1134

A simplified plane strain analysis of lateral wall

deflection for excavations with cross walls
Pio-Go Hsieh, Chang-Yu Ou, and Chiang Shih

Abstract: Previous studies have shown that installation of cross walls in deep excavations can reduce lateral wall deflection
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/09/12

to a very small amount. To predict the lateral wall deflection for excavations with cross walls, it is necessary to perform a
three-dimensional numerical analysis because the deflection behavior of the diaphragm wall with cross walls is by nature
three dimensional. However for the analysis and design of excavations, two-dimensional plane strain analysis is mostly used
in practice . For this reason, based on the deflection behavior of continuous beams and the superimposition principle, an
equivalent beam model suitable for two-dimensional plane strain analysis was derived to predict lateral wall deflection for
excavations with cross walls. Three excavation cases were employed to verify the proposed model. Case studies confirm the
proposed equivalent beam model for excavations with cross walls installed from near the ground surface down to at least
more than half the embedded depth of the diaphragm wall. For the case with a limited cross-wall depth, the proposed model
yields a conservative predicted lateral wall deflection.
Key words: deep excavation, lateral wall deflection, cross wall, equivalent beam model, plane strain analysis.
Rsum : Des tudes antrieures avaient dmontr que linstallation de murs de refends dans les excavations profondes peut
rduire la dflection latrale du mur jusqu des valeurs trs petites. Afin de prdire la dflection latrale dun mur pour des
excavations comportant des murs de refends, il est ncessaire de raliser trois analyses numriques dimensionnelles puisque
le comportement en dflection dun mur diaphragme avec des murs de refends est de nature tridimensionnelle. Cependant,
For personal use only.

lanalyse et la conception dexcavations est ralise en pratique plutt avec des analyses de dformation en plan en deux di-
mensions. Pour cette raison, un modle de poutre quivalente appropri pour lanalyse de dformation en plan en deux di-
mensions a t driv pour prdire la dflection latrale des murs dans les excavations ayant des murs de refends, ceci bas
sur le comportement en dflection de poutres continues et du principe de superposition. Trois cas dexcavations ont t utili-
ss pour vrifier le modle propos. Les tudes de cas confirment que le modle est appropri pour les excavations avec des
murs de refends installs prs de la surface du sol jusqu au moins plus de la moiti de la profondeur du mur diaphragme.
Dans le cas o la profondeur du mur de refend est limite, le modle propos prdit la dflection latrale du mur de faon
conservative.
Motscls : excavation profonde, dflection latrale des murs, mur de refend, modle de poutre quivalente, analyse de d-
formation en plan.
[Traduit par la Rdaction]

Introduction tion. The cross walls above the excavation surface are demol-
ished during the process of excavation. Cross walls function
Deep excavation may induce excess lateral wall deflections as lateral struts against lateral wall deflection but exist before
and ground settlements, which can damage adjacent build- excavation. If the cross wall is constructed using the dia-
ings. To avoid such damage, it is necessary to adopt remedial phragm wall construction technique, it would be of high
measures to limit the lateral wall deflection or ground settle- compressive strength and large axial stiffness. Under such
ment. circumstances, the diaphragm wall would be highly restrained
Ground improvement and strengthening of the retaining- from lateral movement and the ground movement would then
strut system are the common remedial measures to reduce ex- be reduced significantly. Ou et al. (2006, 2011) studied the
cavation-induced ground movements (e.g., Wong, et al. 1987; effectiveness of cross walls in restraining lateral wall deflec-
Gaba 1990; Liu et al. 2005; Parashar et al. 2007). Recently, tion and ground settlements and found that the cross wall has
cross walls have been widely used in some countries as an a corner effect similar to the diaphragm wall. In their studies,
alternative remedial measure. As shown in Fig. 1, cross walls they determined that the maximum wall deflection and
are constructed perpendicularly to the diaphragm wall, to ground settlement could be reduced by about 75% and 82%,
which both ends of cross walls are connected before excava- respectively.
Received 15 November 2011. Accepted 18 July 2012. Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 17 September 2012.
P.-G. Hsieh. Department of Assets and Property Management, Hwa Hsia Institute of Technology, New Taipei City, Taiwan 23568, R.O.C.
C.-Y. Ou. Department of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan 10672, R.O.C.
C. Shih. Trinity Foundation Engineering Consultants Co. Ltd., Taipei, Taiwan 10685, R.O.C.
Corresponding author: Chang-Yu Ou (ou@mail.ntust.edu.tw).

