AIN SHAMS UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
Vol. 37, No. 3, September 30, 2002
SCIENTIFIC BULLETIN
Received on : 1/6/2002
Accepted on : 21/8/2002
PP. : 75-90


SPATIAL STRESS-DEFORMATION ANALYSIS FOR
INSTALLATION OF A DIAPHRAGM WALL

SAYED M. EL-SAYED
1
AHMED H. ABDEL-RAHMAN
2


ABSTRACT
There is an escalating need for acceptable techniques to estimate building
settlements associated with the trenching process of diaphragm walls. Prediction
of the deformation patterns resulting from insitu wall installation can be
achieved through monitoring more case histories and upgrading the available
analysis techniques by rigorous evaluation of the measured data. The objective
of the present research is to present a three-dimensional back analysis of
measured building settlements compiled during installation of a diaphragm wall
in Greater Cairo. The numerical analysis showed that building settlements in the
vicinity of the diaphragm wall trench depends predominantly, among other
factors, on the foundation type of the proximate buildings and the paneled
construction of the wall.

Keywords: Diaphragm wall; paneled construction; secondary and primary
panels; trenching; excavation; field measurements; nonlinear analysis; finite
element; three-dimensional analysis.



.
.



.

1
Assistant Professor, Structural Engineering Dept., Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
2
Assistant Professor, Civil Eng. Dept., Engineering Research Division, National Research Center of Egypt.
1. INTRODUCTION
Requirements with respect to control of ground movements during insitu
wall construction vary greatly. Walls constructed in soils with no nearby
structures pose little concern with respect to movements; nevertheless, ground
movements are the key design issue for excavations located in urban areas.
Recently, many diaphragm walls have been constructed in Greater Cairo, which
considered one of the most congested cities in the world, for several purposes
such as basements, underground garages, cut-and-cover tunnels and subway
stations. Diaphragm wall construction in Greater Cairo imposes many
engineering challenges regarding the stability of the excavated panels and the
hazard effect of the resulting deformation field on adjacent structures. The
geotechnical conditions encountered during the construction of diaphragm walls
in Greater Cairo are typically alluvial soils with a shallow groundwater table.
These conditions are classified as problematic from the geotechnical point of
view especially if the constructed wall is located near to structurally sensitive
buildings (El-Sohby and Mazen, 1985). It is typically assumed that deformations
will be small if there is an adequate factor of safety against overall instability of
the trench (Goldenberg et al., 1976); however, building settlements of more than
2 inches were recorded during trenching whereas no stability problem was
reported (Cowland and Thorley, 1985).
Different researches reported settlement distribution associated with the
installation of diaphragm walls (Clough and ORouke, 1990; Thompson,1991 &
Abdel-Rahman and El-Sayed, 2002). Maximum settlement at wall locations was
found to range between 0.04% to 0.15% of the trench depth depending on the
configuration of the wall, the soil and groundwater conditions of the site and the
workmanship quality. The limit of the settlement trough is estimated to range
between twice to three times the trench depth.
Recently, three-dimensional models were utilized to study the behavior of
grounds in trenching. Gourvenec and Powrie (1998) concluded that the lateral
stress reduction and the deformation fields estimated using plane-strain analysis
of a diaphragm wall installation in stiff overconsolidated clay are generally
overestimated compared with the three-dimensional analysis. Ng and Yan
(1998) employed a non-linear elastoplastic finite difference scheme to perform a
back-analysis of a diaphragm wall installation. They concluded that settlement
trough extended to one-and-half times the trench depth with the peak of the
trough located close to the trench side.
In the current research, a three-dimensional finite element back analysis
of a case history is presented. The analysis is performed using a nonlinear
constitutive relationship to analyze the measured settlement monitored for
buildings founded on shallow and deep foundations during the execution of
diaphragm wall panels.
2. THE CASE HISTORY
The presented case history is a diaphragm wall constructed to be used for
the basement of a multistory building in Greater Cairo. The wall is located at
1.80m, 3.15m, 3.25m and 7.12m far from existing buildings founded on piles
and shallow foundations. The wall depth is 21.00 m and the wall thickness is
0.60 m. Five buildings (designated A, B, C, D and E) are located near to the wall
as shown in Fig. (1). Buildings (A), (B) and (C) are twelve to fourteen stories
founded on deep foundations (piles) with lengths ranging between 14.00 m, and
16.00 m; i.e., shorter than the executed diaphragm walls. Buildings (E) and (D)
are three and five stories respectively founded on shallow foundations.
The subsurface soil condition at the site consists mainly of a top fill layer
appeared from ground surface to a depth of about 2.0 m. The fill is mainly a
mixture of sand, silt, and broken bricks. A sandy silt layer appeared after the top
fill layer and extended to a depth of about 5.0 m. A layer of sand with some silt
followed the sandy silt layer and extended to a depth of 11.0 m. A layer of
graded sand with some gravel followed the previous layer and extended to the
end of boreholes at 25.0 m. The ground water table appeared at a depth of about
2.0 m from ground surface. Fig. (2) presents the subsurface soil profile with the
estimated mechanical parameters for the different layers.
Thirty-one settlement points were used to monitor the building
settlements associated with the diaphragm wall installation and excavation of the
basement as shown in Fig. (1). The construction arrangement of the diaphragm
wall panels is sequentially marked in Fig. (1) as well. Fig. (3) shows the time
variation of the settlement for the different settlement points located around the
wall. The settlement gradually increased for all points due to the construction of
more panels with time. No point had a settlement recovery due to concrete
pouring. Some points had an abrupt upsurge of settlement after June 24, 2001
due to a mild earthquake, which took place between observations. Another
increase of settlement occurred on July 9, 2001 due to the rupture of a main
water pipeline near building (A). These sudden escalations of settlement may be
due to some kind of soil meta-stable structures that collapsed during the soil
disturbance.

