Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:5759–5771

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-022-01549-x (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV)

RESEARCH PAPER

An efficient method for evaluating the ground surface settlement

of Hangzhou metro deep basement considering the excavation
process
Hongwei Ying1,2,3 • Kang Cheng2,3 • Sijie Liu2,3,4 • Riqing Xu2,3 • Cungang Lin5 • Chengwei Zhu6 •

Xiaolu Gan2,3

Received: 6 November 2021 / Accepted: 23 March 2022 / Published online: 27 April 2022
 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
Based on the 16 collected well-documented excavation cases of the Hangzhou metro basement, the standard parameters of
the basement, the standard excavation process, and the standard soil layer are established. With the above parameters, a
standard three-dimensional finite element model about Hangzhou metro basement excavation by PLAXIS 3D software is
subsequently established. The small strain hardening constitutive model considering the characteristics of small strain of
soil and unloading of excavation is adopted for the numerical analysis of basement excavation. By comparing the ground
surface settlement (GSS) given by the numerical model with the field measurement results and the published empirical
solution, the validity of the established numerical model was checked. The characteristics of GSS were further analyzed.
The results indicated that as the excavated depth exceeded 7 m, the distribution of transverse GSS changes from cantilever
to 00 three segment broken line.00 The longitudinal GSS is largely affected by the corner effect and the excavation depth.
Subsequently, an innovative simplified method considering the excavation process was presented to calculate both the
transverse and longitudinal GSS outside excavation. The research results could provide a new approach to reasonably
predict the GSS caused by basement excavation.

Keywords Longitudinal settlement  Metro basement  Standard model  Transverse settlement  Whole process excavation

1 Introduction
& Sijie Liu
sijieliu@whu.edu.cn The excavation of basement in soft soil areas with dense
buildings and pipelines inevitably disturbs the adjacent
1
Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Geomechanics existing structures. For example, uneven settlement of
and Embankment Engineering, Hohai University, 1 Xikang ground [5, 15, 16, 24, 26], deformation of underground
Rd., Gulou District, Nanjing 210024, China
pipeline/tunnel [25, 34–37], and even structural cracking
2
Research Center of Coastal and Urban Geotechnical and damage may be caused in serious cases [9, 29, 31].
Engineering, Zhejiang University, 388 Yuhangtang Rd., Xihu
District, Hangzhou 310058, China
Thus, it is of significant practical importance to accurately
3
and easily predict the ground surface settlement (GSS)
Engineering Research Center of Urban Underground
Development of Zhejiang Province, Zhejiang University, 388
induced by basement excavation.
Yuhangtang Rd., Xihu District, Hangzhou 310058, China At present, typical studies on the GSS caused by exca-
4
School of Civil Engineering, Wuhan University, 299 Bayi
vation are based on the definition of three basic displace-
Rd., Wuchang District, Wuhan City 430072, China ment modes of rigid retaining wall: T mode, P mode, and R
5
School of Civil Engineering, Sun Yat-Sen University, 135
mode. Qian et al. [19] developed an analytical solution for
Xingang West Rd., Haizhu District, Guangzhou 510275, predicting GSS induced by basement excavation. The
China problem was solved by adopting the separation variable
6
Institut Für Geotechnik, Universität Für Bodenkultur, Vienna method based on elastic theory, and it was found that P
Gregor Mendel-Strasse 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria mode results in a concave-type GSS profile. The R mode

