PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS OF SOIL - DIAPHRAGM WALL FRICTION

USED FOR VALUE ENGINEERING OF DEEP EXCAVATION,

NORTH/SOUTH METRO AMSTERDAM
Stefan M. Buykx1, Steven Delfgaauw2, Johan W. Bosch3
1, 2

North/Southline Consultants, Witteveen+Bos, P.O. Box 12205, 1100 AE Amsterdam,

The Netherlands
3
Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5048, 2600 GS Delft, The Netherlands

Keywords: diaphragm wall friction, vertical stability of deep excavation, probabilistic analysis

INTRODUCTION
The excavation of deep building pits often requires a check against failure by uplift of low
permeability ground layers below excavation level. Whenever the weight of these soil layers is less
than the pore-water pressure underneath, measures to resist buoyancy are to be considered. The
measures most commonly adopted include: decreasing the water pressure by drainage, anchoring an
underwater concrete slab in the underlying strata or executing the excavation in a pressurised
working chamber.
This paper discusses a case study in which it was shown successfully that side wall friction too can
contribute significantly to the vertical stability of a diaphragm walled deep excavation. The safety
against failure by uplift is demonstrated through probabilistic analysis of all relevant parameters.
The project presented is the top-down constructed, up to 31 m deep building pit of Ceintuurbaan
Station, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. In the deepest excavation stage of this pit the soil weight and
uplift force would not balance. As dewatering or other measures were deemed not feasible, the
deepest part of the excavation and the construction of the bottom slab were initially designed to take
place under compressed-air. However, a considerable reduction of cost and construction time was
achieved after extensive analysis of the friction between soil and diaphragm walls proved that the
pressurised excavation could be limited.

Value engineering
Air

Ground+Air

Pore-pressure

Ground+Friction

Pore-pressure

Figure 1 - Compressed-air or D-wall friction to secure vertical equilibrium

1

Scope
Following an introduction to the project and case study, this paper will comprise in subsequent
sections:
verification of failure by uplift for a deep excavation
analysis of diaphragm wall friction, focusing on the calculation of horizontal stresses after
excavation
value engineering: assessment of the probability of failure by means of Monte Carlo analysis
observational method: verification of design assumptions through field and laboratory tests
conclusion.

CEINTUURBAAN STATION - DESIGN AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

The construction of the Ceintuurbaan Station is part of the new metro project North/South line,
situated in the historic centre of Amsterdam. Due to the limited width available in the street, the
station has been designed for two tunnel boring machines to drive through the station above each
other. Thus yielding a relatively narrow and deep building pit. The station will be 11 m wide, 230 m
long and will have single track platforms at NAP -16.5 m and NAP -26.5m depth. Local street level
is at approximately NAP, which is the Dutch reference level.
This section addresses key aspects of the design and boundary conditions of Ceintuurbaan station.

Figure 2 - North/South line in Amsterdam and artists impression of Ceintuurbaan Station

Construction method
To minimize the duration of impact on city and infrastructure, the top-down method was selected
for construction. The construction phases as adopted in the design can be summarised as follows:
installation of diaphragm walls
installation of jet grout strut below deepest excavation level
construction of roof and restoration of street level
sub-roof, multiple stage, excavation and installation of pre-stressed struts
construction of intermediate floor
sub-floor excavation, installation of pre-stressed struts and construction of base slab working
under up to +1.6 bar compressed-air
TBM passage
final construction
2

