Acta Geotechnica

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-023-01959-5 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().
,- volV)

RESEARCH PAPER

Experimental study on the adjustments of servo steel struts in deep

excavations
Honggui Di1,2 • Yuyin Jin1,2 • Shunhua Zhou1,2 • Xiaohui Zhang1,2 • Di Wu3 • Huiji Guo3

Received: 23 September 2022 / Accepted: 3 June 2023

Ó The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2023

Abstract
Recently, servo steel struts have been increasingly used in deep foundation pits that require strict control over the
deformation of the surroundings induced by excavation. However, the effects of strut length and axial force adjustments of
servo struts on wall deflection and lateral earth pressure behind the wall are still unclear. In this study, a model excavation
support system was constructed, and several model tests were conducted to investigate the effects of strut adjustments in
which the axial forces and lengths of the struts were adjusted to various values. The strut axial forces, lateral earth pressure,
and wall deflection were monitored and analyzed. The results show that: (i) the effects of the strut length and axial force on
the lateral wall deflection vary with the depth of the adjusted struts. Adjustments of the struts at lower levels can reduce
lateral wall deflections and effectively control the deformations. (ii) Increments in both the axial force and length of the
struts result in lateral earth pressure changes between the at-rest and passive earth pressures in the vicinity of the adjusted
struts. Neutral points can be observed during strut adjustments where the lateral earth pressures remain relatively constant.
The locations and number of these neutral points varied depending on the depth of the adjusted struts. (iii) Simultaneous
adjustments of the axial forces on multiple layers of struts are more effective in controlling lateral wall deflection than
single-layered strut adjustments.

Keywords Deep excavation  Lateral earth pressure  Servo steel struts  Strut adjustments

1 Introduction foundation pits and buildings or structures in the city center

With the increasing density of the rail transit network in
China’s metropolitan areas, the latest round of foundation
pit construction of urban rail transit stations is faced with
the following problems: (1) An increase in the excavation
depth of transfer station pits, for example, the excavation
depth of the Hanzhong Road station of the Shanghai Metro
Line No. 13 was 33 m. (2) The distance between
& Yuyin Jin
2011383@tongji.edu.cn
1
Key Laboratory of Road and Traffic Engineering of the
Ministry of Education, Tongji University, Shanghai 201804,
China
2
Shanghai Key Laboratory of Rail Infrastructure Durability
and System Safety, Tongji University, Shanghai 201804,
China
3
Shanghai Rail Transit Technical Research Center, Shanghai
Shentong Metro Group Co., Ltd., Shanghai 201103, China
is decreasing [28, 35]. Taking the Wuding Road station of
Shanghai Metro Line No. 14 as an example, the minimum
clearance distance between the pit and adjacent structures
was only 2 m. (3) Environmental deformation control
requirements have become more stringent [19, 20]. In the
Shanghai Airport Express line project, a long-deep foun-
dation pit is parallel to the adjacent Shanghai–Hangzhou
high-speed railway (with a minimum clearance of 10.6 m),
and the allowed additional deformation of the adjacent
high-speed railway owing to construction is only 2 mm.
For foundation pits in soft soil, excavation-induced defor-
mation is larger and more difficult to control; thus, efficient
methods and measures are critically required [3, 9, 21].
Previously, researchers proposed limiting the deforma-
tion of foundation pits by increasing the rigidity of
retaining structures [1, 13, 14, 18], reducing the interval
between struts [2, 10, 22, 24], and improving the prestress
of the struts [6, 16, 27, 28]. Recently, an increasing number
of excavations in areas with soft soil have adopted a servo