Can. Geotech. J. 49: 11341146 (2012) doi:10.1139/T2012-071 Published by NRC Research Press
 Hsieh et al.
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the cross wall: (a) plan view (b) sec-
tion AA.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/09/12
In fact, the deformation behavior of the diaphragm wall
and ground settlement are by nature three dimensional if the
cross wall is installed. Due to the elastic compression of the
cross wall, the diaphragm wall at the location of cross wall
still has a small amount of wall deflection, which will in-
crease with the distance to the cross wall, up to the midpoint
of two cross walls. In general the deflection at various sec-
tions between two cross walls is much smaller than such
cases without cross walls (Fig. 2). Moreover, Lin et al.
(2012) found from analyses of four excavations that the
amount of lateral deflection for excavations with cross walls
highly depends on the cross wall interval, depth of cross wall
For personal use only.
below the excavation surface, and height of cross wall above
the excavation surface. To accurately predict the lateral wall
deflection, it is necessary to perform three-dimensional (3D)
numerical analysis.
However, 3D analyses are costly and in practice two-
dimensional (2D) analyses are often used instead. With 2D
analyses, the cross wall interval, depth, size, and stiffness
should be appropriately simulated. Although the authors
have performed plane strain analysis for one case history,
the analysis was only for the section at the cross wall, in
which the diaphragm wall deflection was the smallest. As
shown in a previous study (Lin et al. 2012), the diaphragm
wall deflection at the midpoint between two cross walls was
the largest, which should be analyzed when wall deflection
iss a concern. For this reason, the objective of this study is
to derive an analytical model suitable for 2D plane strain
analysis for any section of diaphragm walls with cross walls
using Winkler springs (Terzaghi 1955). The proposed
method will be verified using three case histories.
Derivation of the analytical model
As shown in Fig. 2, the deflection of the diaphragm wall
varies from section to section due to the installation of cross
walls. Deflection of the diaphragm wall is smallest at the lo-
cation of the cross wall and its value increases with increas-
ing distance to the cross wall, up to the midpoint of two
cross walls. For plane strain analysis of the deflection of the
diaphragm wall at any section, an equivalent beam method is
adopted and the following assumptions are made (refer to
Fig. 2):
1. The diaphragm wall is of infinite length.
2. The cross walls are installed with equal intervals.
3. The cross walls are constructed from the near ground sur-
face down to the bottom of the diaphragm wall.
1135
Fig. 2. Plan view of lateral deflection of a diaphragm wall with and
without cross walls.
As shown in Fig. 3a, dh,0 is the lateral deflection of the di-
aphragm wall at a depth at the cross wall, i.e., section AA;
dh,mid is the lateral deflection of the diaphragm wall at this
depth at the midpoint of two cross walls, section BB; and
dh,d is the lateral deflection of the diaphragm wall at this
depth at a distance d to the cross wall. Based on the above
assumptions, the deflection of the diaphragm wall at a spe-
cific depth, subject to uniform pressure, can be decomposed
into an elastic continuous beam supported by cross walls
where the deflections of the beam are all equal to dh,0 and a
fixed-end beam, as shown in Figs. 3b and 3c, respectively.
The deflection of the fixed-end beam at any distance d can
be expressed by (Fig. 3c)
 
wn L 02 d2 2d d2
1 Ddd 1  0 02
24EI L L
where wn is the earth pressure at a depth, L is the cross wall
interval, d is the distance to the cross wall, E is the Youngs
modulus of the beam, and I is the moment of inertia.
Substituting d = L/2 into eq. [1], we obtain
wn L 04
2 Ddmid
384EI
where Ddmid is the deflection of the fixed-end beam at the
midpoint.
Therefore, the deflection of a diaphragm wall at a distance
d from the cross wall, dh,d, and at the midpoint between cross
walls, dh,mid , can be expressed, respectively, as (Fig. 3a)
3 dh;d dh;0 Ddd
4 dh;mid dh;0 Ddmid
Because the deflections of the continuous beam are all
equal to dh,0 (Fig. 3b), for plane strain analysis, the continu-
ous beam supported by cross walls is simulated as supported
by springs. The spring stiffness per unit depth per unit length
of the diaphragm wall, Kcw, equivalent to the effect of cross
walls across intervals of L, is thus equal to (Fig. 4b)
tcw Ecw
5 Kcw
L0 Lcw
where tcw is the thickness of the cross wall, Ecw is the
Youngs modulus of the cross wall, and Lcw is the length of
the cross wall.
Published by NRC Research Press
 1136 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012

Fig. 3. Decomposition of the diaphragm cross wall system for a Fig. 4. Simulation of the deflection behavior for the diaphragm
section into a continuous beam supported by cross walls and a cross wall system for a section: (a) diaphragm wall with cross walls;
fixed-end beam: (a) diaphragm wall with cross walls; (b) continuous (b) continuous beam supported by cross walls; (c) fixed-end beam.
beam supported by cross walls; (c) fixed-end beam.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/09/12
For personal use only.

Substituting Ddd in eq. [1] into eq. [6], we can obtain Kfeb,
d as
24EI
For plane strain analysis of the fixed-end beam, as shown 7 Kfeb;d
L 0 2 d 2  2L 0 d3 d 4
in Fig. 3c, the wall deflection at a distance d can be simu-
lated as a beam supported by springs whose deflection be- Substituting d = L/2 into eq. [7], we can obtain the equiv-
havior is exactly the same as that section of the fixed-end alent stiffness, Kfeb,mid, at the midpoint as
beam (Fig. 4c). Assuming that the deflection of the fixed- 384EI
end beam subjected to a uniform pressure, wn, at a distance 8 Kfeb;mid
d is equal to Ddd, the equivalent stiffness, Kfeb,d, of springs L0 4
supporting the continuous beam whose deflection behavior According to eq. [2], the deflection of a diaphragm wall at
is exactly the same as that section would be a distance of d to the cross wall (dh,d) is the sum of deflec-
wn tions obtained from Figs. 4b and 4c. By substituting Ddd =
6 Kfeb;d
Ddd wn/Kfeb,d and dh,0 = wn/Kcw into eq. [2], we can obtain the fol-
lowing expression
where Kfeb,d is the equivalent spring stiffness per unit depth
wn wn wn
per unit length of the diaphragm wall for a fixed-end beam 9
for the section at a distance d. Keq;d Kcw Kfeb;d