Geometry
The geometry of the building pit in the deepest excavation phase is depicted in figure 3.
At first, an assessment into the settlement risk of adjacent historic buildings resulted in strict
requirements regarding deformations of the building pit. Typically, the historic buildings in
Amsterdam are founded on wooden piles driven into the so-called 1st sand layer. It is not
uncommon for these pile foundations to have barely sufficient bearing capacity, if verified along
modern-day standards. Hence, the retaining walls, roof and floor slabs, several layers of prestressed struts and a jet grout strut have been designed to resist all actions and forces, and to limit
differential settlements of adjacent foundations.
Secondly, the verification of the vertical stability of the building pit resulted in the requirement to
extend the diaphragm walls below the so-called intermediate sand layer. This layer at NAP -37 m is
water bearing with a piezometric head of approximately NAP -3 m. Practically speaking, lowering
this head to a secure level to avoid instability of the remaining Eem clay layer during excavation
could only be achieved by confining the intermediate sand layer. The D-walls have therefore been
designed to function as cut-off walls too, resulting in lengths of up to 45 m.
Geotechnical conditions
The geology, depicted in figure 3, is characteristic for the centre of Amsterdam (Wit, 1999). The
stratigraphy is formed by a glacial basin filled with sediments. The 3rd sand layer, relevant as
highly permeable aquifer, is at its base. For this papers case study, especially the Eem and Drenthe
clay layers and the intermediate sand layer are of interest. The latter are a glacial clay and
fluvioglacial sand deposited in the Saalian period. These glacial deposits are overlain by marine
clays of Eemian age. Above, the 1st and 2nd sand layer, often separated by the more silty Allerd
layer, have been combined into one layer here. These two medium to dense, aeolian (1st) and
fluvial (2nd) sand layers are of Weichselian origin. On top, the Holocene deposits have been
condensed into one layer too. This unit consists of a tidal sand and mainly of soft clay and peat
layers.
The sand layers are permeable, water bearing strata. For this case study it is assumed that all have a
head of circa NAP -3 m. The freatic level in the Holocene layers differs, and is circa NAP -0.5 m.
A summary of geotechnical parameters for all layers is included in figure 3. For further reference,
table 1 comprises additional data on the marine Eem clay and glacial Drenthe clay.
Table 1 - Geotechnical parameters Eem and Drenthe clay, mean values
Parameter
Eem clay
Drenthe clay
water content
w
[%]
36
23
liquid limit
wL
[%]
42
28
plastic limit
wP
[%]
23
18
liquidity index
IP
[%]
19
10
undrained shear strength
cu
[kPa]
150
180
compression index
Cc
[-]
0.358
0.143
secondary compression
[-]
0.0044
0.0018
C
swelling index
Csw
[-]
0.033
0.014
consolidation coefficient
cv
[m2/s]
1*10-6
2*10-6
permeability
k
[m/s]
2*10-9
1*10-9

sat

Description

'
3

[kN/m ]

[]

E'50;ref OCR
c'
[kPa] [kPa] [-]
0m

width = 11m

0m

Roof, t = 0.9m

-5m

Struts, pre-stressed

-10m

Struts, pre-stressed

-15m

Struts, pre-stressed
(temporary)

-19m

Floor, t = 0.9m

-25m

Struts, pre-stressed
(temporary)

-31m

Max. excavation level

-33m

Jetgrout strut, t = 1.5m

-45m

D-wall, t = 1.2m

-3m

Holocene layers, soft

PEAT / CLAY / SAND

15

28

8000

n/a

-12m

1st & 2nd sand layer,

(medium) dense SAND

19

34

34000 n/a

-25m

Eem layer, overconsol.

marine firm CLAY

18

32

15

13000 2,0

-37m

Intermediate layer,
medium SAND

19.5

Drente layer, overcons.

glacial firm CLAY

19.3

33

25000 n/a
-40m

33

11

15000 1,5
-45m

3rd sand layer,

dense SAND

19.5

35

35000 n/a

Figure 3 - Soil parameters and geometry (modified for the purpose of the paper)