123
5760
and T mode result in a downward-sloping GSS profile.
Based on the elastic theory, Chen et al. [3] presented an
analytical method for estimating GSS caused by a braced
basement excavation. The problem was formulated as a
system of Lame equations with mixed boundary condi-
tions, which was solved by employing the method of sep-
aration of variables, to predict the ground lateral
displacement resulting from basement excavation. Cheng
et al. [6] proposed a practical analytical method consider-
ing the arbitrary deflections of the rigid retaining wall,
based on the elastic theory. The results showed that the
Poisson’s ratio had a mild influence on the ground dis-
placement, whereas the effect of the deflection modes of
the retaining wall was significant. It is noted that the
deformation distribution of the retaining wall should be
obtained before predicting the GSS when the above
methods are applied in practice. However, in practical
engineering, it is often necessary to evaluate the GSS
before excavation. Thus, the application of the above
method is limited.
Compared with the theoretical analysis method,
numerical methods are also widely used in basement
excavation [11, 12, 32, 33]. Chen et al. [4] conducted three-
dimensional numerical simulations to investigate the per-
formances of the ground and left tunnel of the Ningbo
Metro Line 1 due to the adjacent basement excavation. The
results showed that the longitudinally divided excavation
was more effective than a cut-off wall or soil improvement
for protecting the left tunnel. Zhang et al. [34] carried out a
series of three-dimensional finite element analyses using
the hardened soil (HS) model. The relationships between
the maximum deflection envelope and the strength of clay,
the rigidity of the wall, length of excavation, depth, and
width of excavation were investigated in detail. Chen et al.
[2] surveyed a basement excavation adjacent to the metro
lines in Shanghai soft ground. To control the excavation-
induced displacement, a technique of zoned excavation was
adopted. The field monitoring data showed that the GSS
close to the metro lines could be well controlled by the
zoned technique. Guo et al. [13] analyzed the displacement
of a braced deep excavation subjected to the unsymmetrical
surcharge effect by employing the finite difference method.
The results indicated that the horizontal ground displace-
ment deteriorated due to the unsymmetrical surcharge load.
The numerical method is relatively complex and time-
consuming. The accuracy of the results depends on the
adequate selection of soil parameters and constitutive
relationship.
In addition, field investigation is also an alternative
approach and is preferred by engineers. Tan et al. [23]
studied an unusual pit-in-pit excavation, including a
smaller, deeper rectangular pit inside and a larger, circular
pit outside, which was constructed in gravel-clay-cobble
123
Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:5759–5771
mixtures. Field data indicated that the performance of
excavation was distinct from those in literature. The classic
Rankine theory evidently overestimated the horizontal
active earth pressure of gravel-clay-cobble mixed strata
and underestimated the empirical apparent earth pressure
diagrams. Meng et al. [17] surveyed and evaluated the
performance of a long and deep excavation in Shenzhen
granite residual strata. Emphasis was given to the GSS,
excavation geometries, and time-dependent performances.
The results indicated that the GSS was similar to the
observations because of the high length-to-width ratio of
the metro station excavation. Cheng et al. [7] made a
comprehensive analysis and comparison of a large, 30.2-m-
deep basement excavation and 16 basement cases in
Hangzhou. An empirical relationship between the excava-
tion area of the basement and the maximum lateral dis-
placement of the retaining wall was proposed.
In this study, 16 cases of the Hangzhou metro deep
basements were collected for research. First, the standard
construction model and soil layer model of Hangzhou
metro deep basement were established through the col-
lected 16 cases. With these standard models, the numerical
model of the Hangzhou metro deep basement was devel-
oped. The accuracy of the numerical model was verified by
comparison with the published cases and the existing
empirical solution. Then, based on the model, the defor-
mation behavior of GSS during different excavation stages
was analyzed. Finally, to overcome the shortcomings of
existing research, a new prediction method of GSS induced
by the excavation is proposed considering different exca-
vation processes. The proposed method can dynamically
predict the GSS at any position outside excavation without
knowing the deformation distribution of the retaining wall
in advance. The results can guide a reasonable evaluation
of the impact of basement excavation on GSS.
2 Standardization of foundation pit
of metro station
The related parameters of a city metro basement, such as
the length L, width B, and depth He, retaining structure, and
construction process are similar. In this study, data on 16
cases of deep metro basement located in the east of
Hangzhou soft clay, supported by internal support ? di-
aphragm wall, were collected, as shown in Table 1. Based
on the analysis of retaining structure, a relatively stan-
dardized model of the soil layer, excavation process, and
excavation depth of the 16 collected cases was obtained.
The detailed parameters of the standardized model of the
metro basement are given in Table 2. As shown in Table 2,
the standardized length L, width B, and depth He of the
metro basement in Hangzhou were 190 m, 20 m, and
Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:5759–5771 5761

Table 1 Parameter statistics of subway station basement

Number Name Excavation Excavation Excavation Depth of the retaining Thickness of the retaining
length/m width/m depth/m wall/m wall/m

1 Zhalong kou 180 22.5 17.6 37.3 0.8

station
2 A subway 120 28 14.8 31.6 0.8
station
3 Xintang station 210 20.7 16 32 0.8
4 Pengbu station 440 44.5 16.2 32.4 0.8
5 Qiutao station 260 19 17.4 36 1
6 Xianghu station 110 20.5 16 32 0.8
7 Kenshanmen 250 25 17.5 36.1 0.8
station
8 Youth station 200 22.4 15.2 35.2 0.8
9 Xiangshan 300 23.7 27 30 1
station
10 Xintang station 190 20.7 16 37.7 0.8
11 Fengtan station 210 24.2 16.6 33.5 0.8
12 Wenhui station 160 22.8 19.7 41.9 0.8
13 Jianshe station 100 18.5 16.3 32.3 0.8
14 Yuhang station 140 20.8 15.2 30.2 0.8
15 Cultural station 120 22 24.3 43 1
16 Jianguo station 102 22 18 33 0.8

Table 2 Parameters of standardized model of basement

Geometric parameters of basement Length L/m 190
Width B/m 20
Excavation depth H0/m 17.5
Diaphragm wall Thickness t/m 0.8
Depth H/m 37
Elasticity modulus E/GPa 18
Internal support Layout form 1 concrete support 4 steel supports
Section size/mm 800 9 800 609 9 16, 800 9 16
Horizontal spacing/m 6 2, 4

17.5 m, respectively. The 800-mm-thick and 37-m-long 3 Verification of standardized model

diaphragm wall with five supports was adopted to restrain
the excavation-induced horizontal earth pressure. The first
one was an 800 9 800 mm concrete support with a hori-
zontal spacing of 6 m. The second and the third were Q235
steel supports with section dimensions of 609 mm 9 16
mm, and the fourth and fifth were Q235 steel supports with
section dimensions of 800 mm 9 16 mm. The spacing
between adjacent steel supports is 2 m and 4 m, respec-
tively. The horizontal spacing of adjacent steel supports is
arranged alternately by 2 m and 4 m, respectively. Table 3
gives the excavation process and the corresponding ele-
vation of the standardized metro basement.
The three-dimensional finite element software Plaxis 3D
[1] was employed for evaluation. Due to the symmetry of
the metro basement, half central axis of the long side of the
standardized basement was considered for finite element
analysis. The metro basement includes a standard section
and an end section. The size of the standard section is
80 m 9 20 m and that of the end section is 15 m 9 24 m.
To eliminate the influence of the model range on the cal-
culation results, the boundary was set beyond 3.5 times the
excavation depth of the metro basement [8], thus, the range
was 155 m 9 140 m 9 60 m. The top surface of the
model was free, the side surface was set with horizontal
constraints, and the bottom surface was set with fixed

123
5762 Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:5759–5771

Table 3 Excavation conditions of basement

Stage Construction activities Excavation thickness/m Excavation surface elevation/m Support elevation/m