Published by NRC Research Press

 Hsieh et al.
where Keq,d is the equivalent stiffness of springs for the sec-
tion of the diaphragm wall with cross walls at a distance d
per unit depth per unit length of the diaphragm wall.
Equation [9] can be further simplified as
Kcw Kfeb;d
10 Keq;d
Kcw Kfeb;d
Therefore, the deflection behavior of the diaphragm with
cross walls at a distance d, as shown in Fig. 3a, can be con-
sidered as a beam supported by springs with the stiffness
equal to eq. [9] or [10]; that is, the springs with stiffness
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/09/12
Kcw are connected in series with the springs with stiffness
Kfeb,d, as shown in Fig. 4a.
With numerical plane strain analysis, cross walls should be
divided into many horizontal strips connected to finite ele-
ment nodes on the diaphragm wall. The equivalent stiffness
per unit depth per unit length, Kcw and Kfeb,d, for each hori-
zontal cross wall strip can be evaluated through eqs. [5] and
[7], respectively. The equivalent stiffness Keq,d for the section
at a distance d can then be computed through eq. [10]. The
total stiffness for each strip of cross wall is obtained by the
multiplication of Keq,d and the depth of each strip, and then
lumped together as springs.
In actual 3D behavior, the different lateral wall deflection
along its length will cause shear stresses in the soil while the
For personal use only.
plane strain simplification of this behavior does not. The in-
fluence of this simplification on the wall deflection will be
discussed in the following case studies.
Numerical verification
Three case histories were used to verify the proposed
equivalent beam model. Each of the cases represents different
settings of cross walls, such as cross wall interval and cross
wall depth.
Case study No. 1
Overview
Figure 5 shows the plan of the excavation case, in which
three cross walls and 10 buttress walls were constructed. The
excavation depth was 32.5 m, which was completed in nine
stages using the top-down construction method (Ou et al.
2006). The thickness of the diaphragm wall was 1.5 m and
the depth of the wall was 57.5 m. The diaphragm wall was
designed with 27.5 MPa of the compressive strength (fc0 ). As
shown in Fig. 6, the thickness of concrete slabs 1FL and
B1FL were 250 and 200 mm, respectively, while the concrete
slabs B2FL to B6FL were 610 mm. After excavating down to
GL29.4 m (GL refers to the ground surface level), three
H400 400 mm 13 mm 21 mm steel struts, with a
spacing of 6.4 m and slope of 4.6:6, were installed as tempo-
rary supports. The construction sequence and location of the
lateral supports are shown in detail in Fig. 6.
The cross walls in this case were 1.0 m thick and 45 m
deep with a 26 m interval (L) in the northsouth direction
and the 10 buttress walls were 1.0 m thick and 55 m deep
with their length varying from 6 to 15 m. The cross walls
and buttress walls between GL+0 to GL1.5 m were back-
filled with the in situ soil, between GL1.5 to GL22 m
were cast with 13.7 MPa concrete, and below GL22 m
1137
Fig. 5. Excavation geometry and allocation of cross walls for case 1.
were cast with 24.0 MPa concrete. Both the cross walls and
buttress walls were demolished with excavation process.
Figure 6 also shows the subsurface soil profile, as well as
the basic soil properties and strength characteristics. The
groundwater was 3 m below the ground surface.
Mesh and parameters
Figure 7 shows the 2D plane strain finite element mesh
used for analysis of the center section of the excavation in
the northsouth direction. The vertical boundaries were re-
strained from horizontal movement. The bottom was set at
the bedrock and considered to be restrained from both verti-
cal and horizontal movements. The left vertical boundary was
set at the center of the excavation zone, and the right boun-
dary was 130 m, about four times the final excavation depth,
away from the wall.
In the analysis, the clay layers were simulated using the
undrained soft clay (USC) model, as developed by Hsieh
and Ou (2011, 2012) and employed by some investigators
(Kung et al. 2007; Hsiao et al. 2008; Ou and Hsieh 2011),
and the sand layers were simulated using the hyperbolic
model (Duncan and Chang 1970). Table 1 lists the clay pa-
rameters for the USC model and sand parameters for the hy-
perbolic model. In the table, the strength parameters (su) of
clay were obtained directly from laboratory tests, and the de-
formation parameters (Ei, m, n) were obtained from the
bender element test and the triaxial unloadingreloading test
on the soil at different depths near the construction site. The
strength parameter (c, f 0 ) of sandgravel was obtained di-
rectly from laboratory tests and the deformation modulus (K,
n) from an empirical correlation (Ou and Lai 1994).
The coefficients of earth pressure at rest (K0) for sand and
normally consolidated clay are estimated using Jakys (1944)
equation. When the clay is in the unloading or pre-consolida-
tion state, K0 is estimated using the equation proposed by Al-
pan (1967).
The diaphragm wall and lateral supports were assumed to
behave as a linearelastic material. The struts and concrete
floor slabs were simulated as bar elements. The Youngs
moduli of the concrete structures, including diaphragm walls,
floor slabs, and cross walls, were estimated from fc0 according
to ACI 318-95 (ACI Committee 318) and reduced by 20% as
suggested by Hsieh and Ou (2012) and Lim et al. (2010). Ta-
ble 2 lists the parameters of the diaphragm wall, concrete
floor slabs, and struts.
Published by NRC Research Press
 1138 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012

Fig. 6. Profile of the excavation sequence and subsurface soil layers for case 1. CL, silty clay; SM/GW, silty sand / well-graded gravel (clas-
sification according to ASTM 2006)..
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/09/12
For personal use only.

Fig. 7. Finite element mesh used for analysis of case 1.

Table 1. Input parameters of soils for case 1.

