THREE-DIMENSIONAL FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF

DEEP EXCAVATIONS

By Chang-Yu OU, l Associate Member, ASCE, Dar-Chang Chiou,z and Tzong-Shiann Wu3

ABSTRACT: A nonlinear, three-dimensional finite element technique for deep excavation analysis is proposed
in this paper. The technique as well as the analytical procedures for modeling the excavation processes were
coded into a computer program, and the accuracy of the program was assessed. In order to minimize the number
of elements and nodes without sacrificing the accuracy of analysis, a series of convergence studies were per-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 11/15/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

formed, which makes three-dimensional analysis computationally and economically feasible. The effect of the
existence of the comer on the deflection behavior of an excavation was studied in detail by analyzing a typical
excavation with soft to medium clayey subsoil stratum. By performing a series of parametric studies, a tentative
relationship is developed for estimating three-dimensional maximum wall deflection of an excavation based on
two-dimensional finite element results. Finally, the case of an irregularly-shaped excavation with field measure-
ments of wall deflection was studied. The results of analyses show close agreement with field measurements.

INTRODUCTION formed by the combination of tetrahedron elements. However,

Prediction of excavation wall deformation or ground surface
settlement in the center section of an excavation has been stud-
ied using plane strain finite element analysis by Clough and
his group (e.g., Clough and Denby 1977; Clough and Hansen
1981) and many other researchers (e.g., Clark and Wroth 1984;
Borja 1990; Finno and Harahap 1991; Whittle et al. 1993).
However for typical rectangular excavation cases, the accuracy
of predicted values are affected by the existence of the corner
of excavation, especially in excavations having relatively short
walls. Plane strain analysis might give conservative results es-
pecially for the center section of a relatively short excavation
wall. For sections near the corners, the analysis would be
much more conservative because the three-dimensional effects
in this region are not considered. Excavations are in nature
three-dimensional problems. Therefore, the objectives of this
paper are to establish a three-dimensional finite element anal-
ysis procedure and to develop a computer program to model
deep excavations. Effects of the excavation dimension on
three-dimensional behavior are also discussed in the present
paper.
ANALYTICAL DEVELOPMENT
The finite element formulation for this work was designed
to simulate various phases of excavation such as dewatering,
soil excavation process, strut installation, strut preloading and
so on. It is beyond the scope of the present paper to present
the full development of the finite element formulation; only a
brief summary will be presented here. The interested reader is
referred to Chiou and Ou (1993) for details.
Selection of Element 'TYpe
The tetrahedron element and the hexahedron element are
two types of elements commonly used in three-dimensional
finite element analysis. The hexahedron element can also be
'Prof., Dept. of Constr. Engrg., Nat. Taiwan lnst. of Techno!., Taipei,
Taiwan, R.O.C.
2Da Cin Construction Co. Ltd., 9th fl., 92, Sec. 2, Tun Hwa S. Rd.,
Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.
'Grad. Stud., Dept. of Constr. Engrg., Nat. Taiwan lnst. of Techno!.,
Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Note. Discussion open until October I, 1996. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on December 9, 1993. This paper is part of the lour-
nal o/Geotechnical Engineering, Vo!. 122, No.5, May, 1996. @ASCE,
ISSN 0733-9410/96/0005-0337-0345/$4.00 + $.50 per page. Paper No.
Clough (1969) and Zienkiewicz (1989) commented that for a
regular boundary shape, the hexahedron element used individ-
ually is superior to either the tetrahedron element or the hex-
ahedron element formed by the combination of tetrahedron
elements.
A hexahedron element can also be classified as a high order
element or a linear order element depending on the order of
the displacement shape function. Theoretically, the use of
higher order elements in three-dimensional deep excavation
problems can reduce the total number of elements required in
the analysis. However, the finite element mesh for excavation
must take into account the depth of excavation, location of
struts, the dewatering scheme, soil layering and so on. These
considerations usually result in a higher mesh density on the
excavation side. Consequently, the use of higher order ele-
ments may not be able to reduce the total number of elements
as expected. For this reason and for simplicity, the linear-order
hexahedron element was used to model the behavior of soil
and the excavation wall. A similar approach has been em-
ployed by Borja (1990) and Desai (1977).
The temporary strut during the excavation is often formed
by steel members or a concrete slab. The strut is normally
subjected axial force, and therefore the bar element was used
to simulate the behavior of strut in the study.
Modeling of Structure and Soil
In the analysis, the excavation wall was assumed to behave
as a linear-elastic material, for which both the Young's mod-
ulus and the Poisson's ratio were assumed constant. The soil
was assumed to behave as an elastic-plastic material described
by hyperbolic model (Duncan and Chang 1970). The basic
idea of this model is to characterize the stress-strain response
by a mathematical equation, where the nonlinear stress-depen-
dent hyperbolic curve is used for loading and a linear stress-
dependent response is used for unloading and reloading. At
any given stress level, a tangent modulus is used to predict
the stress-strain relationship for the next loading increment.
The convergence between predicted and actual responses is
achieved by a number of small loading increments and tangent
stiffness method of iteration techniques (Naylor and Pande
1981).