VERTICAL STABILITY OF DEEP EXCAVATION

Hydraulic failure by uplift, as mentioned before, is critical to the design of the deep excavation of
Ceintuurbaan Station. A simple analysis in terms of total stresses yields that the mean overburden
pressure in the pit at NAP -45 m becomes less than the pore-pressure under the glacial clay once the
excavation works have reached a level of NAP -22.5 m in depth. That is, presuming a confined and
adequately drained intermediate sand layer. Taking a safety margin into account, this would
conclude in a maximum allowable excavation level of approximately NAP -20 m. Some 11 m short
of the design level.
Reference design approach
To reach the targeted level of NAP -31 m, it was decided initially to excavate the deepest section
under compressed-air. The D-walls and intermediate floor were constructed as to function as a safe
pressurised working chamber. Two schemes to secure the vertical stability of the bottom of the
excavation were anticipated:
+0.8 bar for the excavation down to NAP -25 m (i.e. 0.8 bar above atmospheric pressure)
+1.6 bar for the excavation down to NAP -30 m and subsequent construction of the floor slab
Note: the air pressure increases the pore-pressures and total stresses in the building pit.
4

Value engineering approach

Since above method is obviously costly, time consuming and not without health & safety risks, a
more detailed analysis of the deep excavation phase seemed valuable. In the narrow pit of
Ceintuurbaan the stability against buoyancy of the clay layers below excavation level is
significantly influenced by the friction between soil and diaphragm wall. After a first appraisal of
this possible stabilising effect showed promising results, the client initiated a value engineering
study. The results of this study, which aimed at an integral assessment of the safety of the
excavation, including wall friction, are outlined below.
Verification of uplift limit state
The basic equation for the verification of failure by uplift of the building pit is:
Gd + Ad + Fd Pd

(1)

where Gd = design value of total weight of Ground (excavation level - bottom of clay layer)
Fd = design value of total side wall Friction
Ad = design Air pressure above atmospheric pressure
Pd = design value of total Pore-pressure (in 3rd sand layer applied under clay layer)
In the remainder of this paper the excess air pressure is presumed to be zero (i.e. atmospheric), the
excavation level is taken at NAP -26 m (i.e. just below the lowest temporary strut level) and the
weight density of water is 10 kN/m3.
The total weight of the soil and sum of the water pressures seem well defined parameters. Both can
be deduced from sampling and piezometer readings respectively. In this example:
Gd = 353 kN/m2 * W / m
Pd = 420 kN/m2 * W
W = 11 m width
m = 1.1 according to Dutch code NEN6740:1997
Clearly, without air-pressure or wall friction equation (1) would not be met.
The friction Fd between soil and diaphragm wall requires closer attention. The wall friction cannot
be tested or monitored in-situ directly. The next section therefore deals with the question how to
predict the maximum side wall friction.
It should be noted that the strength of the jet grout strut in the Eem layer is being neglected in the
analysis. Yet, its stiffness is taken into account implicitly. This approach has been chosen to design
on the safe side. Cause, despite of a perhaps vertically stabilising effect of the grout strut, its
primary function has been determined to reduce deformations. It has not been designed to take
lateral load. On the other hand, its presence reduces a (favourable) horizontal pre-stressing of the
soil. This effect is similarly being neglected in the analytical analysis below.

ANALYSIS OF DIAPHRAGM WALL FRICTION

The maximum shear between soil and diaphragm wall primarily depends on normal effective stress
and (reduced) interface friction:
max = R * ( c + N * tan ) or max = R*c + N * tan
5

(2)

The total side wall friction follows by integration:

Fd = 2 * z max dz

(3)

Below, first the distribution of normal stresses will be evaluated, and next the interface friction.
Normal stress distribution
Several methods are available for the estimation of effective stress normal to a retaining wall.
Essential in this case is the notion that the deep clay layers are in a state of over consolidation after
excavation. The ratio between horizontal and vertical stress changes during excavation and might
differ considerably from K0;nc. For comparison, the finite element code Plaxis and an analytical
model have been applied. In both the decrease in horizontal effective stress is deduced from the
reduction in vertical effective stress.
As illustrated in figure 4, the stress path for elastic unloading in Plaxis Hardening-Soil model can
be described with:
h = v * ur / ( 1 - ur )