Depth (m) Soil type K0 su/s v0 Rf Ei/su md nd n c (kPa) f () K = Kur n

0 to 3 Fill 0.93 0.32 0.9 2100 0.225 1.299 0.495
3 to 32.6 CL 0.50 0.34 0.9 2100 0.225 1.299 0.495
32.6 to 51 CL 0.55 0.38 0.9 2100 0.225 1.299 0.495
51 to 67 SM/GW 0.41 0.9 0.3 0.0 36 5600 0.5
Note: CL, silty clay; SM/GW, silty sand / well-graded gravel (ASTM 2006).

For plane strain analysis of the diaphragm cross wall and 21.44 (MN/m)/m/m, respectively, in which tcw = 1.0 m,
system, Kcw values for the depths between GL1.5 to GL L = 26 m, Lcw = B/2 = 33.05 m, and Ecw = 13 917 MPa
22 m and GL22 to GL45 m were computed to be 16.20 (GL1.5 to GL22 m) and 18 420 MPa (GL22 to GL

Published by NRC Research Press

 Hsieh et al. 1139

Table 2. Input parameters of structural members for case 1.

Diaphragm Kst of temporary steel struts or floor slabs ((MN/m)/m)

E (MPa) n Level 1 Level 2 Levels 37 Level 8
19 718 0.2 149.2 119.4 364.1 107.7

Table 3. Values of Kfeb,d and Keq,d for case 1.

Keq,d ((MN/m)/m/m)
d (m) Kfeb,d ((MN/m)/m/m) Kcw = 16.20 Kcw = 21.44
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/09/12

0 1 16.20 21.44
1 212.95 15.05 19.48
3 27.96 10.25 12.13
5 12.07 6.92 7.72
8 6.42 4.60 4.94
13 4.66 3.62 3.83

45 m). The equivalent stiffness of the fixed-end beam, Kfeb,d, Fig. 8. Comparison of wall deflections at SI-8 from field observa-
for the section at a distance d from the cross wall could be tion and those from analysis of case 1.
computed through eq. [7]. The equivalent stiffness of the dia-
phragm cross wall system, Keq,d, for the sections at various
distances d could then be computed using eq. [10]. Table 3
lists Keq,d and its corresponding Kfeb,d value for the sections
at various distances, where d = 0 denotes the section at the
For personal use only.

cross wall, i.e., at SI-8, and d = 13 m denotes the section at

the midpoint of two cross walls, i.e., at SI-7 or SO-1.

Analysis and results

The authors (Hsieh et al. 2010; Lin et al. 2012) performed
3D numerical analyses of this case and the same excavation
that was assumed with cross walls only, i.e., no buttress
walls, and found little difference in wall deflection between
the case with cross walls and buttress walls and the case
with cross walls only. This is because the lateral resistance
against the diaphragm wall lateral movement from the but-
tress wall was mainly from the side friction of the buttress
wall. Because the wall deflection at the midpoint between
the cross walls had been reduced to a very small amount, the
relative movement between the buttress wall and surrounding
soil was very small, which in turn caused the frictional resist-
ance from the buttress wall to be very small. Therefore, the
effect of buttress walls at SI-7 and SO-1 will be neglected in
the following study.
Figure 8 shows the comparison of observed wall deflec-
tions at SI-8 at stages 3, 5, 7, 9, and those predicted with
the proposed equivalent beam model, along with the 3D anal-
ysis results from Lin et al. (2012). In addition, analyses with
the assumption of no cross walls were performed and the re-
sults are also shown in the figure; these results are quite con-
sistent with the excavations in Taipei as studied in Ou et al.
(1993). As shown in Fig. 8, the wall deflections predicted Figure 9 shows the comparison of observed wall deflec-
from the proposed equivalent beam model at various stages tions at SO-1 at stages 3, 5, 7, 9, and those predicted with
were very close to those from the field observation and 3D the proposed equivalent beam model, along with the 3D anal-
analysis results. This may be attributed to the fact that little ysis results from Lin et al. (2012). The wall deflections pre-
difference in lateral wall deflection between the cross wall dicted from the proposed equivalent beam model at various
section and its nearby section exists. Compared with those stages were very close to those from the field observation
predicted from the case with the assumption of no cross and slightly larger than 3D analysis results. The slight differ-
walls, installation of cross walls can reduce lateral wall de- ence in lateral wall deflection near the center sections in the
flection at SI-8 by 75%. actual 3D condition may cause such a slight deviation. Com-