According to the hyperbolic model, the tangent Young's
modulus, E" at any given stress level for primary loading can
be expressed as
~=
R/(1 - sin <\»(0'\ - 0'3)]2 K~ (0'3)"
[ 1- 2c cos <\> + 20'3 sin <\> -
P
(1)
a

7498. where 0'. and 0'3 = major and minor principal stresses, respec-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1996/337

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(5): 337-345

 tively; c and <I> =shear strength parameters; K =stiffness mod-
ulus number for primary loading; n = stiffness modulus ex-
ponent; Rf = failure ratio; and p. = atmospheric pressure. The
~~~~~--.-----.-----..---:I~
1'\,\ '\. " " " " , , " " " " " " " "'\."
unloading-reloading Young's modulus, Eun can be expressed
as
~ '\.1'\~ H~<i~F'" '\."'\."'\.",20m
"' "',.•••.!, "': ......"':...;.:",...... "'
" I '\ :-:'~:·.:·.· ·x..·.:: ..'\: .:."';;:"':::»' " " "' "
~ '\. ·:"r;:.;;·:· :~:·"':S'·:·:··\.:'··:~'\. '\ '\ " "
E ur = Ku~. (;:Y (2)

where K ur = stiffness modulus number for unloading and re-

loading. In addition to stiffness terms, the Poisson's ratio v is
also required to describe fully the stress-strain behavior of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 11/15/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

soil in the hyperbolic model. In the present study the Poisson's

ratio was assumed constant at prefailure condition, and 0.49
near or at failure condition. 20m
1'\ ABC
Simulation of Excavation Process "'' 'f',r----t--+--+-t--t--..,f---1----J
Simulation of excavation by the finite element method was
done with the removal of elements representing the excavated
soil. In the present study, the degrees of freedom of excavated
elements were excluded from the formulation of global stiff-
ness matrix in order to conserve computer storage. The equiv-
alent nodal forces generated by the removal of elements and 20m
by dewatering (Ou and Lai 1994) were calculated as follows: FIG. 1. Finite Element Mesh for the Study of Unique Solution

{f} = f [Bna] dV - f [Nt'Y dV + f [B]'{U} dV (3) TABLE 1. Displacements of Surface Node A to Node I for One-
Stage and Three-5tage Analyses

where {f} =equivalent nodal forces; [B] =strain-displacement One Stage Three Stages
transformation matrix; [0"] = stress vector; [N] = displacement (em) (em)
shape function; ['Y] = body force; {U} = magnitude of de- Location x-display y-display z-display x-display y-display z-display
crease in porewater pressure. This procedure is similar to that (1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
proposed by Ghaboussi and Pecknold (1984) and Brown and A - 10.93 - - 10.94 -
Booker (1985). The equivalent nodal forces due to the process B 0.15 9.99 - 0.15 10.00 -
of excavation were then obtained. C -0.96 4.11 - -0.96 4.12 -
D -2.11 2.04 - -2.11 2.05 -
Initial Conditions E -0.59 2.09 - -0.59 2.09 -
F 0.11 1.55 0.11 0.11 1.55 0.11
G 0.21 1.96 -0.45 0.21 1.96 -0.46
The magnitude of initial stresses has a major effect on the
results of analysis during nonlinear analysis. In the present
H - 2.09 -0.59 - 2.09 -0.60
I - 0.40 - - 0.40 -
paper, the effective horizontal stress is equal to the effective
vertical stress multiplying the coefficient of the at-rest lateral
earth pressure (Ko). The total stresses are equal to the sum of m deep excavation in such a material was studied using the
the effective stresses and pore water pressure. program. Assuming an excavation that is symmetric with re-
spect to both horizontal axes, only a quarter of the excavation
VERIFICATION STUDIES needed to be modeled and considered. Fig. 1 shows a finite
element mesh, in which the vertical boundaries are supported
Mana (1978) investigated the convergence of finite element with rollers and the base are supported with hinges. The unit
analysis of a deep excavation using quadrilateral eight-node weight of the elastic material is 19.62 kN/m 3• The elastic
plane strain elements through one-dimensional excavation Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio are assumed 9810 kPa
analysis. A similar problem was also studied for convergence and 0.2, respectively. Then two finite element analyses that
of linear-order hexahedron elements in one-dimensional ex- simulate one stage of excavation and three stages of excava-
cavation. It was found from finite element simulations that the tion, respectively, were performed. The numerical values of
changes in vertical stress, strain, and nodal displacement were displacements of seven locations are listed in Table 1. It can
independent of the number of mesh elements in the excavated be seen from the table that the magnitude of the displacements
part, and each value was exactly the same as that from the for the three-stage excavation analysis were almost the same
closed-form solutions. In addition, a typical square excavation as that in the one-stage excavation analysis. The excavation
was studied for the symmetric characteristics of a square ex- computer program was therefore verified for the uniqueness
cavation. It was found that the ground surface, the wall de- of solution with respect to the number of excavation stages
formation and the excavation surface heave were all symmetric for an elastic material.
with respect to the center of excavation for each stage of ex-
cavation. The details of the verification procedures will not be CONVERGENCE STUDIES
discussed in this paper. The interested reader is referred to
Chiou and Ou (1993). Generally, it is considered prohibitive to perform a three-
Ishihara (1970) proved that for an excavation in a linear dimensional analysis of deep excavation due to the large com-
elastic material, the result of finite element analysis is inde- puter storage and enormous computation time required. For a
pendent of the number of excavation stages simulated. In order typical excavation case, it is therefore necessary to minimize
to verify that the finite element program provided a unique the number of degrees of freedom without sacrificing the ac-
solution for linear elastic material, a 20 m X 20 m wide, 10 curacy of analysis. Since ground surface settlement is related
338/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1996

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(5): 337-345

 to deformation of the excavation wall, wall deflection was
used as an indication of convergence in the present study.