123

steel strut support system, as shown in Fig. 1, for defor-
mation control. For example, in the Shanghai and Ningbo
Metros of China, there are more than 30 and 20 station
foundation pits using servo steel struts, respectively. The
use of servo steel struts provides the distinct advantage of
actively controlling wall deformation by adjusting the
strut’s axial force or length through a built-in hydraulic
jack [4, 17]. In actual foundation pits, axial force adjust-
ments are typically employed to control wall deformations.
If the measured axial force falls below the designated axial
force, the hydraulic pressure of the jack is automatically
increased to increase the strut’s axial force to the desig-
nated value. Nevertheless, the wall deflection may still
exceed the anticipated values, necessitating a decrease in
the deformation. Adjustments to the strut length can be
adopted in this situation. Instead of achieving a designated
axial force, the hydraulic pressure will be continually
increased until the extension of the built-in jack reaches the
designated value. However, for individual foundation pits
that adopt servo steel struts, the effects of deformation
control do not meet expectations. For example, in a foun-
dation pit in Ningbo, despite the application of a servo steel
strut supporting system, the maximum lateral wall deflec-
tion exceeded 110 mm, when the excavation depth was
only 16 m.
There is limited guidance regarding the design and
application of servo steel struts, particularly for determin-
ing the abovementioned ‘designated values’ for strut axial
forces. Some were determined based on the experience of
site engineers, which led to failure of deformation control
in some excavations. Previous studies focused on investi-
gating the effectiveness of servo struts in deformation
control. Di et al. [7] conducted a comparative study of the
deformation control effects of servo steel struts and
Fig. 1 Schematic of servo steel strut supporting system
123
Acta Geotechnica
ordinary steel struts using field data and found that servo
steel struts exhibited superior performance compared to
ordinary steel struts in terms of controlling deformation,
due to their ability to overcome the drawbacks of axial
force losses. Based on a spring–beam model, Huang et al.
[15] used the mixed boundary condition of spring and
concentrated forces to simulate servo steel struts and cal-
culated the deformation of the wall supported by them. Li
et al. [17] simplified the axial forces of servo steel struts as
constant forces to evaluate their effectiveness in deforma-
tion control. These studies oversimplified the behavior of
servo steel struts and did not consider the active adjustment
of axial forces through excavation.
However, there is a need to determine the detailed val-
ues of the axial force adjustment using practical methods
for an improved application of servo steel struts. Primarily,
influences of the adjustment of servo strut axial forces on
the diaphragm wall deformation and lateral earth pressure
should be studied. In addition to the wall deformation,
lateral earth pressure is a key factor in the design of sup-
porting structures, which mobilizes nonlinearly with wall
deformation. Excessive adjustments of strut axial forces
cause diaphragm walls to be pushed back, resulting in
further changes in the lateral earth pressure [11, 12]. Stress
concentrations occurring at the depth of the adjusted strut
make the distribution of the lateral earth pressure more
complex [5, 10, 36]. Thus, the lateral earth pressure
behavior and wall deformation in excavations supported by
servo steel struts should be studied to provide guidance for
their design and application. However, studies via field
tests are costly, adverse to site safety, and therefore
unsuitable.
In this study, a model excavation support system was
constructed, which was equipped with devices to adjust
Acta Geotechnica

strut lengths and axial forces. Several model tests were
conducted to investigate the effects of strut length and axial
force adjustments of the servo struts on the wall deflection
and lateral earth pressure. The number and location of the
adjusted struts were varied in different groups to compare
the deformation control effects of the servo struts at dif-
ferent depths. The influences of servo strut adjustments on
the axial forces in ordinary struts were also analyzed.
Finally, conclusions were drawn regarding the effects of
strut adjustments on the mechanical and deformation
behaviors of the support system, which are expected to be
helpful in the design of servo steel struts.
2 Experimental investigation
2.1 Model test equipment
The model support system was designed based on a 12-m
deep and 16-m wide foundation pit with four layers of
struts (S1–S4). Due to symmetry of the foundation pit, only
half of the foundation pit was considered in the model test.
To control the workload of the model tests, the geometric
similarity ratio CL is decided as 1:20. Based on the
boundary effects and limited laboratory field, the model
(a)
tank was designed to be 2-m long, 1-m wide and 1.2-m
high, as shown in Fig. 2. The model tank was composed of
three Q235 steel plates and a tempered glass plate. The soil
used in the model tank was medium-fine river sand with a
bulk density of 17.1 kN m-3 and an internal friction angle,
u, of 34.3°. Sandbags were strategically positioned on the
soil behind the wall to mimic the common occurrence of
surcharge loads experienced in real-world foundation pit
projects, as shown in Fig. 2b. There is a 0.06-m wide gap
between the surcharge load and the wall in the test to place
the cables of the transducers. For ease of analysis, the
surcharge load was approximated as a uniformly dis-
tributed load of magnitude 3 kPa.
Figure 3 shows the equipment used in the model test.
Four removable plates were designed on the model tank,
with the height of each plate determined based on the
excavation depth of the corresponding step, as shown in
Fig. 3b. The plates were detached from the model tank
during excavation to facilitate the removal of soil and
leveling of the excavation surface.
The wall was made of Q235 steel plate. The thickness of
the diaphragm wall was determined as 5.75 mm as the
flexural rigidity of the wall (EI) should satisfy the scaling
ratio (see Table 1) derived based on CL , as shown in
Eq. (1):
Ewm Im Ewm bm h3m
¼ ¼ CEI ð1Þ
Ewp Ip Ewp bp h3p
0.4
where Ew is the elastic modulus of the wall material; b and
0.17 0.16

Diaphragm wall h are the width and thickness of the wall, respectively.
(Steel plate) Adjusting device
The struts were made of acrylic pipes on account of
Model box difficulties in producing thin-walled cylindrical steel tubes,
0.17