Published by NRC Research Press

 1140
Fig. 9. Comparison of wall deflections at SO-1 from field observa-
tion and those from analysis of case 1.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/09/12
For personal use only.
pared with those predicted from the case with the assumption
of no cross walls, installation of cross walls can reduce the
lateral wall deflection at SO-1 by 50%.
Figure 10 shows the variation of the predicted maximum
wall deflections (dhm) at various distances to the cross wall
(d) using the proposed equivalent beam model and 3D analy-
sis results from Lin et al. (2012). For comparison, the ob-
served maximum wall deflections at different locations, even
in the adjacent bay, are also shown in the same figure. As
shown in the figure, the predicted maximum wall deflections
at different distances to the cross wall were close to the field
observations though they were slightly larger than 3D analy-
sis results. The restraining effect of the cross wall in reducing
the wall deflection was the largest at the location where the
cross wall was installed. Such a restraining effect decreased
with increasing distance to the cross wall. This comparison
further confirms the proposed equivalent beam model.
Case study No. 2
Overview
Figure 11 shows the plan of the excavation case, in which
the excavation depth was 23.6 m, which was completed in
six stages using the top-down construction method as shown
in Fig. 12. Floor slabs 1FL and B1FL used the beam-plate
system and its slab thickness was 15 cm. Floor slabs B2FL
to B4FL used the flat-slab system and its slab thickness was
35 cm. A 1.2 m thick and 43.0 m deep diaphragm wall was
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012
Fig. 10. Comparison of the computed maximum lateral wall deflec-
tions at various sections and those from field observation for case 1.
Fig. 11. Excavation geometry and allocation of cross walls for case 2.
used as an earth-retaining structure. The fc0 value of the dia-
phragm wall was 27.5 MPa.
As shown in Fig. 11, four cross walls 0.8 m thick were
constructed along the excavation length. Twelve buttress
walls were constructed in front of the diaphragm wall be-
tween the cross walls and two buttress walls were constructed
in back of the diaphragm wall along the short side. The but-
tress walls were 0.8 m thick and 6.5 m long. The depth of
the cross walls and buttress walls was between GL2.0 to
GL35.0 m as shown in Fig. 12. The cross walls and buttress
walls were backfilled with in situ soil above GL2.0 m, and
the cross walls and buttress walls between GL2.0 to GL
23.6 m and GL23.6 to GL35 m were cast with concrete
with compressive strengths of 17.2 and 27.5 MPa, respec-
tively. Both cross walls and buttress walls inside the excava-
tion above the excavation surface were demolished during
excavation process.
Figure 12 shows that the subsoil was mainly alternating
silty sand (SM) and silty clay (CL) deposits. The gravel layer
was located at about GL50.0 m and its SPT-N value was
greater than 50. The groundwater table was located at GL
Published by NRC Research Press
 Hsieh et al. 1141

Fig. 12. Profile of the excavation sequence and subsurface soil layers for case 2.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/09/12
For personal use only.

Table 4. Input parameters of soils for case 2.

Depth (m) Soil type K0 su/s v0 Rf Ei/su md nd n c (kPa) f () K = Kur n

0 to 5.0 CL 0.93 0.32 0.9 2100 0.225 1.299 0.495
5.0 to 10.3 SM 0.50 0.9 0.3 0 30 1101 0.5
10.3 to 31.4 CL 0.52 0.34 0.9 2100 0.225 1.299 0.495
31.4 to 37.2 SM/ML 0.50 0.9 0.3 0 30 1580 0.5
37.2 to 45.0 CL 0.56 0.38 0.9 2100 0.225 1.299 0.495
45.0 to 50 SM 0.44 0.9 0.3 0 34 2681 0.5

2.5 m and was generally considered to be hydrostatic. How- Table 5. Input parameters of structural members for case 2.
ever, the piezometric water pressure in the sixth layer of soil,
Diaphragm Kst of floor slabs ((MN/m)/m)
silty sand or Chingmei gravel layer, was located at about
GL10 m. The test data for each soil layer are as shown in E (MPa) n Level 12 Levels 35
Fig. 12. 19 718 0.2 124.2 268.7

Mesh and parameters

The plane strain finite element mesh for the central section
of the excavation was similar to Fig. 7. The right boundary
was 105.0 m from the wall and the bottom was set at the
gravel layer, which was 50.0 m below the surface. The left
boundary was set at the center of the excavation zone and re-
strained from horizontal movement.
Similar to case 1, the clay layers were simulated using the
USC model and the sand layers using the hyperbolic model.
The diaphragm wall and lateral supports were assumed to be-
have as linearelastic materials. The parameters for the soils,
retaining walls, and concrete floor slabs were determined in
ways similar to those employed in case 1. Tables 4 and 5 list
the parameters of the soils and structural members, respec-
tively.
The equivalent stiffness, Keq,d, of the diaphragm cross
wall system for the sections at various distances was calcu-
lated following a method similar to case 1, in which the val-
ues of Kcw between GL2.0 to GL23.6 m and GL23.6 to

Published by NRC Research Press

 1142 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012

Table 6. Values of Kfeb,d and Keq,d for case 2.

Keq,d ((MN/m)/m/m)
d (m) Kfeb,d ((MN/m)/m/m) Kcw = 11.91 Kcw = 15.06
0 1 11.91 15.06
1 40.73 9.21 10.99
3 5.00 3.52 3.76
6.5 1.29 1.16 1.19
12 0.53 0.51 0.51
18.5 0.36 0.35 0.36
20.95 0.35 0.34 0.35
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/09/12

GL35 m were computed to be 11.91 and 15.06 (MN/m)/m/ Fig. 13. Comparison of wall deflections from field observation and
m, respectively, in which tcw = 0.8 m, L = 41.9 m, Lcw = B/ those from analysis for case 2: (a) SID4; (b) SID5.
2 = 25 m, and Ecw = 15 594 MPa (GL2.0 to GL23.6 m)
and 19 718 MPa (GL23.6 to GL35 m). Table 6 lists the
equivalent stiffnesses for the sections at various distances
and their corresponding Kfeb,d values. In the table, d =
18.5 m denotes the section at SID4 and d = 20.95 m denotes
the central section.

Analysis results
Similar to case 1, it was found from the parametric study
that the buttress wall contributed little in reducing the lateral
wall deflection, thus only the effectiveness of cross walls in
reducing lateral wall deflections was studied.
For personal use only.

