Professional Documents
Culture Documents
234]
The design of deep excavations requires careful consideration of the influence of various soil/structure
interaction mechanisms and detailed issues relating to the construction processes and the mechanics of
the soil. Finite-element analysis provides a useful design tool for deep excavations, but care needs to
be taken to ensure that an appropriate level of detail is included in the model. This paper describes a
three-dimensional finite-element analysis of a deep excavation supported by a diaphragm wall, recently
constructed in Shanghai. The principal purpose of the study is to investigate the level of detail that is
required in the finite-element model to obtain results that provide a realistic representation of the wall
and ground movements measured during the construction process. Studies are conducted on (a) the
influence of the soil constitutive model on the quality of the results; (b) procedures to model the effect of
post-cure shrinkage in the concrete floor slabs; (c) procedures to model the construction joints in the
diaphragm wall; (d ) the relative merits of using shell and solid elements to model the diaphragm wall;
and (e) the sensitivity of the analysis to the assumed initial horizontal stresses in the soil.
KEYWORDS: case history; excavation; finite-element modelling; retaining walls; soil/structure interaction
Drainage pipeline
Telephone cable
Lainhe
(B4) Gas pipeline
Zhongnan building
(B7) (B6) (B5) Water supply pipeline
building
Electric power pipeline
HSBC Bank
(62 m wide)
Middle Jiangxi Road
Communication Bank
(CB)
0 5 10 15 20 m
N
14050 m
9450 m
Crab 4950 m
Soil cement
Spiral injection piles columns
0200 m 0100 m
1
Temporary Steel lattice Steel pipe
2 1350 m strut ( 0609 m) 1350 m
column 3900 m
3 6650 m Temporary
7100 m strut
Temporary
strut
10700 m 10400 m
4
Bottom slab
Root piles 12400 m
( 03 m)
14400 m Concrete cushion
(02 m thick)
Soil cement
5 11
columns
Soil cement columns
Reinforced concrete
strut
Reinforced concrete
strut
Steel strut
Fig. 3. Plan view of the ground floor slab and supporting beams (Xu, 2007)
10
Mucky clay
Silty clay,
with clay
Depth below ground level, z: m
20
30
Silty clay,
with clayey
silt
40
wn
wl
50 wp
Sandy silt
Fig. 4. Geotechnical profile and soil properties from the site investigation (Xu, 2007)
20
Liu et al. (2005) where the depth z is in units of metres and G0 is in units of
Equation (1)
MPa. Equations (1) and (2) imply a rigidity index of Ir 1000
30
(where Ir G0/su) that is invariant with depth.
It should be noted that there is a potential difficulty in the
use of the relatively simple model for strength and stiffness
40
given in equations (1) and (2). As indicated in Fig. 1, the
Xingye Bank site is surrounded by a range of existing build-
50
ings; the self-weight of these buildings is likely to have
caused additional consolidation in the soil. This is par-
60 su = (20 + 2z) kPa ticularly the case at this site where the soil is normally con-
solidated or lightly overconsolidated. It would be possible,
70
in principle, to include the effects of these consolidation
processes (which would tend to increase the strength and
Fig. 5. Undrained shear strength profiles determined from four
separate sites in Shanghai
stiffness of the soil beneath the neighbouring buildings) in the
model. However, this has not been attempted in the current
analysis.
On the basis that the soil is normally consolidated, or Only limited data are available in the literature on the
lightly overconsolidated, it is assumed that the undrained small strain stiffness properties of Shanghai Clay. Lu et al.
shear strength increases linearly with depth. The following (2005) report the results of resonant column tests and cyclic
variation of shear strength with depth is assumed in the triaxial tests on three different types of remoulded soil (sandy
finite-element analyses described in this paper (where z is silt, silty clay and medium sand). Huang et al. (2001) give
depth in units of metres and su is undrained shear strength in various data determined from triaxial and resonant column
units of kPa) tests. Wang (2004) presents data from bender element tests.