Strain gauge
Monitoring
as shown in Fig. 3c. The external and internal diameters of
1

section
0.17

Struts
the struts were designed as 30 and 20 mm, respectively.
0.17

The compressive rigidity of the strut also follows the

Tempered glass plate scaling ratio, as described in Eq. (2),
0.16

2 2
2 Esm Am Esm ðdem  dim Þ
¼ 2 2
¼ CEA ð2Þ
Esp Ap Esp ðdep  dip Þ
(b) Surcharge load 0.06
0 -0.04 S1 where Es is the elastic modulus of strut material [25]; de
0.10

-0.19 S2 and di are the external and internal diameters of the strut,
respectively.
0.10

Model box
0.6

-0.34 S3
The adjusting devices were fixed to the model tank and
0.10 0.08 0.11

-0.49 S4
-0.6
connected to the struts. The axial force or length of the
1.2

struts could be adjusted by rotating the screw of the

adjusting devices (Fig. 3c), the axial force or length of the
0.10

struts could be adjusted. Detailed dimensions of the

adjusting device are shown in Fig. 3d. The screw pitch of
0.10

Earth pressure cell

Steel plate
Strain gauges the adjusting device is 2 mm, and the maximum length of
1.6 0.4
the retractable part, dr, is 35 mm.
Transducers were affixed to the support system to
Fig. 2 Schematic diagrams of the model tank (unit: m): a top view of acquire relevant parameters. Thirteen pairs of strain gauges
the model tank; b front view of the model tank

123
 Acta Geotechnica

(a) (f)
0.4m
Diaphragm
S1 wall
S2
S3 Miniature earth
Tempered glass plate
S4 pressure cell
1.2m

Strain gauge

Tape Measure (e) Diaphragm

wall

2m
(b) (c)
Strain gauge
Dial gauge

30 mm
Diaphragm wall (d)
20
mm

Strut dr
Removable Adjusting
48
plates device mm

Fig. 3 Overview of the model test equipment: a front view of the model tank; b removable plates; c struts and adjusting devices; d elongation of
the adjusting device; e dial gauge installed at the wall crown; f transducers on the diaphragm wall

8  
were symmetrically mounted on both surfaces of the wall > 2 1 l2i
>
< iþ1
y ¼ y i þ h l
i i þ þ
to assist in obtaining lateral wall deflection. Initially, the qi qiþ1 6
 ð4Þ
curvatures of the wall at the monitoring points were > 1 1 li1
>
: hi ¼ hi1 þ þ
obtained via measured strains. Using the assumption that qi1 qi 2
the curvature changes linearly between adjacent monitor-
ing points, an equation was derived to obtain the lateral As shown in Fig. 3e, dial gauges were positioned at the
wall deflection [4] as follows: wall crown to measure the lateral deflection at that loca-
8 tion. The measured deflection was compared with the
> 1 Dei
>
< ¼ calculated results to implement the inverse calculation of
qi t  
2 ð3Þ h1 , which led to a corresponding correction of the calcu-
>
> d y dh 1 1 1 x
: 2¼ ¼ þ  lated lateral wall deflections based on Eq. (3).
dx dx qi qiþ1 qi li
The axial forces of the strut were determined by mul-
where qi is the curvature radius at the ith point; Dei is the tiplying the measured strains by the compressive rigidity of
difference in strains between the internal and external the strut. Furthermore, the measured strains were also
surfaces at the ith point; t is the thickness of the wall, h and compared with the strains under the designed axial forces
y are the derived rotation angle and lateral wall deflection, to facilitate precise adjustment of the axial forces of the
respectively; li is the distance between the ith point and the struts. Twelve miniature earth pressure cells (maximum
i ? 1th point, and x is the distance of a point in the ith and range: 30 kPa) were installed on the external surface of the
i ? 1th points interval to the ith point. diaphragm wall (i.e., against the sand) to obtain the lateral
Assuming zero deflection at the bottom of the wall, the earth pressure, as shown in Fig. 3f. All transducers were
lateral wall deflection at the i ? 1th point (yiþ1 ) can be connected to the data collection device, and the readings
calculated as [37]: were monitored throughout the test.

