accepted for publication 2018-05-13,
published in October 2018.
soil conditions of the area of Warsaw the excavations embedded
in mixed Quaternary soils may be successfully analyzed using
simple Mohr-Coulomb or modified Mohr-Coulomb elastic-per-
fectly plastic constitutive models [12] assuming proper calibra-
tion of its parameters [10, 13]. However, it should be noted that
this models have several limitations, most of all, they tend to
result in excessive settlements of the surrounding soil, which
is not observed in practice. Common observations prove that
the soil body around the excavation rises during excavation
(unloading), while in numerical analysis settlements are usually
obtained [8‒11, 14‒16].
On the contrary, when deep excavations are embedded in
preconsolidated Pliocene clays the use of simple models is in-
appropriate [17]. In the paper the use of two advanced types
of models for modelling excavations in preconsolidated clays
is proposed. First is the Hypoplastic Clay (HC) model [18‒20]
that captures the actual nonlinear behavior of soils even at low
loads that do not exceed their strength as well as during un-
loading. Unfortunately, extensive use of this model is limited
due to the need of time consuming and demanding laboratory
tests to determine its parameters [21]. The good applicability
of Hypoplastic Clay model for Pliocene clays was proved by
the author on several cases [9, 11], as well as by other authors
[2, 22]. The second considered type of model is Hardening
Soil model (HS) [23, 24], which introduces different function
for yield and for failure enabling distinction between initial
loading and unloading/reloading, as well as its modification
– Hardening Soil Small model (HSS) [25], taking into account
non-linear dependency of strain at small strain ranges.
Concepts of applying the Hardening Soil or Hardening Soil
Small model in clayey soils are noted [26‒33], but not neces-
sarily in preconsolidated clays.
The paper presents a parametric study of a deep excavation
in Pliocene clays concerning the selection of soil constitutive

Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 66(5) 2018 747

 M. Mitew-Czajewska

soil constitutive model. Four soil constitutive models were Stage 8: Installation of struts at -10.85m bgs, spacing 2.0m,
model. Four soil constitutive models were applied in the anal- Stage 8: Installation of struts at –10.85 m bgs, spacing 2.0 m,
applied in the analysis: Mohr-Coulomb, Hypoplastic Clay, ϕ508/14.2mm
ysis: Mohr-Coulomb, Hypoplastic Clay, Hardening Soil and φ508/14.2 mm
Hardening Soil and Hardening Soil Small and the results
Hardening Soil Small and the results were compared to the
Stage 9: Final excavation till 14.6m bgs.
Stage 9: Final excavation till 14.6 m bgs.
were
resultscompared to the resultsmeasurements.
of in-situ displacements of in-situ displacements
In conclusions
measurements.
section the discussion on the suitabilitythe
In conclusions section discussion
of chosen on the
constitutive 3.2 Geotechnical
3.2. Geotechnicalconditions.
conditions. In Warsaw,
In Warsaw, generally,
generally, the
the Quater-
suitability of chosen constitutive models for advanced
models for advanced modelling of deep excavations in precon- Quaternary Pleistocene and Holocene formations
nary Pleistocene and Holocene formations cover Tertiary clayey cover
modelling of deep
solidated clays excavations in preconsolidated clays is
is presented. Tertiary However,
deposits. clayey deposits. However, due
due to glacitectonic and to glacitectonic
erosion processesand
the
presented. clay layer is strongly deformed, uneven and irregular. deformed,
erosion processes the clay layer is strongly Due to this
uneven andinirregular.
irregularity, the area ofDue to this irregularity,
the excavation, in the
the clay layer area of
is elevated
3.3. Case
Case example
example the excavation, the clay layer is elevated and lies
and lies directly under the small cover of anthropogenic soils. directly
under the small
Geotechnical cover of
conditions anthropogenic
considered soils. Geotechnical
for the analysis are presented
TheThecasecase example
example used
used for for
the the analysis
analysis is a 20m
is a 20 m wide
wide and conditions considered for the analysis are presented
in Fig. 1. Basic parameters of soil layers are compiled on Fig.
in Table 1.
and 150m long excavation of the metro station located
150 m long excavation of the metro station located in the down- in 1. Basic parameters of soil layers are compiled in Tab. 1.
the
towndowntown
of Warsaw.of Warsaw.
The 14.6 m The 14.6m
deep deep excavation
excavation was mostlywas
ex- Table 1
mostly
ecuted executed
in Pliocenein clays.
Pliocene
The clays. The excavation
excavation walls
walls protected by Basic geotechnicalTable 1
parameters of soil layers
protected
diaphragmbywalls
diaphragm walls were
were supported bysupported
two levelsbyoftwo levels
ground an- Basic geotechnical parameters of soil layers
γ φ’ c’ E Ko υ
ofchors
ground
and anchors
one leveland
of one
steellevel of The
struts. steeltypical
struts. cross
The typical
section γ kN/m3 φ’ c’ E Ko υ
° kPa MPa
cross
includingsection including
construction stages andconstruction
geotechnicalstages andis
conditions kN/m3 º kPa MPa - -
geotechnical conditions is shown on Fig. 1.
shown in Fig. 1. Fill 18.7 25 00 250 0.577 0.30
Fill 18 25 0 25 0.577 0.30
Clay 1 20.7 18 10 800 0.917 0.35
3.1.Stages
3.1 Stages of of construction.
construction. TheThe
following construction
following stages
construction Clay 1 20.7 18 10 80 0.917 0.35
Clay 2 20.7 18 15 100 0.783 0.35
were considered
stages in FE analysis,
were considered Fig. 1: Fig.1:
in FE analysis, Clay 2 20.7 18 15 100 0.783 0.35
Stage 1:
Stage 1: Greenfield
Greenfield
Stage 2:
Stage 2: Construction
Construction of of diaphragm
diaphragmwallwall In the analyzed area, there is no general ground water table.
Stage 3:
Stage 3: Excavation
Excavation till
till –4.55 m
-4.55m bgsbgs(below
(below ground
ground surface)
surface) The In the table
water analyzed area, there is
is discontinuous andnocarries
generallowground water
quantities of
Stage4:
Stage 4:Installation
Installation of
of anchors
anchors atat -3.73m
–3.73 mbgs,
bgs,spacing
spacing2.4m
2.4 m table. The water table is discontinuous and carries
water. Water can be found only in sand lenses and pockets low
Stage 5:
Stage 5: E xcavation till
Excavation till–8.85 m
-8.85mbgs,
bgs,stressing of of
stressing anchors
anchors quantities
within of water.
the clay body.Water canthe
In effect, be ground
found only
waterinwas
sandnotlenses
con-
(F = 80%(F = 80%
of FD, F =of 400
FD, kN)
F = 400 kN) and pockets within
sidered in the analysis. the clay body. In effect, the ground
Stage6:
Stage 6:Installation
Installation of
of anchors
anchors atat -7.85m
–7.85 mbgs,
bgs,spacing
spacing1.3m
1.3 m water
Morewas not considered
information about in the analysis.
geotechnical conditions in Warsaw
Stage 7:
Stage 7: Excavation
Excavation till
till–11.85 m
-11.85m bgs,
bgs,stressing
stressingofofanchors
anchors More information about geotechnical
with particular emphasis on the Pliocene conditions
clay layer, in
its detailed
(F = 80%(F = 80%
of FD, F of FD, kN)
= 480 F = 480 kN) Warsaw with particular emphasis on the Pliocene
description and parameters, can be found in [13, 34‒39]. clay
layer, its detailed description and parameters, can be found
in [13, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39].

