OPTIMUM DESIGN OF DIAPHRAGM WALL USING

BRACED EXCAVATION SYSTEM

By-
Debotosh Pramanick
(Roll No: 320418023)
Under the guidance of -
Dr. Ambarish Ghosh
Professor, Dept. of Civil
Engineering
 OUTLINE

• Introduction
• Review of Literature
• Objective of the Study
• Methodology
• Development of Numerical Model
• Result and Comparative Discussion
• Plan of Work
• Future Work to be Done
• References
 Introductio
n

• Diaphragm wall is a common type of earth retention system in deep excavation in different
soil condition or congested site condition.
• It also acts as a part of the foundation.
• The construction of diaphragm wall panels is done using the slurry trench technique.
• Collapse of diaphragm walls or defects in support systems may affect the stability of adjacent
structures. Hence, reliable understanding of the loads and stresses developing on the system
is essential. For this, perfect structural analysis methods considering special requirements of
diaphragm walls should be adopted.
Figure 1: Diaphragm wall in Howrah Station.
Figure 2. Reinforced cage lowering
• Collapse of diaphragm walls or defects in support systems affect the
stability of adjacent structures.
• Reliable understanding of the loads and stresses developing on the
system is essential. For this, perfect structural analysis for stress,
stability and deformation of diaphragm walls should be adopted.

I. Stress Analysis
II. Stability Analysis
III. Deformation Analysis
 S T R E S S A N A L Y S I S

To design a strutting system, one first has to analyse the load on the strut
during excavation. The strut load can be calculated by methods like-

I. apparent earth pressure method.

II. finite element method.
A P PA R E N T E A R T H P R E S S U R E M E T H O D : P E C K
(1969)

 
Figure shows diagrams of the apparent earth
pressure established by Peak (1969). As shown in the
figure, when the soil in back of the wall mainly
consists of sandy soils, the apparent earth pressure
Pa will be:
(1)
Where
unit weight of sandy soils
= excavation depth
= Rankine’s coefficient of earth pressure=
tan2(450-Ф/2).

If the soil in back of the wall is soft to medium soft

clay (i.e.
), the apparent earth pressure, , would be the larger
of  Figure 3: Peck’smedium
apparent earth pressure diagram: (a)sand, (b) soft to
soft clay (), And (c) stiff clay )
or
Where
= undrained shear strength of soil
M=an emperical coefficient, which is related to the
stability number Nb=,
Where = undrained shear strength of soil between
 If
  the soil in back of the wall is stiff clay (ϒH e/su≤4), the apparent earth pressure pa would be:

(the avarage is ).

the equivalent strength of alternating layer can be calculated as follows:

Figure 4: Multiple layers in excavations: (a) sand and clay and (b)
Where
  multilayered clay.

H = excavation depth
  e Savg =
ϒs= unit weight of sand
Hs= height of sandy soil layer
Ks= coefficient of lateral earth pressure
Фs = frictional angle of sand
= undrained shear strength of clay
 S TA B I L I T Y A N A LY S I S

• To avoide failure or collapses is of the first importance and stability anlyses are
therefore required. Stability analyses include
I. overall shear failure analysis.
II. sand boiling analysis.
III. upheaval analysis.
• The overall shear failure analysis can be furthur divided into push-in and basal heave
failure analysis.
 T Y P E S O F FAC T O R S O F S A F E T Y

• There are basically three methods to determine the factor of safety for stability
analysis:
I. the strength factor method
II. the load factor method
III. the dimension factor method
 F R E E E A RT H S U P P O RT M E T H O D A N D F I X E D E A RT H S U P P O RT M E T H O D