123
Acta Geotechnica

Table 1 Similitude relations of the model experiment Table 3 Experimental procedures in Case II (strut axial force
adjustment)
Physical quantity Symbols Scaling ratio
Progress Steps Descriptions
Lateral earth pressure Cr ¼ CL Cc 1:20
Strain Ce 1:1 Excavation and E1– Same as in Case I
installation of struts E5
Flexural rigidity of the wall CEI ¼ CCre CL4 1:3.2E?06
Single-layered B0 Decrease the strut axial forces to
Compressive rigidity of the strut CEA ¼ CCre CL2 1:8E?03 adjustments of the struts 0N
B1 Increase the strut axial forces to
125 N
B2 Increase the strut axial forces to
250 N
2.2 Experimental program and procedure B3 Increase the strut axial forces to
375 N
To investigate the effects of different strut adjustment plans B4 Increase the strut axial forces to
on wall deflection and lateral earth pressure, two groups of 500 N
tests (Cases I and II) were designed, as listed in Tables 2 Multi-layered adjustments C1 Increase the axial forces of S3
and 3, respectively. of the struts and S4 to 125 N
The main steps of the tests were as follows: (1) Install C2 Increase the axial forces of S3
and S4 to 250 N
the diaphragm wall, fill the model tank with sand layer
C3 Increase the axial forces of S3
wise (Fig. 4a), install dial gauges at the top of the dia-
and S4 to 375 N
phragm wall, and record the readings. The wall was fixed
C4 Increase the axial forces of S3
on the model tank and the displacement at the bottom was and S4 to 500 N
restrained. The struts were not fixed to the adjusting
devices and the diaphragm wall. (2) Excavate to a prede-
termined elevation for each step and install the struts, as
shown in Fig. 4b. The detailed elevations of each step are
The detailed adjustment plans for Cases I and II were
listed in Table 2. To obtain stable data, we waited for one
considered as follows:
hour after strut installation had been completed before
reading the data. The accuracy of the excavation depth can (i) In Case I, the strut lengths were adjusted layer by
be ensured by comparing it with the scale of the attached layer. In practical foundation pits, a 20-m long
tape measure, as shown in Fig. 4c. (3) The lengths or axial servo steel strut is equipped with a built-in
forces of the struts were adjusted, as listed in Tables 2 and hydraulic jack that can extend up to a maximum
3. of 150 mm. According to the scaling ratio, the
maximum extension of the adjusting device for the
0.4-m long strut in the model test was designed to
Table 2 Experimental procedures in Case I (strut length adjustment)
be 3 mm.
Progress Steps Descriptions (ii) In Case II, the axial forces on the struts were first
Excavation and E1 Excavate to - 0.07 m, and install adjusted layer-by-layer. Subsequently, the axial
installation of struts the strut S1 at - 0.04 m forces on the third and fourth struts, S3 and S4,
E2 Excavate to - 0.22 m, and install respectively, were simultaneously adjusted. In
the strut S2 at - 0.19 m practice, struts near the excavation surface are
E3 Excavate to - 0.37 m, and install usually adjusted for deformation control because
the strut S3 at - 0.34 m the maximum lateral wall deflection occurs near the
E4 Excavate to - 0.52 m and install surface. Multi-layered adjustments of struts near
the strut S4 at - 0.49 m
the excavation surface usually exhibit better defor-
E5 Excavate to - 0.60 m
mation control when compared with single-layer
Single-layered A0 Shorten the struts by 1 mm
adjustments of the
adjustments. Thus, S3 and S4 were simultaneously
A1 Extend the struts by 1 mm
struts adjusted in Case II for comparison. For the specific
A2 Extend the struts by 2 mm
adjustment values, based on the scaling ratio, the
A3 Extend the struts by 3 mm
upper limit of the adjusted axial force was set to
The strut lengths at the end of step E5 serve as the baseline for all 500 N, considering that the maximum axial force in
length increments servo steel struts is approximately 4000 kN in

123
 Acta Geotechnica

(a) (b) (c)

Tempered glass plate

Brush
Tape

1.2m
Measure

Tape Measure

2m

Fig. 4 Sand filling and excavation during the test: a sand filling; b sand removal; c attached tape measure

Fig. 5 Deformation and mechanical behaviors of the support system during excavation: a lateral wall deflection; b lateral earth pressure;
c average axial forces of each layer of struts

123
Acta Geotechnica

(a) Lateral wall deflection (mm) (b) Lateral wall deflection (mm)
-2.4 -1.6 -0.8 0.0 0.8 1.6 2.4 -2.4 -1.6 -0.8 0.0 0.8 1.6 2.4
0.0 0.0
S1 S1

0.2 S2 0.2 S2

S3 S3
0.4 0.4

Depth (m)
Depth (m)

S4 S4
0.6 0.6

0.8 0.8
E5 E5
A1 (-1 mm) A1 (-1 mm)
1.0 A2 (+1 mm) 1.0 A2 (+1 mm)
A3 (+2 mm) A3 (+2 mm)
1.2 A4 (+3 mm) 1.2 A4 (+3 mm)

(c) Lateral wall deflection (mm) (d) Lateral wall deflection (mm)
-2.4 -1.6 -0.8 0.0 0.8 1.6 2.4 -2.4 -1.6 -0.8 0.0 0.8 1.6 2.4
0.0 0.0
S1 S1

0.2 S2 0.2 S2

S3 S3
0.4 0.4
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

S4 S4
0.6 0.6

0.8 0.8
E5 E5
A1 (-1 mm) A1 (-1 mm)
1.0 A2 (+1 mm) 1.0 A2 (+1 mm)
A3 (+2 mm) A3 (+2 mm)
1.2 A4 (+3 mm) 1.2 A4 (+3 mm)