Figure 13 shows the comparison of the observed wall de-

flections at SID4 and SID5 at the fourth and sixth excavation
stages and those predicted using the proposed equivalent
beam model, along with the 3D analysis results from Lin et
al. (2012). In addition, analysess with the assumption of no
cross walls were performed and the results are also shown in
the same figure, which are also consistent with the excava-
tions in Taipei as studied in Ou et al. (1993). As shown in
the figure, the predicted wall deflections using the proposed
model were slightly larger than field observations and 3D
analysis results. The slight difference in lateral wall deflec-
tion near the center sections in the actual 3D condition may
cause such a slight deviation. The figure also shows that the
predicted wall deflection at SID4 was moderately smaller
than that for the no cross wall case. It is justified that the
cross wall interval was too large, namely 41.9 m, causing
the corner or cross wall effect to have insignificant influence
on the deformation for the section near the center of the
span. Although SID5 was located in the span of the 45.9 m
cross wall interval, it was only 6.5 m away from the cross
wall. The corner or cross wall effect had a significant influ-
ence on the deformation behavior at that section. The analy-
sis result reveals that the predicted wall deflections for the
cross wall case were much smaller than those without the
cross wall. near the wall for a considerable time at this stage according
Figure 14 shows the variation of the predicted maximum to the construction record, which might have resulted in an
wall deflection (dhm) at various distances to the cross wall abnormal increment of dhm. The restraining effect of the cross
(d) using the proposed equivalent beam model and 3D analy- wall in reducing the wall deflection was the largest at the lo-
sis results for L = 41.9 m. For comparison, the observed cation where the cross wall was installed. Such a restraining
maximum wall deflections at different locations, even in the effect decreased with increasing distance to the cross wall, up
other bays, are also shown in the same figure. As shown in to the midpoint of two cross walls. The difference of dhm at
the figure, the predicted maximum wall deflections at differ- the central section between no cross walls and with cross
ent distances to the cross wall were close to the field obser- walls was minimal because of the large cross wall interval.
vations except for SID3 and SID9, in which some heavy This comparison further confirms the proposed equivalent
construction vehicles entered the construction site and stayed beam model.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Hsieh et al.
Fig. 14. Comparison of the computed maximum lateral wall deflec-
tions at various sections and those from field observation for case 2.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/09/12
Case study No. 3
For personal use only.
Overview
Figure 15 shows the plan of the excavation case, in which
the excavation depth was 13.5m, which was completed in
five stages using the bottom-up construction method. Figure
16 shows the construction sequence and depth of the cross
walls. The spacing between temporary steel strut was 4.6 m
in the northsouth direction and 8.0 m in the eastwest direc-
tion. A 0.7 m thick and 27 to 30 m deep diaphragm wall was
adopted as the earth retaining structure. The fc0 value of the
diaphragm wall was 27.5 MPa.
As shown in Fig. 15, two cross walls 0.7 m thick with
28.7 m spacing were constructed in the northsouth direc-
tion. Each cross wall was constructed from GL13.5 to GL
20.0 m, i.e., from the excavation surface down to 6.5 m be-
low it (Fig. 16). The fc0 value of the cross wall was 27.5 MPa.
The cross walls were backfilled with the in situ soil above
GL13.5 m. The construction method for the cross walls
was the same as that for the diaphragm wall.
Figure 16 shows the subsurface soil profile, which was
mainly alternating silty sand (SM) and silty clay (CL) depos-
its. The groundwater level was located at GL1.7 m and was
generally in the hydrostatic condition. The piezometric water
pressure in the fourth and sixth silty sand layers was at about
GL7 and GL10 m, respectively. The piezometric water
pressure in the eighth layer, silty sand or the Chingmei
gravel, was located at GL10 m. The test data of soil for
each layer are as shown in Fig. 16.
Mesh and parameters
The plane strain finite element mesh for the central section
of the excavation was similar to Fig. 7. The left vertical
boundary therefore was set at the center of the excavation
zone; the right boundary was 70 m from the wall; and the
bottom was set at the gravel layer, which was 52.5 m below
1143
Fig. 15. Excavation geometry and allocation of cross walls for case 3.
the surface. The restraint of the boundaries and mesh genera-
tion were similar to Fig. 7.
Similar to case 1, the clay layers were simulated using the
USC model and the sand layers using the hyperbolic model.
The diaphragm wall and lateral struts were assumed to be-
have as linearelastic materials. The parameters for the soils,
retaining wall and struts were determined in a way similar to
those employed in case 1. Tables 7 and 8 list the parameters
of the soils and structural members, respectively.
The equivalent stiffness, Keq,d, of the diaphragm cross
wall system for the sections at various distances was com-
puted following a method similar to case 1, in which the Kcw
value between GL13.5 to GL20.0 m was found to be
38.78 (MN/m)/m/m in which tcw = 0.7m, L = 28.7m, Lcw =
B/2 = 12.4 m, and Ecw = 19 718 MPa. Table 9 also lists the
equivalent stiffness for the sections at various distance and
their corresponding Kfeb,d values. In the table, d = 10 m de-
notes the section at SID1 and d = 14.35 m denotes the cen-
tral section.
Analysis results
Figure 17 shows the comparison of the observed wall de-
flections at SID1 at the second to the final excavation stages
and those predicted using the proposed equivalent beam
model, along with the 3D analysis results from Lin et al.
(2012). In addition, analyses with the assumption of no cross
walls were performed and the results are also shown in the
figure, which were also consistent with the excavations in
Taipei as studied in Ou et al. (1993). As shown in Fig. 17,
the predicted wall deflections at SID1 at the second and third
stages using the proposed equivalent beam model were very
close to those of 3D analysis results and the assumption of
no cross walls. Predicted wall deflections for the cases with
and without cross walls were also close to the field observa-
tions, implying that cross walls had little effect in restraining
the lateral wall deflection. This is because cross walls in this
case were set from the excavation surface down to 6.5 m
below the excavation surface. There were no cross walls
above the excavation surface, so the cross walls could not
provide a strong lateral resistance against the wall movement
at the earlier stages of excavation.
Published by NRC Research Press
 1144 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012

Fig. 16. Profile of the excavation sequence and subsurface soil layers for case 3.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/09/12
For personal use only.

