CASE STUDY DIAPHRAGM WALL :

The site for the case study considered in the research work is located along Noida (India). The
plot area of the proposed building is approximately 24,000 m2. The project includes the
construction of Block 1 (G + 13 floors) with three basements, Block 2 (G + 13 floors) with three
basements and Substation. Block 1 and 2 consists combined basement of 3 levels. The three
basement floors will be used as car parking and remaining all floors are to be used as office
space. The site investigation comprised of a series of 23 nos. deep borings in and around the
footprint of the proposed building which extends to a depth of 30 m. The site plan, along with
boreholes and building location, diaphragm walls, and nearby existing structures of the present
case study is shown in Fig. 1. Ground water table was found to be around 6 m below the natural
ground level. The site is almost plain in topography with surface elevation of 200.58 m. Detail
study is made on all the 23 bore log data sheets and their respective laboratory test results to
prepare the generalized soil profile.

Fig. 1
Site plan:
Earlier the site was being used for agricultural purposes. The deposits at the site are alluvial in
nature. The variation of SPT N with depth for typical boreholes is shown in Fig. 2 and it reveals
that SPT N values increases with increase in depth irrespective of the type of soil. The
stratigraphy at the site may be divided into three generalized strata as given in Table 1.

Fig. 2
Observed N values
Table 1
Subsoil profile

Stratum Depth below NGL Soil classification

(m)

I 0.51.0 Filled up soil

II 1.04.0 Silty sand

III >4.0 Sand

Support System for Deep Excavation :

During the excavation for the basement construction, the diaphragm wall has been proposed to
be supported by soil anchors (installed at two or three levels depending on the design
requirement) as shown in Fig. 3. Initially the analysis has been carried out by considering
600 mm thick diaphragm wall, two level of anchors and depth of embedment as 5 m below the
excavation level and found that system is not safe. Then different options were analyzed by
changing the thickness of diaphragm wall, number, level and spacing of anchors, depth of
embedment etc. and finally adopted the safe and economical solution. The details of diaphragm
wall considered for execution are summarized in Table 2. Embedment depth mentioned in
Table 2 is the depth of D-wall inserted into the ground in addition to the excavation depth.
Though diaphragm wall of thickness 800 mm and 600 mm are adopted in the site, the design and
performance of 800 mm thick diaphragm wall is described in this paper. The main purpose of
this paper has been to assess the performance of the diaphragm wall based on the comparison
between predicted and measured wall displacements during construction.
 Fig. 3
Support of excavation system
Table 2
Details of diaphragm walls

Thickness Top Depth of Level of Embedment Maximum

of the D- level of open anchors depth of D- depth of
wall the D- excavation wall excavation
(mm) Wall (m) (m) (m)
(m)

800 200.58 0 3 levels (3, 7 14.2 from FRL

(FRL) 7 and 11 m
from FRL)

600 4m 4 2 levels (7 6 14.2 from FRL

below and 11 m
FRL from FRL)
(196.58)

Analysis of Diaphragm Wall:

The analysis of diaphragm wall is divided into two phases. The analysis of diaphragm wall
supported by soil anchors till the final excavation level is said to be Phase 1. Analysis of
diaphragm wall by considering all the floor slabs in position is termed as Phase 2. Analysis of
Phase 1 and 2 were carried out using PLAXIS 2D and STAAD Pro software respectively.
However, the diaphragm wall is designed as a flexural member for the worst case forces obtained
from both the analysis. Brief description of analysis carried out using these two phases are
described in Sects. 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.

Phase 1: Analysis Using PLAXIS 2D

The soil parameters considered for PLAXIS analysis in Phase 1 is shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Design soil parameters

Layers (m) Soil Unit Observed Youngs Poissons Friction

description weight SPT N modulus ratio, angle,
Top Bottom of soil value (kN/m2) (degrees)
(kN/m3)

0 4 Silty sand 15 8 22,900 0.25 27

(SM)

4 8 Sand (S) 16 14 35,900 0.25 29

8 11 Sand (S) 18 20 47,500 0.25 29

Layers (m) Soil Unit Observed Youngs Poissons Friction
description weight SPT N modulus ratio, angle,
Top Bottom of soil value (kN/m2) (degrees)
(kN/m3)