Elastic Plane Strain Analysis
A quarter part of a 10 m cubic elastic material was exca-
vated for the convergence study in terms of mesh number in
each direction. Since the number of elements in the z-direction
(Fig. 2) should not have any influence on the deformation
behavior of the material in plane strain analysis, finite element
analyses were then performed only considering different num-
bers of mesh elements in x- and y-directions, as shown in Fig.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 11/15/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
2. The Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio were assumed
9810 kPa and 0.2, respectively. It was found that the horizontal
displacement in the x-direction of the side of the cut (Section
A-A in Fig. 2) was slightly affected by the number of mesh
elements generated in the x-direction, but the magnitude of
ground surface settlement and excavation surface heave were
much affected. Similarly, only the horizontal displacement in
the x-direction of the side of the cut was affected by the num-
Excavation Zone
y Coupled with Various Mesh Numbers In the x-dlrectlon
o A
o X
o 10
Case 1 Case 2
FIG. 2. Meshes for Studying Dependence of Deformations on
Number of Mesh Elements
Horizontal Displacement (mm)
o 1 2 3 4 5
O-+--~_....L--....L--J...---j
2 with various mesh numbers in the x-direction. It was found
Finer mesh in
y-direction only - -
8 Fig. 5 shows a 10 m cubic block with 6 m long and 50 em
10-e::-------------J
FIG. 3. Horizontal Displacementa of Section A-A Using Finer
Mesh In ,..Dlrectlon Only (Case 21n Fig. 2) Showing Lack of Con-
vergence Compared to Using Finer Mesh In All Directions
J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(5): 337-345
Wall Displacement (mm)
o 123 4 5
O+----;~-..l-.--J...--L..---I
2
6
X-direction:
~ ~ ~ ~ N=IO
+~+~N=8
-6-.,,-6-"'N=6
-EJ-O-S-o-N=4
-e-o-e-oN=2
10~-------_----l
Finer mesh in all directions (N=10)
FIG. 4. Horizontal Displacements of Section A-A Using Finer
Mesh In All Directions and Using Finer Mesh In the ,..Dlrectlon
ber of elements in the y-direction. Therefore, in analyzing wall
deformation of an excavation using the finite element method,
it is reasonable to use a finer mesh along the excavation depth
and less finer mesh in the other directions (Case 2 in Fig. 2).
Fig. 3 shows comparison of the horizontal displacement of
the side of the cut using finer mesh in the y-direction only
(Case 2 in Fig. 2) and using finer mesh in all directions. It
was assumed that finer mesh in all directions was fully con-
vergent. It can be seen from the figure that the horizontal dis-
placement of the side of the cut (Section A-A in Fig. 2) using
finer mesh in the y-direction only was not able to reach con-
vergence. Similar results have been found for ground surface
settlement and excavation surface heave using finer mesh in
the x-direction only and using finer mesh in all directions.
Fig. 4 shows a comparison for the case using finer mesh in
all directions and using finer mesh in the y-direction coupled
that the reasonable convergence of the horizontal displacement
of the side of the cut (Section A-A in Fig. 2) was reached
when the number of mesh elements in the x-direction was
greater than four. Therefore, the convergence of the horizontal
displacement of the side of the cut can be reached by using
finer mesh along the excavation depth (y-direction in Fig. 2)
and less finer mesh with suitable number of elements in the
direction transverse to the edge of the cut (x-direction in Fig.
2).
Nonlinear Three-Dimensional Analysis
thick excavation wall supporting a 3 m excavation. The de-
formation behavior of the wall was analyzed using drained,
nonlinear material properties, where c = 0.0; <I> = 30°; K =
500; n = 1.0; Rf = 0.9; Kur = 500; v = 0.3.
For simplicity, the wall where the wall deformation is eval-
uated is termed "primary wall." The wall transverse to the
"primary wall" is considered a "complementary wall." Ac-
cording to the previous study, it is necessary to have the finer
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1996/339
 10

Y~
~/~~ AryingN

~~
o
10

y . t/:
V
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 11/15/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

o
o x 10
FIG. 7. Varying Mesh Number Outside Excavated Zone In 2'001-
rectlon
FIG. 5. Various Mesh Configurations for the Convergence
Study of Nonlinear Three-Dimensional Analysis
Wall Displacement (mm)
Wall Displacement (mm) 00 2 4 6 8 10
00 2 4 6 8 10

,.-...2
'-'
E
,.-...2 ..c
E
'-'
.......
0..
<l.l
..c
....... a
0..