(4)

Though, the ratio of horizontal and vertical stress is limited by the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion.
Plastic failure would occur if:
h;excavated = v;excavated * Kp + 2 c Kp

(5)

in which, for simplicity, a Rankine passive pressure coefficient can be adopted:

'h [kPa]

Kp = ( 1 + sin ) / ( 1 - sin )

(6)

300
K_0;nc
v_ur / (1-v_ur)

200

s'v*Kp + 2c'sqrt(Kp)
Hardening-Soil
100

K0 - OCR (Mayne)

0
0

100

200

300

'v [kPa]

Figure 4 - Stress paths over consolidated Eem clay, unloading from v;initial = 255 kPa

Alternatively, application of the well known K0 - OCR relationship (Schmidt, 1966) suggests a
somewhat different stress path during unloading:
h = v * K0;nc * OCRsin = v * ( 1 - sin ) * OCRsin

(7)

where
OCR = v;max / v = OCRinitial * v;initial / v;excavated
6

(8)

The difference between the Hardening-Soil model and the K0 - OCR relationship becomes apparent
for small vertical stresses. Equations (4) and (5) show that the minimum value found for the
horizontal stress h when using the Hardening-Soil model for unloading would still equal 2cKp,
even for zero vertical stress. On the contrary, the K0 - OCR relationship results in zero horizontal
stress for zero vertical stress. The relationship (7) finds sound support in the statistical analysis of
ample laboratory test results on clay and sand samples (Mayne, 1982).
Concluding, the analysis of normal stresses after unloading by means of the K0 - OCR relationship
will result in a lower design value of total side wall friction. The latter is therefore regarded a safer
design approach and has been adopted in this case study.
Interface friction
The friction capacity of the soil - diaphragm wall interface might in two ways be affected by the
construction method itself. First, the slurry trench phase is likely to result in an alteration of initial
lateral stresses. Second, the bentonite support slurry is known to plaster the trench wall, forming a
filter cake, which might not be expelled during concreting of the panel. Especially in granular soils,
such cake of soft clay has been observed to decrease the shaft friction capacity.
To take the latter effect into account, a range of /-ratios can be found in literature. The possible
reduction of lateral stress has been expressed in a Ks/K0-ratio. With reference made to research data
on slurry supported bored piles (Kulhawy, 1991), the following values were initially recommended
for use within the framework of this case study:
/ = 0.8 - 1.0
Ks/K0 = 0.6 - 0.7
or combined into a Plaxis-type interface strength reduction factor R:
R = 0.5 (lower boundary value)
R = 0.7 (mean value)
Main considerations in selecting these values were: the sedimentation and presence of a bentonite
cake was regarded less likely at the low permeability marine and glacial clay layers. Besides,
former research had shown incremental outward horizontal displacements in the deeper layers
during concreting of a panel (Wit, 2002). Nonetheless, being a key parameter, it was determined
that validation of the interface friction by testing prior to the critical excavation stage would be
decisive. The results of these tests are summarised at the end of this paper.
Vertical eff. stress [kN/m2]
-100
-25

100

200

300

Pore pressure [kN/m2]

400

-100
-25

100

200

300

Horizontal eff.stress [kN/m2]

400

-100
-25

-30

-30

-30

-35

-35

-35

-40

-40

-40

initial
-45

excav.

initial
-45

excav.

