Hindawi

Advances in Civil Engineering

Volume 2019, Article ID 5476354, 16 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5476354

Research Article
Investigation of the Axial Force Compensation and Deformation
Control Effect of Servo Steel Struts in a Deep Foundation Pit
Excavation in Soft Clay

Honggui Di,1 Huiji Guo ,1 Shunhua Zhou ,1 Jinming Chen,2 and Lu Wen1
1
Shanghai Key Laboratory of Rail Infrastructure Durability and System Safety, Tongji University, Shanghai 201804, China
2
Ningbo Rail Transportation Group Co. Ltd., Ningbo 315012, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Huiji Guo; guohuiji@tongji.edu.cn

Received 3 August 2019; Accepted 8 October 2019; Published 13 November 2019

Academic Editor: Khalid Abdel-Rahman

Copyright © 2019 Honggui Di et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
This study presents a comparative analysis of the deformation control effect of the hydraulic servo steel struts and ordinary steel
struts of a foundation pit based on the measured axial force of the steel struts, lateral wall deflection, and ground surface settlement
due to pit excavation. The results indicate that ordinary steel struts installed via axial preloading exhibit a disadvantageous axial
force loss with a maximum value equal to 86.7% of the axial preloading force. When compared with ordinary steel struts, the
hydraulic servo steel strut exhibits a superior supporting effect. The hydraulic servo steel strut adjusts the axial force in real time
based on the deformation of the retaining structure and the axial force of the struts. Thus, the ratio of maximum lateral deflection
to the excavation depth of a deep foundation pit in soft soil is less than 0.3%. Concrete struts undergo unsupported exposure
during the excavation process, leading to sharply increasing deformation of the retaining structure. Therefore, regarding a
foundation pit with strict requirements for deformation control, the use of hydraulic servo steel struts rather than concrete struts
is recommended.

1. Introduction geological conditions and construction conditions has also

Metro stations are typically built in urban areas with a large
population density and numerous buildings. To minimize
the impact of foundation pit excavation on the surrounding
environment, foundation pit excavation should meet the
strict requirements of deformation control [1]. However,
with rapid advancements in urban construction, metro
stations and their surrounding environment are becoming
increasingly complex, and the urgent problem of control and
reduction of excavation deformation in foundation pits
and its effect on the surrounding environment should be
addressed [2].
To understand the deformation mechanism of founda-
tion pit excavation, Clough and O’Rourke [3] investigated
the relationship between lateral wall deflection, pit uplift,
and strut stiffness. The relationship between deformation of
the retaining structure and excavation depth under various
been examined by Long [4], Leung and Charles [5], and Liu
et al. [6]. Sun et al. [7] and Xu et al. [8] investigated the
relationship between deformation in foundation pit exca-
vation and the geometric shape of the foundation pit. The
effect of foundation pit excavation on the surrounding
environment was examined by Tan and Wei [9] and Shi et al.
[10].
Based on the deformation law of foundation pit exca-
vation, extant studies propose various deformation control
methods for foundation pit excavation from design method
and construction control method perspectives. Wong et al.
[11] summarized the supporting effect of different foun-
dation pit retaining structures. Luo et al. [12, 13] proposed a
reliability-based design method for the retaining structure of
the foundation pit that considers spatial variability of the
soil. Tan et al. [14] proposed that rapid excavation, timely
support, timely pouring of floors, and sectional construction
2 Advances in Civil Engineering
are critical for deformation control of the foundation pit.
Tan and Wang [15] and Li et al. [16] proposed that exca-
vation by sections effectively controls the deflections of the
diaphragm wall.
Recently, engineers began improving deformation
control techniques for foundation pits from a support
system standpoint. Yao et al. [17] illustrated that an increase
in the stiffness and preaxial force of steel struts reduces
diaphragm wall deflections to a certain extent. Tanner
Blackburn and Richard [18] stated that the axial force of steel
struts is related to the mode and speed of excavation and the
installation of the adjacent strut. Chen [19] noted that the
use of concrete support effectively restrained the develop-
ment of deformation in the retaining structure of the
foundation pit. However, all traditional support methods
exhibit shortcomings [20]. For example, the concrete strut is
cast-in-place, and there is unsupported exposure during the
excavation process. Typically, there are high losses in axial
force in the ordinary steel struts.
To compensate for the flaws in traditional support
methods that exhibit axial force losses in ordinary steel
struts, a hydraulic automatic servo control system (with a
working mechanism that compensates for axial force loss in
real time) is adopted to control the axial force of the steel
struts and deformation during pit excavation [21]. However,
given its high cost, only a few engineering cases and studies
have focused on introducing the engineering application of
hydraulic servo steel struts [22]. A focus problem in the field
of pit engineering involves whether the hydraulic servo steel
strut delivers a superior supporting effect to that from
traditional support methods.
In this study, a new hydraulic servo steel strut system
with a working mechanism that simultaneously controls
axial force and displacement was designed and adopted to
control deformation of a foundation pit excavated in soft
soils. A comparative analysis of the deformation control
effect of hydraulic servo steel struts and ordinary steel struts
in pit excavation is presented based on measured data.
Section 2 introduces the background of the project while
Sections 3–5 discuss the measured axial force of the steel
strut, lateral wall deflection, and ground surface settlement
caused by the pit excavation. Section 6 presents the dis-
cussion, and the conclusions are presented in Section 7.
2. Project Description
2.1. Project Overview. The Haiyan Road station is a transfer
station of Ningbo Metro Line No. 1 and Line No. 5. The
existing Haiyan Road station of Line No. 1 lies along the east-
west direction and is an underground two-story island
station, as shown in Figure 1. The Haiyan Road station of
Line No. 5 lies along the north-south direction and is an
underground three-story island station. The existing Haiyan
Road station of Line No. 1 has been in service since 2014, and
a transfer point reserved for Line No. 5 is in its design stage.
The Haiyan Road station of Line No. 5 consists of a north
foundation pit (Pit A) and a south foundation pit (Pit B) with
lengths of 125 m and 33 m, respectively. The width of the
standard section of Pit A and Pit B is 22.1 m, and the ex-
cavation depths vary from 24.7 m to 24.8 m.
A group of foundation pits (a pit complex) is under
construction on the northwest side of the Haiyan Road
station of Line No. 5. The pit complex is 19 m deep and
approximately 11–13 m from the edge of Pit A, and its
excavation is complete. The Hongtai Building Group (lo-
cated on the southwest side of the station of Line No. 5) is
approximately 10 m away from the edge of Pit B. The main
building of the Hongtai Building Group is a 24-story
building with a 21.5 m–27.5 m bored pile foundation. The
Muqi River flows on the east side of the station of Line No. 5,
approximately 60 m away from the edge of the foundation
pit of Line No. 5. The surrounding environment is complex,
thereby leading to higher requirements for deformation
control on the project.
Furthermore, the soft clay layer in the area is charac-
terized by high natural water content, a high natural pore
ratio, high compressibility, low strength, and low perme-
ability, as shown in Figure 2. Consequently, the foundation
pit of the station of Line No. 5 exhibited large deformation
during excavation.
To reduce the impact of foundation pit excavation of
Line No. 5 to the foundation pit group of Ningbo Center, the
Hongtai Building Group, and the current Line No. 1 station,
hydraulic servo steel struts were adopted in this project.
Although the diaphragm wall near corners featured much
smaller displacements than those near the middle span of the
excavations [23], the hydraulic servo steel struts were
adopted in the section near the existing station of Line No. 1
to preserve normal operations at the existing stations.
2.2. Pit Supporting Structure. The primary foundation pit of
the Line No. 5 station was constructed via the open-cut
method. The retaining structures consisted of diaphragm
walls and an internal support system. The thickness of the
diaphragm wall was 1000 mm (or 1200 mm), and its depth
was approximately 57.8 m. The internal support system
consisted of concrete struts, ordinary steel struts, and hy-
draulic servo steel struts.
There were seven struts along the depth of the foun-
dation pit, with the first and fifth struts being concrete struts,
while the other five were steel struts. The dimensions of the
first concrete strut were 0.8 m wide × 1.0 m high, and for the
fifth concrete strut, they were 1.0 m wide × 1.0 m high. The
diameter of the steel strut was 609 mm. Figure 3 presents the
plan view of the supporting system. The average distance
between the concrete struts in Pit A and Pit B was 8.5 m and
7.5 m, respectively, and the average distance between the
steel struts in Pit A and Pit B was 3.0 m and 2.2 m,
respectively.
Part 1 of Pit A (see Figure 3) is some distance from the
existing station and is the ordinary steel struts section. Thus,
all the steel struts in the cross section are ordinary steel
struts, as shown in Figure 4(a). Part 3 of Pit B and Part 2 of
Pit A (see Figure 3) are close to the existing station and are
hydraulic servo steel strut sections. Hence, hydraulic servo
Advances in Civil Engineering 3