Fig. 1. Typical cross section Fig. 1. Typical cross section

748 Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 66(5) 2018

 Parametric study of deep excavation in clays

4. Numerical analysis Table 2

Parameters of Hypoplastic Clay model
4.4. Numerical
Numerical analysis
analysis
Numerical plane strain analysis was carried out by κ Parameters
λ of
Table 2
Table 2
e0 emax model
φcv r
Parameters of Hypoplastic
Hypoplastic Clay
Clay model
means of plane
Numerical two geotechnical
strainstrain
analysis finite element
was carried out programs
by means –
GEO5Numerical
FEM plane
[40] and analysis
Plaxis [41] was
due carried
to the out byof
limited κ κ
-
λ λ
- -
e0 e 0
-
eemax
max
º
φφcvcv rr
-
two geotechnical
means of two finite elementfinite
geotechnical programselement– GEO5 FEM [40]
programs – Clay 1 0.019 0.071 0.57 2.5 27 0.3
availability of chosen constitutive models. - - - - º ° -
and
GEO5 Plaxis
FEM [41] due
[40] to
and the limited
Plaxis availability
[41] due to of chosen
the con-
limited
One models.
typical cross-section was modelled considering Clay
Clay112 0.019
Clay
0.019
0.019 0.071
0.071
0.071
0.57
0.57
0.57
2.5
2.5
2.5
27
2727
0.3
0.3
0.3
stitutive
availability of conditions,
chosen constitutive models.
geotechnical
One typical cross-section geometry
was and construction
modelled considering stages
ge- Clay 2 0.019 0.071 0.57 2.5 27 0.3
as One typical
described in cross-section
chapter 3 was
and modelled
shown on considering
Fig. 1. Both
Clay 2 0.019 0.071 0.57 2.5 27 0.3
otechnical conditions, geometry and construction stages as Determination of all parameters of the Hypoplastic
geotechnical conditions,
numericalinmodels geometry andand construction stages
described chapter were3 andcalibrated
shown on Fig. 1. validated on the
Both numerical Clay model for Pliocene
Determination clays is aofpart
of all parameters of separate study,
the Hypoplastic Clay
asbasic
described in chapter 3 elastic
and shown on Fig. 1. Both Determination of all parameters of thestudy,
Hypoplastic
modelsconstitutive
were calibrated linear
and validated –onperfectly
the basic plastic soil
constitutive whichfor
model is Pliocene
in the process.
clays is a part of separate which is
numerical models were calibrated and validated onlayers
the Clay
model (Mohr-Coulomb). The parameters
linear elastic – perfectly plastic soil model (Mohr-Coulomb). of soil in the model
process.for Pliocene clays is a part of separate study,
basic constitutive
considered linear elastic
in calibration analysis –areperfectly
given inplastic 1.soil
Tab.analysisThe which is in the2.process.
The parameters of soil layers considered in calibration 4.2 Model The second model was made in Plaxis
model
results (Mohr-Coulomb).
obtained in both The parameters
programs in of
terms soil
of layers
vertical
are given in Table  1. The results obtained in both programs in program
4.2. Model[41].
2. TheModel
seconddimensions
model wasare identical,
made 40program
in Plaxis x 100m.
considered in calibration analysis are given inthe Tab. 1. The 4.2 Model 2. The
displacements
terms of verticalofdisplacements
the ground surface
of the behind
ground surfaceexcavation
behind Finite
[41]. element
Model meshsecond
dimensions model
generated was made Finite
automatically,
are identical, 40£100 m. in Plaxis
with local
ele-
results obtained in both programs in terms of vertical program
wall,
the horizontal
excavation wall,displacements of the wallof and
horizontal displacements vertical
the wall and ment mesh[41].
refinement in Model
generated dimensions
automatically,
the area are identical,
with
of the excavation,local 40 x of
100m.
refinement
consisted in
1235
displacements of of
the ground surface behind the excavation Finite
displacements
vertical displacements the
of thebottom
bottom of excavation
of excavation in con-
in all all the areaelement
triangleof15-nodesmesh generated
the excavation, and automatically,
consisted
elements of 1235nodes.
10445 with
triangle local
15-nodes
The second
wall, horizontal displacements of the wall and vertical refinement andin the area of the excavation,
construction stages were compared. When
struction stages were compared. When the differences obtained the differences elements
model and 10445
the mesh nodes.
are The
shown second 3.consisted
on Fig.model of mesh
and the 1235
displacements
obtained
in in two
two models
of
modelsthe (programs)
(programs)
bottom ofwere
were negligible
excavation
negligible
models
insetall
weremodels for triangle 15-nodes
are shown in Fig. 3. elements and 10445 nodes. The second
construction
were set
further for stages
further
parametric were compared.
parametric
analysis. When the differences
analysis. model and the mesh are shown on Fig. 3.
obtained in two models (programs) were negligible models
were
4.1. set for 1.
4.1 Model
Model further
1. The parametric
Thefirst
firstmodel
model analysis.
was was
made made in GEO5
in GEO5 FEMFEM pro-
program
gram [40],[40], because
because another
another parametric
parametric studystudy
waswas
made made
on
4.1
on Model
this this
casecase 1.before
before The
[9]. first model
[9]. Model
Model was made
dimensions
dimensions inare
GEO5 FEM
40 x 100m.
are 40£100 m. Finite
program
element [40], because
mesh
Finite element mesh another
generated parametric
automatically,
generated withstudy
localwas
automatically, withmade
refinement
local
on this
around case
refinement before
the excavation,[9]. Model
around the consisted dimensions
excavation, of 7048 are 40
nodesofand
consisted x4189
7048100m. el-
nodes
Finite
ements
and 4189element mesh generated
(2641elements
15-nodes automatically,
triangle 15-nodes
(2641 surface elements, with
triangle 387 local
beam
surface
refinement
elements,
elements,and around
387 1161
beamthe excavation,
contact andconsisted
elements).
elements, 1161 contactof 7048 nodes
elements).
and The 4189
Thefirst elements
firstmodel
modeland (2641 15-nodes
andthethemesh
meshareare
shown triangle
shown surface
in Fig. 2.
on Fig.In2.this
In
elements,
program, 387 beam
anchors
this program, andelements,
anchors struts
and and
arestruts1161
elements contact
are added elements).
in construction
elements added in
The after
stages, first mesh
construction model and themesh
generation.
stages, after meshgeneration.
are shown on Fig. 2. In
this program, anchors and struts are elements added in Fig. 3. Finite element mesh – Model 2 (Plaxis)
construction stages, after mesh generation.
Fig. 3.After
Finitecalibration
Fig. 3. Finite element mesh – Modelparametric
element meshof the model the 2 (Plaxis) analysis
– Model 2 (Plaxis)
was made changing twice the soil constitutive model to
After calibration
Hardening Soil andofthen the model
Hardening the parametric
Soil Small analysis
(HSS)
was made
model. changing twice the soil constitutive model to
After calibration of the model the parametric analysis was3.
Parameters of these models are compiled in Tab.
Hardening
Last changingSoil
two columns and then Hardening Soil Small (HSS)
made twice the present two specific,
soil constitutive additional
model to Hardening
model. Parameters
parameters of HSS ofmodel.
these models
Basic are compiledparameters,
geotechnical in Tab. 3.
Soil and then Hardening Soil Small (HSS) model. Parameters
Lastγ, c’,
twoφ’,columns present
takeninastwo statedspecific, 1.additional
ofasthese modelsK0, are
υ, were
compiled Table 3.inLast
Tab.two columns
parameters of HSS model. Basic geotechnical
present two specific, additional parameters of HSS model. Basic
parameters,
as γ, c’, φ’, K
geotechnical 0, υ, were taken
parameters, c’,asϕ’,stated
as γ,Table 3 K , υ,inwere
Tab.taken
1. as stated
0
Parameters of Hardening Soil and Hardening Soil Small models
in Table 1.
Table 3
Eur
Parameters E50
of Hardening υur andmHardening
Soil OCRSoil Small E0
γ0.7 models
Fig. 2. Finite
Fig. 2.element mesh – Model
Finite element mesh 1– Model
(GEO5 FEM)
1 (GEO5 FEM) Table 3
MPa MPa - - - - MPa
ParametersEur
of Hardening
E50 υSoil
ur and
m Hardening
OCR Soil
γ0.7Small models
E0
Fig. 2.After
Finitecalibration
element meshof– the model
Model (as FEM)
1 (GEO5 described before) the Fill 25 8.3 0.2 0.6 1 0.0001 190
MPa MPa - - - - MPa
parametric analysis
After calibration
calibration ofofthe was made changing the soil Eur E50 υur m OCR γ0.7 E
After
constitutive model to themodel
model
Hypoplastic
(as(asdescribed
Claydescribed
model
before) the para-
before)
for both the
clay
Clay 1
Fill 2580 26.6
8.3 0.2
0.2 0.6
0.6 13 0.0001 4300
0.0001 190
metric analysis was made changing MPa MPa MPa
parametric
layers. analysis
Parameters was
of this madethe
model
soil constitutive
arechanging
compiled in
model
theTab. soil2. Clay 2
Clay 1 100
80 33.3
26.6 0.2 0.6
0.2 0.6 3 3 0.0001 430
0.0001 430
to Hypoplastic
constitutive modelClay tomodel for
Hypoplastic both clay
Clay layers.
model Parameters
for both clay of Fill 250 08.3 0.2 0.6 1 0.0001 190
Basic
this geotechnical
model are compiled parameters,
in Table 2.asBasic
c’, φ’, K0, υ, if required,
geotechnical parame-
layers. Parameters
wereastaken of inthis model
1.wereare compiled in Tab. 2. Clay 21
Clay 100
800 33.3
26.6 0.2
0.2 0.60.6 3 3 0.0001
0.0001 430430
ters,
Basic c’, ϕ’,asKstated
geotechnical
Tab.
0, υ,parameters,
if required, as taken
c’, φ’, as ,stated
K υ, if in Table 1.
required,
4.3 Results of numerical analysis. As a basis to
All parameters
parametersexceptexcepteemax,, φφcv andand rr for 0 the Hypoplastic Clay 2
verification100of the33.3 0.2of the
results 0.6parametric
3 0.0001
analysis,430
three
were All for the Hypoplastic
Claytaken
modelas statedevaluated
in Tab. 1.basing on laboratory and field 4.3 Results of numerical analysis. As a basis the to
max cv
Clay model where
where evaluated basing on laboratory and field tests leading displacement parameters were chosen:
All parameters
tests carried except max, φcv andof
the eemployees r for
thetheDepartment
Hypoplastic verification of the results of the parametric analysis, three
carried out byout the byemployees of the Department of Geotech- of horizontal
4.3. Results displacement of the top
of numerical analysis. Asofa basis
the diaphragm wall
to verification
Clay model where
Geotechnics and evaluated
Underground basing on laboratory
Structures of the and field
Warsaw leading displacement parameters were chosen: the
nics and Underground Structures of the Warsaw University of (u
of the ), the heave of the bottom of excavation described
xw results of the parametric analysis, three leading displace- by
tests carriedofout
University by the employees
Technology [35, 36, of the Department of horizontal displacement of the top of the diaphragm wall
Technology [35‒37]. Parameters emax37].
, ϕcvParameters
and r were etakenmax, φas
cv the parameters
ment value of werevertical displacement
chosen: of displacement
the horizontal the bottom ofof
Geotechnics and Underground Structures of the Warsaw xw), the heave
(uexcavation of the bottom
and r were taken as average
average for similar soil types [40]. for similar soil types [40]. the top of the(y wall (uof
uplift) and vertical
diaphragm excavation described
displacements
xw), the heave of ofthe by
thebottom
ground
University of Technology [35, 36, 37]. Parameters emax, φcv the value of vertical displacement of the bottom of
and r were taken as average for similar soil types [40]. excavation (yuplift) and vertical displacements of the ground
Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 66(5) 2018 749