11 17 Sand (S) 19 32 64,400 0.25 30

17 22 Sand (S) 19 46 78,400 0.35 30

22 28 Sand (S) 19 52 80,000 0.35 30

>28 Sand (S) 20 60 85,000 0.35 31

A surcharge load of 20 kPa is considered in addition to the earth pressure acting on the
diaphragm wall. The excavation has to be carried out in dry condition for the construction
activity and hence deep well dewatering system is proposed on both outside and inside the
basement area for lowering the ground water table to 1 m below the bottom of excavation.
Therefore no water pressure is considered for diaphragm wall analysis in this phase. The
excavation was carried out using three levels of soil anchor system for supporting 800 mm thick
diaphragm wall during the basement construction.

Soil anchors are designed as pre-stressed anchors and the design is in accordance to BS
8081:1989 , IS: 10270 and IS: 14268 [and The anchors are designed for a design life of 2 years
since the soil anchors are designed to support the diaphragm wall till the final excavation level.
Type C anchorage is adopted in the design. All the anchors shall be water tight and no leakage
shall be allowed into the diaphragm wall. For the 800 mm thick diaphragm wall three levels of
anchors are proposed (viz. 3, 7 and 11 m from the NGL) at a horizontal spacing of 1.66 m c/c.
Detailed design of soil anchors, determination of anchor lengths with failure wedge were carried
out for the present study. Refer Fig. 4 for the schematic representation of soil anchors with
failure plane.

Fig. 4
Schematic representation of soil anchors with failure plane :
Phase 1 analysis is carried out using PLAXIS 2D software as a plane strain problem. In this
analysis, the diaphragm wall is modelled as plate element, soil anchors are modelled as node-to-
node anchors and geo-grid elements for free length and fixed length portion respectively. The
soil behavior is modelled using MohrCoulomb model. The maximum total displacement of
50 mm occurs near the top of diaphragm wall and below the area of surcharge application. Stage
wise analysis results of PLAXIS 2D such as horizontal deflection, bending moment and shear
force is shown in Fig. 5. As the excavation proceeded to lower levels, the diaphragm walls began
to develop deep seated movements towards the excavation side. The values of bending moment
and shear force are reduced at the location of soil anchors. However maximum bending moment
and shear force occurs at the final excavation stage.

Fig. 5
Analysis results of PLAXIS 2D :
Phase 2: Analysis Using STAAD Pro

In Phase 2 analysis, the loads include self-weights and the other downward load calculated based
on the tributary area of the basement slabs depending upon the support system at the
corresponding levels. At-rest earth pressure condition is considered behind the diaphragm wall
along with the surcharge of 20 kPa. The design water table level is considered at ground level on
soil side in this analysis.

In Phase 2 analysis, the diaphragm wall is modelled as a 2D beam element of unit meter width
on the out of plane direction. The soil resistance in the embedded portion of the wall is modelled
in the form of lateral springs up to the embedment depth and with vertical spring support at the
end. The earth pressure from the soil side is applied as horizontal loading with corresponding
load intensity, including the lateral thrust due to vehicular loading and ground water pressure.
The diaphragm wall acts as a retaining wall and is restrained by basement slabs and hence the
diaphragm wall is not free to tilt. Therefore earth pressure at rest condition is considered in the
design. STAAD model for 800 mm thick diaphragm is shown in Fig. 6. Detailed load
calculations, earth pressure calculation for at rest condition and dynamic increment, calculation
of spring values, STAAD analysis and structural design of diaphragm wall were carried out for
the present study. Earth pressure calculation with dynamic increment is calculated based on IS
1893-1984

Fig. 6
STAAD model for 800 mm thick diaphragm wall
The spring values are obtained using Newmark Eqs. (1), (2) and (3).
K1=(BL/24)(7ks1+6ks2ks3)K1=(BL/24)(7ks1+6ks2ks3)
(1)

Ki=(BL/12)[ks(i1)+10ksi+ks(i+1)]Ki=(BL/12)[ks(i1)+10ksi+ks(i+1)]
(2)

Kn=(BL/24)[7ksn+6ks(n1)ks(n2)]Kn=(BL/24)[7ksn+6ks(n1)ks(n2)]
(3)
where, K1, Ki, Kn: are spring stiffness values for the first, ith and last layer respectively; L: depth
of interval between the springs; Ks1, ksi, ksn: are soil modulus for the first, ith and last layer
respectively. Soil modulus is determined using Eq. (4).
Ks=Ks/BKs=Ks/B
(4)