1 Construction of diaphragm wall – – –

2 Excavation 1 m 1 -1 - 0.5
3 Installation of support 1, excavation 3.5 m 3.5 - 4.5 - 4.0
4 Installation of support 2, excavation 3.5 m 3.5 - 8.0 - 7.5
5 Installation of support 3, excavation 3.5 m 3.5 - 11.5 - 11
6 Installation of support 4, excavation 3.0 m 3.0 - 14.5 - 14
7 Installation of support 5, excavation 3.0 m 3.0 - 17.5 –

constraints. During the calculation, the displacement was
reset to zero after the initial stress generation and before
the excavation. Many engineering measurements and
studies show that in addition to the evident plastic defor-
mation that appeared in a few areas around the excavation,
the other regions were mostly in a small strain state, and
the entire excavation was mainly unloading. Therefore, the
soil constitutive model considering the characteristics of
small strain and unloading was more suitable for the
numerical analysis of basement excavation [22]. The small
strain hardening (HSS) constitutive model was adopted,
and the related parameters of the soil in the east of
Hangzhou city are given in Table 4 [14, 27, 30]. Figure 1
shows the grid diagram of the three-dimensional finite
element model, including 41,331 elements and 79,865
nodes. Table 4 shows the parameters of the diaphragm wall
and isolation wall in the numerical model. The dimension
of basement and the soil layer in the established standard
model of Hangzhou Metro deep basement were similar to
the geometric parameters of Zhalongkou station. There-
fore, the calculation results of the numerical model were
compared with the field monitoring data of Zhalongkou to
check the reliability of the finite element analysis results.
Figure 2 compares the three-dimensional numerical
simulation results with the measured field measured data
when the basement is excavated to the bottom. It can be
seen that the maximum GSS was 0.12%He, which appeared
at 0.45He away from the retaining wall. The maximum
lateral displacement of the retaining wall was 0.24%He,
which is twice the maximum GSS and occurred at the
depth of 0.5He. The main influence area of excavation on
the GSS was within 0–2He from the retaining wall to the
outside ground, and the secondary influence area was in the
range of 2–5He. The simplified solution yielded value that
was slightly lower than that of the numerical solution of the
GSS. In addition, Fig. 2 illustrates the empirical solution
proposed by Wang et al. [28] who considered that the
maximum lateral displacement dhm of retaining wall occurs
at the depth of 0.5He below the ground surface. However,
for the deformation of retaining wall, the simplified solu-
tion was slightly larger than the empirical solution pro-
posed by Wang et al. [28]. As shown in Fig. 2, a good
agreement between the numerical solution and the mea-
sured and empirical solutions is observed, preliminarily
verifying the accuracy of the 3D numerical model.
Therefore, further analysis could be conducted based on the
numerical model.
Figure 3 shows a further validation regarding the lateral
displacement of retaining wall and GSS at different exca-
vation stages. The GSS of each excavation stage given by
the numerical solution was in accordance with the envelope
of the basement in soft clay proposed by Tan and Wang

Table 4 Parameters of typical soil layers in east area of Hangzhou

Soil layer Thickness, l/ cs kN/ c0 / u0 / Eref Eref oed/ Eref ur/ Gref c0.7/ K0 m Rinter Rf
m m kPa () 50/MPa MPa MPa 0/MPa 10-4

1 Clay silt 20 18.2 8 24 6 6 18 54 1 0.62 1 0.85 0.9

2 Muddy silty 15 18.7 2 28 3 3 9 27 2 0.55 0.8 0.55 0.9
clay
3 Silty clay 5 18.8 18 11 8 8 24 72 1 0.82 0.8 0.85 0.9
4 Pebbles and 20 18.5 1 30 20 20 80 320 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.9
gravels
l is the thickness of soil layer, c means the unit weight of soil, c0 is the effective cohesion of soil, u0 is the effective internal friction angle of soil,
Eref 50 is reference secant stiffness from drained triaxial test, Eref oed is reference tangent stiffness for oedometer primary loading, Eref ur
means reference unloading/reloading stiffness, Gref 0 and c0.7 are the initial small strain shear stiffness which can reflect the small strain
characteristics of soil, c0.7 is the threshold shear strain

123
Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:5759–5771 5763

4 Analysis and verification of GSS

4.1 Analysis of GSS perpendicular to the long

side of excavation

Figure 4 shows the GSS distribution perpendicular to the

Fig. 1 3D finite element mesh
[24], Tan et al. [25], which indirectly proves the validity of
the numerical model. In addition, the settlement distribu-
tion of GSS given by the numerical solution was generally
consistent with that of Ou et al. [18]. It is concluded that
the main influence zone of GSS was 1He behind the wall,
and the secondary influence zone was located at 1–2He
behind the excavation. The maximum surface settlement
occurred at the position of 1/3He. Thus, the reliability of
the numerical model was further proven.
long side of excavation at the section x = 0 (Fig. 2) in
different excavation stages. s indicates the distance to the
excavation; dv indicates the GSS, and H is the excavation
depth of each stage. It can be seen from the figure that the
GSS profile is similar to a ‘‘spoon’’ and can be well
described by a ‘‘three broken line model.’’ The profile of
GSS was significantly affected by the excavation depth.
With the increase in excavation depth H, a significant
increase in GSS could be observed. This observation is
mainly attributed to the fact that compared with the soil
excavated in shallow, the soil excavated in deep could
release more stress, producing larger GSS. This phe-
nomenon further verifies the depth effect excavation in
Hangzhou soft clay [7]. Although with the increase in
excavation depth H, the location smax of maximum ground
surface settlement dvmax increased gradually, when the
distance exceeded three times that of the final excavation
depth He outside the excavation, the GSS decreased to
approximately zero. Thus, a 3He distance is recommended
as the influence range of basement excavation.
4.2 Prediction and verification of GSS
perpendicular to the long side of excavation