3
 M. Mitew-Czajewska

of excavation described by the value of vertical displacement during construction. The differences were up to 25% (15 mm)
of the bottom of excavation (yuplift) and vertical displacements comparing to the measured value. However, again, the use of
of the ground surface in the influence zone ( yground). In the Hardening Soil Small model resulted in underestimation of
parametric study formulated as described above, the results of those displacements by 51% (30,6 mm).
numerical analysis were compared to the results of real dis- The maximum values of the uplift of the excavation (yuplift)
placements measurements taken during construction. in all calculation
surface in the influence surfacezone in the (yground ). In the
influence zone parametric
(yground theseries
). In excavation compared
parametric uplift toexcavation
the value measured
measured uplift during
during construction.
measured dur
First parameter of the comparative analysis – the horizontal construction are presented in Fig. 5.
ace zone
surface (y
in the in ).
influence In
the influence thestudy
zone formulated
parametric
zone
(y (y ).the as
study
excavation
Indiaphragm
).the described
Inground formulated
parametric
the ).parametricuplift above, as
measured the
describedresults
during of
above, differences
the
construction. results The were
of up to
differences 25% (15mm)
were up comparing
to 25% to
(15
surface
ground
displacement in the of influence
numerical
the topground
ofground
analysis
zone (y
were
In the
wall
compared ) excavation
(u xwparametric
to
excavation
– is con-
the results
uplift
of
uplift
excavation
real
measured measured
uplift during
measured
during
measured
value.
construction.
construction.
during construction.
However, again,
The The
the use of
The
Hardening
described
ystudy
formulated above,
formulated the results of numerical
differences analysis
were up were
to 25% compared
(15mm) to the
comparing results to of real
the measured value. However, again, th
sideredas
study described
as the
formulated
during described asabove,
design ofabove,
the the
described wallthe results
above, results
of excavation of
the of indifferences
resultsthedifferences
ser-of were were
differences up to up 25% to 25%
were (15mm)
up to (15mm) 25% comparingcomparing
(15mm) tocomparing
the
to the to the
enumerical
mericalcompared analysis to the
analysis were displacements
results
were
compared of were
comparedreal measurements
to compared
theto displacements
measured
results
the toofvalue.taken during
measurements
However, construction.
again, takenthe during
use of Small
construction.
Hardening model
Soiluse resulted
Small inmodel underestimation
resulted in ofund th
numerical
viceability analysis
limit state. Based on the results
results the real
ofresults
of real
all measured
of measured
calculation real value. value.
measured However, However,
value. again, again,
However,the theagain,
of
useHardening
ofthe Hardening
use of Soil Soil
Hardening Soil
ments taken during construction.First parameter of the
First comparative
parameter of analysis
themodel -
comparative the displacements
analysis by
-underestimation 51%
thein underestimation (30,6mm).
displacements by 51% (30,6mm).
lacements
displacements measurements
measurements
displacements
series it may takentaken
measurements
be observed during theSmall
thatduring construction.
taken model
construction.
during
displacements ofresulted
construction.
the topSmall in
ofSmall
the underestimation
model
Small resulted resulted
model inofresulted
inthose
underestimation of thoseof those of those
the First
First comparative
parameterparameter
First of horizontal
analysis
the
of
parameter the -
comparative displacement
the
comparative
of the
excavation wall (u xw) obtained applying different constitutive horizontal
displacements
analysis of
analysis
comparative the
- thetop
displacement
by
-
analysis of
51%
the the diaphragm
of
(30,6mm).
displacements
- the
displacements
the top by wall
of
51%
displacementsby the 51% diaphragm
(30,6mm). The
(30,6mm).
by 51% maximum
wall
(30,6mm). values The of the
maximum uplift of
values theofexcava
the u
of the displacement
zontal
horizontal top of the
displacement
horizontal (u
diaphragm
of )
theof
displacement
xw - topis
thewall considered
of
top oftheof
models in subsequent construction stages differed up to 60% the (u The
diaphragm
the top
xw during
) -
diaphragm
of is
maximum
the wallthe
considered
wall
diaphragm design
values Theof
during
wall of the
Thethe
maximumwall
theuplift
maximum of
design
The of
values the(y
of
values
maximum ofthe
uplift )
excavation
theof in
wall all
uplift
the
values of calculation
uplift
of
of (y
the
the of )
excavation
the
uplift
uplift series
in all
excavation
of the compared
calculation
excavation to the
series v
)uring
(u-xw)is -the design
considered
is(u considered
)
comparing
xw - is of excavation
the
during during
considered wall
the in
of
the
design
during the
design(yserviceability
ofexcavation
the
to the measured value (from 1.5 to 11.3 mm),upliftthe
uplift )
of in
the
wall
design all in
wall
oflimit
the
calculation
of
the state.
serviceability
(ywall (y) Based
series
of
but uplift
at in
) all on
in
(y limit the
compared state.
calculation
all
uplift ) measured
calculation
in toBased
all the
series on
series
calculation during
value the
compared construction
compared
seriesmeasured
to the
to
compared are
during
value
the presented
value
to construction
the on
value Fig.are5. p
eability
avation
excavation inlimitthein
excavationstate. results
Based
serviceability
the
the end resulted serviceability
in the of
on all
the
limit calculation
limit
serviceability
in similar state.
maximumlimit results
measured
state.
Based series
of
Basedon
valuesstate. all
during it
the
on may
calculation
in theBased the be
constructionobserved
measured series
measured
on the
last construc- are that
it
during may
presented
during the be
constructionobserved
on Fig.
construction 5.
are that the
presented
are
measured during construction are presented on Fig. 5. presented on Fig.
on Fig.
5. 5.
series
lts
results itofmay
of all be
calculation observed
all calculation
results
tion stage,of all displacements
series that
series
it may
calculation
comparable the
it may
to beofobserved
series
those the
bemeasured topthat
displacements
itobserved
may beof the the
that
the
observed
during excavation
of the
thattop
construction the of wall xw)
the(uexcavation wall (uxw)
op of
lacements the
displacements excavation
of difference
the
displacements
– the of the obtained
top top wall
ofof the
obtained (u
of xw
the applying
the )
excavation
wasexcavation
top of tothe
up different
obtained
19% wall wall
excavation
(up (u
toxw constitutive
applying
)(uxwwall
5.5 mm), ) except different
(uxw) models in
constitutive models in
fferent
obtained
ined applying constitutive
forapplying
obtained subsequent
different
the Hardening models
different
applying in
Soilconstitutiveconstruction
constitutive
different
Small subsequent
models
model.constitutive
For stages
models
this model differed
construction
in modelsin analysis
the up
in to
stages 60%differed up to 60%
nsubsequent
sequent stagesconstruction
differed
construction
subsequent
resulted comparing
upconstruction
to stages
stages
in underestimation 60% to the
differed measured
differed
stages
of comparing tovalue
up differed
displacementsup totoof
60% (from
the
60%
upthe to1.5 60%
measured
wall, toby 11.3mm),
value (from but 1.5 to 11.3mm), but
ed valueto(from
paring
comparing 1.5measured
thetomeasured
26%
comparingthe
(7.7 mm),to toat the
11.3mm),
value
thewhich end
value
(from
measured isresulted
butrather
(from1.5valueto in
at
1.5 similar
the
11.3mm), end
to 11.3mm),
unfavorable
(from 1.5andmaximum
resulted
but in
but in the
unsafe
to 11.3mm), values
similar
but in the