-45

100

200

300

400

initial
excav. HS-model
excav. K0-OCR

Figure 5 - Interface stresses prior to and after excavation down to NAP -26m (mean values, 1D-analytical)
7

MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS

The basic question to be answered at last is whether the analysis of the vertical stability including
diaphragm wall friction leads to a safe design of the deep excavation. The applicable Dutch code for
geotechnical design at the time did not contain a suitable definition for this safety. Hence, the safety
of the deep excavation was defined in connection with higher order code NEN6700:1997 (compare
Eurocode 0) and in terms of the probability of failure. This section comprises the assessment of the
probability of failure by means of probabilistic analysis.
Deterministic approach
For comparison, a summary of characteristic results is provided first. Substituting aforementioned
mean values subsequently into equations (7), (2) and (3) would lead to the conclusion that equation
(1) for the verification of failure by uplift can be satisfied even without additional air pressure
support. Here:
Gk + 2 * z max;k dz > Pk
353 kN/m2 * 11 m + 2 * 702 kN/m2 = 5287 kN/m > 420 kN/m2 * 11 m = 4620 kN/m
If expressed in an overall factor of safety, this results in: safety = 1.14.
Probabilistic approach
As can be examined from above discussion, the important parameters in the vertical stability check
are: the initial stress situation, over consolidation ratio, decrease of overburden pressure, pore
pressure distribution, interface reduction factor and the soil parameters: weight density, angle of
shearing resistance and cohesion.
Since these parameters all vary by nature, it was decided to assess the risk of failure by uplift
through a Monte Carlo analysis. All relevant soil, groundwater and geometrical parameters were
implemented as stochastic variables into a 2D analytical spreadsheet model. This was used to
calculate the reliability function Z up to 100,000 times per cross section. The probability of failure
can then be found as:
Pf = P(Z<0)

(9)

where
Z = Resistance - Sollicitation = (Gk + Fk) - Pk

(10)

Table 2 - Stochastic variables in Monte Carlo analysis (refer to figure 3 for mean values)
Parameter
Distribution
Stand. deviation
[kN/m3] standard normal
weight density
0.4 to 1.5
sat
angle of shearing resistance
standard normal
2 to 4

[]
cohesion intercept
c
[kPa]
n/a
0
interface reduction factor
R
[-]
uniform
0.2
over consolidation ratio
OCR
[-]
standard normal
0.25
length of D-wall
L
[m]
standard normal
0.1
piezometric level
[m]
uniform
0.2
- at excavation level
hexcav.
[m]
standard normal
0.5
- at intermediate sand layer
hint.sand
h3rd sand
[m]
standard normal
0.05
- at 3rd sand layer

Results
The Monte Carlo analyses provided clear and quantitative data on the probability of failure by
uplift, and on how this failure probability relates to the contributive factors: soil weight, wall
friction and uplift. Their probability density functions are shown in figure 6, together with a
histogram of the reliability function Z.
Reliability function; failure = Z<0

Probability density function

100

5000

F (1358)

G (3923)

P (4620)

3000

4000

75
50

4000

25
0
-100 -50

50 100

3000

2000

1000
0
-100

200

500

800

1100

1400

1000

2000

[kN/m']

5000

Figure 6 - Results of Monte Carlo analysis of deep excavation Ceintuurbaan Station

For the case study presented, the following results have been computed:
total number of calculations = 50,000
number of calculations with Z<0 = 8
probability of failure Pf = 8 / 50,000 = 1.6 * 10-4
result reliability index = 3.6 (assuming a normal distribution for reliability function Z)
required reliability index 3.6
(NEN6700:1997)
Concluding, the vertical stability of the deep excavation down to NAP -26 m meets the
requirements regarding reliability, also without pressurising the working chamber. The remainder of
the section shall be excavated under compressed-air. Although the frictions relatively wide
probability density function could be said to increase the uncertainty (the tail) of the reliability
function, its contribution to the safety is significant.