Based on the analysis of the GSS distribution perpendicular

to the long side of excavation in Fig. 4, the maximum
surface settlement dvmax/h and the maximum surface

distance/m lateral displacement of retaining wall/mm

60 50 40 30 20 10 00 10 20 30 40 50
0 0

10 5
δ /mm

20 10
v

the calculated
depth z/m

30 the measured 15
Wang et al (2012)
40 20

25

30
the calculated
35
the measured
Diaphragm wall 40

Fig. 2 3D finite element mesh

123
5764 Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:5759–5771

distance x/He lateral displacement of retaining wall/mm

3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50
0.000 0

0.025
5
0.050

0.075 10
Tan and Wang (2013)
δv/He(%)

Tan et al (2018)
0.100 for soft clay for mix ground
15

depth z/m
0.125
Step 3
0.150 Step 4 20
Step 5 Maximum settlement position x=1/3He
0.175
Step 6
Primary influence area PIZ 25
0.200 Step 7
Ou (2002)
Step 3 30
Step 4
Step 5 35
Step 6
Step 7
Diaphragm wall 40

Fig. 3 Surface settlement and lateral wall displacement of each excavation condition of subway station foundation pit

s/m 1.5
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1000*δ /H
vmax
0.0 0.0 1.2 Fitting curve
/H

0.3 0.3
vmax
1000*δv/H

0.9 1000δvmax/H=1.179-0.17H+0.01H
2
0.6 0.6
1000*δ

2
R =0.98
0.9 (smax, 1000δvmax/H) 0.9 0.6
1000δv/H H=8.0m
1.2 1000δv/H H=11.5m 1.2
1000δv/H H=14.5m (smax, 1000δvmax/H)
0.3
1.5 x=0 1.5
1000δv/H H=17.5m
1.8 1.8 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
H/m
Fig. 4 Surface transverse settlement for different excavation depths
Fig. 5 Relationship between excavation depth H and maximum
surface transverse settlement dvmax/H
settlement location smax were determined by excavation
depth. If dvmax/h and smax at any excavation stage are
1000dv max
determined, then the distribution of GSS in the corre- wmax ¼ ¼ 0:01H 2  0:17H þ 1:179
H ð1Þ
sponding stage can be predicted. Figures 5 and 6 illustrate
ðH  7 m Þ
the relationship between dvmax/h, smax, and H, respectively.
The corresponding fitting formulas are given in Eqs. (1) smax ¼ 0:072H 2 þ 2:23H  7:40 ðH  7 mÞ ð2Þ
and (2). Considering these equations, a novel ‘‘three broken 8
>
> 1000dv wmax  0:3
lines’’ empirical formula of GSS perpendicular to the long >
> ¼ s þ 0:3ð0  s\smax Þ
>
> H smax
side of the excavation, based on the excavation process of >
>
>
> 1000dv wmax  0:1
the basement, is proposed in Eq. (3). Figure 7 shows the >
< ¼ s
H smax  40
comparison between the calculated values of the above- ð3Þ
>
> wmax  0:1
mentioned empirical Eqs. (1)–(3) and the numerical solu- >
>  smax þ wmax ðsmax  s\40Þ
>
> smax  40
tions presented in Sect. 4.1. The deformation tendency and >
>
>
> 1000dv
values of the GSS calculated using empirical formulas (1)– >
: ¼ 0:005s þ 0:3ð40  s  60Þ
(3) were in agreement with the calculations from the H
numerical model, thus verifying the validity of Eqs. (1)–
(3).

123
Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:5759–5771
12
xmax
10
Fitting curve
8 depth ratio (L/H) of the basement exceeds a certain value,
xmax/m
6
2
4 R =0.93
xmax= -7.40+2.23H-0.072H
2 10). The middle part of the basement produced the maxi-
2 mum deformation and assumed the plane strain state, and
6 8 10 12 14
H/m
Fig. 6 Relationship between excavation depth H and location smax of
maximum surface transverse settlement
4.3 Distribution law of longitudinal deformation
(parallel to the long side of excavation)
Figure 8 shows the variation of GSS parallel to the long
side of excavation at different distances and excavation
depths. It can be seen that the development law of GSS
parallel to the long side of excavation was similar to that
stated in Sect. 4.1. As the excavation proceeded to a deeper
level, GSS significantly increased, also reflecting the depth
effect of basement excavation. As shown in Fig. 8, the GSS
increased gradually from the end to the middle of the
basement, which may be derived from the corner effect of
the basement. In addition, the GSS tended to be more
stable in the regions closer to the middle of the basement,
indicating an approximately plane strain state at the center
of excavation. However, as the excavation proceeded to a
deeper level, the position where the deformation of the
basement entered the plane strain state needed to be further
away from the end of the basement, which could be
explained by the plane strain ratio (PSR) proposed by Ou
60 50
1000*δv/H
Fig. 7 Comparison of the proposed analytical solutions of surface transverse settlement for different excavation depths
5765
et al. [18]. PSR is defined as the ratio of the maximum wall
displacement to the maximum wall displacement of the
section under plane strain conditions. When the length to
the value of PSR equals 1, and the deformation of the
basement conforms to the state of plane strain (Figs. 9 and
16 18 the region near the middle of the basement was also in the
plane strain state. Therefore, when the excavation depth
H increased gradually to meet the value PSR = 1, the area
of the plane strain state in the middle of the basement
decreased.
4.4 Analysis of GSS parallel to the long side
of excavation
For analyzing the deformation of soil induced by shield
tunneling or basement excavation, some classical contour
functions are often used to describe the deformation forms.
To explore the deformation behavior of a basement exca-
vation in Chicago, Roboski and Finno [20] used the com-
plementary error probability function to describe the
distribution of GSS parallel to the long side of excavation.
Most of the published cases are about GSS caused by
basement excavation in clay, and few studies report on
excavation in sandy soil basement. Recently, Russo et al.
[21] studied a 27-m-deep basement in pyroclastic sand in
Naples, Italy, and found that the prediction formula based
on complementary error function proposed by Roboski and
Finno [20] needed a modification for a satisfactory pre-
diction result.
The complementary error function (erfc) is defined as:
s/m
40 30 20 10 0
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
123
5766 Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:5759–5771