maximum last values in the last
hemilar themaximum
at end end construction
resulted
at resulted
the in values
end construction
similar
in in maximum
design.
similar
resulted theinmaximum
last stage,
similar values comparable
construction
values
maximum in the invalues
last to
thestage, those
lastin the measured
comparable
last during
to those measured during
parable to
struction
construction those
stage, The
stage,
construction measured
graphs construction
comparable of the
comparable
stage, during
horizontal
to those– the
to
comparable those difference
construction
displacements
measured measured
to those duringobtained
of– the
during
measured thetop was
differenceup to obtained
of the
during 19% (up was up to 19% (up
ence
struction obtained
construction the– was
excavation
–construction up
difference to–to
wall
the difference 5.5mm),
(19%
theuobtained (up
in except
) obtained
xwdifference construction for
wasobtainedto the
was
up 5.5mm),
toup Hardening
stages
19%towas 19% except
in
(up up all(upSoilfor Small
tocalculation
19% the(up model.
Fig. 5.For
Hardening Soil Small
Maximum valuemodel.of theFor uplift of the bottom of the excavation
e.5mm),
toHardening
5.5mm), series
except
to Soil
except (Model
for
5.5mm), forthis
Small
the Hardening
the
except model
1model.
– Hypoplastic
forFor
Hardening the the
Soil analysis
Soil
Small
Hardening this
clay, Model
Small
model. resulted
model
Soil 2Small
model. For theFor
– Hardeningin
model.underestimation
analysis Forresulted inof underestimation
Soil obtained using different of constitutive soil models
sthis resulted
model model and
the
this Hardening
inthe displacements
underestimation
analysis
model analysis Soil
resulted
the Small
resulted
analysis of with
in of
inthe wall,
reference
underestimation
resulted inbyunderestimation
displacements
underestimation to26% of (7.7mm),
basic ofofMohr-Cou-
the wall, which
ofby 26% is rather
(7.7mm), which is rather
l,lacements
by 26%
displacements lomb
(7.7mm),
of the model)
ofwall,
displacements unfavorable
which
the wall, compared
byof26% is
the rather
by 26% toand
(7.7mm),
wall, (7.7mm),unsafe
geodesic
by 26% which in
in-situ
unfavorable
which the
is rather
(7.7mm), construction
measurements
and
is rather unsafe
which is rather design.
are
in the construction design.
n
avorablethe presented
construction
unfavorable and unsafe
and unsafe
unfavorable in detail
design.
inand the The in
inunsafe Fig. 4.
graphs
construction
the construction of the
in the design. horizontal
The graphs
design. design.
construction displacements
of the horizontal of the The
top of
displacements third analyzedof theparameter
top of concerned the displacements
izontal
The The graphs Similar
displacements
graphs ofThethe ofgraphs observations
the
horizontal of
the horizontal excavation
the
of the top ofwere
displacements
displacements
horizontal found
wall the (uin relation
) in
excavation
of the oftop
displacements
xw theof to the
construction
wall second
topofofthe topxwof (u stages
) in of the
in ground
all
construction ( y stages
ground ) induced
in all by the excavation in the influ-
) inexcavation
the
excavation analyzed
construction parameter
calculation
stages
)(uin – the
in all
) construction
in (u uplift
series
construction of the
(Model bottom
calculation
stages 1
stages –
in allof the
Hypoplastic
series
instages excavation
(Model
all in all clay, 1 – ence
Model
Hypoplastic zone.
2 – The parametric
clay, Model study
2 – showed significant differences
xw the wall wall
(uxw
excavation xwwall xw) in construction
lcalculation
ulation (
1 – Hypoplastic
seriesy series) .
(Model The
clay,
(Model maximum
Hardening
1 Model
– Hypoplastic
1(Model values
Soil
2 – 1 – clay,
– Hypoplastic and of the
Hardening
clay,heave
Model Model of
Soil
2clay, the and
– 2 Model–bottom
Small with
Hardening of in
reference
Soilthe nature
to
Small of
with displacements
reference tooccurring around the excavation
calculation
uplift series Hypoplastic 2–
the excavation, basic occurring
Mohr-Coulomb in final excavation
basicmodel) stage,
compared
Mohr-Coulomb obtained
to geodesic in all
in-situ stages of excavation between models 1 and 2 (HC versus
dening
dening
Hardening Soil
Soil Small
Soil
Hardening with
and Hardening
and Soilreference
Hardening and Soil to Small
Soil
Small
Hardening with Soilwith
reference
Smallreferencewith to model)
to reference to compared to geodesic Fig. 5. range
in-situ
Maximum value of 5.the Maximum
uplift
odel) comparedapplying different
to model) measurements
geodesic constitutive
in-situ are models
presented
measurementswere in similar
detail areon and com-
Fig.
presented HS and HSS). The
4. in detail on Fig. 4. obtained using different of the influence
Fig. zone of the
is similar,
valuebottomofbut of uplift
the the excav
of
cbasic
Mohr-Coulomb
Mohr-Coulomb
basic Mohr-Coulomb model) compared compared
model) to geodesic
to geodesic
compared in-situ in-situ
to geodesic in-situ constitutive
obtained using soil models
different constitutive s
parable to maximum value of the Fig. excavation
5. Maximumuplift valuemeasured
of the
Fig. 5.Fig.uplift
Maximum the
of
5. Maximum the
Fig. direction
bottom
value
5. value
of the
Maximum ofofthe
of displacement
uplift
theexcavation
uplift
valueof of theof
the differs.
bottom
the
upliftbottom Fig. 6
ofofthe and
ofexcavation
the the
bottom Fig. 7
of the present
excavation excavation
nted in detail
surements
measurements areonpresented
measurementsareFig.presented
4. are in detailin detail
presented on Fig. on Fig.
4.obtained
in detail 4.on Fig. using4. different constitutive soil models
obtained the general
obtained
using using
different layout
different
obtained usingof
constitutive the displacements
constitutive
differentsoil models
soil models
constitutive soil around
modelsthe excavation
in final excavation stage in model 1 (Hypoplastic Clay) and
Model 2 (Hardening TheSoil)third respectively,analyzed The parameter
third those
illustrating analyzed concerned
dif- param
The third analyzed The The parameter
third third analyzed
The displacements
concerned
analyzed
third parameter the
parameter
analyzed
ferences. Fig. 8 shows deformed mesh in final excavation stage of the
concerned
parameter ground
displacements
concerned the (y
concerned of
the
ground )
the induced
ground
the by(y
displacements of the ground
displacements
displacements (y of
fordisplacements ) the
of
the Hardening Soil
ground excavation
induced
the
ground by
ground
of the (y the
Small in
(y the
)
ground
ground
influence
excavation
induced
) induced by
model. (yground) induced by the
ground
zone.
in
the
by the
theThe parametric
influence zone s
excavation in the influence excavation
excavationzone. The
inexcavation
the
in the
In the Model showed
parametric
influence influence zone.
in 1,thedirectly significant
study
zone.
The
influence behindThe showed
parametric
zone. differences
parametric
the wall Thesmall significant
study study
parametric in
settlements the
study nature
differences
showed significantshowed differences
showed significant inup to
significant
showed
occur, displacements
thesignificant
nature
differences
2.6 mm, differences
which of occurring
incomplies
differences thedisplacements
in the around
nature
with innature
thethe theoccurring
of
settlementexcavation
natureob-around
of ofin allthest
displacements occurring around
displacements
displacements the excavation
occurring
displacements
served occurring
during of in
aroundexcavation
all
aroundstages
the excavation
occurring
construction the between of
excavation
around
(2.5 mm). the models
excavation
inexcavation
Then, allinmoving
stages1 and
all stagesbetween 2 (HC
in allfrom
away versus
models
stages 1HSan
of excavation between models 1the
and 2 between
(HC HSS).
versus HSThe andrange of the
HSS). influence
The range zone of is
the similar,
influence bu
u xw [mm]