Fig. 6 Variations of lateral wall deflection under the adjustments of strut lengths: a adjustments of S1; b adjustments of S2; c adjustments of S3;
d adjustments of S4

practice. Note, positive axial force values represent
compression in this study.
3 Results and discussions
Figure 5 illustrates the measured lateral wall deflection,
lateral earth pressure, and average axial forces of each strut
layer during the excavation process. When excavated to a
depth of 0.6 m, the maximum lateral wall deflection is
approximately 0.18% of the excavation depth, while the
lateral earth pressure ranges between the at-rest and active
earth pressures. These results demonstrate similarities with
those observed in actual excavations, implying that the test
model can simulate actual excavation well. Next, the
analysis of this study primarily focused on the influences of
the different strut adjustment plans of Cases I and II on the
lateral wall deflection, lateral earth pressure, and axial
forces in the struts.
3.1 Adjustments of strut length
Figure 6 shows the relationship between the lateral wall
deflection and strut length. Generally, the lateral wall
deflection near the adjusted struts decreased as the strut
length increased. Furthermore, the influence of length
adjustments on lateral wall deflections weakens with

123

Fig. 7 Variations of strut axial forces under the adjustments of strut lengths: a adjustments of S1; b adjustments of S2; c adjustments of S3;
d adjustments of S4
increasing distance from the adjusted struts. When exten-
ded by 1 mm, S1 caused a much larger outward deflection
at the wall crown than S2, as shown in Fig. 6a, b.
In addition, the effects of length adjustments on the
lateral wall deflection differed with the depth of the
adjusted struts. With the extension of the upper struts (S1
and S2), the lateral deflections at the top of the wall
decreased rapidly, whereas the lateral deflections at the
lower section of the wall increased, adversely affecting
nearby structures. However, the length adjustments of the
lower struts (S3 and S4), as shown in Fig. 6c, d, have little
influence on the lateral deflections at the top of the wall,
and the lateral wall deflections at other locations decrease.
Since the maximum lateral wall deflection usually occurs
123
Acta Geotechnica
near the excavation surface in actual foundation pits,
adjusting the lengths of struts at lower levels is more
conducive to deformation control.
Figure 7 shows the variations in the axial forces of struts
caused by different strut length adjustments. The extension
of the strut induces a rapid increase in the axial force of the
extended strut, particularly for the struts at lower levels of
excavation. However, for struts close to the extended strut,
the experienced axial forces changed. For example, as the
extension of S3 increased from 1 to 3 mm (Steps A2–A4),
the axial force acting on S3 increased from 896 to 2054 N
and that of S2 decreased from 92 to 88 N. Moreover, the
strut shortening caused a decrease in the axial force and a
Acta Geotechnica
Fig. 8 Variations of lateral earth pressure under the adjustments of strut lengths: a adjustments of S1; b adjustments of S2; c adjustments of S3;
d adjustments of S4
small increase in the axial forces experienced by adjacent
struts.
Figure 8 illustrates the variations in the lateral earth
pressure behind the wall caused by strut length adjust-
ments. The lateral earth pressures within a specified dis-
tance from the adjusted struts increased rapidly with the
strut extension. Generally, the lateral earth pressures in
these areas are between the earth pressure at rest and
passive earth pressure (Rankine’s theory). In cases of large
strut extensions, the lateral earth pressure may even exceed
the theoretical passive earth pressure owing to stress
redistribution. Moreover, there exist neutral points where
the lateral earth pressure values remain nearly unchanged
despite the struts being extended, and both the depth and
number of neutral points increase when the adjusted struts
are at greater depths. There is one neutral point when
adjusting the upper struts S1 and S2. The extension of the
strut caused the lateral earth pressure to increase above the
neutral point and decrease below it. However, when
adjusting the lower struts S3 and S4, there were two neutral
points. Under strut extension, the lateral earth pressure
between the two neutral points increases and decreases
elsewhere.
123