10m 30 m
20m

No
The Hongtai
The foundation pit

r th
building group
group under construction
Station
of
line
No. 1

11 m
10 m

33 m 125 m

Haiyan

22.1m
Existing Station of line No. 5 Pit A
Road Pit B
station

60 m Landscape green belt

Muqi river

Figure 1: Plan view of the foundation pit of the Haiyan Road station of Line No. 5.

Kv and Kh
w (%) γ (kN·m–3) e Es0.1-0.2 (MPa) c′cu (kPa) φ′ (°) (10–5 cm/s)
0 40 80 15 18 21 0 1 2 0 6 12 0 20 40 0 20 40 0 5 10
0 1 1-1
Fill
Ball clay 12
Muddy clay 13
10 Muddy clay 2 2-1
Muddy clay 2 2-2
Silt 31
20 Silty clay 32
Silty clay 4 1-2
Depth (m)

Ball clay 42
30 Ball clay 51
Silty clay 52
Sandy silt 53
40
Silty clay 62
Ball clay 63
50
Silty clay 82
60
w Kv
wl Kh
wp

Figure 2: Physical and mechanical index of the soil layer. w—moisture content; wl —liquid limit; wp —plastic limit; c—soil gravity;
Es0.1-0.2—compression modulus; c′cu—effective stress cohesion; ϕ′cu—effective stress friction angle; e—porosity; Kv —vertical perme-
ability coefficient; Kh—horizontal permeability coefficient.

steel struts are used for the third, fourth, sixth, and seventh
steel struts in the cross section, as shown in Figure 4(b).
The bottom of the pit was reinforced with cement mixing
piles (3 m wide × 2.5 m deep) placed at intervals of 3 m. The
cement mixing pile was also used to reinforce the soil within
3 m below the fifth concrete strut.
The hydraulic servo steel strut system consists of a hy-
draulic module and automatic control system module. The
hydraulic module is composed of a hydraulic pump station
and a hydraulic jack while the automatic control system
module is composed of automatic control hardware and
computer software. The field arrangement of the hydraulic
servo steel strut is presented in Figure 5.
The hydraulic servo steel strut system adopts the working
mechanism of simultaneous control of axial force and dis-
placement, as shown in Figure 6. The control of axial force
4 Advances in Civil Engineering

Existing
Pit B Pit A
station

Concrete strut
(a)

Existing
Pit B Pit A
station

Ordinary steel strut

(b)

Part 3 Existing Part 2 Part 1

station

Hydraulic servo steel strut Ordinary steel strut

(c)

Figure 3: Plan view of the foundation pit: (a) layout of 1st and 5th struts; (b) layout of 2nd strut; (c) layout of 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 7th struts.

Unit: m

Concrete strut

3.4
3.4

Ordinary steel strut

3.2
3.2

3.4
Ordinary steel strut
3.4

Hydraulic servo steel strut

3.3
Diaphragm wall
3.3

Concrete strut
Diaphragm wall

3.4
3.4

Reinforced area 3.4

3.4

57.8
57.8

Reinforced area

Lattice column
Lattice column

(a) (b)

Figure 4: Cross section of the foundation pit in the standard section: (a) part 1; (b) parts 2 and 3.

element of the working mechanism entails that when the
measured axial force of the strut is less than a set value, the
axial force is actively restored to the set axial force of the
strut. This reduces the increasing deformation of the
retaining structure caused by loss of stress in the steel struts.
Concurrently, the adopted control of displacement working
mechanism optimizes the set axial force and actively updates
the set axial force in the automatic control system module.
The working mechanism of control of displacement implies
that when the installation of a hydraulic servo steel strut is
completed, the displacement of the servo steel strut jack is set
as the displacement datum point, and subsequently, the
Advances in Civil Engineering 5

(a) (b)

Figure 5: Installed hydraulic servo steel strut system: (a) hydraulic servo struts; (b) control system.