Table 7. Input parameters of soils for case 3.

Depth (m) Soil type K0 su/s v0 Rf Ei/su md nd n c (kPa) f () K = Kur n

0 to 4.4 CL 0.93 0.32 0.9 2100 0.225 1.299 0.495
4.4 to 14.4 SM 0.48 0.9 0.3 0 31 1001 0.5
14.4 to 24.1 CL 0.48 0.34 0.9 2100 0.225 1.299 0.495
24.1 to 30.8 SM 0.47 0.9 0.3 0 32 2120 0.5
30.8 to 35.2 CL 0.48 0.34 0.9 2100 0.225 1.299 0.495
35.2 to 42.3 SM 0.47 0.9 0.3 0 32 2568 0.5
42.3 to 44.5 CL 0.57 0.38 0.9 2100 0.225 1.299 0.495
44.5 to 52.5 SM 0.46 0.9 0.3 0 33 3588 0.5

Table 8. Input parameters of structural members for case 3. Figure 17 also shows that the predicted wall deflections at
the fourth and fifth stages were larger than field observation
Diaphragm Kst of temporary steel struts ((MN/m)/m) and the 3D analysis results. The proposed model seemed to
E (MPa) n Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 yield a conservative result. Similar to cases 1 and 2, the dif-
19718 0.2 45.3 90.6 90.6 114.5 ference in lateral wall deflection near the sections at SID1, in
the actual 3D condition, may cause such a deviation.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Hsieh et al. 1145

Table 9. Values of Kfeb,d and Keq,d for case 3. Fig. 18. Comparison of the computed maximum lateral wall deflec-
tions at various sections and those from field observation for case 3.
Keq,d for Kcw =
38.78 ((MN/m)/
d (m) Kfeb,d ((MN/m)/m/m) m/m)
0 1 38.78
1 17.63 12.12
3 2.28 2.15
5 0.96 0.94
10 0.39 0.38
14.35 0.32 0.32
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/09/12

Fig. 17. Comparison of wall deflections at SID1 from field observa-

tion and those from analysis of case 3.

Conclusions
For personal use only.

Cross walls are installed perpendicular to a diaphragm

Figure 18 shows the comparison of the predicted maxi-
mum wall deflections (dhm) at various distances to the cross
wall (d) using the proposed equivalent beam model, 3D anal-
ysis results from Lin et al. (2012), and the observed maxi-
mum wall deflections at different locations. As shown in the
figure, although the predicted wall deflections were still
smaller than those without cross walls, the restraining effect
of cross walls in reducing the lateral wall deflection was just
to a certain extent. Similar to Fig. 17, 3D analysis results and
the observed maximum wall deflections at different locations
were mostly smaller than those predicted and the proposed
equivalent beam model was conservative for the case with
cross walls with limited depths.
wall, to which both ends of the cross walls are connected be-
fore excavation. Cross walls function as lateral struts against
lateral wall deflection, but exist before excavation. Previous
studies have shown that installation of cross walls in deep ex-
cavations can reduce lateral wall deflection to a very small
amount. In this study, the effectiveness of cross walls in re-
ducing lateral wall deflection was found to be very signifi-
cant. Although the deformation behavior of a diaphragm wall
with cross walls is by nature three dimensional, 3D finite el-
ement analyses are costly and therefore 2D analyses are usu-
ally preferred by practicing engineers.
By decomposing the diaphragm cross wall system into an
elastic continuous beam supported by cross walls where
the deflections of the diaphragm wall are all equal and a
fixed-end beam, an equivalent beam model suitable for 2D
plane strain analysis was derived. The 3D behavior of a dia-
phragm wall with cross walls could then be analyzed with 2D
plane strain methods.
Three excavations with cross walls, with different cross
depths, spans, and intervals, were used to confirm the pro-
posed equivalent beam model. Results show that the pro-
posed method can result in good prediction of lateral wall
deflection at the cross wall section where minimal difference
in wall deflection between the cross wall section and its
nearby section exists. For the section where the lateral wall
deflection has a slight deviation in wall deflection with its
nearby section, the proposed equivalent beam model pre-
dicted a slightly conservative lateral wall deflection.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to acknowledge the support provided by
the National Science Council in Taiwan with grant No.
NSC98-2221-E-146-007.