of excavation
of excavation ofbetween
wall,
excavation themodels models
elevation
between1 and of 1models
and
2 (HC
ground 2 (HCversus
1surface
and versus
2HS and
HSversus
is obtained,
(HC and HS up to and
HSS). The range of HSS). the HSS).
influence
The The range
6.5 mm zone
HSS). range isthe
ofinThe of
the direction
similar,
influence
the but
finalinfluence
range of
excavation
of the thedisplacement
zone zone
isstage,
influence direction
similar,
is similar,
which
zone differs.
butisofthe
but
only Fig.
displacement
similar,the
13% 6 but
and
lesstheFig. 7 preF
differs.
direction of displacement direction differs.
direction ofthen Fig.
displacement 6 andofFig.
of measured
displacement
direction theon general
7 differs.
present
site.
differs.
displacement Fig. Fig. layout
and6 the
6differs. and
Fig.of
Fig. the
general
Fig.
7 present displacements
7 present
6 and layout
Fig. 7 present around
of the disp
the general layout the of the the general
general displacements
In the
layout
the layout
general of excavation
Model around
the
of2 (for
the
layout of in
the
both
displacements thefinal
constitutive
displacements excavation excavation
aroundsoil
displacements around thein the
models stageandexcavation
final
– HS
around in mode
the
excavation in final excavation
excavation
excavation HSS)in stage
excavationsignificant
final
in final (Hypoplastic
in model
final 1directly
insettlement
excavation
excavation stageClay)
excavationstage in and
(Hypoplastic
behind model Model
themodel
instage wall 12model
1inisClay)
obtained,(Hardening
and1 ModelS
(Hypoplastic Clay)(Hypoplastic and Model
(Hypoplastic up(Hypoplastic
toClay)
213.6 mm,
(Hardening
Clay) and respectively,
which
andModel
Clay) isModel
7.5
Soil)
and illustrating
2times respectively,
more
(Hardening
2Model (Hardening 2those
than the
Soil) differences.
real illustrating
settlement
Soil)
(Hardening Soil)Fig.
those8 difsh
respectively, illustrating those observed
respectively,
respectively,differences.
illustrating during
illustrating deformed
Fig. construction
those 8 shows
those mesh
differences. in
(2.5 mm).
differences.
respectively, illustrating those differences. Fig. 8 shows final
deformed
Fig. excavation
The
Fig.
8 settlement
mesh
shows
8 shows stage
in is
finalfor
then the Harde
excavation
deformed mesh in final excavation
deformed deformed decreasing
mesh stage
meshin final
deformed in SoilHardening
fortowards
the
final
excavation
mesh Small
thefinal
excavation
in end model.
stageof stage
the
forinfluence
excavation Soil
the Small
for Hardening
the
stage zone. model.
Hardening
for No Hardening
the heave or
Soil Small model. Soil Soil Small elevation
Small
model.
Soil model. of
Small model.ground surface occurred in that case.
The results of all calculation series (Model 1 – Hypoplastic
Construction stage Clay, Model 2 – Hardening Soil and Hardening Soil Small
Measured values Mohr-Coulomb Hypoplastic clay with reference to basic Mohr-Coulomb model) are further pre-
Hardening Soil Hardening Soil Small
sented in detail in form of graphs of vertical displacements of
the ground surface (yground) behind the excavation compared
Fig. 4. Horizontal Fig. 4. Horizontal displacements
displacements of theFig.top of wall
4. ofHorizontal
the the top indisplacements
construction to geodesic
of the wall inofconstruction
the top of the in-situ measurements in four construction stages
wall in construction
ents of stages obtained stages obtained
using different usingconstitutive
different
stages constitutive
obtained
soil using
models soildifferent
models constitutive
(representing successive
soil models excavation):
4. the
4.Fig.Horizontal top
Horizontal of the wall
displacements in
displacements construction
of
Fig. 4. Horizontal displacements the oftop
the oftop the of wall
the in
wall construction
in construction
top of the wall in construction
ferent constitutive
stagesstages
obtained soilusing
obtained
using
stages models
different
different
obtained constitutive
constitutive
using soil models
different soil modelssoil models
constitutive