0
(x/m) x
45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
0 A 0.5
L
i

sid to
5

g lar
e
on cu
δv/mm

e l di
10 0.5

th pen
Pa
ra L
i x

r
lon llel t 0

Pe
15 g s o th
Stage4 (H=8.0m) ide e δvmax A
Stage5 (H=11.5m)
20 Stage6 (H=14.5m) 0.5δvmax
y=55m Stage7 (H=17.5m)
25 Re
tai
(a) nin Inflection point
(x/m) g str 0.5δvmax
uc
45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 tur
0 e
He
5
δv/mm

10 L
15
Stage4 (H=8.0m)
Stage5 (H=11.5m)
20 Stage6 (H=14.5m)
y=45m Stage7 (H=17.5m)
25
(b) Fig. 10 Schematic diagram of longitudinal settlement parameters
(x/m) outside the pit
45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
0 0.20
0.15 Best fit curve
5 2
R =0.65
0.10
δv/mm

10
2A/L

0.05

15 0.00
Stage4 (H=8.0m)
Stage5 (H=11.5m) -0.05
20 Stage6 (H=14.5m) -0.10
y=35m Stage7 (H=17.5m) 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11
25 H /L
(c)
Fig. 11 Relationship between 2A/L and H/L
Fig. 8 Curves of ground surface settlement longitudinal to wall
during different excavation depths Z 1
2
erfcðxÞ ¼ 1  erfðxÞ ¼ pffiffiffi expðu2 Þdu ð4Þ
p x

where u is a normalized variable of the normalized Gaus-

Fig. 9 Complementary error function, Roboski and Finno [20]
sian function, erf(0) = 0, and erf(!) = 1.
The general formula of deformation curve based on
complementary error function is as follows:
y¼C  erfc½ðx  AÞ=B þ D ð5Þ
where x is the distance from the origin, A is the distance to
the inflection point where the settlement d is equal to dmax/
2, B is the shape parameter controlling the spread at the
inflection point, C is the parameter setting the amplitude,
and D is the parameter controlling the vertical offset.
According to the relationship between the form of
complementary error function and the distribution of GSS
induced by excavation, it can be seen that:
D ¼ dmax ð6Þ
where dmax is the maximum ground surface settlement.

123
Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:5759–5771 5767

x/m C ¼ D=2 ð7Þ

45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
0 Assuming that the value dmax occurs at the center of the
wall or L/2, where L is the length of the excavation, Eq. (5)
5
reduces to:
10  
L=2  A
erfc ¼0 ð8Þ
δv/mm

15 B
20 Stage5 numerical results (H=11.5m) As x increases to infinity, the complementary error
Stage5 prediction results (H=11.5m)
25 Stage6 numerical results (H=14.5m) function approaches 0. A reasonable truncation should be
Stage6 prediction results (H=14.5m)
Stage7 numerical results (H=17.5m)
made to calculate the function. According to the least-
30 y=55m Stage7 prediction results (H=17.5m) squares fitting of the measured data by the Levenberg–
(a)
Marquardt procedure [10], it is suggested that the com-
x/m
plementary error function is approximately zero when:
45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
0 B  ½ðL=2ÞA=2:8 ð9Þ
5 The combination of Eq. (6) to Eqs. (9) and (5) is then
10
expressed as:
  
1 xA
δv/mm

15 dðxÞ ¼ dmax 1  erfc 2:8 ð10Þ

2 0:5L  A
20 Stage5 numerical results (H=11.5m)
Stage5 prediction results (H=11.5m) With A and dmax, the governing equation of GSS curve
25 Stage6 numerical results (H=14.5m) can be obtained using Eq. (10).
Stage6 prediction results (H=14.5m)
Stage7 numerical results (H=17.5m) For different excavation depths, the GSS curve had
30 y=50m Stage7 prediction results (H=17.5m)
(b) different inflection points, that is, different values of A.
Roboski and Finno [20] carried out a back analysis on the
x/m
measured data and established an approximate relationship
45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
0
between A and He/L:

5
2A=L ¼ 0:069 lnðHe =LÞ  0:03 ð11Þ

10 Combined with Eqs. (10) and (11), the GSS parallel to

the long side of excavation at different excavation stages
δv/mm

15
can be obtained by using the three control parameters: the
20 Stage5 numerical results (H=11.5m) excavation depth He, the length L, and the maximum set-
Stage5 prediction results (H=11.5m)
25 Stage6 numerical results (H=14.5m) tlement dmax. However, Eq. (11) was established based on
Stage6 prediction results (H=14.5m)
Stage7 numerical results (H=17.5m) the measured data of a basement excavation in Chicago by
30 y=45m Stage7 prediction results (H=17.5m) Roboski and Finno [20]. Therefore, it is necessary to
(c)
establish a new relationship between A and He/L for
x/m Hangzhou soft clay based on the settlement data of each
45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 excavation stage of the standardized finite element three-
0
dimensional basement model in Sect. 4.3. The relation
5 between A and He/L was then established as summarized in
10 Fig. 11 and Eq. (12).
 2
δv/mm