<l.l
a c;:;
~ 4
c;:; Case A
~ 4 o e e e oN=1
o e a "N=2
8

N= 3
<>-00----"'6_ .

o a e a oN=4

6c..-o-------------J
6~ -----------l FIG. 8. Wall Displacements Along Section A-A of Fig. 7 for
Case A of Fig. 5 and Cases with Various Mesh Numbers Outside
FIG. 6. Wall Displacements from Nonlinear Three-Dimen- Excavations In the 2'oDlrectlon
sional Analyses of Various Mesh Configurations

mesh along the excavation depth (y-direction in Fig. 5) in
order to obtain reasonable results for wall deformation. In ad-
dition, mesh elements along the primary wall (x-direction in
Fig. 5) will have a significant influence on the result of anal-
ysis due to the effect of excavation corner. Therefore, finer
mesh was used along the primary wall (x-direction in Fig. 5)
as well as along the excavation depth (y-direction in Fig. 5),
and less finer mesh with suitable number of elements in the
direction transverse to the primary wall (z-direction in Fig. 5).
As shown in Fig. 5, Case A has finer mesh in all directions.
Case A can thus be assumed to be a bench mark for full con-
vergence. On the contrary, Case B can be considered as the
least convergent condition. Case C and Case D are modified
from Case B to give higher mesh density inside and outside
the excavation zones in the z-direction, respectively. Case E is
modified from Case A, which has only one element in x-di-
rection outside of the excavation zone. The wall deformations
along the A-A line (Fig. 5) calculated for Cases A, B, C, D,
and Case E are shown in Fig. 6. Obviously, there was large
discrepancy between Case A and Case B. The wall deforma-
340 I JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING I MAY 1996
tions for Case C and Case D were also far from convergence.
The wall deformations for Case E were almost the same as
those for Case A.
Fig. 7 shows the case with finer mesh inside the excavation
and with varying mesh numbers outside the excavation zone
in the z-direction. The results of analysis are shown in Fig. 8.
It can be seen that the convergence was reached after the mesh
number outside the excavation zone was about three. Based
on these studies, it can be concluded that the convergence of
wall deformation can be reached by using finer mesh in the
excavation zone and using less but appropriate number of
mesh elements outside the excavation zone in the direction
transverse to the primary wall.
PARAMETRIC STUDIES
In this section, a typical excavation case with low to me-
dium plasticity of silty clayey subsoil stratum in Taipei was
selected to investigate the characteristics of three-dimensional
excavation behavior. The shape of the hypothetical excavation
is rectangular. A diaphragm wall that is 70 cm thick and 32

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(5): 337-345

 m long was used as the earth retaining structure. The Young's
modulus of the wall was assumed to be 12,000,000 kPa. The
r- Excavation zone
maximum excavation depth is 16 m below ground surface. It
was assumed that the excavation was completed using the Top-
/r Wall

Down method of construction in three stages. The wall in each

excavation stage was supported by a concrete floor slab. The
axial stiffness of the concrete slab is 29400 kN/m/m. The ex-
cavation sequence is described as follows:

Stage 1. Excavate down to 4 m below the ground surface

Stage 2. Construct the first floor slab and then excavate to
8 m below the ground surface
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 11/15/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Stage 3. Construct the second floor slab and excavate to

12 m
Stage 4. Construct the third floor slab and excavate to total 70m
depth of 16 m
f-+-HlI---++-+-t-t-+-+-r vv
The undrained shear strength for the hypothetical excavation I----+-H1I--+--+-+-l-t-+-+-f VVV
site was obtained by performing actual unconsolidated un-
drained tests on undisturbed specimens obtained from a site
with a uniform clayey stratum in Taipei. Test results show that 70m
the ratio of undrained shear strength to effective overburden
pressure of the soil (Su/rr) is approximately equal to 0.31. The FIG. 10. Typical Mesh Used In Three-Dimensional Analysis (L
ratio of Young's modulus to undrained shear strength (E.tSu) =100 m, B =60 m)
is equal to 230. The value of n is equal to 0.0 for undrained Distance from the Corner (m)
material. The value of Rf can be reasonably assumed as 0.9 o 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50
due to the flexible behavior of clay soil. The Poisson's ratio o«--r----r--.---r---.--.--.,---r--r-----,
is assumed 0.49 at all conditions. These values provide enough 2
information for carrying out an undrained analysis based on 4
the hyperbolic stress-strain model.