Simultaneous control of axis force

and displacement

Control of axis force Control of displacement

Axial force monitor Displacement monitor

Measured axial forces (fm) Measured displacement

and set axial forces (fs) increment (Δm) and displacement
constraint (Δmin.Δmax)

Δm > Δmax Δm < Δmin

fm < fs
Compensating axial force to Enlarging set axial Reducing set axial
set axial force force force

Ensuring fm ≥ fs Optimizing set axis force

Ensuring the deformation

control of foundation pit

Figure 6: Working mechanism of the hydraulic servo steel strut system.

displacement is controlled from − 1 mm to 2 mm relative to
the displacement datum point. The positive value indicates
that the servo steel strut jack shrinks and the diaphragm wall
moves to the inside of the pit. The negative value indicates
that the servo steel strut jack extends and the diaphragm wall
moves out of the pit, effectively decreasing the deformation
of foundation pit excavation caused by the improper initial
set axial force.
The specific working mode of control of displacement is
as follows: when the measured displacement of the servo
steel strut jack exceeds the maximum displacement con-
straint of 2 mm (this implies that deformation of the di-
aphragm wall to the inside of the foundation pit is high and
the set axial force is low), the set axial force is actively in-
creased. When the measured displacement of the servo steel
strut jack is lower than the minimum displacement
6 Advances in Civil Engineering
constraint of − 1 mm (this implies that deformation of the
diaphragm wall to the outside of foundation pit is high and
the set axial force is high), the set axial force is actively
reduced. The working mechanism adjusts the hydraulic
servo steel strut and dynamically compensates for the axial
force in real time, and thus the foundation pit excavation
deformation meets the high control requirements.
2.3. Construction Operation and Instrumentation. To clarify
the excavation process of the foundation pit, Table 1 lists the
working conditions of the standard section. The overall
excavation direction of the foundation pit ranged from north
to south and from top to bottom. The soil above the fifth
concrete strut of Pit A was excavated downwards layer by
layer, and the soil beneath it was excavated via the slope. Pit
B was excavated downwards layer by layer. During the
excavation process, an inclinometer, settlement tester, and
axial force tester were installed around the foundation pits to
monitor deformation in the retaining structures and soil and
the axial force of the struts. As shown in Figure 7, there are
20 inclined monitoring points (CX01–CX20) for monitoring
the lateral deflection of diaphragm walls, 20 settlement
monitoring groups (D1–D20) for monitoring the ground
surface settlement, and 7 axial force monitoring groups
(T1–T7) for monitoring the axial force of the struts.
3. Lateral Movement of the Diaphragm Walls
Lateral diaphragm wall deflection was obtained from 20
inclinometers (see Figure 7). However, it was a complex task,
considering the engineering environment on the west side of
the foundation pit (see Figure 1). Thus, the measured de-
formation data on the east side of the foundation pit were
selected for analysis to reduce the effect of external factors.
Figure 8 shows the variation in the measured cumulative
lateral deflection of the diaphragm walls with respect to
depth during construction. The cumulative lateral deflection
of the diaphragm walls increased with increase in the ex-
cavation depth, and the maximum cumulative lateral de-
flection generally occurred near the position of excavation
depth. These observations agree well with the study per-
formed on foundation pits in Zhejiang soft clay by Ding et al.
[24]. Furthermore, between completion of the installation of
the fourth steel strut and completion of the installation of the
fifth concrete strut, the cumulative lateral deflection of the
diaphragm walls changed significantly, and its value reached
19.7–34.1% of the final deflection. This is because the
foundation pit exhibits a space-time effect, and the concrete
strut requires a certain time to garner strength. Thus, there is
a period of unsupported exposure, which significantly in-
creases the lateral deflection of the diaphragm walls.
To compare the supporting effect of the hydraulic servo
steel strut with that of an ordinary steel strut, the measuring
points CX11, CX13, and CX17 representing Part 1, Part 2,
and Part 3, respectively, were selected for further analysis.
Figure 9 shows the variation in maximum lateral deflection
with respect to time at different observation points. It was
observed that the maximum lateral deflection of CX11 in
Part 1 always exceeded that of CX13 in Part 2. Furthermore,
the maximum lateral deflection of CX11 and CX13 increased
with increase in excavation depth. Conversely, with respect
to the maximum lateral deflection development curve of
CX17, there is an evident turning point, which occurred at
the completion of the fourth hydraulic servo steel strut
installation. The maximum lateral deflection of CX17 tends
to be stable following the completion of the installation of
the fourth hydraulic servo steel strut. The phenomenon is a
preliminary indication that the supporting effect of the
hydraulic servo steel strut exceeds that of the ordinary steel
strut.
The relationship between the cumulative maximum
lateral wall deflection (δh ) and the corresponding excavation
depth (H) is plotted in Figure 10. The δh /H ratio of CX13
(0.29%) and CX17 (0.11%), which meets the control stan-
dard of level I foundation pit (δh /H ≤ 0.3%), was smaller
than that of CX11 (0.35%). Similarly, observation points
CX03 and CX19 were selected to represent End Well 1 and
End Well 2, respectively. The δh /H ratio of CX19 (0.13%)
close to Part 2 was smaller than that of CX03 (0.18%) close to
Part 2, illustrating that the hydraulic servo steel struts
provide a more stable support environment.
Furthermore, with respect to the δh /H ratio of Pit A,
there is an evident turning point with increase in excavation
depth, as shown in Figure 10(a). The turning point occurred
between the completion of the installation of the fourth steel
strut and completion of the installation of the fifth concrete
strut. However, with respect to Pit B, there is no evident
turning point, as shown in Figure 10(b). Potential reasons
include the following: (1) The size of Pit B is smaller than that
of Pit A, and thus the exposure period of the unsupported
concrete strut in Pit B is shorter than that of the unsupported
concrete strut in Pit A. Consequently, a large lateral de-
flection is absent during the exposure period of the un-
supported fifth concrete strut, resulting in the absence of a
δh /H turning point of in Pit B. (2) The supporting effect of
Part 3 in Pit B exceeds that of the combination of Part 1 and
Part 2 in Pit A. To verify this standpoint, the change in the
rate of maximum lateral wall deflection with respect to time
for points CX11, CX13, and CX17, representing Part 1, Part
2, and Part 3, respectively, was analyzed.
As shown in Figure 11, the average value of the maxi-
mum lateral deflection rate of point CX13 (0.47 mm/day)
and point CX17 (0.19 mm/day) is lower than that of point
CX11 (0.53 mm/day). The distribution of the maximum
lateral deflection rate of points CX13 and CX17 in the
hydraulic servo steel strut section was more concentrated
than that of point CX11 in the ordinary steel struts section.
This implies that the hydraulic servo steel struts restrain the
development of deflection in diaphragm walls more
effectively.
It should be noted that there are several negative points
in Figure 11. When compared with the excavation of a pit
foundation that is supported by only concrete struts and
ordinary steel struts [25], almost all the deflection rates were
positive. This is potentially due to the high axial force of the
hydraulic servo steel struts, which causes the diaphragm wall
to move to the exterior of the foundation pit. When the
Advances in Civil Engineering 7

Table 1: Construction operation of the foundation pit.