3. THREE DIMENSIONAL MODELING OF THE PROBLEM
3.1. Soil Constitutive Modeling
The soil nonlinear behavior was identified by variable modulii dependent
on the confining pressure and the stress path. The soil constitutive relationship is
expressed in an incremental form to account for the path-dependency. Using the
incremental form of the constitutive matrix [D
et
], the tangential element stiffness
matrix [K
et
] can be written as:
[ ] [ ] [ ][ ]

=
element
e et
t
e et
) Volume ( d B D B K
(1)
where the [B
e
] is the element strain-nodal displacement matrix. The loading
modulus (E
t
) and the unloading-reloading modulus (E
ur
) are presented by the
following forms:
[ ]
n
a
3
2
f t
p
SL R 1 K E

= (2)
n
a
3
a ur ur
p
p K E

= (3)
Where
( ) ( )
+

=
sin 2 cos c 2
sin 1
SL
3
3 1

(4)
R
f
= the ratio between the ultimate and the failure deviator stresses.
p
a
= the atmospheric pressure.
n = the stiffness exponent.
K = Duncan's loading modulus coefficient.
SL = the ratio between the deviator stress and the ultimate deviatoric pressure
(estimated by Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion).
K
ur
= unloading-reloading modulus coefficient.

1
&
3
= the major and the minor principal stresses (assuming
2
=

3,
and c &
are the soil shear parameters).
The variation of the modulus coefficient (K) with depth is shown in
Fig.(2). Details of the used constitutive model are illustrated by Duncan and
Chang (1970), and Duncan et al. (1984).
3.2. Procedure of Iterations
It is not possible to predetermine the regions subjected to loading or
unloading to assign either the loading modulus or the unloading modulus. The
correct modulus is defined in the iterations according to a parameter called the
loading level depending on the deviator stress, the shear strength parameters and
the confining pressure as follows:
a
3
p ) sin 1 (
2
SL LL

=
(5)
The loading level (LL) is calculated for each gauss point and compared to
the maximum value reached during the loading history at the same gauss point
(LL
max
). The modulus (E) depends on the parameter LL as following:
If (
max
LL LL ), loading is taking place and the used modulus equals to E
t

If (
max
LL 75 . 0 LL ), unloading is taking place and used modulus equals to E
ur