6

Length Effect of Primary Wall

a
~
8
~ 10
Fig. 9 shows the configuration of the analyzed excavation. 5 0 r B;...=.;;;2.;;.0.;;;m;...... +B;;;,.=_4;.,;0...:.m"'- -i
u
In order to investigate the length effect of primary wall on
wall deflection for a section, excavations with constant length -a'" 2
of complementary wall and various lengths of primary wall (L Q 4
= 40 to 100 m) were analyzed. Fig. 10 shows a typical three- ~ 6
dimensional mesh (primary wall length = 100 m, complemen- ::s
8 L=60
tary wall length = 60 m), in which a quarter of the excavation
was analyzed. The vertical boundaries are supported with roll- 10 L=100- L=80
ers and the base is supported with hinges. The mesh densities 12 B=60 m -B~i-oo-~----------2~D7---------
14 L..::::----=...:'-=- -----'-=--="-"' -'
in X-, y-, and z-directions were determined on the basis of the
rules established in the preceding section. To compare the re- FIG. 11. Variations of Maximum Wall Displacement with the
sults of three-dimensional analysis with those of plane strain Distance for Constant Sizes of Complementary Wall and Vari-
analysis, plane strain analyses was also performed using the ous Sizes of Primary Wall, L = Length of Primary Wall; B =
same program for each excavation case. Length of Complementary Wall
The results of analyses for the final stage of excavation for
B = 20,60, and 100 m are shown in Fig. 11. Fig. Il(a) shows equal to 20 m. In the figures, the horizontal dotted lines rep-
the variation of maximum lateral wall deflection with the dis- resent the results from plane strain analysis. Similarly, Fig.
tance from the corner to a section evaluated for various ex- II(b)-(d) show the results of finite element analyses for B =
cavations, where the length of primary wall (L) is varied from 40, 60, and 100 m, respectively. It can be seen from these
40 m to 100 m and the length of complementary wall is all figures that for given small length of complementary wall (e.g.
B = 20 m), the distance from the comer to a section having
Excavation zone plane strain behavior was almost the same for various lengths
of primary wall. The distance was about equal to 25 m, which
seems to be independent of the length of primary wall. For a
given larger length of complementary wall (e.g., B ~ 20 m),
the decrease in the length of primary wall results in decrease
of a section's wall deflection.
Primary wall
Length Effect of Complementary Wall
section to be evaluated For the purpose of describing deflection behavior of a wall
section, this study defines plane strain ratio (PSR) for maxi-
mum wall displacement as the ratio of the maximum wall dis-
1----- L=40 to 100 m - - - - - - - 1 placement (8) of a section to the maximum wall displacement
(8ps ) of the section under plane strain conditions (the same
FIG. 9. Configurations of Hypothetical Excavation Case excavation width). Higher values of PSR represent sections
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1996/341

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(5): 337-345

 Distance from the Comer (m)
similar, and the relationship obtained based on a typical ex-
o 10 20 30 40 0 10 20
30 40 50
cavation case may have some applicability albeit limited to
0.0 r---,,...------r---,-----r---r---r--....--..----r----,
similar excavation cases.
0.2
0.4 ,,~ --B=100 m CASE STUDY
-B=80m
0.6 B=60m The Hai-Hua Building is located at the intersection of
B=40m Chung-Hsiao E. Road and Chin-San Road in Taipei city. Fig.
0.8
~--B=10m 14 shows the excavation site along with the monitoring loca-
g;~ O.O,F-:..::..:.::...-------JF-.::..:..O:':----"'..........-------! tions for wall deformation. A diaphragm wall, 110 cm thick
with 42 m length, was used to support a 20.3 m deep exca-
0.2
vation. The top-down method of construction was used.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 11/15/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.4 Slightly different excavation sequences were used for the main
section and the corner section. There were seven excavation
0.6
stages for the corner section, which was completed according
0.8 to the following procedure:
1.0 ~~_=::::;;~~_l~~~S~~~
1. Excavate down to 1.6 m below ground surface.
FIG. 12. Variation of PSR for Maximum Wall Displacement 2. Construct the surface level concrete floor and excavate
with Distance for Constant Size of Primary Wall and Various to 5.40 m depth.
=
Sizes of Complementary Wall, L Length of Primary Wall; B = 3. Construct the second level of floor at 3.80 m and exca-
Length of Complementary Wall
vate to 8.55 m deep.
4. Construct the third level of floor at 6.95 m and excavate
that are less affected by the corner. When PSR reaches one, to 11.70 m deep.
the section is in a plane strain condition. Fig. 12 shows the 5. Construct the fourth level of floor at 10.10 m and ex-
variation of plane strain ratio (PSR) for maximum wall dis- cavate to 14.60 m deep.