Stage Construction operation Date
Preparation of Pit A, installation of 1st concrete strut 2017/04/26–2017/05/22
1
Preparation of Pit B, installation of 1st concrete strut 2018/12/01–2019/12/24
Excavation of Pit A to 5.0 m, installation of 2nd steel strut 2017/05/22–2017/06/18
2
Excavation of Pit B to 5.0 m, installation of 2nd steel strut 2018/12/24–2019/01/05
Excavation of Pit A to 8.0 m, installation of 3rd steel strut 2017/06/18–2017/07/05
3
Excavation of Pit B to 8.0 m, installation of 3rd steel strut 2019/01/05–2019/01/13
Excavation of Pit A to 11.5 m, installation of 4th steel strut 2017/07/08–2017/07/16
4
Excavation of Pit B to 11.5 m, installation of 4th steel strut 2019/01/13–2019/01/18
Excavation of Pit A to 15.0 m, installation of 5th concrete strut 2017/07/16–2017/08/15
5
Excavation of Pit B to 15.0 m, installation of 5th concrete strut 2019/01/18–2019/02/23
Excavation of Pit A to 18.5 m, installation of 6th steel strut 2017/07/26–2017/10/02
6
Excavation of Pit B to 18.5 m, installation of 6th steel strut 2019/02/23–2019/03/11
Excavation of Pit A to 21.5 m, installation of 7th steel strut 2017/08/08–2017/10/15
7
Excavation of Pit B to 21.5 m, installation of 7th steel strut 2019/03/11–2019/04/01
Excavation of Pit A to 24.5 m, pouring of bottom slab 2017/09/01–2017/10/30
8
Excavation of Pit B to 24.5 m, pouring of bottom slab 2019/04/01–2019/04/20

D18 D16 D14

D12 D10 D8 D6 D4 D2

CX18 CX16 CX14 CX12 CX10 CX08 CX06 CX04 CX02

D20 End Existing End D1
Part 3 Part 2 Part 1
CX20 Well 2 T7 T6 station T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 Well 1 CX01
CX19 CX17 CX15 CX13 CX11 CX09 CX07 CX05 CX03

D19 D17 D15 D13 D11 D9 D7 D5 D3

Part 1—consists of ordinary steel strut and concrete strut
Part 2—consists of hydraulic servo strut, ordinary steel strut, and concrete strut
Part 3—consists of hydraulic servo strut, ordinary steel strut, and concrete strut
Settlement monitoring point
Inclined monitoring point
Axial force monitoring point
Figure 7: Layout of the monitoring points.

diaphragm wall moves to the exterior of the foundation pit,
the hydraulic servo steel struts maintain the stability of the
support system via elongation of its hydraulic jack. However,
ordinary steel struts can exhibit support dislocation, which
can lead to loss of axial force. This implies that the adjacent
ordinary steel struts could function erroneously if the axial
force of the hydraulic servo steel struts is not set correctly.
Therefore, when the hydraulic servo steel struts are utilized
together with ordinary steel struts, they may not work well
together.
To further examine the control effect of the deflection of
the hydraulic servo steel strut section, the final cumulative
lateral deflection of the diaphragm walls on the west side and
east side of the foundation pit is plotted in Figure 12. The
final cumulative lateral deflection of the hydraulic servo steel
strut section was lower than that of the ordinary steel struts
section. Considering the space-time effect of the foundation
pit, the deformation data on the enclosure structure of the
two end wells were compared. From that, we can see the final
cumulative lateral deflection of point CX19, near the hy-
draulic servo steel strut section in Part 3, was significantly
lower than that of point CX03 near the ordinary steel strut
section in Part 1. This further illustrates that the supporting
effect of the hydraulic servo steel struts exceeds that of
ordinary steel struts.
Figure 12 also shows that the final cumulative lateral
deflection of the east side of Pit A (End Well 1, Part 1, and
Part 2) exceeds that of the west side, although the final
cumulative lateral deflection of the east side of Pit B (Part 3
and End Well 2) is lower than that of the west side. This is
because a foundation pit group (Ningbo Center) was under
construction near the west edge of Pit A, which led to
unloading on the ground near the west side of the Pit A.
Conversely, on the west side of the Pit B, there is a con-
struction surcharge (Hongtai Building Group), resulting in
an overload on the ground near the west side of Pit B (see
Figure 1), which led to the differences between Pit A and Pit
B. The observed results are consistent with the results of
previous research [25, 26], which reported that different
existing structures around the foundation pit have different
effects on the deformation of the foundation pit. Further-
more, it should be noted that CX13 develops much greater
8 Advances in Civil Engineering

Cumulative lateral deflection of diaphragm walls (mm)

0 20 40 0 20 40 0 40 80 0 40 80 0 40 80 0 40 80 0 40 80
0 1st strut
2nd strut
3rd strut
10 4th strut
5th strut
6th strut
20 7th strut
Depth (m)

Bottom

30

40

CX17 CX15 CX13 CX11 CX09 CX07 CX05

50
0 20 40 0 20 40
0

CX18 CX02
10 CX16 CX14 CX12 CX10 CX08 CX06 CX04
End Part 3 Existing Part 2 Part 1 End
CX20 Well 2 station Well 1 CX01
20
Depth (m)

CX19 CX17 CX15 CX13 CX11 CX09 CX07 CX05 CX03

30

40

CX19 CX03
50
2nd steel strut installation completed 3rd steel strut installation completed
4th steel strut installation completed 5th concrete strut installation completed
6th steel strut installation completed 7th steel strut installation completed
Figure 8: Curve of the measured cumulative lateral deflection of the diaphragm walls with respect to depth.