Figure 5 : Free earth support method: (a) deformation of the retaining wall and (b) Figure 6: Fixed earth support method: (a) deformation of the retaining wall and (b)
distribution of earth pressure. distribution of earth pressure
 R E V I E W O F T H E L I T E RAT U R E
Author Literature Name
Teparaksa(1993) Behaviour of Deep Excavations Using
Sheet Pile Bracing System in Soft
Bangkok Clay
Tamaro and Gould(1993) Analysis and design of cast in situ
walls
A. Day(2001) Earth pressure on cantilever walls at
design retained heights
Salient Features
• Evaluate the influence of numbers
of factors effected to the lateral
displacement and surface
settlement during the excavation.
• Preloading of strut or prestressing
of strut adopted for excavation.
• Test alternative design of wall by
comparing moments predicted by
conventional methods against
those predicted by finite difference
method.
• Understanding of the wall’s
behavior during construction and in
the permanent condition.
• Investigates the hypothesis
that the earth pressure on
cantilever walls in their service
condition can also be
approximated satisfactory by a
rectilinear pressure
distribution, which can be
predicted.
 Author Literature Name
Kung. et al. (2007) Simplified Model for Wall Deflection and
Ground-Surface Settlement Caused by
Braced Excavation in Clays
K N and Prasad (2013) Effect Of Deep Excavation On Adjacent
Buildings By Diaphragm Wall Technique
Using PLAXIS
Zhang et al.(2014) A simple prediction model for wall
deflection caused by braced excavation in
clays
Salient Features
• Developed a simplified semi-imperical
model for prediction of maximum wall
deflection, maximum surface settlement
and surface settlement profile due to
excavation in soft to medium clays caused
by a braced excavation.
• Proposed model was validated using well-
documented case histories of braced
excavations.
• Developed a model using PLAXIS 2D to
represent the performance of diaphragm
wall on the stress distribution and
deformation.
• Analysis is carried out considering non-
linear behavior of soil using Mohr-Columb
failure criteria.
• Carried out a parametric study using
the prain strain finite element
software PLAXIS in which soft clay
stress-strain behavior was modeled
using the hardening small strain
(HSS) consecutive relationship that
considers the small strain effect.
• Analysis were carried out to evaluate
the behavior of excavation with
braced wall in soft clays.
• The excavation geometry, soil
strength and stiffness properties, and
 Author Literature Name Salient Features
Ilies et al. (2014) Design Optimization of Diaphragm walls • Carried out a study to assess the design
optimization of diaphragm wall.
• Demonstrate how different calculation
model influence the design.
• Comparison was done between the
embedment depths, the values of bending
moments, shear forces and the structural
displacements for different diaphragm
walls.
Yajnheswaran et al. (2015) Effect of Stiffness on Performance of • Carried out static analysis of two different
Diaphragm Wall diaphragm wall sections of varying
stiffness using PLAXIS software.
• The diaphragm wall sections used in
analysis were modeled as a single panel.
• Concluded that the maximum bending
moment and shear force of diaphragm
wall analyzed were greatly depend on
stiffness of wall.
Son and Adedokum Earth Pressure on a Retaining Structure in • This work looked into the earth
(2016) Layered and Jointed Rock Masses pressure induced on retaining walls
in different rock layer formations and
joint conditions.
• Based on simulation of a large scale
experimental test, extended
numerical tests were carried out
focusing on the effect of various rock
layer formations on earth pressure
 Author Literature Name
V M et al. (2016) Section Optimization of Diaphragm
Wall
A.T.C. et al.(2017) A simple estimation model for 3D
braced excavation wall deflection
Teparaksa and Teparaksa Comparison of diaphragm wall
(2019) movement prediction and field
performance for different
construction techniques
Salient Features
• First studied the effect of diaphragm wall by
changing panel length as 2.5m, 3.5m, 4.5m and
5.5m and panel thickness as 0.6m, 0.8m and
1.1m for both rectangular section and T section.
• second study was about the effects while
changing the depth of the web in the T section.
• Their design considerations for a diaphragm wall
include panel size and shape, number and type
of joints, support spacing, subsoil conditions,
reinforcing methods etc.
• A series of two-dimensional (2D) and three-
dimensional (3D) finite element analyses using
the Hardening Soil (HS) model were carried out
to investigate the influences of soil properties,
wall stiffness, excavation length, excavation
depth, clay thickness at the base of the
excavation and wall embedment depth, on the
maximum wall deflection induced by braced
excavation.
• The results show that the 3D maximum wall
deflections are generally much smaller than
those for 2D .
• Comparison was done between the
diaphragm wall movements from FEM
analysis predictions and field
measurements for two projects.
• The PLAXIS 2D program were used to
predict diaphragm wall behaviour.
 Objective of the present study