placement with the distance from the comer to a section eval-
uated for the excavation with various lengths of complemen-
tary wall but constant length of primary wall. It can be seen 3.0
from these figures that for relatively small lengths of primary
wall (L S 40 m), there is no section in the primary wall that
is in a plane strain condition. The effect of the corner also
2.5 /
0.8
becomes more pronounced with increasing lengths of comple- 2.0
mentary wall. For an intermediate length of primary wall such
as L = 60 m, the behavior of the center section of the short t:2
(:Q 1.5
length of complementary wall reached the plane strain con-
dition, but all sections for the greater length of the comple- 1.0 0.9
mentary wall were not in a plane strain condition. For rela-
tively greater lengths of primary wall, the center sections were 0.5
in the plane strain condition, but the behavior of the center
section for the longer complementary walls was still affected 0.0
by the existence of the corner. 0 10 20 30 40 50
Plane Strain Ratio for Maximum Displacement Distance from the Comer (m)
Based on Figs. 11 and 12, the relationship between PSR, PSR=O.1 PSR=0.2 + PSR=0.3
length ratio of complementary wall to primary wall (BtL) and
the distance from the corner to a section evaluated (d) were • • • PSR=OA PSR=0.5 PSR=0.6
obtained, as illustrated in Fig. 13. Each line in the figure rep- PSR=0.9
PSR=0.7 PSR=0.8
resents the relationship of BtL and d for a specific PSR. This
relationship was derived on the basis that the length of the FIG. 13. Relationship between BlL and Distance from Corner
primary wall ranges from 20 m to 100 m; therefore, the re- for Various PSR
lationship can be directly applied to a case with the wall length
within the range. II
In general, the deflection behavior of the excavation wall
during excavation is related to excavation sequence, method
of excavation, method of wall support, excavation depth, pen-
etration depth of excavation wall, excavation geometry, wall
stiffness, soil strength, and so on. In the present study, the Bt MAIN SECTION
L-d-PSR relationship was obtained only based on a typical CORNER
excavation case, a specific size of supported wall in a silty 15 SECTION
clay. Theoretically, it may not be regarded as a general rela- --l
tionship. To obtain a more general relationship, the many I

more factors affecting excavation deflection behavior should 14

be incorporated. This is possible but would be difficult to im-
plement because of the great numbers of three-dimensional
SECTION FOR THREE-
analyses required; each analysis would require enormous
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
SCALE
computation time. On the other hand, as a first-order approx- o 29m
.1 NCLINOMETER
imation, the ratio of the three-dimensional to the two-dimen-
sional analysis results for any excavation may be assumed FIG. 14. The Hal-Hua Building Site

342/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1996

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(5): 337-345

 TABLE 2 Soli Propertle8 at Hal-Hua Building Site
Depth -Yt C cjl
Soil Layer (m) (kN/m3 ) (kPa) (0) n R, V, V, K Kur
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11 )
Silty-clay 4.2 19.4 50.0 0 0.0 0.7 0.49 0.49 225 225
Silty-sand 10.5 20.1 6.0 35.8 0.5 0.9 0.30 0.49 650 650
Silty-clay 15.0 19.4 49.7 0 0.0 0.7 0.49 0.49 610 610
Silty-clay 24.0 19.4 72.0 0 0.0 0.7 0.49 0.49 560 560
Silty-sand 30.2 20.0 25.0 20.8 0.5 0.9 0.30 0.49 600 600
Silty-clay 37.8 19.8 121 0 0.0 0.7 0.49 0.49 680 680
Sandy-silt 50.0 20.2 20.0 31.2 0.5 0.8 0.30 0.49 950 950
Gravel ~50.0 21.6 0.0 45 0.5 0.9 0.30 0.49 2,000 2,000
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 11/15/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

6. Construct the fifth level of floor at 13.25 m and excavate Excavation

to 17.90 deep. Zone Wall
7. Construct the sixth level of floor at 16.40 m and excavate Silty-clay
to 20.30 m deep.
ilty-sand
ilty-clay
However, the overall general site excavation was performed
by first excavating down to the 5.40 m depth at the first stage silty-clay
of the main section. Then the surface and the second levels of Is ilty-sand
the floor were constructed. The rest of excavation procedure
for the main section is exactly the same as that of the comer 70m ~ ilty-clay
section. Therefore, there were only six excavation stages for
the main section. sandy-silt
Finite Element Analysis
Gravel
The subsurface profile at the site is composed of nine layers
of alternating silty sand and silty clay deposits overlying a
thick gravel formation. Due to the uncertainty in the material
properties of the top layer and its relatively small thickness 50m
(only 1.3 m), it was assumed to possess the same material FIG. 15. Finite Element Me8h for Main Excavation Section
properties as the second layer. The description of each layer
and the material properties are listed in Table 2. In the table, Displacement (cm)
the strength parameters were directly obtained from laboratory 246 024 6 0 468
tests, and the stiffness parameters in the hyperbolic model used
in the analysis were obtained from 2-D plane strain finite el-
ement back analysis of a nearby excavation project having
similar geological conditions (Ou and Lai 1994).
The three-dimensional finite element analyses of the case
using the program developed in this study was performed for
both the comer and the main excavation sections. Fig. 15
shows the plane strain finite element mesh for the main sec-
tion. The 3-D solid element was also used in the analysis.
Since trench excavation usually causes a rough boundary sur- STAGE 2: STAGE 5: STAGE 6:
face between a trench and soil, it was assumed that there is FEM2D
0000 II 12 - - I3
no relative displacement between the soil and concrete wall
during analysis. The vertical boundaries are supported with FIG. 16. Mea8ured and Predicted Wall DI8placementa for Main
rollers and the base is supported with hinges. Analysis was Excavation Sectlon8
performed following the actual excavation procedure, which
contains six excavation stages. The input parameters of the respectively, as shown in the figure. No relative displacement
soils are listed in Table 2. As shown in the table, the drained between the soil and concrete wall was also assumed. It is
behavior was assumed for the silty-sand and gravel layers, and noted that the mesh was generated considering the results of
undrained behavior was assumed for the silty-clay layers. Fig. the convergence study described earlier in the paper. Analysis
16 shows the comparison of the plane strain finite element was performed following actual excavation sequence (seven
analysis results and the field measurements for inclinometers excavation stages). The input parameters are exactly the same
II, 12, and 13. The results show close agreement between the as those used in the plane strain analysis (Table 2). Figs. 18
finite element analysis results and the field observations. and 19 show the comparisons between field measurements and
Since the lengths of the walls analyzed (inclinometers 14, the three-dimensional finite element analysis results for incli-
15) for the comer section are only 25 m and 20 m, respectively, nometers 14 and 15, respectively, for each stage of excavation.