If (
max max
LL 75 . 0 LL LL > > ), the modulus E is calculated by interpolation between
E
t
and E
ur
as shown in Fig. (4).
3.3. Bentonite Slurry and Concrete Modeling
Bentonite slurry is presented by a weak material with a unit weight of
1.06 gm/c.c and an infinitesimal modulus of elasticity. The concrete is presented
by an incrementally hardening elastic material.
3.4. Meshing and Geometrical Modeling
The soil, the bentonite slurry and the diaphragm wall are modeled using
three-dimensional hexahedral elements. Formulation and programming of the
finite element are explained by El-Sayed (2001). The employed three-
dimensional finite element mesh and the position of the wall panels are shown in
Fig. (5). The problem was discretized into 924 elements. The boundary
conditions are shown in Fig. (5-a). Three vertical boundary planes have the
conditions of symmetry; the fourth vertical plane represents the truncation
boundary for the far deformation field in which it is presented by horizontal
roller to facilitate the introduction of the initial insitu stress condition. The
bottom horizontal plane is prevented from all deformations.
3.5. Construction Sequence Modeling
Three consequent panels are considered in the analysis identified by the
Roman numbers I, II & III, as shown in Fig. (5-b). The number sequence
presents the construction order of the panels. The mesh dimension is minimum
in the direction of the wall since Gourvenec and Powrie (1998), and Ng and Yan
(1998) concluded that the mutual effect of far panels is not significant in this
direction.
Trenching is modeled by removing a cluster of ground elements from the
finite element meshing; conversely, concreting is simulated by adding new
elements to the mesh. The required changes in the mesh are applied to
reconstruct the residual force vector {R} resulting from the difference between
the applied force and the straining forces. The residual vector and the stiffness
matrix [K
t
] are calculated at the beginning of each iteration (Newton-Raphson),
i.e. the (i+1)
th
iteration is described as follows:
{ } [ ] { }

=
+ +
=
elements of No.
1 e
element
e
t t
i
T
e
t t
) Volume ( d B F [ ] { } { } R U K
t t
1 i
t t
1 i t
t t
i
+
+
+
+
+
=
&

(6)
where {F} is the nodal forces and { } U
&
is the incremental displacement. The left
subscript denotes the iteration process and the left superscript donates a
sequential pseudo time index. If the iteration superscript is zero, the matrix or
vector is calculated at the end of the previous time step. The stress increment
can be calculated from the strain {} using the following modified Euler
integration scheme:
{ } { } [ ] [ ] { } U B D
t t
1 i e et
t t
2 / 1 i
t t
i
t t
1 i
&
+
+
+
+
+ +
+
+ (7)
The effect of buildings having shallow foundations on the trench is
presented by an additional surcharge of 4 t/m
2
at level (-2.00) while a surcharge
of 15 t/m
2
was presented at level (-16.00) to study the case of structures having
deep foundations. The values of the surcharges were assumed according to the
number of stories of the buildings.