Fig. 9 Variations of lateral wall deflection under the adjustments of strut axial forces: a adjustments of S1; b adjustments of S2; c adjustments of
S3; d adjustments of S4
3.2 Adjustments of strut axial forces
3.2.1 Single-layered adjustments
To investigate the influence of the axial force adjustment of
single-layer struts, Fig. 9 shows the variations in the lateral
wall deflection with respect to the adjustments of strut axial
forces. The variations in the lateral wall deflection in
relation to the axial force adjustments of S1 were similar to
those under the adjustments of strut length. However, for
S2–S4, only parts of the lateral wall deflection, referred to
as main influence ranges here, changed after axial force
adjustments. The lengths of the main influence ranges
under axial force adjustments of S2, S3, and S4 were
0.5 m, 0.7 m, and 0.4 m, respectively. When the axial
force adjustment values were the same, the order of the
123
Acta Geotechnica
maximum variation of the lateral wall deflections for the
adjusted struts was: S2 [ S3 [ S4.
Figure 10 shows the variations in the lateral earth
pressure caused by the adjustments of the axial forces.
With an increase in the axial force, the lateral earth pres-
sure at the depth of the adjusted struts increases to a value
between the at-rest and passive earth pressures (Rankine’s
theory). With the axial force adjustments of the struts, the
number of neutral points is the same as that in the length
adjustments in Case I (Fig. 8). However, when increasing
the axial force in strut S1 or S2, the depths of the neutral
points are 0.38 m and 0.44 m, respectively, which are both
smaller than the depth of the neutral points experienced
with the length adjustments in Case I, implying a smaller
range of influence where the lateral earth pressure increa-
ses. Similarly, when increasing the axial force in strut S3 or
Acta Geotechnica
Fig. 10 Variations of lateral earth pressure caused by the adjustments of strut axial forces: a adjustments of S1; b adjustments of S2;
c adjustments of S3; d adjustments of S4
S4, the distances between the two neutral points are 0.46 m
(depth: 0.16–0.62 m) and 0.47 m (depth: 0.24–0.71 m),
respectively, which are both less than the 0.56 m (depth:
0.12–0.68 m) and 0.63 m (depth: 0.17–0.80 m) in Case I,
implying a smaller range of influence on the lateral earth
pressure.
Figure 11 shows the variations in the axial forces in the
struts caused by the adjustments. As the axial force on the
adjusted struts increased, the axial force on the other struts
decreased to various degrees. The farther the strut is from
the adjusted strut, the smaller its variation in the axial
force. For example, when the axial force in S4 increased
from 125 to 500 N, the axial forces in S3 and S2 decreased
by 61.4% (from 127 to 49 N) and 28.7% (from 101 to 72
N), respectively.
3.2.2 Multi-layered adjustments
The axial forces acting on S3 and S4 were simultaneously
adjusted to various values (C1–C4), as shown in Fig. 12a.
The variations in the lateral wall deflection and lateral earth
pressure are plotted and compared with those of the pre-
vious single-layered adjustments of S3 and S4 (Step B4), as
shown in Fig. 12b. When the axial forces on S3 and S4
were simultaneously increased, the lateral wall deflection
gradually decreased, and the maximum variation occurred
between S3 and S4. When the axial forces on S3 and S4
increased to 500 N, the maximum decrease in the lateral
wall deflection was 0.36 mm (1.08–0.72 mm). However,
when the axial forces on S3 and S4 were individually
increased to 500 N, the maximum decreases were 0.12 mm
and 0.10 mm, respectively. Therefore, it can be concluded
123

Fig. 11 Variations of axial forces under strut adjustments: a adjustments of S1; b adjustments of S2; c adjustments of S3; d adjustments of S4
that compared to single-layered adjustments of S3 and S4
(refer to Fig. 9), the simultaneous adjustment of the axial
forces on S3 and S4 is more effective in controlling
deformation, i.e., a smaller maximum lateral wall deflec-
tion and a larger range of influence on the lateral wall
deflection.
Moreover, as the axial forces in S3 and S4 increased
simultaneously, the lateral earth pressure increased, and the
maximum value occurred below S4. The variation in the
lateral earth pressure was larger than that under the indi-
vidual adjustment of S3 and less than that under the indi-
vidual adjustment of S4. The distance between the two
neutral points was 0.60 m (depth: 0.15–0.75 m), which was
larger than the distances observed during the single-layered
axial force adjustments of S3 (0.46 m) and S4 (0.47 m).
123
Acta Geotechnica
The above results primarily focused on the impact of
strut adjustments on controlling excavation-induced
deformation. However, in practical foundation pits, addi-
tional factors should be considered to effectively reduce the
final accumulated lateral wall deflection [29]. Numerous
studies and foundation pit projects have indicated that
dewatering prior to excavation can induce lateral wall
deflection, which poses a potential threat to surrounding
buildings [30, 32, 34]. Additionally, it leads to a redistri-
bution of the lateral earth pressure, further complicating the
adjustments of servo steel struts [31, 33]. Therefore, it is
interesting and meaningful to further investigate the
methods of strut adjustments under complex conditions.
Acta Geotechnica
Fig. 12 Variations in lateral wall deflection and lateral earth pressure under adjustments of multiple struts: a schematic view of adjustment cases;
b variations in lateral wall deflection; c variations of lateral earth pressure
4 Conclusions
In this study, a series of model tests were conducted to
investigate the influences of axial force adjustments and
strut length adjustments on wall deflection and lateral earth
pressure. The main conclusions are summarized as follows.
1. The influences of strut length and axial force adjust-
ment on the lateral wall deflection vary based on the
depth of the adjusted struts. In the case of the first layer
of struts, an increase in the axial force or strut length
resulted in outward deflections at the top of the wall,
leading to an increase in the maximum lateral wall
deflection. Making adjustments to the struts positioned
closer to the excavation surface had a relatively minor
impact on the deflections at the top of the wall and was
more effective in deformation control.
123