lateral wall displacement than CX17, although both were
retained by hydraulic servo struts. The reasons may be as
follows: (1) On the right side of CX13, it is close to the
standard section of Pit A, while on the right side of CX17, it
is close to the existing station, and the stiffness of the existing
station is greater than the standard section of Pit A. (2) Pit B,
where CX17 is located, was smaller than Pit A, where CX13
is located, and its construction process was fast, thus leading
to smaller deformation. (3) Hydraulic servo steel struts in Pit
B work better than the mixed support system of hydraulic
servo steel struts and ordinary steel struts in Pit A.
4. Ground Surface Settlement
The ground surface settlement values of the D11, D13, and
D17 settlement monitoring groups were selected for analysis
purposes to compare the effect of the hydraulic servo steel
strut and ordinary steel strut on the control of surrounding
environment deformation. Figure 13 shows settlement
monitoring points D∗ − 1, D∗ − 2, and D∗ − 3, which are
5 m, 10 m, and 15 m, respectively, away from the edge of the
foundation pit. The ground surface settlement increased
gradually with increase in the excavation depth, and the
maximum value occurred 10 m along the edge of the
foundation pit.
To study the relationship between the maximum ground
surface settlement (δv ) and the corresponding excavation
depth (H), the δv /H ratio of points D11-2, D13-2, and D17-
2, which represent Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3, respectively, is
selected for analysis, as shown in Figure 14. The δv /H ratio of
D13-2 (0.38%) and D17-2 (0.17%) is lower than that of D11-
2 (0.52%). Furthermore, there is an evident turning point
with increase in excavation depth for Pit A and no turning
point for Pit B. The reason for the phenomenon is potentially
the same as that for the ratio of the maximum lateral de-
flection to excavation depth (δh /H).
Figure 15 presents further details on the final ground
surface settlement at 10 m along the edge of the foundation
pit. The final settlement of the hydraulic servo steel strut
section (Part 2 and Part 3) was significantly smaller than that
of the ordinary steel struts section (Part 1), and this indicates
that the hydraulic servo steel struts control the surface
settlement more effectively and reduce the effect of foun-
dation pit excavation on the buildings in the surroundings.
Advances in Civil Engineering 9

100

Maximum lateral deflection

of diaphragm walls (mm)
80

60

40

20

0
01-May- 01-Jun.- 01-Jul.- 01-Aug.- 01-Sep.- 01-Oct.- 01-Nov.- 01-Dec.- 01-Jan.-
2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018
Date
Part 1 CX11
Part 2 CX13
60
Maximum lateral deflection
of diaphragm walls (mm)

50
40
30
20
The time of completion of the 4th
10 hydraulic servo steel strut installation
0
01-Dec.-2018 01-Jan.-2019 01-Feb.-2019 01-Mar.-2019 01-Apr.-2019 01-May-2019
Date
Part 3 CX17
Figure 9: Curve of the maximum lateral deflection of the diaphragm wall with respect to time.

0 0
δh/H = 0.07%
δh/H = 0.12%
5 δh/H = 0.22% 5
Excavation depth (m)
Excavation depth (m)

10 10
δh/H = 0.13%
15 15
Turning interval
20 δh/H = 0.29% 20

δh/H = 0.35% δh/H = 0.11%

25 25
δh/H = 0.18%
30 30
0 30 60 90 120 150 0 10 20 30 40 50
Maximum lateral deflection (mm) Maximum lateral deflection (mm)
End Well 1 CX03 Part 3 CX17
Part 1 CX11 End Well 2 CX19
Part 2 CX13
(a) (b)

Figure 10: Ratio of the maximum lateral deflection of the diaphragm wall to excavation depth (δh /H): (a) Pit A; (b) Pit B.

5. Axial Force of Struts the axial force of steel struts were characterized by three
stages: increasing stage (stage I), slowly decreasing stage
Subsequently, the axial force variation in the ordinary steel (stage II), and suddenly increasing stage (stage III).
strut and hydraulic servo steel strut was analyzed. Figure 16 The increase in stage I occurred prior to the installation of
shows the variation in the axial force of the third steel strut, the fifth concrete strut. The reason for the increase in axial
T4-3 (third steel strut of the T4 axial force group), and the force in stage I is that increments in the excavation depth
adjacent hydraulic servo steel strut, SF1-3. The changes in continuously increased the difference in soil pressure between
10 Advances in Civil Engineering

2 Average value = 0.53 mm/day

1
0
–1

10-May-
2017

01-Jun-
2017

22-Jun-
2017

12-Aug-
2017

02-Sep-
2017

23-Sep-
2017

14-Nov-
2017

04-Dec-
2017
deflection with respect to time (mm/day)
Change rate of maximum lateral wall

CX11

2 Average value = 0.47 mm/day

1
0
–1
10-May-
2017

01-Jun-
2017

22-Jun-
2017

12-Aug-
2017

02-Sep-
2017

23-Sep-
2017

14-Nov-
2017

04-Dec-
2017
CX13

2 Average value = 0.19 mm/day

1
0
–1
20-Dec-
2018

10-Jan-
2019

31-Jan-
2019

21-Feb-
2019

14-Mar-
2019

04-Apr-
2019

25-Apr-
2019
Date
CX17

Figure 11: Change in the rate of maximum lateral wall deflection with respect to time.

150
West side
120
93.1 86.2
90 74.2 71.5 79.1 69.4
60
deflection of diaphragm walls (mm)

43.1 41.3
30 30.6
Final cumulative lateral

0
CX18 CX16 CX14 CX12 CX10 CX08 CX06 CX04 CX02

End Existing End

Part 3 Part 2 Part 1
Well 2 station Well 1

CX19 CX17 CX15 CX13 CX11 CX09 CX07 CX05 CX03

0
30
38.39 29.3 27.9
60
61.5
90 76.1
90.7 89.8
120 104.4 105.5
East side
150
Part 1—consists of ordinary steel strut and concrete strut
Part 2—consists of hydraulic servo strut, ordinary steel strut, and concrete strut
Part 3—consists of hydraulic servo strut, ordinary steel strut, and concrete strut
Figure 12: Final cumulative lateral deflection of the diaphragm walls around the foundation pit.

the inside and outside of the foundation pit. Thus, the pit and the installation of strut are carried out synchronously.
retaining structures exhibited a tendency to deform into the When the strut is installed, the soil pressure on the sidewall
pit in the horizontal direction, thus resulting in increments in also increases. Thus, despite the new strut installation, there
the axial force. Furthermore, the change of the axial force near will be no significant downward trend in the strut axial force.
the strut is not obvious after the installation of the next strut A slow decrease in stage II occurred after the installation
was completed. This is because the excavation of foundation of the fifth concrete strut. The reasons for that can potentially
Advances in Civil Engineering 11

180

settlement (mm)
Ground surface
120

60

0
01-May-
2017

01-Jun-
2017

01-Jul-
2017

01-Aug-
2017

01-Sep-
2017

01-Oct-
2017

01-Nov-
2017
01-Dec-
2017
01-Jan-
2018
Date

D11-1 (5m away from the edge of foundation pit)

D11-2 (10m away from the edge of foundation pit)
180
settlement (mm)
Ground surface

120

60

0
01-May-
2017

01-Jun
-2017

01-Jul-
2017

01-Aug
-2017

01-Sep-
2017

01-Oct-
2017

01-Nov-
2017
01-Dec
-2017
01-Jan
-2018
Date

D13-1 (5m away from the edge of foundation pit)