15 2A H H
¼ 39:58 þ6:71  0:196 ðH  7 mÞ ð12Þ
20 Stage5 numerical results (H=11.5m) L L L
Stage5 prediction results (H=11.5m)
Stage6 numerical results (H=14.5m)
25
Stage6 prediction results (H=14.5m) Combining Eqs. (10) and (12), the distribution curve of
Stage7 numerical results (H=17.5m)
30 y=40m Stage7 prediction results (H=17.5m)
GSS parallel to the long side of the excavation, considering
(d) the excavation process, can be expressed as:

Fig. 12 Comparison of the proposed analytical solutions of surface

longitudinal settlement for different excavation depths

123
5768 Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:5759–5771

A
8m 22m 18m 22m 20m 12m

D'1-5
7.5m
D'2-5 D'3-5 D'4-5 D'5-5

7.5m
D'1-4 D'2-4 D'3-4 D'4-4 D'5-4
7m

7m
2.5m 5.5m

D'1-3 D'2-3 D'3-3 D'4-3 D'5-3

2.5m 5.5m
3m

D'1-2 D'2-2 D'3-2 D'4-2 D'5-2

3m
D'1-1 D'2-1 D'3-1 D'4-1 D'5-1

2m N
y

23m
x
27m

o
16m 86m

5.5m 2.5m
2m
5.5m 2.5m

D2-1 D3-1 D4-1 D5-1

3m
D1-1
3m

D1-2 D2-2 D3-2 D4-2 D5-2

D1-3 D2-3 D3-3 D4-3 D5-3

7m
7m

D2-4 D3-4 D4-4 D5-4

7.5m
D1-4
7.5m

D1-5 D2-5 D3-5 D4-5 D5-5

8m 22m 18m 22m 20m 12m

A
measurement of ground surface settlement

Fig. 13 Layout of ground surface settlement monitoring points

crown beam the first floor steel support s/m

3.5m1m

60 50 40 30 20 10 0
0.0
steel support
0.3
1000*δv/H
3m

steel support prediction results H=10.5m 0.6

16.5m

prediction results H=13.5m

3m

steel support prediction results H=16.5m 0.9

H=16.5m
H=10.5m
41.5m

measurements
3m

measurements H=13.5m
H=13.5m
steel support 1.2
measurements H=10.5m
H=16.5m
3m

pit bottom (a)

s/m
diaphragm wall diaphragm wall 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
0.8m 0.8m 0.0

0.3
1000*δv/H

prediction results H=10.5m

prediction results H=13.5m 0.6
prediction results H=16.5m
Fig. 14 The typical section of the basement and the supporting measurements H=16.5m
H=10.5m
H=13.5m
H=13.5m 0.9
conditions measurements
measurements H=10.5m
H=16.5m
 (b) 1.2
1
dðxÞ ¼ dmax 1  erfc
2 Fig. 15 Comparison of the proposed analytical solutions of surface
" 2
#)
x þ 19:79 HL  3:35H þ 0:098L longitudinal settlement for different excavation depths
2:8 2 ðH  7 mÞ
0:5L þ 19:79 HL  3:35H þ 0:098L
As shown in Fig. 12, to check the reliability of the
ð13Þ
proposed method, comparisons of the calculated response

123
Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:5759–5771 5769

s=5.5m (x/m) Step 2 Use Eq. (13) to obtain the distribution curve of
0 20 40 60 80 100 GSS parallel to the long side of excavation with dmax
0
derived from Eq. (1).
4 With Step 1 and Step 2, the distribution curve of GSS
outside the excavation can be obtained.
δv/mm

8
Step 3 For any other point located at the distribution
12 curve of GSS perpendicular to the long side of the exca-
prediction results H=16.5m
measurements H=16.5m
vation, use Eq. (3) to calculate the corresponding dv. Then,
16
prediction results H=10.5m prediction results H=13.5m by inserting the calculated dv into Eq. (13), replace the
measurements H=10.5m measurements H=13.5m
(a) 20 maximum settlement dvmax. Use Eq. (13) to plot the dis-
s=11m (x/m) tribution curve of GSS parallel to the long side of the
0 20 40 60 80 100 excavation.
0
With Steps 1–3, the settlement dv of any point outside
4 the excavation at any excavation stage H can be obtained.
δv/mm

12
5 Comparison with the engineering case
prediction results H=16.5m
16 measurements H=16.5m To further illustrate the rationality and applicability of the
prediction results H=10.5m prediction results H=13.5m
measurements H=10.5m measurements H=13.5m
proposed method, a well-documented metro basement in
(b) 20 the east of Hangzhou is selected as the research object. The
s=18m (x/m)
0 20 40 60 80 100
geometric dimensions of basement are generally in agree-
0 ment with the above standardized metro basement model.
The site soil layer parameters and basement construction
4
conditions can refer to Tables 3 and 4. In order to monitor
δv/mm