2. Both the increase in axial force and strut length cause
the lateral earth pressure, behind the wall close to the
adjusted strut, to be between at-rest and passive earth
pressures. In addition, the increase in strut length is
prone to causing a larger increase in the lateral earth
pressure and having a larger range of influence. When
adjusting the struts, neutral points arise, where the
lateral earth pressure remains almost constant. The
number and location of these neutral points were
determined based on the depth of the adjusted struts.
3. Adjusting the axial forces simultaneously on multiple
layers of struts is more effective in controlling the
lateral wall deflection than single-layered adjustments
of struts. For a given strut axial force in the test, the
maximum decrease under the combined adjustment of
S3 and S4 was nearly three times that of the individual
adjustments of S3 and S4. Moreover, the increase in
lateral earth pressure using the combined adjustment
was only marginally larger than that of the individual
adjustments.
Acknowledgements This study was supported by the National Nat-
ural Science Foundation of China through Grant No. 52278456.
Data availability statement The datasets generated during and/or
analyzed during the current study are available from the corre-
sponding author upon reasonable request.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
1. Arai Y, Kusakabe O, Murata O, Konishi S (2008) A numerical
study on ground displacement and stress during and after the
installation of deep circular diaphragm walls and soil excavation.
Comput Geotech 35(5):791–807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comp
geo.2007.11.001
2. Avcar M, Mohammed WKM (2018) Free vibration of function-
ally graded beams resting on Winkler–Pasternak foundation.
Arab J Geosci 11(10):232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-
3579-2
3. Bhatkar T, Barman D, Mandal A, Usmani A (2017) Prediction of
behaviour of a deep excavation in soft soil: a case study. Int J
Geotech Eng 11(1):10–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.
2016.1177309
4. Chen B, Yan T, Song D, Luo R, Zhang G (2021) Experimental
investigations on a deep excavation support system with
adjustable strut length. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 115:104046.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2021.104046
5. Chowdhury SS (2019) A study on lateral earth pressure against
strutted retaining wall in cohesionless soil deposit. Int J Geotech
Eng 13(1–2):122–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.
1326683
6. Cui Z, Li Q, Wang J (2019) Mechanical performance of com-
posite retaining and protection structure for super large and deep
123
Acta Geotechnica
foundation excavations. J Civ Eng Manag 25(5):431–440. https://
doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2019.9873
7. Di H, Guo H, Zhou S, Chen J, Wen L (2019) Investigation of the
axial force compensation and deformation control effect of servo
steel struts in a deep foundation pit excavation in soft clay. Adv
Civ Eng 19(6):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5476354
8. Ding Z, Jin J, Han TC (2018) Analysis of the zoning excavation
monitoring data of a narrow and deep foundation pit in a soft soil
area. J Geophys Eng 15(4):1231–1241. https://doi.org/10.1088/
1742-2140/aaadd2
9. Goh ATC, Zhang F, Zhang WG, Zhang YM, Liu HL (2017) A
simple estimation model for 3D braced excavation wall deflec-
tion. Comput Geotech 83:106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compgeo.2016.10.022
10. Goh ATC, Zhang F, Zhang W, Chew OYS (2017) Assessment of
strut forces for braced excavation in clays from numerical anal-
ysis and field measurements. Comput Geotech 86:141–149.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.01.012
11. Hashash YMA, Whittle AJ (2002) Mechanisms of load transfer
and arching for braced excavations in clay. J Geotech Geoenviron
128(3):187–197. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2002)128:3(187)
12. Hashash YMA, Marulanda C, Kershaw KA, Cording EJ, Druss
DL, Bobrow DJ, Das PK (2003) Temperature correction and strut
loads in central artery excavations. J Geotech Geoenviron
129(6):495–505. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2003)129:6(495)
13. Hsieh PG, Ou CY (2018) Mechanism of buttress walls in
restraining the wall deflection caused by deep excavation. Tunn
Undergr Sp Tech 82:542–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.
09.004
14. Hu Q (2013) Retaining structure force-deformation analysis
model for an ultradeep foundation pit. Math Probl Eng. https://
doi.org/10.1155/2013/549491
15. Huang B, Li MG, Hou YM, Chen JJ (2018) Effect of auto-
compensating steel struts on stress and deformation behaviors of
supporting structures. Rock Soil Mech 39(S2):359–365 (in
Chinese)
16. Jamsawang P, Jamnam S, Jongpradist P, Tanseng P, Horpibulsuk
S (2017) Numerical analysis of lateral movements and strut
forces in deep cement mixing walls with top-down construction
in soft clay. Comput Geotech 88:174–181. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.compgeo.2017.03.018
17. Li MG, Demeijer O, Chen JJ (2020) Effectiveness of servo struts
in controlling excavation-induced wall deflection and ground