it can be expected that the deformation behavior of the wall The corresponding results using the two-dimensional analysis
would be greatly influenced by the existence of the comers. are also indicated. It can be seen from figures that the results
The three-dimensional finite element mesh for a quarter of the for 14 from three-dimensional finite element analysis are close
comer section is shown in Fig. 17, containing 1,324 isopara- to the field measurements for each stage of excavation. The
metric hexahedron elements with vertical boundaries sup- results for 15 from three-dimensional finite element analysis
ported with rollers and the base supported with hinges. Incli- are also close to the field measurements except for the final
nometers 14, 15 are located at the edges of the wall, stage of excavation, in which the wall deflection for 15 from
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1996/343

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(5): 337-345

 8,-------------r-----------,
Inclinometer 14 Inclinometer 15

rjiIII4;i;il~~
FEM2D
~f
'-PSR Method

Excavation
Zone
Wall
70m
5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 11/15/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Excavation Depth (m) Excavation Depth (m)

FIG. 20. Comparison of Measured and Calculated Maximum
Wall Displacements from PSR Method

excavation. Thus it has been shown that the three-dimensional

finite element analysis can more accurately model the defor-
Sam mation behavior of excavation wall during excavation. The
plane strain analysis overestimates the wall deformation near
FIG. 17. Finite Element Mesh for Corner Section the comers of an excavation.

Displacement (em) Estimating 3·0 Movements from 2·0 Analysis

246024602468
Inclinometers 14 and 15 are located at the center of 25-m
wall and 20-m wall, respectively. The length of the primary
wall (L) and the complementary wall (B) for 14 is 20 m and
0_
o
o
25 m, respectively. The length of the primary wall (L) and the
0'0 complementary wall (B) for 15 is 25 m and 20 m, respectively.
Based on the relationship shown in Fig. 13, PSR for 14 is about
0.53 and PSR for 15 is about 0.37. The maximum wall de-
flection can then be estimated as the maximum deflection ob-
tained from plane strain finite element analysis multiplied by
STAGE 4: 0 STAGE 6: STAGE 7: PSR. In this case, the maximum wall deflection occurs at the
top level of the wall at the first stage of excavation (GL-1.6
v FEM 2D " FEM 3D Measured
0 0 0
m) when there were no struts installed and the wall behaved
FIG. 18. Measured and Predicted Wall Displacements for Cor- like a cantilever. The maximum wall deflection occurs near
ner Excavation Sections (Inclinometer 14) (Arrows Indicate Lo- the excavation level for the rest stages of excavation, as shown
cation of Bracing Levels) in Figs. 18 and 19. The maximum wall deflections for 14 and
15 from field measurements, two and three dimensional finite
Displacement (em) element analyses, and the approximate relationship (PSR
0246024602468 method) are shown in Fig. 20. It can be seen from the figure
01'lM--r-r---r--r-r-r-.lrr---r-,-.,.--,,..,.--r_n--r-r-r--r-r---r--1
that the maximum wall deflections obtained from the approx-
imate relationship are close to both field measurements and 3-
D finite element analyses for each excavation stage.
For Inclinometers 11, 12, 13, the ratios of maximum lateral
wall deflection to final excavation depth were 0.26%, 0.32%,
and 0.26%, respectively. These values were within the range
of Clough and O'Rourke's observation (1990). However, the
ratios of maximum lateral wall deflection to final excavation
40
o 0 depth for Inclinometers 14 and 15 were 0.14% and 0.08%,
STAGE 4: 0 STAGE 6: STAGE 7: respectively, which were under the lower bound of Clough and
o ~ "', FEM 2D " , " " FEM 3D Measured O'Rourke's observation (1990). This also indicates that the
three-dimensional effects for the comer section were signifi-
FIG. 19. Measured and Predicted Wall Displacements for Cor- cant.
ner Excavation Sections (Inclinometer 15) (Arrows Indicate Lo- The case study presented in this section has somewhat dif-
cation of Bracing Levels) ferent excavation depth, excavation geometry and soil condi-
tions compared to the hypothetical excavation case, but the
field measurements is slightly smaller than that from the three- maximum wall deflection calculated from the approximate re-
dimensional analysis. This may be attributed to the fact that a lationship was close to the field measurement and the three-
small pile of soil (approximately 2 to 3 m high) was left in dimensional analysis.