4. RESULTS
The two cases of buildings having deep foundations and buildings having
shallow foundations were studied at three longitudinal sections (1, 2 & 3) for the
panels (I, II & III); the locations of the sections are shown in Fig. (5-b).
Deformations of both cases are governed by the occurrence of yielded zones
surrounding the trench. The maximum stress level (SL
max
) which can be
considered as a measure of the soil yield stress, is shown in Fig. (6-a) for the
case of the deep foundations while Fig.(6-b) shows the results for the case of
shallow foundations. The stress level approaches unit at the trench boundary
which indicates a partial yield zone that is more significant towards the
buildings located close to the trench locale. The major intensification in the
maximum stress level is located near the foundation levels of the deep and the
shallow foundations. The pile foundations have more extended yield zone.
Fig. (7) presents the results of the settlement away from the diaphragm
wall for the case of deep foundations. The maximum settlement is adjacent to
the trench due to excavation of the close panel while the interaction of
settlement troughs associated with different panels is more likely to govern the
settlement field beyond its maximum value. The maximum settlement was
identified at section (1) and section (2) for the primary panels (I) & (II) with a
value of 10 mm (0.048% of the maximum trench depth). A good correspondence
between the measured building settlement and the predicted settlement envelope
is shown in Fig. (7-d).
Fig. (8) shows the settlement profile for the case of shallow foundations.
The settlement troughs in this case resemble a bow with a maximum value
located at a distance of one meter away from the trench. The interaction between
different troughs is more pronounced far away from the wall. The maximum
settlement is 6.1 mm for panel (I) which presents 0.03% of the maximum trench
depth. Fig. (8-d) shows a fair matching between the measured settlements and
the predicated envelope.
The lateral deformations of the trench side for both cases are shown in
Fig. (9). The maximum lateral displacement was estimated as 16.3 mm (i.e.
0.077% of the trench depth) at depth of 16 m for the pile foundations and 9.9
mm (i.e. 0.047%) at depth of 2 m for shallow foundations. The pronounced
increase at the level of foundation in both cases is generally believed to be
attributed to the spread of the yield zone beneath at that level.
The relation between the maximum settlement and the maximum
horizontal displacement was depicted in Fig. (10). In both of foundation types,
the maximum settlement was about 61% of the maximum horizontal
displacement although different deformation profiles were assessed.

5. CONCLUSION
The case history presented in this paper included the construction of
diaphragm wall paneling in the vicinity of buildings founded on shallow and
deep (piles) foundations. The depth of the diaphragm wall panels was deeper
than the pile tip. Three-dimensional back analysis was performed, and compared
with the field settlement compiled during the wall installation. The analysis
demonstrates that the maximum settlement is more likely to be governed by the
close panels while the settlement trough beyond its maximum value is
significantly affected by the interference of the settlement troughs resulting from
other proximal panels. The maximum settlement is more probable to occur due
to primary panels than secondary ones.
The maximum settlement observed in buildings having pile foundations
was about 0.048% of the maximum height of the trench while the settlement of
buildings having shallow foundations is only about 0.03% of the maximum
trench height. The maximum lateral deformation near the trench is about
0.077% of the trench depth for piles and 0.047 % of the trench depth for the case
of shallow foundations. The variation in deformation may be figured out by the
considering the constitutive behavior of ground and the spread of a limited yield
zone created by trenching near the shallow and deep foundation levels. A
significant yield zone was created beneath the piles resulting in formation of a
substantial lateral deformation at the piles' tip. The maximum settlement in both
cases was estimated to be 61% of the lateral displacement.

6. REFERENCES
1. Abdel-Rahman, A. H. and El-Sayed, S. M., 2002, "Settlement Trough
Associated with Diaphragm Wall Construction in Greater Cairo", the
Journal of the Egyptian Geotechnical Society, accepted for
publications.
2. Clough, G. and O'Rourke, T., 1990, "Construction Induced Movements
of Insitu Walls", Design and Performance of Earth Retaining
Structures, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publications 25, pp. 439-470.
3. Cowland, J. W. and Thorley, C. B. B., 1985, Ground and Building
Settlement Associated with Adjacent Slurry Trench Excavation.
Ground Movements and Structures Proc., Third Int. Conf., University
of Wales Institute of Science and Technology, J. D. Geddes, ed.,
Pentech Press, London, England, 723-738.
4. Duncan, J. M. and Chang, C. Y., 1970, Nonlinear Analysis of Stresses
and Strains in Soils, Journal of Soil Mech. And Found. Div., ASCE,
Vol. 96, No. SM5.
5. Duncan, J. M., Seed, R. B., Wong, K. S. and Ozawa, Y., 1984,
FEADAM84: A Computer Program for Finite Element Analysis of
Dams, Virginia Polytechnic Inst. And State Univ., Dept. of Civil
Engineering, USA.
6. El-Sayed, S. M., 2001," Elastoplastic Three-dimensional Analysis of
Shielded Tunnels, with Special Application on Greater Cairo Metro",
Ph.D. Thesis, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
7. El-Sohby, M.A. and Mazen, O., 1985, Geology aspects in Cairo
Subsurface Development , Proc. of the 11st. ICSMFE, San Francisco,
Vol. 3, pp. 2401-2405.
8. Goldberg, D. T., Jaworski, W. E. and Gordon, M. D., 1976, "Lateral
Support and Underpinning Vol. III. Construction Methods", Report
No. FHWA-RD-75-130, prepared for Federal Highway Administration,
Office of Research & Development, Washington D.C.
9. Gourvenec, S. M. and Powrie, W., 1998, "Three-dimensional Finite-
element Analsysis of Diaphragm Wall Installation", Geotechnique, Vol.
49, No. 6, pp. 801-823.
10. Ng, C. W. W. and Yan, R. W. M., 1998, "Three-dimensional Modelling
of a Diaphragm Wall Construction Sequence", Geotechnique, Vol. 49,
No. 6, pp. 825-834.
11. Thompson, P., 1991, A Review of Retaining Wall Behavior in
Overconsolidated Clay during Early Stages of Construction, Mphil
Thesis, Univ. of London, London, England.