Where, KsKs = 1.3 [Es B4/(Ep Ip)]^(1/12) Es/(1-2); Es: youngs modulus of the soil, kPa;
: poisons ratio; B: width of diaphragm wall; Ip: moment of inertia of diaphragm wall; fck: grade
of concrete, M30; Ep: youngs modulus of the diaphragm wall.
Analysis Results :
Figure 7 summarises the maximum and minimum values of Bending Moment (BM) and Shear
Force (SF) obtained from the analysis for 800 mm thick diaphragm wall. It is noted from figure
that the maximum shear force and bending moment are +283 and +106 respectively. Similarly,
minimum shear force and bending moment are 306 and 559 respectively. In the chart,
maximum and minimum values are shown with respect to positive or negative sign. However in
the design, maximum value of shear force and bending moment were considered irrespective of
positive or negative sign.

Fig. 7
Maximum and minimum bending moments and shear force for 800 mm thick diaphragm wall

INSTRUMENTATION :

As the deep excavation is made very close to buildings and services, which require safeguarding
against damage it was decided to adopt observational method where predicted responses are
checked by field monitoring during the works and contingency measures are implemented as and
when necessary. The deflections of the 800 mm thick diaphragm walls were monitored using
three inclinometers. Cross hole sonic logging test is carried out to check the homogeneity and
integrity of concrete and Koden test is carried out to accurately measure and record the shape of
a drilled hole of greater depth.

Inclinometer :
Digital inclinometer with portable and traversing probe system is used in the present study for
monitoring lateral deformation. The predicted behavior of 800 mm thick diaphragm wall is
compared with actual measured behavior using three inclinometers. Figure 8 shows the
comparison plot between the predicted and actual horizontal displacement profiles for 800 mm
thick diaphragm walls after final level of excavation has reached. By the end of excavation
works for inclinometer E-79, the maximum deflection was about 7 mm. Displacements observed
in inclinometer N-52 was more, with a maximum of about 15 mm. Maximum horizontal
displacement in the other inclinometer N-21 was still of greater magnitude (27 mm).

Fig. 8
Comparative plot for numerical versus measured lateral deflection

The curves presented indicate that the numerical behavior of the wall has a trend similar to that
of the actual behavior measured using inclinometers. However, the actual realized movements
are consequently below the predicted values this may be because of various reasons like non
homogeneity of soil, assumed design surcharge was not actually experienced in the site by the
walls and so on.

Cross Hole Sonic Logging Test :

The field test of Cross-hole Sonic Logging (CSL) is conducted in accordance with ASTM
D6760-08 [19]. For conducting the sonic logging test five steel tubes of 50 mm internal diameter
were installed throughout the length of the shaft by tying them to the reinforcement cage. The
detailed test graphs received for diaphragm wall panel number W-05 between tubes 1-2 is
presented in Fig. 9.
 Fig. 9
CSL test graph for diaphragm wall panel number W-05 between tubes 1-2
The following points can be concluded from cross hole sonic logging tests conducted on the
diaphragm wall panel no. W-05 based on data, diaphragm wall location and site conditions at the
time of testing.
Diaphragm wall number W-05 shows minor defect for tube corridors 2-3 and 3-5.
The minor defect also seems likely to be reflection from anchors as the locations match with the
anchor locations.

Koden Test :
The Drilling Monitor system has been developed in compliance with the users needs arisen from
the recent construction environment to accurately measure and record the shape of a drilled hole
of greater depth. It can be easily positioned and set up for measurement to provide quick and
accurate recordings of excavations. This monitoring is done for every bite of all panels.

With the help of Koden ultrasonic echometer, both the three dimensional orientations and the
actual dimensions of a panel can be continuously checked. A typical log of panel number N-61
for the present case study is presented in Fig. 10 The vertical line 0 bordered by two strips (X
X), represents the vertical descent path of the probe. The trench wall profile is shown by the
inner borders of the dark strips. It is inferred that the vertical deviation of diaphragm wall panel
number N-61 is 90 mm which is within the permissible limit 1 in 80 m.

Fig. 10

Design of Diaphragm wall :