To develop the numerical model using Plaxis 2D and Staad.Pro and

perform parametric study of a braced excavation system with top down
construction sequence using reinforced concrete diaphragm wall as a
retaining structure and intermediate slabs as braces for the following
parameters:
I. Depth of embedment and thickness of diaphragm wall.
II. Optimal location of struts and walers for casting of roof slab and base
slab.
III. Optimal location of intermediate slabs so as to reduce D wall deflection
and development of stress resultants in the wall.
 DESIGN METHODS

• Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM)

• Continuous Beam Method (CBM)
• Finite Difference Method (FDM)
 METHODOLOGY

• To design a diaphragm wall with optimum

brace System , a number of plain strain finite
element model using PLAXIS 2D has been
generated. These models are used to
evaluate the horizontal displacement, shear
force and bending moment developed on
diaphragm wall. For these PLAXIS 2D models
15 node elements has been chosen for better
result.
• The construction stages are as follows:
1. Construction of Diaphragm Wall.
2. Excavation up to depth -4.0 m.
3. Construction of slab at -3.0 m.
4. Excavation up to depth -7.0 m.
5. Construction of slab at -6.0 m. Fig.7 Model Geometry for 15m diaphragm wall with 10m width
6. Excavation up to depth -10.0 m. of excavation.

• After Development of the model, the previously mentioned construction stages are followed during the
analysis.
• After the completion of analysis, horizontal displacement, shear force and bending moment are
 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING

• The physical problem typically involves an actual structure or structure component subjected to
certain loads. The idealization of the physical problem to a mathematical model requires certain
assumptions that together lead to differential equations governing the mathematical model. The
finite element analysis solves the mathematical model. Since the finite element solution
technique is a numerical procedure, it is necessary to assess the solution accuracy. If the
accuracy criteria's are not met, the numerical (finite element) solution has to be repeated with
refined solution parameters (such as finer mesh) until a sufficient accuracy is reached.
 Table 1 Material Properties
Clay (MC-Undrained Soil Model)
Unsaturated Unit Weight, γunsat 18.0 kN/m3
Saturated Unit Weight, γsat 19.0 kN/m3
Eref 12000 kPa
ν 0.30
Cref 0.01
φ 28
Soil Structure Interface 0.67
K0 0.53
Retaining wall (Concrete)
E for M40 grade Concrete 31.622E+3 kPa
EA 1.581E+07 kN/m , 2.371E+07 kN/m ,
3.162E+07 kN/m
EI 3.294E+5 kNm­,­ 1.111E+5 kN/m , 2.635E+5
kN/m
ν 0.15
d 0.50m , 0.75m , 1.00m
Slabs (Concrete)
E for M40 grade Concrete 31.622E+3 kPa
EA 1.581E+07 kN/m
EI 3.294E+5 kNm­­
w 12.5 kN/m/m
ν 0.15
d 0.50
COMPARATIVE DISCUSSION
 C o m p a r i s o n o f 0 . 5 m d i a p h r a g m w a l l f o r d i ff e r e n t n u m b e r o f s l a b :

Thickness of Diaphragm Wall = 0.500 m

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
0.0

Depth of Diaphragm Wall (m)

-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
-10.0
-12.0
-14.0
-16.0
Horizontal Displacement (m)

Single Slab Double Slab Triple Slab

Figure 8 Horizontal displacement for different

number of slab

• Maximum horizontal displacement of Diaphragm wall for single, double and tripple systems are
25.285mm, 10.278mm and 7.118mm.
• Maximum vertical displacement of Diaphragm wall for single, double and tripple systems are
13.34mm, 22.24mm and 17.31mm at downward direction.
C o m p a r i s o n o f 0 . 5 m d i a p h r a g m w a l l f o r d i ff e r e n t w i d t h o f
ex c a v a t i o n :

D e p t h o f D ia p h ra g m W a ll (m ) -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250

0

-2

Depth of Diaphragm Wall (m)

-4
0 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02
0
-6
-2

-4 -8
-6
-10
-8

-10 -12
-12
-14
-14

-16 -16
Horizontal Displacement (m)
Shear Force (KN/m)
10m width excavation 15m width of excavation
10m width of excavation 15m width of excavation

Figure 9: Horizontal displacement for different width of Figure 10: Shear force for different width of
excavation. excavation.

• Maximum horizontal displacement of Diaphragm wall for 10m and 15m width of excavation are
10.278mm and 16.667mm.