Published by NRC Research Press

 1146
References
ASTM. 2006. Standard practice for classification of soils for
engineering purposes (Unified Soil Classification System).
ASTM standard D2487. American Society for Testing and
Materials, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ACI Committee 318. 1995. Building code requirements for structural
concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (ACI 318R-95). Amer-
ican Concrete Institute (ACI), Farmington Hills, Mich.
Alpan, I. 1967. The empirical evaluation of the coefficient K0 and K0R.
Soils and Foundations, 7(1): 3140. doi:10.3208/sandf1960.7.31.
Duncan, J.M., and Chang, C.Y. 1970. Nonlinear analysis of stress and
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/09/12
strain in soils. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE, 96: 637659.
Gaba, A.R. 1990. Jet grouting at Newton station. In Proceedings of
the 10th Southeast Asia Geotechnical Conference, Taipei, Taiwan.
pp. 7779.
Hsiao, E.C.L., Schuster, M.J., Juang, C.H., and Kung, G.T.C. 2008.
Reliability analysis and updating of excavation-induced ground
settlement for building serviceability assessment. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 134(10):
14481458. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:10(1448).
Hsieh, P.G., and Ou, C.Y. 2011. Analysis of nonlinear stress and
strain in clay under the undrained condition. Journal of
Mechanisms, 27(2): 201213. doi:10.1017/jmech.2011.24.
Hsieh, P.G., and Ou, C.Y. 2012. Analysis of deep excavations in clay
under the undrained and plane strain condition with small strain
For personal use only.
characteristics. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 35
(5): 601616. doi:10.1080/02533839.2012.679115.
Hsieh, P.G., Lin, Y.L., and Ou, C.Y. 2010. Three-dimensional
numerical analysis and performance of deep excavation with cross
walls and buttress walls. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Civil
and Hydraulic Engineering, 22: 1122. [In Chinese.]
Jaky, J. 1944. The coefficient of earth pressure at rest. Journal of the
Society of Hungarian Architects and Engineers, 78: 355358.
Kung, T.C., Juang, C.H., Hsiao, C.L., and Hashash, Y.M.A. 2007.
Simplified model for wall deflection and ground surface settlement
caused by braced excavation in clays. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(6): 731747. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:6(731).
Lim, A., Ou, C.Y., and Hsieh, P.G. 2010. Evaluation of clay
constitutive models for analysis of deep excavation under
undrained conditions. Journal of GeoEngineering, 5(1): 920.
Lin, Y.L., Ou, C.Y., and Hsieh, P.G. 2012. Three dimensional
numerical analysis of deep excavations with cross walls. Depart-
ment of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of
Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan. Research Report
GT2012001.
Liu, G.B., Ng, C.W.W.M., and Wang, Z.W. 2005. Observed
performance of a deep multistrutted excavation in Shanghai soft
clays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineer-
ing, 131(8): 10041013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)
131:8(1004).
Ou, C.Y., and Hsieh, P.G. 2011. A simplified method for predicting
ground settlement profiles induced by excavation in soft clay.
Computers and Geotechnics, 38(8): 987997. doi:10.1016/j.
compgeo.2011.06.008.
Ou, C.Y., and Lai, C.H. 1994. Finite element analysis of deep
excavation in layered sandy and clayey soil deposits. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 31(2): 204214. doi:10.1139/t94-026.
Ou, C.Y., Hsieh, P.G., and Chiou, D.C. 1993. Characteristics of
ground surface settlement during excavation. Canadian Geotech-
nical Journal, 30(5): 758767. doi:10.1139/t93-068.
Ou, C.Y., Lin, Y.L., and Hsieh, P.G. 2006. Case record of an
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012
excavation with cross alls and buttress walls. Journal of
GeoEngineering, 1: 7986.
Ou, C.Y., Hsieh, P.G., and Lin, Y.L. 2011. Performance of
excavations with cross walls. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 137(1): 94104. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000402.
Parashar, S., Mitchell, R., Hee, M.W., Sanmugnathan, D., Sloan, E.,
and Nicholson, G. 2007. Performance monitoring of deep
excavation at Changi WRP project, Singapore. In Proceedings of
the 7th International Symposium on Field Measurements in
Geomechanics. Edited by J. DiMaggio and P. Osborn. ASCE,
Reston, Va. pp. 112.
Terzaghi, K. 1955. Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade reaction.
Gotechnique, 5(4): 297326. doi:10.1680/geot.1955.5.4.297.
Wong, K.S., Wong, I.H., and Broms, B.B. 1987. Methods of improving
the stability of deep excavations in soft clay. In Proceedings of the
8th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Kyoto, Japan. pp. 321324.
List of symbols
c effective cohesion
d distance to the cross wall
E Youngs modulus of the diaphragm wall
Ecw Youngs modulus of the cross wall
Ei initial Youngs modulus or Youngs modulus at small
strain
fc0 compressive strength of concrete
I moment of inertia of the diaphragm wall per unit depth
K Stiffness modulus number in the Duncan-Chang model
K0 coefficient of earth pressure at rest
Kcw equivalent spring stiffness per unit depth per unit
length of the diaphragm wall
Keq,d equivalent stiffness of springs for the section of the
diaphragm wall with cross walls at a distance of d per
unit depth per unit length of the diaphragm wall
Kfeb,d equivalent spring stiffness per unit depth per unit
length of the diaphragm wall for a fixed end beam for
the section at a distance of d
Kfeb,mid equivalent stiffness of springs for the section of the
fixed-end beam at the midpoint of two cross walls per
unit depth per unit length of the diaphragm wall
Kst stiffness per unit width of temporary steel struts or
floor slabs
Kur unloadingreloading stiffness modulus number in the
DuncanChang model
L cross wall interval,
Lcw length of the cross wall
md, nd degradation parameters
n stiffness modulus exponent in the Duncan-Chang
model
N standard penetration number
Rf failure ratio
su undrained shear strength
tcw thickness of the cross wall
wn earth pressure per unit depth
gt total unit weight of soil
dh,0 deflection of the diaphragm wall at the cross wall
dh,d deflection of the diaphragm wall at a distance, d, to the
cross wall
dhm maximum wall deflection
dh,mid deflection of the diaphragm wall at the midpoint of two
cross walls
Ddd deflection of the fixed-end beam at any distance of d
Ddmid deflection of the fixed-end beam at the midpoint
n Poissons ratio
s v0 effective overburden stress
f0 effective friction angle
Published by NRC Research Press