These data, all in terms of secant shear modulus, Gs, nor-
su 20 z 1 malised by G0, are reproduced in Fig. 7. The data present a
Most of the finite-element analyses described later in this consistent pattern, with the exception of the data from Wang
paper are based on the use of a multi-surface kinematic (2004), which falls below the general trend.
hardening plasticity model (Houlsby, 1999) to represent the The data in Fig. 7 may be represented, reasonably well, by
soil. (Two subsidiary analyses, based on the use of an elastic the equation
perfectly plastic model, have also been conducted for com- Gs 1
parison purposes.) To calibrate the kinematic hardening 3
G0 1 =05
plasticity model, data are required on the small strain stiff-
ness behaviour, that is, the small strain shear modulus, G0, where is the shear strain and 05 is a reference strain at
and the variation of tangent shear modulus with shear strain. which Gs/G0 05. Similar expressions have been used by
Appropriate values of G0 can be determined from shear- previous researchers (e.g. Hardin & Drnevich, 1972; Stokoe
wave velocity tests. Relevant data are given in Cai et al. (2000) et al., 1999; Darendeli, 2001; Santos & Correia, 2001). It is
(from the Quyang district of Shanghai), Chen et al. (2011) straightforward to show that, for the particular correlation in
(from the site of Shanghai Hongqiao station) and Lou et al. equation (3), the reference shear strain is related to rigidity
(2007) (from two further sites in Shanghai). Additional data index by
on characteristic values of shear wave velocity for depths of
up to 100 m in Shanghai are reported by Gao & Sun (2005). 1
05 4
Data from these sources are plotted in Fig. 6. Ir
G0: MPa 10
0 50 100 150 200 250 350 250 400 Silty clay, Lu et al. (2005)
0 09 Sandy silt, Lu et al. (2005)
Medium sand, Lu et al. (2005)
10 08 Huang et al. (2001)
Cai et al. (2000) Wang (2004)
Chen et al. (2011) 07 Equation (3)
Depth below ground level, z: m
20
Gao & Sun (2005)
Lou et al. (2007) 06
30 Lou et al. (2007)
Gs /G0
Equation (3) 05
40
50 04
60 03
70 02
01
80 05
G0 = (20 + 2z) MPa = 1000su
0
90
106 105 104 103 102 101
100 Shear strain,
Fig. 6. Profile of G0 determined from shear-wave velocity tests in Fig. 7. Variation of normalised secant shear modulus Gs/G0 with
Shanghai shear strain
10 0 m
required on the tangent shear modulus, Gt. It is straightfor-
ward to show that equation (3) implies a variation of tangent
shear modulus with shear strain of the form
Gt 1
5
G0 1 Ir 2
Roller
boundary
The expression in equation (5) is used to determine the
z Roller
constitutive parameters for use in the multi-surface kinematic y x boundary Fixed
hardening plasticity model, as described in a later section. boundary
83
7 5m m
Wall 1 87
W
al
L06
l2
0
8m
Wall 9
deep excavation
312
10 m thick
Wall 3
Line 2
P8
Wall 8
Wall 7
4m
Wall 5
Wall 6
y z x
L01
Wall 4
Fig. 8. Key field instrumentation locations Fig. 10. Diaphragm wall geometry and mesh
c2c1
g2
c1
f 6J2 8C 0
2
6 06
g3
where is the stress tensor, J2 is the second invariant of the Gt/G0 05
c3c2
deviatoric stresses and C is a parameter that defines the size 04 Area = 10
g4
of the surface and is interpreted as the undrained shear in linear plot
03
strength. In addition, the model includes a set of n inner,
c4c3
g5
kinematic hardening, yield surfaces with the same shape as 02
c5c4
the outer von Mises surface. 01
The model is specified by the small strain shear modulus, G0,
the bulk modulus K and a set of non-dimensional parameters ci 0
103 102 101 100 101 102
and gi (i 1, n) that are used to specify the size and work Ir
hardening characteristics of each of the inner surfaces. The size
of each inner surface is ciC and the tangent shear modulus Fig. 12. Plot of Gt/G0 against Ir for equation (5) and also for the
when the ith surface is active is giG0. A total of nine inner yield kinematic hardening model based on parameters in Table 2
Superstructures 20
Kinematic hardening model
18
Equation (3)
Floor slabs 16
Normalised deviator stress, q
and beams
14
12
10
08
06
04
02
0