• Maximum shear force of Diaphragm wall for 10m and 15m width of excavation are 141.72 KN/m and
194.75 KN/m.
 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100
0

-2

Depth of Diaphragm Wall (m)

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

-14

-16

Bending Moment (KNm/m)

10m width of excavation 15m width of excavation

Figure 11: Bending moment for different width

of excavation.

• Maximum bending moment of Diaphragm wall for 10m and 15m width of excavation are -228.32 KNm/m and
-545.63 KN/m.
 Table 2 Axial forces on Slabs

  Upper Slab Lower Slab

10m width of excavation -96.3101 kN/m -168.101 kN/m
15m width of excavation -136.374 kN/m -235.248 kN/m
 C o m p a r i s o n o f 0 . 5 m d i a p h r a g m w a l l f o r d i ff e r e n t w a l l h e i g h t :

D e p th o f D ia p h ra g m W a ll (m )
Dep th o f Diap h rag m W all (m )

0 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

0 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
0

-5
-5

-10
-10

-15
-15

-20 -20

-25 -25

Horizontal displacement (m) Shear Force (KN/m)

15m Diaphragm Wall 20m Diaphragm Wall 15m Diaphragm Wall 20m Diaphragm Wall
Figure 13 Shear force for different wall
Figure 12: Horizontal displacement for
different wall height. height.

• Maximum horizontal displacement of 15m and 20m Diaphragm wall are 10.27mm
and 84.12mm.

• Maximum shear force of 15m and 20m Diaphragm wall are 141.72 kN/m and 148.60
kN/m.
 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
0

Depth of Diaphragm Wall (m)

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

Bending Moment (KNm/m)

15m Diaphragm Wall 20m Diaphragm Wall

Figure 14: Bending Moment for different

wall height.

• Maximum bending moment of 15m and 20m Diaphragm wall are -228.32 kNm/m and
-237.38 kNm/m.
 Table 3 Axial Forces on Slabs

  Upper Slab Lower Slab

15m Diaphragm Wall -96.3101 kN/m -168.101 kN/m
20m Diaphragm Wall -53.56 kN/m -179.705 kN/m
 C o m p a r i s o n o f 0 . 5 m d i a p h r a g m w a l l f o r d i ff e r e n t w a l l
thickness:

-0.01 -0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
0 0
Depth of Diaphragm Wall (m)

-2

Depth of Diaphragm Wall (m)

-2
-4 -4
-6 -6
-8
-8
-10
-10
-12
-12
-14
-14
-16
-16
Horizontal Displacement (m)
0.5m width Diaphragm Wall Shear Force (kN/m)
0.75m width Diaphragm Wall 0.5m width Diaphragm Wall 0.75m width Diaphragm Wall
1m width Diaphragm Wall 1m width Diaphragm wall
Figure 15: Horizontal displacement for different Figure 16: Shear force for different
wall thickness. wall thickness.

• Maximum horizontal displacement of 0.5m, 0.75m, 1m thick Diaphragm wall are 10.27mm,
12.91mm and 23.28mm.

• Maximum shear force of 0.5m, 0.75m and 1m thick Diaphragm wall are 141.72 kN/m, 184.03
kN/m and 277.58 kN/m.
 Dep th o f Diap h rag m W all (m )
-1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200
0

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

-14

-16

Bending Moment (kNm/m)

0.5 width Diaphragm Wall 0.75m Width Diaphragm Wall

1m width Diaphragm Wall

Figure 17: Bending Moment for different

wall thickness.

• Maximum bending moment of 0.5m, 0.75m and 1m thick Diaphragm wall are -228.329 kNm/m,
-466.555 kNm/m and -989.269 kNm/m.
 Table 4 Axial forces on slab

  Upper Slab Lower Slab

0.5m thick Diaphragm Wall -96.31 kN/m -168.101 kN/m
0.75m thick Diaphragm -48.49 kN/m -297.20 kN/m
Wall
1.00m thick Diaphragm 90.28 kN/m -583.96 kN/m
Wall
 P l a n o f w o r k

Plan of Work
Work Status
Literature Review Ongoing
Numerical modelling of Deep Excavation using Ongoing
PLAXIS 2D for top down construction sequence
using permanent structural elements as braces.

Comparison of Horizontal deflection, Shear Force Ongoing

and Bending Moment for different wall thickness,
wall height, different brace location and different
width of excavation.