D13-2 (10m away from the edge of foundation pit)
D13-3 (15m away from the edge of foundation pit)
60
settlement (mm)
Ground surface

40

20

0
01-Dec-
2018

01-Jan-
2019

01-Feb-
2019

01-Mar-
2019

01-Apr-
2019

01-May-
2019
Date

D17-1 (5m away from the edge of foundation pit)

D17-2 (10m away from the edge of foundation pit)
D17-3 (15m away from the edge of foundation pit)

Figure 13: Curve of the measured ground surface settlement with respect to time.

include three parts: (1) the concrete strut exhibits greater
stiffness and stability and bears most of the soil pressure; (2)
with the installation of underpass struts, the soil pressure
behind the wall is shared with the underpass struts, and thus
the axial force of the struts decreases slowly; (3) the ordinary
steel strut exhibits the disadvantage of stress loss, and thus
the axial force of the ordinary steel strut exhibits a slowly
decreasing trend.
A sudden increase in stage III occurred after the removal
of the sixth and seventh steel struts. The removal of the sixth
and seventh steel struts caused the remaining steel struts to
share more soil pressure from behind the wall, and this
resulted in an increase in axial force. Therefore, the moni-
toring frequency should be strengthened, and the internal
structure should be installed quickly after the removal of the
struts.
Furthermore, as shown in Figure 16, the axial force of the
ordinary steel struts was generally lower than the axial
preloading force, and this indicates that there is axial force
loss in the ordinary steel struts. Table 2 lists the axial force of
some ordinary steel struts in the foundation pit. Axial force
loss is a common phenomenon in ordinary steel struts, and
the maximum loss corresponds to 84.54% of the axial
preloading force. In addition to the loss of axial force being
caused by defects in the ordinary steel strut itself, it is also
caused by the unreasonable setting of the set axial force of
the hydraulic servo steel strut. The diaphragm wall moves to
the exterior of the foundation pit if the set axial force of the
hydraulic servo steel strut is excessively high. Subsequently,
the axial force of the hydraulic servo steel strut is maintained
above the set axial force due to its control of axial force
working mechanism. However, the ordinary steel struts can
12 Advances in Civil Engineering

0
δv/H = 0.17%
5 δv/H = 0.14%

Excavation depth (m)

10

15
Turning interval
δv/H = 0.38%
20
δv/H = 0.52%

25

30
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
Maximum ground surface settlement (mm)
Part 1 D11-2
Part 2 D13-2
Part 3 D17-2
Figure 14: Ratio of the maximum surface settlement to the excavation depth (δv /H).

240
West side
180 167.1 158.5
120 100.8 104.9 115.4
87.6
60 47.8
25.5
Final ground surface settlement (mm)

0
D16-2 D14-2 D12-2 D10-2 D8-2 D6-2 D4-2 D2-2

End Existing End

Part 3 Part 2 Part 1
Well 2 station Well 1

D19-2 D17-2 D15-2 D13-2 D11-2 D9-2 D7-2 D5-2 D3-2

0
18.2 12.8
60 31.4
120
116.1
180 155.2 148.1
173.1 180.8 166.8
East side
240
Part 1—consists of ordinary steel strut and concrete strut
Part 2—consists of hydraulic servo strut, ordinary steel strut, and concrete strut
Part 3—consists of hydraulic servo strut, ordinary steel strut, and concrete strut
Figure 15: Final surface settlement at 10 m along the edge of the foundation pit.

exhibit support dislocation, and this leads to axial force loss that the axial force of an ordinary steel strut varies with
in ordinary steel struts and an increase in the force on the temperature, and the value was 37.08 kN/°C. To prove that
adjacent struts. This is potentially the reason why the low amplitude fluctuation was caused by temperature, the
measured axial force of the hydraulic servo steel struts axial force and temperature of the hydraulic servo steel strut
exceeded the set axial force, although the measured axial during the period of the axial force fluctuation (August 2 to
force of ordinary steel strut was lower than the set axial force. August 22) are selected for analysis, as shown in Figure 17. It
Furthermore, as shown in Figure 16, low amplitude is evident in Figure 17 that the change in axial force is
fluctuation of steel strut axial force is observed. Based on consistent with the change in temperature. Furthermore,
measured data on a foundation pit, Chen et al. [27] reported Table 3 presents the axial force of some of the hydraulic servo
Advances in Civil Engineering 13

3000 30
Stage I Stage II Stage III
th
CX12 CX10 7 strut

Excavation depth (m)

6th strut
Axial force (kN) SF1-3 T4-3
5th strut
2000 20
4th strut

3rd strut
1000 2nd strut 10
1st strut The 5th concrete The 6th and
strut installation 7th strut removal

0 0
25-May-
2017

25-Jun-
2017

25-Jul-
2017

25-Aug-
2017

25-Sep-
2017

25-Oct-
2017

25-Nov-
2017

25-Dec-
2017
Date

Axial force of ordinary steel strut T4-3 Preloading (set) axial force
Axial force of hydraulic servo strut SF1-3 Excavation depth

Figure 16: Changes in the trend of the axial force of the steel struts.

Table 2: Axial force loss in ordinary steel struts.

Strut number Measured axial force (kN) Axial preloading force (kN) Percentage of axial force loss
T1-2 327.34 930 64.80
T2-2 143.77 930 84.54
T3-2 339.21 930 63.53
T4-2 257.02 930 72.36
T1-3 320.14 1200 73.32
T2-3 588.27 1200 50.98
T3-3 668.16 1200 44.32
T4-3 412.67 1200 65.61
T1-4 647.61 810 20.05
T2-4 402.88 810 50.26
T3-4 653.89 810 19.27
T4-4 397.32 810 50.95