750 Similar observations were observations

Similar found in relation were to the in relation to the
found Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 66(5) 2018
sSimilar
were found
Similar in
observations second
relation
observations werewere
Similar observations toanalyzed
the
found found parameter
second
in relation
were infound –
relation the
analyzed
toin the uplift of
to the to the
relation the
parameter bottom
– the of the
uplift of the bottom of the
ter
ond theanalyzed
uplift
–analyzed
second second parameter excavation
of analyzed
the bottom
parameter
– the –of the
uplift
the
parameter of–).
(yuplift
uplift The
the
of
the maximum
excavation
bottom
the bottom
uplift ofthe
of (yof
the values
the
bottom
uplift of
). The the
theheave of
ofmaximum the of the heave of the
values
maximum
avation
excavationvalues
(y).uplift
(yexcavation
uplift The bottom
of). the
(yheave
The
maximum
maximum
uplift
of
). The the
ofvalues
the excavation,
values
of the
maximum bottom
ofheave occurring
of
the heave
values the
ofofthe
of the
the in final
excavation,
heave of the excavation
occurring in final excavation
stage,
on, occurring in final excavation obtained applying different constitutive models were
stage, obtained applying different constitutive Fig.models were
6. Vertical displacements
Fig. 6. in the final
Vertical excavation stage
displacements Mo
in the– fina
 Parametric study of deep excavation in clays

Fig. 6. Vertical displacements in the final excavation stage – Model 1 (GEO5)

Fig. 7. Vertical displacements in the final excavation stage – Model 2 (Plaxis)

Fig. 8. Deformations int the final excavation stage – Model 2 (HSS)

Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 66(5) 2018 751

 obtainedobtained
using different
using different
constit
Fig. 5. Fig.
Maximum
5. Maximum
value of
value
the of
uplift
the of
uplift
the of
bottom
the bottom
of the of
excavation
the excavation
measurements
measurements
are presented
are presented
in detail
in detail
on Fig.
on4.Fig. 4. obtainedobtained
using different
using different
constitutive
constitutive
soil models
soil models

The The third third analyzed analy

The The
M. Mitew-Czajewska third thirdanalyzedanalyzed parameter displacements
parameter displacements
concernedconcerned of the
the the of groun
the
displacements
displacements of the of ground
the ground (yground excavation
(y)ground excavation
induced inbythethe
) induced inby
influence
the
theinflu
excavation
excavation
in thein influence
the influence zone.zone. Theshowed showed
parametric
The significant
parametric significant
study differe
study
– stage 3 (excavation –4.55 m bgs) – Fig. 9, tive models
showedshowed weresignificant
– Hypoplastic
significant indisplacements
Clay [18‒20],
differences
differences displacements
natureoccurring
inHardening
the the Soil
natureof occurring
ofarou
– stage 5 (excavation –8.85 m bgs) – Fig. 10, [23, 24] and Hardening
displacements
displacementsoccurring Soil
occurringSmall
around [25].
around
the of excavation
excavation
the of excavation
excavation in all between
in
stages between
all stages model
– stage 7 (excavation –11.85 m bgs) – Fig. 11, Three basicbetween
of excavation
of excavationdisplacement
between
models 1 and12HSS).
parameters
models (HC2 HSS).
were
and The versus
chosen
versus
(HC range
The
for and
HS range
of
theHSthe andofinflu
the
– stage 9 (excavation –14.60 m bgs) – Fig. 12. analysis:
HSS).HSS).
Thetherange
horizontal
The range
of theofdisplacement
influence
the influence ofdirection
zone the
zone top
direction
is similar, the
isofsimilar, dia-
displacement
butof displaceme
thebut the diff
phragm
direction wall
direction (uofxwdisplacement
), the heave
of displacement ofdiffers.
differs. the
Fig.bottom
the
6Fig.
and of
general
6the
Fig.
andexcavation
general
7Fig.layout
present layout
7 presentof theo
described
the generalby the
the general value
layoutlayout of vertical
of the displacement
of displacements excavation
the displacements of the
excavation
around bottom
in final
around in
the the final
excav
5. Summary and conclusions of excavation
excavation
excavation( y
in final ) and
in final
uplift vertical
excavation displacements
excavation (Hypoplastic
stage stage of the
(Hypoplastic
in model ground
Clay)
in model 1 Clay)
and1 M a
surface in the
(Hypoplastic influence
(Hypoplastic Clay)Clay) zone (
and and y )
ModelModel
ground . These are
2respectively,the
(Hardening parameters
2 respectively,
(Hardeningillustrating
Soil)illustratin
Soil)thos
The main goal of the paper was to analyze the possibility of describing the safety of the analyzed structure deformed and surrounding
deformed
mesh in
mesh
respectively,
respectively,
illustrating
illustrating
thosethose differences.
differences. Fig. 8Fig. 8final
shows inexcav
shows final
application of two types of advanced constitutive models – hy- buildings. Though, the results of the presented Soil analysis maymodel.
be
deformed
deformed
meshmeshin final in excavation
final excavation stage forSmall
stage Soil
the Small
model.
forHardening
the Hardening
poplastic and hardening – for modelling of excavations in pre- used in the estimation of hazards or risk analysis associated with
Soil Small
Soil Small
model. model.
consolidated clays (Pliocene clays in Warsaw). The constitu- the construction of deep excavations.