8 the change of ground surface settlement during excavation,

12
prediction results H=16.5m
16 measurements H=16.5m
prediction results H=10.5m prediction results H=13.5m
measurements H=10.5m measurements H=13.5m
(c) 20
Fig. 16 Comparison of the proposed analytical solutions of surface
longitudinal settlement for different excavation depths
of GSS derived from the proposed empirical solution and
the numerical results in Sect. 4.3 were made. Figure 12
shows that the GSS plotted from the proposed method was
generally consistent with the numerical results at different
excavation depths and distances to excavation. Although
some discrepancies were noted between the two solutions,
they are acceptable in engineering practice. The maximum
ground surface settlement and the tendency of GSS were in
good agreement. Therefore, the reliability of the proposed
empirical solution for the analysis of GSS parallel to the
long side of excavation was verified.
4.5 Calculation flow of the proposed method
Step 1 Use Eqs. (1) and (2) to calculate the maximum
ground surface settlement dvmax and its position smax;
Use Eq. (3) to obtain the distribution curve of GSS
perpendicular to the long side of excavation.
10 monitoring lines are symmetrically arranged on both
sides of the basement shown in Fig. 13, with a total of 50
monitoring points numbered with D1 * 5–1 * 5 or
D0 1 * 5–1 * 5. The excavated length and width of
basement are 204 m and 27 m, respectively. According to
the symmetry, Fig. 13 shows only half of the excavation.
The distance between the monitoring points and the long
side of the excavation is 2.5 m, 5.5 m, 11 m, 18 m and
25.5 m, respectively. The typical section of the basement
and the supporting conditions are plotted in Fig. 14.
Due to the complex site environment and long con-
struction period, the monitoring points on the north of the
basement are seriously damaged, while the south side is
relatively well protected, thus only the monitoring data on
the south side could be used. As shown in Fig. 15a and b,
to further check the reliability of the proposed method,
comparisons of the calculated response of GSS derived
from the proposed empirical solution and the measured
data of D5-1 * 5 and D4-1 * 5 are made. It can be seen
from the figure that although some discrepancy between
the predicted and the measured when the excavation depth
is shallow can be observed, the general vary trend and
settlement distribution are basically consistent. With the
increase in excavation depth, the consistency between the
predicted and the measured is better. Consider the integrity
of the monitoring points, the measured data of longitudinal
monitoring lines D1 * 5–2, D1 * 5–3, D1 * 5–4 are