steel struts in this study. The results indicate that the rate of
change in the hydraulic servo steel struts with temperature
corresponds to 12.6–31.5 kN/°C.
To verify the supporting effect of the hydraulic servo steel
struts under temperature variation, the axial force and
displacement variation in the hydraulic jack are plotted in
Figure 18. Although the axial force fluctuation of the hy-
draulic servo steel struts was high, the fluctuation value of
the hydraulic jack was always between 1.4 mm and 3.4 mm.
Essentially, although the axial force of the hydraulic servo
steel struts varies with temperature, the hydraulic servo steel
strut adjusts in real time based on the hydraulic jack dis-
placement variation, and this prevents deformation of the
retaining structure caused by change in axial force with
respect to temperature fluctuation.
The relationship between the lateral deformation and
ground settlement with the axial forces of hydraulic servo
steel strut is important for this topic. Considering the long
interval between the two monitoring of ground surface
settlement, we select the deformation of lateral wall for
analysis. To investigate the relationship between lateral
deformation and the axial forces of hydraulic servo steel
strut, Figure 19 shows the curve of the lateral deformation at
the elevation of the servo support in the section where the
SF1-3 support is located with respect to time. From Figure 19,
we can see that deformation to the outside of the foundation
pit occurred at the position when the servo strut was in-
stalled. The reason for this phenomenon is that the set axial
force of the servo struts was large, which makes the retaining
structure deform outside the pit. Then, deformation of the
servo strut position tends to be stable, which indicates that
the hydraulic servo steel strut plays a beneficial role in
controlling the deformation of the foundation pit. Fur-
thermore, the retaining structure at the elevation of the 6th
and 7th struts experienced large deformation before the
concrete strut was put into use. However, when the 5th
concrete strut was put into use, the deformation tended to be
stable. This phenomenon proves yet again that the exposure
period without support caused by the long maintenance
period of the concrete strut leads to a sharp increase in the
deformation of the enclosure structure. However, the con-
crete strut has good overall performance and can effectively
restrain the development of sidewall deformation after it has
been put into use.
14 Advances in Civil Engineering

2200 60

55
2000
50

Temperature (°C)
Axial force (kN) 1800 45

40
1600 35

30
1400
25

1200 20
05-Aug-
2017

09-Aug-
2017

13-Aug-
2017

17-Aug-
2017

21-Aug-
2017
Date
Axial force
Temperature
Figure 17: Changes in the trend of the axial force and temperature of the hydraulic servo steel struts.

Table 3: Statistics of the axial force of hydraulic servo strut.

Number of servo Minimum Maximum Minimum axial Maximum axial Change in rate
Set axial force (kN)
steel struts temperature (°C) temperature (°C) force (kN) force (kN) (kN/°C)
SF1-3 1300 30.75 45.44 2131.5 2563.9 29.4
SF2-3 1320 30.75 45.75 1999.4 2291.3 19.5
SF3-3 1120 30.75 45.62 1360.2 1753.1 26.4
SF4-3 1160 30.75 45.44 1596.8 2007.4 28.0
SF5-3 1080 30.75 45.62 1328.7 1696.4 24.7
SF6-3 760 30.75 46.19 878.2 1200.0 20.8
SF7-3 1040 30.75 45.44 1174.8 1638.2 31.5
SF8-3 1020 30.75 45.75 1038.3 1285.3 16.5
SF9-3 696 30.75 45.62 687.0 908.4 14.9

2200 4
The displacement variation of

2000
3
hydraulic jack (mm)
Axial force (kN)

1800
2
1600

1
1400

1200 0
05-Aug.-2017 09-Aug.-2017 13-Aug.-2017 17-Aug.-2017 21-Aug.-2017
Date
Axial force
Displacement
Figure 18: Trend of the axial force and displacement variation in the hydraulic servo steel struts.

6. Discussion
Compared to an ordinary steel strut, a hydraulic servo steel
strut is better at controlling deformation in a foundation pit.
However, a few problems still persist in its application:
(1) A definite design method for the set axial force of the
hydraulic servo steel strut is absent, and it is nec-
essary to investigate how to optimize the design of a
hydraulic servo steel strut based on its working
mechanism.
Advances in Civil Engineering 15

80 40

of diaphragm walls (mm)

60 30
Lateral deflection 7th strut

Depth (m)
6th strut
40 5th strut 20

3rd strut 4th strut

20 2nd strut 10
1st strut

0 0
01-Jun.-2017

01-Jul.-2017

01-Aug.-2017

01-Sep.-2017

01-Oct.-2017

01-Nov.-2017

01-Dec.-2017
Date

The depth of strut 3rd The depth of 4th strut

The depth of 6th strut The depth of 7th strut
Excavation depth
Figure 19: Curve of the lateral deformation at the elevation of the servo support with respect to time.

(2) In the application process of a hydraulic servo steel 86.7% of the designed axial force. Therefore, in
strut, the actual axial force typically exceeds the foundation pit engineering with strict deformation
design axial force, and this leads to an increase in the control, the use of hydraulic servo steel struts, which
internal force of the diaphragm wall. Future studies overcome the axial force loss, is recommended.
should investigate whether the reinforcement setting (3) A concrete strut is typically used in a deep foun-
of the diaphragm wall should be adjusted accord- dation pit and is cast-in-place. Thus, there is un-
ingly in the design stage. supported exposure during the excavation process,
(3) Presently, the working mechanism of the hydraulic leading to a sharp increase in deformation of the
servo steel strut is based on a single strut, but the retaining structure of the foundation pit. Thus, the
deformation effect of the foundation pit is affected by construction organization design should be opti-
the entire support system. Consequently, it is of great mized to the maximum possible extent to reduce the
significance to study the influence of the axial force unsupported exposure period of the foundation pit.
adjustment of the hydraulic servo steel strut on the The use of a hydraulic servo steel strut rather than a
adjacent support and to propose a new servo ad- concrete strut can accelerate construction and pre-
justment method based on the support system. clude an unsupported exposure period.