Measured values    Mohr-Coulomb    Hypoplastic clay    Hardening Soil    Hardening Soil Small

Fig. 4. Horizontal displacements of the top of the wall in c

Fig. 4. Fig.
Horizontal
4. Horizontal
displacements
displacements
of the top
of the
of the
top wall
of theinstages
wall obtained
construction
in using different constitutive soil models
construction
stages obtained
stages obtained
using different
using different
constitutive
constitutive
soil models
soil models
Fig. 4. Fig.
Horizontal
4. Horizontal
displacements
displacements
of the of
topthe
of top
the of
walltheinwall
construction
in construction
stages stages
obtained
obtained
using different
using different
constitutive
constitutive
soil models
soil models
Similar observations were found in relatio
yground [mm]

Similar Similar
observations
observations were were in second
found found relation analyzed
to thetoparameter
in relation the – the uplift of the botto
yground [mm]

Similar
Similar
observations
observations were were second
foundfound second
analyzed
in relation
in analyzed
to parameter
relation theto theparameter
– the uplift
– the of excavation
uplift
the of
bottom of(ythe
the bottom of). the
uplift The maximum values of the hea
secondsecond
analyzed
analyzed
parameter parameter the excavation
– the –uplift of theexcavation
uplift ofbottom of).(y
the(ybottom
uplift The
the ).maximum
of the
uplift The maximum of bottom
valuesvalues of theofheave
the heave ofthe
theexcavation,
of the occurring in final ex
excavation
excavation ). uplift
(yuplift(y The).maximum
The maximum bottom
valuesvaluesbottom
of the
of theofheave of excavation,
the heave the
of of the excavation,
occurring
occurring
in stage,
final
in obtained
excavation
final applying
excavation different constitutive mod
bottombottom
of theof excavation,
the excavation, occurring stage,
occurring stage,
obtained
in final
in finalobtained
applying
excavation
excavationapplying
different
different
constitutivesimilar
constitutive
models and
models
were comparable
were to
Fig. 6. Fig. maximum
Vertical
6. Vertical value
displacements
displacemen
in th
stage,stage,
obtained
obtained
applying applying
different
different similar
constitutivesimilar
and
constitutive
models comparable
and
models comparable to
were wereFig. 6. Fig. maximum
to
Verticalmaximum
6. Vertical value
displacements value
of
displacements the
in the in of
final the
theexcavation
(GEO5)
final excavation
(GEO5)
stage –stage
Model
– Model
1 1
similar
similar
and and
comparable
comparable to maximum
to maximum valuevalue
of the of the (GEO5)(GEO5)

Distance from the wall [m] Distance from the wall [m]

Fig. 9. Vertical displacements of ground surface behind the excavation Fig. 11. Vertical displacements of ground surface
4 behind
4 the excavation
wall in Stage 3 (excavation below the first row of anchors) wall in Stage 7 (excavation below the level of struts)
4 4
yground [mm]
yground [mm]

Distance from the wall [m] Distance from the wall [m]

Fig. 10. Vertical displacements of ground surface behind the excavation Fig. 12. Vertical displacements of ground surface behind the excavation
wall in Stage 5 (excavation below the second row of anchors) wall in Stage 9 (final excavation)