123
5770
selected to check the reliability of the proposed method is
given in Fig. 16. As shown in the fig, an accept-
able agreement between the calculated and the measured
under different excavation depths and different distances is
observed though there exist little discrepancy. In conclu-
sion, it can be further proved that the prediction formula
proposed is practical. As a simplified practical calculation
method, it can provide a fast and simple way to predict the
surface settlement outside the excavation induced by
basement excavation.
6 Conclusion
• The standard model of the Hangzhou metro basement is
established, including the geometric parameter of
excavation, the construction process of excavation, and
the soil parameter of the site. The numerical model of
standard basement excavation of Hangzhou metro is
established and analyzed. The accuracy of the model is
verified by comparing the numerical solution with the
measured data of the engineering case and the solution
derived from the published literature.
• When the excavation depth is more than 7 m, the
distribution of the transverse settlement curve outside
the excavation changes from ‘‘cantilever’’ to the ‘‘three
segments’’ line. As the excavation proceeds, the GSS
increases significantly, and the distance between the
maximum GSS and the retaining structure also
increases. The distribution range of GSS is approxi-
mately three times the final excavation depth of the
basement. The longitudinal GSS is seriously affected by
space effect and excavation depth.
• A simplified method to predict the distribution of GSS
at any position outside the basement considering the
dynamic excavation is proposed when the excavation
depth is more than 7 m. The accuracy of the proposed
method is verified by comparing the simplified solution
with the numerical results and the measured data of the
engineering case.
• It should be pointed out that the dynamic prediction
method proposed is mainly based on the metro base-
ment of Hangzhou. For other areas and different types
of excavation, the applicability of the proposed
dynamic prediction method needs to be checked.
However, the idea of establishing the dynamic predic-
tion formula proposed in this paper is still applicable to
other different types of excavations. The key lies in the
establishment of formulas (1), (2), and (13).
It is also the author’s next work to establish a practical
formula that can consider the different sizes of the
123
Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:5759–5771
excavation, the characteristics of the soil layer, and the
stiffness of the retaining structure.
Acknowledgements This work was financially supported by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41672264 No.
51678523) and by the Science and Technology Department of Zhe-
jiang Province (No. 2019C03103). The authors would like to
acknowledge the editors and reviewers for their constructive com-
ments, which helped to improve the manuscript greatly.
References
1. Brinkgreve RBJ et al (2012) Plaxis 3D material models manual.
Delft Univ. of Technology and Plaxis bv, Delft, Netherlands,
p 202
2. Chen H, Li J, Li L (2018) Performance of a zoned excavation by
bottom-up technique in Shanghai soft soils. J Geotech Geoenvi-
ron Eng 144(11):05018003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.
1943-5606.0001964
3. Chen H, Li J, Yang C (2020) A theoretical study on ground
surface settlement induced by a braced deep excavation. Eur J
Environ Civ Eng 24(3):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.
2020.1739563
4. Chen RP, Meng FY, Li ZC, Ye YH, Ye JN (2016) Investigation
of response of metro tunnels due to adjacent large excavation and
protective measures in soft soils. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
58(9):224–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.06.002
5. Chen RP, Song X, Meng FY, Wu HN, Lin XT (2022) Analytical
approach to predict tunneling-induced subsurface settlement in
sand considering soil arching effect. Comput Geotech
141(1):104492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104492
6. Cheng K, Xu RQ, Ying HW, Lin CG, Gan XL (2020) Simplified
method for calculating ground lateral displacement induced by
foundation pit excavation. Eng Comput 37(7):2501–2516. https://
doi.org/10.1108/EC-08-2019-0350
7. Cheng K, Xu RQ, Ying HW, Gan XL, Zhang LS, Liu SJ (2021)
Observed performance of a 30.2 m deep-large basement exca-
vation in Hangzhou soft clay. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
111(5):103872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2021.103872
8. Chheng C, Likitlersuang S (2018) Underground excavation
behaviour in Bangkok using three-dimensional finite element
method. Comput Geotech 95(3):68–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compgeo.2017.09.016
9. Feng RF, Zhang QQ, Liu SW (2020) Experimental study of the
effect of excavation on existing loaded piles. J Geotech Geoen-
viron Eng 146(9):04020091. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.
1943-5606.0002336
10. Gill PR, Murray W, Wright MH (1981) The Levenberg- Mar-
quardt method. Practical optimization. Chapt. 4.7.3. Academic
Press, London, UK, pp 136–137
11. Goh AT, Zhang F, Zhang W, Chew OY (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
12. Goh ATC, Zhang RH, Wang W, Wang L, Liu H, Zhang WG
(2020) Numerical study of the effects of groundwater drawdown
on ground settlement for excavation in residual soils. Acta
Geotech 15(6):1259–1272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-019-
00843-5
13. Guo P, Gong X, Wang Y (2019) Displacement and force analyses
of braced structure of deep excavation considering unsymmetrical
surcharge effect. Comput Geotech 113(9):103102. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.103102
Acta Geotechnica (2022) 17:5759–5771
14. Jun-hua HU (2017) Study on optimization of excavation sup-
porting design near metro in soft soil. Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou
15. Liang RZ, Wu J, Sun L, Shen W, Wu WB (2021) Performances
of a djacent metro structures due to zoned excavation of a large-
scale basement in soft ground. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
117(11):104123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2021.104123
16. Meng FY, Chen RP, Liu SL, Wu HN (2021) Centrifuge modeling
of ground and tunnel responses to nearby excavation in soft soil.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 147(3):04020178. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002473
17. Meng FY, Chen RP, Wu HN, Xie SW, Liu Y (2020) Observed
behaviors of a long and deep excavation and collinear underlying
tunnels in Shenzhen granite residual soil. Tunn Undergr Space
Technol 103(9):103504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.
103504
18. Ou CY, Chiou DC, Wu TS (1996) Three-dimensional finite ele-
ment analysis of deep excavations. J Geotech Eng
122(5):337–345. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9410(1996)122:5(337)
19. Qian J, Tong Y, Mu L (2020) A displacement controlled method
for evaluating ground settlement induced by excavation in clay.
Geomech Eng 20(4):275–285. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2020.
20.4.275
20. Roboski JF, Finno RJ (2006) Distributions of ground movements
parallel to deep excavations in clay. Can Geotech J 43(1):43–58.
https://doi.org/10.1139/T05-091
21. Russo G, Nicotera MV, AutuorI S (2019) Three-dimensional
performance of a deep excavation in sand. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 145(4):05019001.1-05019001.13. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002037
22. Song G, Song EX (2014) Selection of soil constitutive models for
numerical analysis of deep excavations. Eng Mech 31(5):86–94.
https://doi.org/10.16285/j.rsm.2010.01.054
23. Tan Y, Lu Y (2018) Responses of shallowly buried pipelines to
adjacent deep excavations in Shanghai soft ground. J Perform
Constr Facil 9(2):05018002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)PS.
1949-1204.0000310
24. Tan Y, Wang DL (2013) Characteristics of a large-scale deep
foundation pit excavated by the central-island technique in
Shanghai soft clay. I: bottom-up construction of the central
cylindrical shaft. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139(11):1875–1893.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000928
25. Tan Y, Lu Y, Xu C (2018) Investigation on performance of a
large circular pit-in-pit excavation in clay-gravel-cobble mixed
strata. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 79(9):356–374. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.06.023
26. Tan Y, Wei B, Zhou X (2015) Lessons learned from construction
of shanghai metro stations: importance of quick excavation,
prompt propping, timely Casting, and segmented vonstruction.
5771
J Perform Constr Facil 29(4):04014096. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000599
27. Wang Z-Y (2017) Research on deformation behavior of deep
excavation with bracing diaphragm wall in Hanzghou area.
Zhejiang University, Hangzhou
28. Wang WD, Wang HR, Xu ZH (2012) Simplified method of
deformation prediction for excavations retained by embedded
walls in Shanghai soft soil. Chin J Geotech Eng
34(10):1792–1800
29. Yuan YC, Li SC, Zhang QQ, Li LP, Shi SS, Zhou ZQ (2016)
Risk assessment of water inrush in karst tunnels based on a
modified grey evaluation model: Sample as Shang jiawan Tunnel.
Geomech Eng 11(4):493–513. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2016.
11.4.493
30. Zhang X-C (2012) Characteristics analysis of long and narrow
deep excavation with soft soil. Zhejiang University, Hangzhou
31. Zhang DM, Xie XC, Li ZL, Zhang J (2020) Simplified analysis
method for predicting the influence of deep excavation on
existing tunnels. Comput Geotech 121(5):103477. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103477
32. Zhang WG, Hou ZJ, Goh ATC, Zhang RH (2019) Estimation of
strut forces for braced excavation in granular soils from numer-
ical analysis and case histories. Comput Geotech
106(2):286–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2018.11.006
33. Zhang WG, Zhang RH, Wang W, Zhang F, Goh ATC (2019) A
multivariate adaptive regression splines model for determining
horizontal wall deflection envelope for braced excavations in
clays. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 84(2):461–471. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.11.046
34. Zhang WG, Zhang YM, Goh ATC (2017) Multivariate adaptive
regression splines for inverse analysis of soil and wall properties
in braced excavation. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 64(4):24–33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2017.01.009
35. Zheng G, He X, Zhou H (2020) Prediction of the tunnel dis-
placement induced by laterally adjacent excavations using mul-
tivariate adaptive regression splines. Acta Geotech
15(4):2227–2237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-020-00916-w
36. Zheng G, Yang X, Zhou H (2018) A simplified prediction method
for evaluating tunnel displacement induced by laterally adjacent
excavations. Comput Geotech 95(3):119–128. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.compgeo.2017.10.006
37. Zhou HZ, Zheng G, He XP (2020) Numerical modelling of
retaining structure displacements in multi-bench retained exca-
vations. Acta Geotech 15(9):2691–2703. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11440-020-00947-3
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
123