SITE INVESTIGATION INTO DIAPHRAGM WALL INTERFACE

The interface friction delta is assumed to depend largely on the possible presence of any bentonite
cake on the diaphragm slurry walls. As excavation works progressed, the opportunity was seized to
assess the bentonite cake visually. By means of sampling and direct shear testing the earlier
assumptions regarding /-ratios were verified. The limited number of samples did not allow for
full statistical analysis. Still, the qualitative observations below are deemed illustrative.
Visual inspection
In line with expectations, a bentonite cake could be observed in sand layers, however, it was
virtually absent in layers with low permeability. At the soil - diaphragm wall interface a filter cake
of approximately 5 to 20 mm was found in the 1st and 2nd sand layer, a cake of approximately
1 mm in a Holocene peat layer, and no bentonite cake in the Eem clay layer nor in a Holocene clay
layer. Where present, the sand next to the bentonite cake showed some discolourisation in a zone of
10 to 40 mm.
9

The presence or absence of a bentonite filter cake can, presumably, be explained by the difference
in permeability of the ground layers. It seems that where (nearly) no bleeding or consolidation of
the bentonite slurry could take place, such as in the low permeability clay layers, the slurry has been
effectively expelled during concreting of the D-wall panel. In contrast, the thickness of bentonite
cake in the sand layers exceeded the specific roughness of the diaphragm wall in several cases
observed. A possible correlation between cake thickness and duration of the slurry trench phase
could not be investigated.
Direct shear tests
To verify previously assumed values for shearing resistance direct shear tests on samples including
and excluding bentonite cake have been performed. For reference, also laboratory-made samples
with and without filter cake were tested. For the bentonite-cake-in-sand samples only those results
were considered where the shear plane clearly cut the filter cake (sand - sand shear disregarded).
The test results confirmed a /-ratio of 0.5 (lower boundary) to 0.7 (mean value) for diaphragm
wall friction in sand. In Eem clay it was suggested to calculate the maximum shear in connection
with the test results as:
max = N * tanshear test (note: c=0), with
mean = 35
st.dev. = 4.9
/ 1.
Since the possible decrease of horizontal stress due to installation effects could not be deduced from
the tests, it was recommended to apply the aforementioned Ks/K0-ratio of circa 0.7 undiminished.
Design verification
A re-run of the Monte Carlo analysis, implementing the direct shear test parameters, proved a
minimal difference with earlier calculations. Hence, the design parameters could be confirmed.
Note: the results depicted in figure 6 are based on the latter analysis.

CONCLUSION
Side wall friction can contribute significantly to the vertical stability of a diaphragm walled deep
excavation. In the case study presented, the safety against failure by uplift was demonstrated
through probabilistic analysis of all relevant parameters.
The approach to calculate the horizontal stress distribution after excavation by implementation of
the K0 - OCR relationship leads to a safer design than the application of the Hardening-Soil model.
In contrast to some literature, a bentonite cake on the diaphragm wall could be observed in sand
layers, but was virtually absent in low permeability clay layers.
Furthermore, the results lead to practical recommendations regarding groundwater management,
monitoring and lower acceptable levels for pressurised air during the deepest excavation stage than
earlier anticipated. Based on the analysis, the client was able to significantly reduce the application
of compressed air, without bearing higher risk.

10

REFERENCES
Kulhawy, F.H. (1991), Drilled shaft foundations, in Fang, H.Y. (Ed.), Foundation Engineering Handbook, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, pp.537-552
Mayne, P.W. and Kulhawy, F.H. (1982), K0-OCR Relationships in soil, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.108, No.GT6, pp.851-872
Schmidt, B. (1966), Earth pressures at rest related to stress history, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, National
Research Council, Ottawa, Vol.3, No.4, pp.239-242
Wit, J.C.W.M. de and Lengkeek, H.J. (2002), Full scale test on environmental impact of diaphragm wall trench
installation in Amsterdam, Proceedings of International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
Construction in Soft Ground, Toulouse
Wit, J.C.W.M. de, Roelands, J.C.S. and Schiphouwer, R.A. (1999), Geotechnical design aspects of the deep
underground stations in the North/South Line in Amsterdam, in Barends, F.B.J. et al. (Ed.), Geotechnical engineering
for transportation infrastructure, Taylor&Francis, pp.211-220
http://www.northsouthline.com/ (2009)

11