place against the wall near Inclinometer 15 at the time of read-
ing while most of the sections had been excavated to the full CONCLUSIONS
depth of the final stage of excavation; the pile of soil was
removed after the inclinometer reading. The pile of soil would The plane strain finite element method has been used in the
tend to reduce the wall deflection, but this was difficult to analysis of deep excavation for many years, yet the degree of
model in the analysis. Except for this, the results from analysis accuracy of analysis as affected by the existence of comers in
are close to the field measurements for the other stages of typical excavations remains to be resolved. An analytical Pro-
344/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1996

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(5): 337-345

 cedure which has been coded into a computer program has
been proposed in this paper. The analytical procedure was ver-
ified through one-dimensional excavation model, the symme-
try of a square excavation and the unique solution in the elastic
analysis of excavation. Finally, the program was successfully
evaluated by analyzing the comer effects of an actual, irreg-
ular-shaped excavation project in Taipei. In addition, the fol-
lowing conclusions can be drawn:
1. In three-dimensional analysis, the density of the mesh
within the excavation had major effect on the accuracy
of analysis. On the other hand, the mesh density outside
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University of Sci and Tech on 11/15/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the excavation apparently had less significant effects on
the accuracy of analysis. A higher mesh density inside
the excavation zone coupled with an appropriate number
of mesh elements outside the excavation zone resulted in
quick convergence in wall deformation analysis. This
finding greatly reduced the number of degrees of free-
dom, which makes three-dimensional analysis economi-
cally feasible.
2. Deformation behavior of a "short" primary wall can be
heavily affected by the comers. Three-dimensional anal-
ysis provides a more realistic prediction of the maximum
lateral wall displacements.
3. For a relatively small length of complementary wall, the
distance from the comer to a section having plane strain
conditions along the primary wall was almost the same
for various lengths of primary wall. For larger lengths of
complementary wall, the distance from the comer to a
section having plane strain conditions decreases as the
primary wall becomes longer.
4. The deformation behavior of every section for relatively
short primary walls was affected by the existence of the
comer. For longer primary walls, most of the sections
were in plane strain condition, but the length of the sec-
tion having plane strain conditions decreased with in-
creasing length of complementary wall.
5. A simple approximate relationship for estimating 3-D
maximum wall deflection using 2-D finite element anal-
yses is proposed. This relationship can not be regarded
as completely general because it does not consider all
the factors affecting excavation behavior such as exca-
vation sequence, excavation depth, penetration depth of
supported wall, wall stiffness, excavation geometry, soil
strength, and so on. However, the relationship might be
applicable to the other excavation cases with similar ex-
cavation conditions.
J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(5): 337-345
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Financial support for these studies was provided by a grant from the
National Science Council at Taiwan under Grant No. NSC82-0115-EOI1-
185. This support is gratefully acknowledged.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Borja, R. I. (1990). ,.Analysis of incremental excavation based on critical
state theory." J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 116(6), 964-985.
Brown, P. T., and Booker, J. R. (1985). "Finite element analysis of ex-
cavation." Compo and Geotech., 1,207-220.
Chiou, D. C., and Ou, C. Y. (1993). "Three-dimensional finite element
analysis of deep excavation." Geotech. Res. Rep. No. G1'93OO1. Dept.
of Constr. Engrg., Nat. Taiwan Inst. of Techno!., Taipei.
Clark, B. G., and Wroth, C. P. (1984). "Analysis of Dunton green re-
taining wall based on results of pressuremeter tests." Geotechnique,
34(4), 549-561.
Clough, G. W., and Denby, G. M. (1977). "Stabilizing berm design for
temporary walls in clay." J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 75-90.
Clough, G. W., and Hansen, L. A. (1981). "Clay anisotropy and braced
wall behavior." J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 107(7), 893-913.
Clough, G. W., and O'Rourke, T. D. (1990). "Construction-induced
movements of in-situ walls." Proc.• Des. and Perf. of Eanh Retainings
Struct.• ASCE Special Conf, Ithaca, N.Y.• pp. 439-470.
Clough, R. W. (1969). "Comparison of three dimensional finite ele-
ments." Proc.• Symp. Appl. of Finite Element Meth. in Civ. Engrg.,
ASCE, New York, N.Y.
Desai, C. S. (1977). "Soil-structure interaction and simulation prob-
lems." Finite Elements in Geomech., G. Gudehus, ed., Wiley. 209-
249.
Duncan, J. M., and Chang, C. Y. (1970). "Nonlinear analysis of stress
and strain in soils." J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 94, 637-
659.
Finno, R. J., and Harahap, I. S. (1991). "Finite element analysis of HDR-
4 excavation." J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 117(10), 1590-1609.
Ghaboussi, J., and Pecknold, D. A. (1984). "Finite element analysis of
geometrically altered structures." Int. J. for Numer. Meth. in Engrg.,
20,2051-2064.
Ishihara, K. (1970). "Relations between process of cutting and unique-
ness of solutions." Soils and Found., 10(3), 50-65.
Mana, A. I. (1978). "Finite element analysis of deep excavation behavior
in soft clay," PhD dissertation. Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif., 71-
106.
Naylor, D. J., and Pande, G. N. (1981). Finite elements in geotechnical
engineering. Pineridge Press, Swansea, U.K.
Ou, C. Y., and Lai, C. H. (1994). "Finite element analysis of deep ex-
cavation in layered sandy and clayey soil deposits." Can. Geotech. J.,
31,204-214.
Zienkiewicz, O. C. (1989). The finite element method. fourth ed., Mc-
Graw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.
Whittle, A. J., Hashash, Y. M., and Whitman, R. V. (1993). "Analysis of
deep excavation in Boston." J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 119(1), 69-
90.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1996/345