752 Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 66(5) 2018

 Parametric study of deep excavation in clays
The results of numerical, parametric analysis in terms of
those three parameters were compared to the results of in-situ
displacements measurements taken during construction.
The observations in relation to theoretical (calculated)
values of horizontal displacements of the wall (u xw), as well
as vertical uplift of the bottom of excavation (yuplift) are sim-
ilar for all analyzed models. Obtained values were of the same
range, differing up to 19%–25% in the final excavation stage,
reflecting the real displacement in an acceptable manner from
an engineering point of view. Except the Hardening Soil Small
model, which tends to underestimate both – displacement of the
wall (u xw), up to 26%, and the heave of the bottom of the ex-
cavation (yuplift), up to 51%, both in the final excavation stage.
Significant differences were obtained in terms of the vertical
displacement of the ground surface behind the wall (yground).
The use of the Hypoplastic Clay model resulted in a very good
mapping (only up to 13% difference comparing to the real dis-
placement) of the slight elevation of the ground surface ob-
served in reality in all construction stages, whereas for both
Hardening Soil and Hardening Soil Small models no heave or
elevation of the ground surface was obtained in the influence
zone behind the wall. The values of settlements directly behind
the excavation wall were also significantly overestimated by
both latter models (being up to 7,5 times higher than measured
settlement values).
Hypoplastic Clay model proved to be suitable for modelling
excavations made in preconsolidated clays specific for the area
of Warsaw, both in terms of the design of excavation walls
(Fig. 4) and the prediction of vertical displacements of ground
surface behind the excavation wall (Fig. 9‒12), only underes-
timating the uplift of the bottom of the excavation (25%), the
parameter, which is usually not critical for the structure and
the vicinity.
On the contrary, Hardening Soil models didn’t provide
proper estimation of displacements of the ground surface behind
the excavation wall in the influence zone, also underestimating
significantly displacements of the wall and the heave of the
bottom of the excavation.
Though it may be concluded that the Hypoplastic Clay con-
stitutive model is best suitable for modelling deep excavations
executed in preconsolidated Pliocene clays in Warsaw.
References
[1] H.F. Schweiger, Results from the ERTC7 benchmark exercise,
in Proc. 6th European conf. Numerical Methods in Geotechnical
Engineering. Taylor&Francis, London (2006).
[2] L. Mica, V. Racansky, and J. Chalmovsky, “Technological
tunnel centre – numerical analysis by using different constitu-
tive models”, Modern Building Structures, Vilnius Gediminas
Technical University (2010).
[3] P.V. Lade, “Overview of Constitutive Models for Soils”, Pro-
ceedings Soil Constitutive Models: Evaluation, Selection and
Calibration Geotechnical Special Publications, No. 128, pp.
1–34, eds. J.A. Yamamuro and V. N. Kaliakin, ASCE (2005).
[4] H.F. Schweiger HF, The Role of Advanced Constitutive Models
in Geotechnical Engineering, In: Geomechanik und Tunnelbau,
1, 336–344 (2008).
Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 66(5) 2018
[5] D. Kolymbas, The misery of constituive modelling, in: Consti-
tutive Modelling of Granular Materials, Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg, pp. 11‒24 (2000)
[6] D. Muir Wood, The role of models in civil engineering, in: Con-
stitutive Modelling of Granular Materials, Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg, pp. 37‒55 (2000)
[7] T. Kadlicek, T. Janda, and M. Šejnoha, “Applying hypoplastic
model for soft soils to the analysis of anchored sheeting wall”
in Acta Geodyn. Geomater., Vol. 13, No. 2 (182), 125–136
(2016).
[8] M. Mitew-Czajewska and A. Siemińska-Lewandowska, “The
effect of deep excavation on surrounding ground and nearby
structures”, Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium
(IS-Shanghai 2008), Shanghai, China, Geotechnical Aspects of
Underground Construction in Soft Ground / Ng C.W.W., Huang
H.W., Liu G.B. (eds), CRC Press/Balkema, 201‒206 (2009).
[9] M. Mitew-Czajewska, “Evaluation of hypoplastic clay model for
deep excavation modelling”, in: Archives of Civil Engineering,
vol. 62, no 4/1, pp. 73‒86 (2016).
[10] M. Mitew-Czajewska, “Parametric study of the impact of deep
excavation on an existing metro station”, in: Geotechnical As-
pects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground: Proceedings
of the 9th International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of
Underground Construction in Soft Grounds (IS-São Paulo 2017)
/ Negro Arsenio, Cecílio Jr. Marlísio O., CRC Press, pp. 97‒103
(2017).
[11] M. Mitew-Czajewska, “FEM modelling of deep excavation
– parametric study, Hypoplastic Clay model verification”,
in: MATEC Web of Conferences, vol. 117, pp. 1‒6 (2017).
DOI:10.1051/matecconf/201711700121
[12] D.M. Potts and L. Zdravkovič, Finite element analysis in geo-
technical engineering theory, Thomas Telford, London, 1999.
[13] T. Godlewski, G. Kacprzak, and M. Witowski, „Practical eval-
uation of geotechnical parameters of soils for the design of dia-
phragm walls embedded in Warsaw’s Pliocene clays”, in: Civil
and environmental engineering, vol. 4, No.1, 13‒19 (2013) [in
Polish].
[14] T. Godlewski, “Observations of displacements induced by deep
excavation on the example of A19 metro station in Warsaw”, in:
Building materials 3/2008, 60‒63 (2008) [in Polish].
[15] M. Korff and F.J. Kaalberg, “Monitoring dataset of deformations
related to deep excavations for North-South Line in Amsterdam”
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft
Ground – Yoo, Park, Kim & Ban (Eds), Korean Geotechnical
Society, Seoul, Korea, pp. 321‒326 (2014).
[16] Z. Muszyński, J. Rybak, and A. Szot, “Monitoring of structures
adjacent to deep excavations, Underground infrastructure of
urban areas 2, International Conference on Underground Infra-
structure of Urban Areas. Wrocław. October 22‒24, 2008, CRC
Press/Balkema, pp. 177‒183 (2012).
[17] M. Cudny, Some aspects of the constitutive modelling of natural
fine grained soils, IMOGEOR, Gdańsk 2013.
[18] D. Kolymbas, “An outline of hypoplasticity”, Archive of Applied
Mechanics 61, 143‒151 (1991).
[19] D. Mašín, “A hypoplastic constitutive model for clays”, in: In-
ternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics 29, No. 4, 311‒336 (2005).
[20] D. Mašín, Hypoplastic models for fine-grained soils, dissertation,
Charles University, Prague, 2006.
[21] T. Kadlicek, T. Janda, and M. Šejnoha, “Calibration of hypo-
plastic models for soils”, in: Applied mechanics and materials,
Vol. 821, 503‒511 (2015).
753
 M. Mitew-Czajewska
[22] J. Young-Hoon and K. Taesik, “Stiffness reduction in soft Chi-
cago clay during deep urban excavations”, Geotechnical Aspects
of Underground Construction in Soft Ground – Yoo, Park, Kim
& Ban (Eds), Korean Geotechnical Society, Seoul, Korea, pp.
287‒291 (2014)
[23] T. Schanz, P.A. Vermeer, and P.G. Bonnier, “The Hardening Soil
Model: Formulation and Verification”, Beyond 2000 in Computa-
tional Geotechnics – 10 years PLAXIS. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1999.
[24] A. Truty and R. Obrzud, “Improved formulation of the Hardening
Soil model in the context of modeling the undrained behavior
of cohesive soils”, in: Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica 37 (2),
61–68 (2015).
[25] T. Benz, Small-strain stiffness of soils and its numerical conse-
quences, dissertation, Universitat Stuttgart, 2007.
[26] A. Amorosi, D. Boldini, G. de Felice, M. Malena, and G. di Mucci,
„Numerical modelling of the interaction between a deep excava-
tion and an ancient masonry wall”, Geotechnical Aspects of Under-
ground Construction in Soft Ground – Yoo, Park, Kim & Ban (Eds),
Korean Geotechnical Society, Seoul, Korea, pp. 245‒250 (2014).
[27] B. Gebreselassie and H.-G. Kempfert, “Sensitivity study of the
hardening soil model parameters based on idealized excavation”,
in: Prediction, analysis and design in geomechanical applica-
tions, G. Barla and M. Barla eds. Proceedings of the Eleventh
International Conference on Computer Methods and Advances
in Geomechanics, Torino, Italy, 2005.
[28] E. Romani, R. Sorge, G. Guiducci, A. Lucarelli, and G. Fur-
lani, “Deep excavation of Malatesta Station in Rome: Design,
construction and measures”, in: Geotechnical Aspects of Under-
ground Construction in Soft Ground – Viggiani (ed), Taylor &
Francis Group, London, pp. 301‒308, (2012).
[29] N. Phien-Wej, M. Humza, and Z. Zaw Aye, “Numerical modeling
of diaphragm wall behaviour in Bangkok soil using hardening
soil model”, in: Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construc-
tion in Soft Ground – Viggiani (ed), Taylor & Francis Group,
London, pp. 715‒722, (2012).
[30] A.E. Totsev, “Deep excavation in Bulgaria – comparison of
measured and computed performance” in: Geotechnical Aspects
of Underground Construction in Soft Ground – Viggiani (ed),
Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp. 807‒812, (2012).
754
[31] G. Viggiani and J.H. Atkinson, Stiffness of fine-grained soils at
very small strains, Géotechnique, 1995, 45(2), 249–265. DOI:
10.1680/geot.1995.45.2.249.
[32] M. Superczyńska, K. Józefiak, and A. Zbiciak, “Numerical anal-
ysis of diaphragm wall model executed in Poznań clay formation
applying selected FEM codes”, in: Archives of Civil Engineering
Vol. LXII, Issue 3: 207‒224 (2016).
[33] A. Truty and K. Podleś, “Application of hardening soil-small
model for analysis of soil-structure interaction problems”, in:
Technical transactions, Environmental Engineering 107 (16),
117‒134 (2010) [in Polish].
[34] R. Kaczyński, Geology-engineering conditions in Poland, Polish
Geological Institute National Research Institute, Warsaw, 2017
[in Polish].
[35] M. Superczyńska, “Geology-engineering evaluation of Poznań
formation clays as construction subsoil“, dissertation, Warsaw
University of Technology, 2015 [in Polish].
[36] M. Superczyńska, “Values of the stiffness parameters of Poznań
formation clays from Warsaw in small and medium strain
ranges”, in: Maritime Engineering and Geotechnics vol. 3/2015,
207‒211 (2015) [in Polish].
[37] R. Kuszyk, M. Superczyńska, and A. Lejzerowicz, “The methods
of determination of elastic parameters of Pliocene clays for the
2nd metro line in Warsaw”, in: Transportation Overview 9,
59‒63. (2012) [in Polish].
[38] T. Godlewski and M. Wszędyrówny-Nast, “Correlations of re-
gional geotechnical parameters on the basis of CPTU and DMT
tests”, in: “Historical Experience and Challenges of Geotech-
nical Problems in Baltic Region” Proceedings of 13th Baltic Sea
Geotechnical Conference, Vilnius Gediminas Technical Univer-
sity (VGTU) Press, pp. 22‒27 (2016).
[39] T. Godlewski and T. Szczepański, “Determination of soil stiff-
ness parameters using in-situ seismic methods-in sight in re-
peatability and methodological aspects” in: Geotechnical and
Geophysical Site Characterization 4, Coutinho & Mayne (eds),
Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp. 441‒446 (2013).
[40] GEO5 Users manual, Prague, Czech Republic, 2018.
[41] Plaxis 2D Manuals, Delft, The Netherlands, 2017.
Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 66(5) 2018