Fig. (1): Layout of the wall and the settlement points


Fig. (2): Soil profile and geotechnical parameters

Fill
SAND-SILT
Fine SAND and some silt
Graded SAND, some gravel
Depth (m)
Duncan's modulus coefficient (K)
200 400 600
180
300
480
600
(0.00)
(-2.00)
(-5.00)
(-11.00)
c=0, =28
o
, =17 kN/m
3
c=0, =30
o
, =18 kN/m
3
c=0, =33.5
o
, =19 kN/m
3

c=0, =36
o
, =20 kN/m
3

0.6 m
(-21.00)
Diaphragm wall
GWT



-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
In
it
i
a
l
7
/6
1
0
/6
1
2
/6
1
4
/6
1
7
/6
1
9
/6
2
1
/6
2
4
/6
2
6
/6
2
8
/6
2
/7
4
/7
7
/7
9
/7
1
1
/7
1
3
/7
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (1)
Point (7)
Point (12)

-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
I
n
i
t
ia
l
7
/
6
1
0
/
6
1
2
/
6
1
4
/
6
1
7
/
6
1
9
/
6
2
1
/
6
2
4
/
6
2
6
/
6
2
8
/
6
2
/
7
4
/
7
7
/
7
9
/
7
1
1
/
7
1
3
/
7
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (2)
Point (8)
Point (13)
-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
In
it
ia
l
7
/6
1
0
/6
1
2
/6
1
4
/6
1
7
/6
1
9
/6
2
1
/6
2
4
/6
2
6
/6
2
8
/6
2
/7
4
/7
7
/7
9
/7
1
1
/7
1
3
/7
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (3)
Point (9)
Point (14)
-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
In
it
ia
l
7
/6
1
0
/6
1
2
/6
1
4
/6
1
7
/6
1
9
/6
2
1
/6
2
4
/6
2
6
/6
2
8
/6
2
/7
4
/7
7
/7
9
/7
1
1
/7
1
3
/7
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (4)
Point (10)
Point (15)
-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
In
it
ia
l
7
/6
1
0
/6
1
2
/6
1
4
/6
1
7
/6
1
9
/6
2
1
/6
2
4
/6
2
6
/6
2
8
/6
2
/7
4
/7
7
/7
9
/7
1
1
/7
1
3
/7
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (5)
Point (16)

-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
In
it
ia
l
7
/6
1
0
/6
1
2
/6
1
4
/6
1
7
/6
1
9
/6
2
1
/6
2
4
/6
2
6
/6
2
8
/6
2
/7
4
/7
7
/7
9
/7
1
1
/7
1
3
/7
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (6)
Point (11)
Point (17)
-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
In
it
ia
l
7
/6
1
0
/6
1
2
/6
1
4
/6
1
7
/6
1
9
/6
2
1
/6
2
4
/6
2
6
/6
2
8
/6
2
/7
4
/7
7
/7
9
/7
1
1
/7
1
3
/7
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (18)
Point (27)