0 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Normalised triaxial shear strain, s
i 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Influence of anisotropic
Influence of wall models wall properties Influence of soil models
Central analysis
Soil: multiple-yield surface model
G0 and su increase with depth
= 185 kN/m3, K 0t = 088
Wall: solid element, anisotropic properties,
best = 01
Slab, beam: linear elastic, shrinkage,
= 1 105/K, Tbest = 35 K
K 0t = 077, 10 T = 30 K, 40 K
0 0
2 P9 2 P8
4 Field data 4 Field data
6 Central analysis 6 Central analysis
8 Tresca 1 8 Tresca 1
10 Tresca 2 10 Tresca 2
Wall depth: m
Wall depth: m
12 12
14 14
16 16
18 18
20 20
22 22
24 24
26 26
28 28
30 30
32 32
40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Wall deflection: mm Wall deflection: mm
(a) (b)
60 100
Line 1 90 Line 2
50
Field data 80 Field data
Vertical ground movement: mm
10 30
20
0
10
10 0
10
20
20
30 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Horizontal distance from wall: m Horizontal distance: m
(c) (d)
Fig. 15. Wall deflections and ground settlements (effects of soil models): wall deflection at (a) P9 and (b) P8; vertical ground movement along
(c) line 1 and (d) line 2
0 0
2 2
4 4 P8
6 6 Field data
8 8 Central analysis
10 10 T1
Wall depth: m
Wall depth: m
12 12 T2
14 14
16 16
18 18
20 P9 20
22 22
Field data
24 24
Central analysis
26 26
T1
28 28
T2
30 30
32 32
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Wall deflection: mm Wall deflection: mm
(a) (b)
5 0
Line 2
0
Field data
Vertical ground movement: mm
5
Central analysis
5 T1
T2
10
10
15
15
Line 1
20 Field data
Central analysis 20
25 T1
T2
30 25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Horizontal distance from wall: m Horizontal distance: m
(c) (d)
Fig. 16. Wall deflections and ground movements (thermal effects): wall deflection at (a) P9 and (b) P8; vertical ground movement along (c) line 1
and (d) line 2
0 0
2 2
4 4 P8
6 6
Field data
8 8
Central analysis
10 10
A1
Wall depth: m
Wall depth: m
12 12
A2
14 14
16 16
18 18
20 P9 20
22 22
Field data
24 24
Central analysis
26 26
A1
28 28
A2
30 30
32 32
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Wall deflection: mm Wall deflection: mm
(a) (b)
5 0
Line 2
0
Field data
Vertical ground movement: mm
5
Central analysis
5 A1
A2
10
10
15
15
Line 1
20 Field data
Central analysis 20
25 A1
A2
30 25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Horizontal distance from wall: m Horizontal distance: m
(c) (d)
Fig. 17. Wall deflections and ground movements (effects of joints): wall deflection at (a) P9 and (b) P8; vertical ground movement along (c) line 1
and (d) line 2
0 0
2 2
4 4
6 6
8 8
10 10
Wall depth: m
Wall depth: m
12 12
14 14
16 16
18 18
20 20 P8
P9
22 22
Field data Field data
24 24
26 Central analysis 26 Central analysis
28 S1 28 S1
30 30
32 32
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Wall deflection: mm Wall deflection: mm
(a) (b)
5 0
Line 2
0
Field data
Vertical ground movement: mm
5
Central analysis
5
S1
10
10
15 Line 1 15
Field data
20 Central analysis
S1 20
25
30 25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Horizontal distance from wall: m Horizontal distance: m
(c) (d)
Fig. 18. Wall deflections and ground movements (effects of shell elements): wall deflection at (a) P9 and (b) P8; vertical ground movement along
(c) line 1 and (d) line 2
P9
0 0
Field data P8
2 2
Central
4 4 Field data
H1
6 6 Central
H2
8 8 H1
10 10 H2
Wall depth: m
Wall depth: m
12 12
14 14
16 16
18 18
20 20
22 22
24 24
26 26
28 28
30 30
32 32
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Wall deflection: mm Wall deflection: mm
(a) (b)
5 0
Line 2
0
Field data
Vertical ground movement: mm
5
Central analysis
5 H1
H2
10
10
15
Line 1 15
Field data
20
Central analysis
H1 20
25 H2
30 25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Horizontal distance from wall: m Horizontal distance: m
(c) (d)
Fig. 19. Wall deflections and ground movements (Kt0 effects): wall deflection at (a) P9 and (b) P8; vertical ground movement along (c) line 1 and
(d) line 2