7. Conclusions Data Availability

The following conclusions were obtained in this study: Some or all data used during the study are available from the
corresponding author by request.
(1) When compared with an ordinary steel strut in-
stalled by preloading the axial force, the hydraulic
servo steel strut (which adopts the working mech- Conflicts of Interest
anism of simultaneous control of axial force and The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
displacement) exhibits a superior supporting effect.
The hydraulic servo steel strut adjusts the axial force
in real time based on deformation of the retaining Acknowledgments
structure and the supporting axial force. Thus, the
The study on which this paper is based was supported by the
ratio of maximum lateral deflection to excavation
National Natural Science Foundation of China through the
depth of the deep foundation pit in a soft soil area is
grant no. 51808405.
less than 0.3%.
(2) The ordinary steel strut (installed via axial pre-
References
loading) exhibits the disadvantage of axial force loss
due to several factors. In this study, the maximum [1] X. Zhang, J. Yang, Y. Zhang, and Y. Gao, “Cause investigation
axial force loss of the ordinary steel strut reached of damages in existing building adjacent to foundation pit in
16
construction,” Engineering Failure Analysis, vol. 83, pp. 117–
124, 2018.
[2] G. Zheng, H. H. Zhu, X. R. Liu et al., “Control of safety of deep
excavations and underground engineering and its impact on
surrounding environment,” China Civil Engineering Journal,
vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 1–24, 2016, in Chinese.
[3] R. W. Clough and T. D. O’Rourke, “Construction induced
movements of in situ walls,” in Proceedings of the ASCE
Conference on Design and Performance of Earth Retaining
Structures, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 25, pp. 439–
470, Ithaca, NY, USA, June 1990.
[4] M. Long, “Database for retaining wall and ground movements
due to deep excavations,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-
environmental Engineering, vol. 127, no. 3, pp. 203–224, 2001.
[5] E. H. Y. Leung and W. W.N. Charles, “Wall and ground
movements associated with deep excavations supported by
cast in situ wall in mixed ground conditions,” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 133,
no. 2, pp. 129–143, 2007.
[6] G. B. Liu, J. J. Rebecca, W.W. N. Charles, and Y. Hong,
“Deformation characteristics of a 38 m deep excavation in soft
clay,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 48, no. 12,
pp. 1817–1828, 2011.
[7] L. N. Sun, Y. Liu, and L. M. Zhang, “Analysis on deformation
of foundation excavation considering of time-space effect,”
Applied Mechanics and Materials, vol. 291–294, pp. 1135–
1139, 2013.
[8] G. Xu, J. Zhang, H. Liu, and R. Changqin, “Shanghai center
project excavation induced ground surface movements and
deformations,” Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering,
vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 26–43, 2018.
[9] Y. Tan and B. Wei, “Observed behaviours of a long and deep
excavation constructed by cut-and-cover technique in
Shanghai soft clay,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-
environmental Engineering, vol. 138, no. 1, pp. 69–88, 2012.
[10] J. Shi, G. Liu, P. Huang, and C.W.W. Ng, “Interaction between
a large-scale triangular excavation and adjacent structures in
Shanghai soft clay,” Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, vol. 50, pp. 282–295, 2015.
[11] I. H. Wong, T. Y. Poh, and H. L. Chuah, “Performance of
excavations for depressed expressway in Singapore,” Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 123,
no. 7, pp. 617–625, 1997.
[12] Z. Luo, H. Di, M. Kamalzare, and Y. Li, “Effects of soil spatial
variability on structural reliability assessment in excavations,”
Underground Space, 2018.
[13] Z. Luo, B. Hu, Y. Wang, and H. Di, “Effect of spatial variability
of soft clays on geotechnical design of braced excavations: a
case study of Formosa excavation,” Computers and Geo-
technics, vol. 103, pp. 242–253, 2018.
[14] Y. Tan, B. Wei, X. Zhou, and D. Yanping, “Lessons learned
from construction of Shanghai metro stations: importance of
quick excavation, promptly propping, timely casting and
segmented construction,” Journal of Performance of Con-
structed Facilities, vol. 29, no. 4, Article ID 04014096, 2015.
[15] Y. Tan and D. Wang, “Characteristics of a large-scale deep
foundation pit excavated by the central-island technique in
Shanghai soft clay. II: top-down construction of the peripheral
rectangular pit,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, vol. 139, no. 11, pp. 1894–1910, 2013.
[16] M.-G. Li, Z.-J. Zhang, J.-J. Chen, J.-H. Wang, and A.-J. Xu,
“Zoned and staged construction of an underground complex
in Shanghai soft clay,” Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, vol. 67, pp. 187–200, 2017.
Advances in Civil Engineering
[17] Y. M. Yao, S. H. Zhou, W. Sun et al., “Influence of brace
stiffness and pre-axial force on the deformation and internal
force of foundation pit,” Underground Space, vol. 23, no. 4,
pp. 401–404, 2003, in Chinese.
[18] J. Tanner Blackburn and J. F. Richard, “Three-dimensional
responses observed in an internally braced excavation in soft
clay,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engi-
neering, vol. 133, no. 11, pp. 1364–1373, 2007.
[19] J. Chen, “Retaining structure deformation characteristics of
long and narrow type deep foundation pit in the expansive
soil,” Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering,
vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 440–445, 2015, in Chinese.
[20] L. N. Guo, B. Hu, F. C. Li, and H. Xu, “The study on axial force
of steel shotcrete protective structures on deep foundation pit
in Wuhan subway,” Chinese Journal of Underground Space
and Engineering, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1386–1393, 2013, in Chinese.
[21] J. Jia, X. L. Xie, F. Y. Luo, and J.-Q. Zhai, “Support axial force
servo system in deep excavation deformation control,”
Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University, vol. 43, no. 10,
pp. 1589–1594, 2009, in Chinese.
[22] S. M. Zhang, X. M. Jia, T. K. Yuan, W. G. Liu, and Y. Jun,
“Application of axial force compensation for steel support
system in practical project,” Applied Mechanics and Materials,
vol. 477-478, pp. 503–508, 2013.
[23] Y. Tan, W. Bin, L. Ye, and Y. Bo, “Is basal reinforcement
essential for long and narrow subway excavation bottoming
out in Shanghai soft clay?,” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 145, no. 5, Article ID
05019002, 2019.
[24] Z. Ding, D. Wang, J. Y. Wang, and X. J. Wei, “Deformation
characteristics of Zhejiang soft soil deep foundation pits and
their predictive analysis,” Rock and Soil Mechanics, vol. 36,
pp. 506–512, 2015, in Chinese.
[25] Y. Tan and B. Wei, “Performance of an over excavated metro
station and facilities nearby,” Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 241–254, 2012.
[26] Z. Ding, J. Jin, and T.-C. Han, “Analysis of the zoning ex-
cavation monitoring data of a narrow and deep foundation pit
in soft soil area,” Journal of Geophysics and Engineering,
vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1231–1241, 2018.
[27] Z. C. Chen, S. D. Liu, and S. B. Fan, “Effect of temperature on
axial force of steel support in subway foundation pit,” Journal
of Shijiazhuang University, vol. 31, pp. 6–9, 2018, in Chinese.
 International Journal of

Rotating Advances in
Machinery Multimedia

The Scientific
Engineering
Journal of
Journal of

Hindawi
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi
Sensors
Hindawi Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 http://www.hindawi.com
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018
2013 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Journal of

Control Science
and Engineering

Advances in
Civil Engineering
Hindawi Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Submit your manuscripts at

www.hindawi.com

Journal of
Journal of Electrical and Computer
Robotics
Hindawi
Engineering
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

VLSI Design
Advances in
OptoElectronics
International Journal of

International Journal of
Modelling &
Simulation
Aerospace
Hindawi Volume 2018
Navigation and
Observation
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018
in Engineering
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018
Engineering
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

International Journal of
International Journal of Antennas and Active and Passive Advances in
Chemical Engineering Propagation Electronic Components Shock and Vibration Acoustics and Vibration
Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018