Calculation of axial force developed in different Ongoing

Brace Location.
Staad.Pro Modelling of Diaphragm Wall To Be Done
Optimum Design of Diaphragm Wall using To Be Done
Staad.Pro
Thesis Writing To Be Done
FUTURE WORK TO BE DONE

• Staad.Pro Modelling of Diaphragm Wall

• Optimum Design of Diaphragm Wall using Staad.Pro
 REFERENCES

• Teparaksa, Wanchai, “Behavior of Deep Excavations Using Sheet Pile Bracing System in Soft Bangkok Clay” (1993).
International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering.6.
• G. J. Tamaro and J. P. Gould, USA Analysis and design of cast in situ walls (diaphragm walls) :Retaining structures. Thomas
Telford, London, 1993 page 343-352 .
• Robert A. Day (2001), Earth pressure on cantilever walls at design retained heights, Geotechnical Engineering 149, Issue 3,
Page 167-176.
• Gordon T. C. Kung, C. Hsein Juang, M.ASCE , Evan C. L. Hsiao, S.M.ASCE, and Youssef M. A. Hashash, Simplified Model for Wall
Deflection and Ground-Surface Settlement Caused by Braced Excavation in Clays, Journal of Geotechnical engineering and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 133, No. 6, June 1, 2007.
• Dinakr K N and S K Prasad (2013), Effect Of Deep Excavation On Adjacent Buildings By Diaphragm Wall Technique Using
PLAXIS, Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, e-ISSN: 2278-1684, p-ISSN: 2320-334X
• Subha Sankar Chowdhury, Kousik Deb and Aniruddha Sengupta (2013), Estimation of Design Parameters for Braced
Excavation: Numerical Study, International Journal of Geomechanics, Issue No 13, ISSN 1532-3641/2013/3-234–247
• Wengang Zhang, Anthony T.C. Goh, Feng Xuan (2014), A simple prediction model for wall deflection caused by braced
excavation in clays: Computers and Geotechnics 63 (2015) 67-72.
• Nicoleta- Maria Ilies, Vasiles-Stelian Farcas and Marius (2014), Design Optimization of Diaphragm walls, 8th International
Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering .
• Yajnheswaran B, Akshay P.R, Rajasekaran C, Subba Rao (2015) , Effect of Stiffness on Performance of Diaphragm Wall: 8th
International Conference on Asian and Pacific Coasts (APAC 2015) Procedia Engineering 116 ( 2015 ) 343 – 349

• Moorak Son and Solomon Adedokun (2016) , Earth Pressure on a Retaining Structure in Layered and Jointed Rock Masses :
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (0000) 00(0):1-7 , pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808 ( DOI 10.1007/s12205-016-0402-z)
 REFERENCES

• Ashok V M, Dr. Babu Kurian, Merin Mathews, Anu James (2016) , Section Optimization of Diaphragm Wall: International Journal for Research
in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET) Volume 4 Issue XII, December 2016 ISSN: 2321-9653
• Ashok V M, Dr. Babu Kurian, Merin Mathews, Anu James (2016) , Section Optimization of Diaphragm Wall: International Journal for Research
in Applied Science & Engineering
• Technology (IJRASET) Volume 4 Issue XII, December 2016 ISSN: 2321-9653
• Goh A.T.C, Zhang Fan , Zhang Wengang , Zhang Yanmei , Liu Hanlong., “A simple estimation model for 3D braced excavation wall
deflection”. Computers and Geotechnics 83 Volume 83, March 2017, Pages 106-113 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.10.022)
• Anu James, Babu Kurian(2018) , Comparison of Analysis Specifications and Practices for Diaphragm Wall Retaining Systesm : Studia
Geotechnica of Mechanica, 2018 (https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2018-0004)
• Wanchai Teparaksa , Jirat Teparaksa (2019) , Comparison of diaphragm wall movement prediction and field performance for different
construction techniques : Underground Space Volume 4, Issue 3, September 2019, Pages 225-234 (
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2019.01.001)
• Mohamed Nabil Houhou, Fabrice Emeriault, Abderahim Belounar (2019), Three-dimensional numerical back-analysis of a monitored deep
excavation retained by strutted diaphragm walls:Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 83 page 153–164
Thank You