-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
In
it
ia
l
7
/6
1
0
/6
1
2
/6
1
4
/6
1
7
/6
1
9
/6
2
1
/6
2
4
/6
2
6
/6
2
8
/6
2
/7
4
/7
7
/7
9
/7
1
1
/7
1
3
/7
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (19)
Point (28)
-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
7
/
6
1
0
/
6
1
2
/
6
1
4
/
6
1
7
/
6
1
9
/
6
2
1
/
6
2
4
/
6
2
6
/
6
2
8
/
6
2
/
7
4
/
7
7
/
7
9
/
7
1
1
/
7
1
3
/
7
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (20)
Point (29)

-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
7
/
6
1
0
/
6
1
2
/
6
1
4
/
6
1
7
/
6
1
9
/
6
2
1
/
6
2
4
/
6
2
6
/
6
2
8
/
6
2
/
7
4
/
7
7
/
7
9
/
7
1
1
/
7
1
3
/
7
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (21)
Point (30)
-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
In
it
ia
l
7
/6
1
0
/6
1
2
/6
1
4
/6
1
7
/6
1
9
/6
2
1
/6
2
4
/6
2
6
/6
2
8
/6
2
/7
4
/7
7
/7
9
/7
1
1
/7
1
3
/7
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (22)
Point (24)
Point (23)

-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
In
it
ia
l
7
/6
1
0
/6
1
2
/6
1
4
/6
1
7
/6
1
9
/6
2
1
/6
2
4
/6
2
6
/6
2
8
/6
2
/7
4
/7
7
/7
9
/7
1
1
/7
1
3
/7
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (25)
Point (31)
Point (26)

Fig. (3): Settlement (mm) vs. time for the monitoring points















Fig. (4): Effect of stress path on soil stiffness.





Fig. (5): Mesh details (a) Isometric view showing the mesh;
(b) Isometric view of the panels I, II & III and the sections 1,2 & 3
LL
max
0.75 LL
max

E
t

E
ur

LL
E

3

E
t

E
ur

12.00 m
12.00 m
21.00 m
29.00 m
58.00 m
(a)
S
S
F
S
B
F: Far field
S: Symmetrical conditions
B: Bottom of the mesh
SEC 1
SEC 3
SEC 2
II
III
I
(b)
3.00 m
6.00 m
3.00 m






(a)



(b)

Fig. (6): The maximum stress level (SL
max
)
(a) The case of pile foundations;
(b) The case of shallow foundations

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Distance from trench (m)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Excavation of Panel I
Excavation of Panel II
Excavation of Panel III

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Distance from trench (m)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Excavation of Panel I
Excavation of Panel II
Excavation of Panel III
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Distance from trench (m)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Excavation of Panel I
Excavation of Panel II
Excavation of Panel III

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Distnace from Trench (m)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Maximum predicated settlement
Measured

Fig. (7): Settlement troughs for pile foundations (a) Section 1; (b) Section 2;
(c) Section 3; (d) Calculated settlement envelope vs. measured values
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)


0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Distance from trench (m)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Excavation of Panel I
Excavation of Panel II
Excavation of Panel III


0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Distance from trench (m)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Excavation of Panel I
Excavation of Panel II
Excavation of Panel III


0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Distance from trench (m)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Excavation of Panel I
Excavation of Panel II
Excavation of Panel III

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Distnace from Trench (m)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Maximum predicated settlement
Measured

Fig. (8): Settlement troughs for shallow foundations (a) Section 1; (b) Section 2;
(c) Section 3; (d) Calculated settlement envelope vs. measured values

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)




0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Lateral Deformation (mm)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3

(a)


0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Lateral Deformation (mm)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3

(b)


Fig. (9): Lateral deformation of the trench side
(a) The case of pile foundations;
(b) The case of shallow foundations
(-2.00)
(-16.00)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Maximum horizontal displacement (mm)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)


Fig. (10): Relation between maximum horizontal and vertical displacements
Piles
Shallow found.
Vertical = Horizontal
Vertical = 0.5 Horizontal
Vertical = 0.61 Horizontal
Maximum vertical displacement (mm)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)