settlement. Acta Geotech 15(9):2575–2590. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11440-020-00941-9
18. Lim A, Ou CY, Hsieh PG (2018) Investigation of the integrated
retaining system to limit deformations induced by deep excava-
tion. Acta Geotech 13(4):973–995. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11440-017-0613-6
19. Liu H, Li K, Wang J (2021) Cheng C (2021) Numerical simu-
lation of deep foundation pit construction under complex site
conditions. Adv Civ Eng 2:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/
6669466
20. Mei Y, Li YL, Wang XY, Wang J, Hu CM (2019) Statistical
analysis of deformation laws of deep foundation pits in col-
lapsible loess. Arab J Sci Eng 44(10):8347–8360. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13369-019-03931-6
21. Mei Y, Zhou D, Wang X, Zhao L, Shen J, Zhang S, Liu Y (2021)
Deformation law of the diaphragm wall during deep foundation
pit construction on lake and sea soft soil in the Yangtze River
Delta. Adv Civ Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6682921
22. Moorak S, Solomon A (2015) Effect of support characteristics on
the earth pressure in a jointed rock mass. Can Geotech J
52(12):1956–1967. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-0437
Acta Geotechnica
23. Niu J, Li Z, Feng C, Wang B, Chen K (2020) Combined support
system and calculation model for deep foundation pits in fill soil
areas. Arab J Geosci 13(10):347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-
020-05403-w
24. Orazalin ZY, Whittle AJ, Olsen MB (2015) Three-Dimensional
analyses of excavation support system for the stata center base-
ment on the MIT campus. J Geotech Geoenviron. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001326
25. Richeton J, Ahzi S, Vecchio KS, Jiang FC, Adharapurapu RR
(2006) Influence of temperature and strain rate on the mechanical
behavior of three amorphous polymers: characterization and
modeling of the compressive yield stress. Int J Solids Struct
43(7–8):2318–2335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2005.06.
040
26. Tan Y, Wei B, Lu Y, Yang B (2019) Is basal reinforcement
essential for long and narrow subway excavation bottoming out in
Shanghai soft clay? J Geotech Geoenviron. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002028
27. Ye S, Zhao Z, Wang D (2021) Deformation analysis and safety
assessment of existing metro tunnels affected by excavation of a
foundation pit. Undergr Space 6(4):421–431. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.undsp.2020.06.002
28. Yoo C, Lee D (2008) Deep excavation-induced ground surface
movement characteristics—a numerical investigation. Comput
Geotech 35(2):231–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2007.
05.002
29. Zeng CF, Liao H, Xue XL, Long SC, Luo GJ, Diao Y, Li MG
(2022) Responses of groundwater and soil to dewatering con-
sidering the barrier effect of adjacent metro station on multi-
aquifers. J Hydrol 612:128117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.
2022.128117
30. Zeng CF, Powrie W, Xue XL, Li MK, Mei GX (2021) Effec-
tiveness of a buttress wall in reducing retaining wall movement
during dewatering before bulk excavation. Acta Geotech
16(10):3253–3267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-021-01179-9
31. Zeng CF, Song WW, Xue XL, Li MK, Bai N, Mei GX (2021)
Construction dewatering in a metro station incorporating buttress
retaining wall to limit ground settlement: Insights from
experimental modelling. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 116:104124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2021.104124
32. Zeng CF, Wang S, Xue XL, Zheng G, Mei GX (2022) Charac-
teristics of ground settlement due to combined actions of
groundwater drawdown and enclosure wall movement. Acta
Geotech 17(9):4095–4112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-022-
01496-7
33. Zeng CF, Xue XL, Zheng G, Xue TY, Mei GX (2018) Responses
of retaining wall and surrounding ground to pre-excavation
dewatering in an alternated multi-aquifer-aquitard system.
J Hydrol 559:609–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.02.
069
34. Zeng CF, Xue XL, Li MK (2021) Use of cross wall to restrict
enclosure movement during dewatering inside a metro pit before
soil excavation. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 112:103909. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tust.2021.103909
35. Zhang J, Xie R, Zhang H (2018) Mechanical response analysis of
the buried pipeline due to adjacent foundation pit excavation.
Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 78:135–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tust.2018.04.026
36. Zhang R, Goh A, Li Y, Hong L, Zhang W (2021) Assessment of
apparent earth pressure for braced excavations in anisotropic
clay. Acta Geotech 16(5):1615–1626. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11440-020-01129-x
37. Zhao XM (2018) Centrifugal model tests on bearing properties of
support in excavation with deep tunnel engineering. Dissertation,
Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, China (in
Chinese)
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the
accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the
terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
123