CY Ou

Stress and Deformation Analysis

--Simplified Method

Chang-Yu Ou, Chair Professor

Department of Civil and Construction Engineering
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology

08:03:01
 CY Ou

6.1 Introduction

The important of "Simplified Method".

 CY Ou
4.2 Analysis of Settlement Induced by the Construction of
Diaphragm Walls

Groundwater

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Excavation of the Trench：The depth of a guided trench is generally

about 2~3 m, sometimes 5 m. And that no
significant settlement occurs during this stage.
 CY Ou

d Ht
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

0
d
 v / H t (%) v
Ht
-0.1
Hong Kong excavations
London NPY
Bell Common
South Cove
-0.2 Studenterlunden
 CY Ou
d Ht

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

0
d
-0.05
 v / H t (%)
Ht v
-0.10

-0.15 Induced by construction of a single panel of the diaphragm wall

Induced by construction of multiple panels of the diaphragm wall
Induced by construction of the whole diaphragm wall
-0.20
Clough and O'Rourke’s envelope

Wall installation is completed in one day!

How about for more than 2 days?
 CY Ou
6.3 Characteristics of Wall Movement Induced by Excavation
Safety factors of stability effect

Sheet piles 1 m-thick diaphragm wall

h = 3 .5 m h = 3 .5 m
2.5
h He

2.0
Fb
0.9
1.5
1.0
1.1
1.0

1.4
0.5
2.0
3.0

10 30 50 70 100 300 500 700 1000 3000

(EI ) ( w
4
havg )
 CY Ou

Strength effect 0
Wall deflection, mm
100 200 300 400 500

su/sv' = 0.18
su/sv' = 0.22
su/sv' = 0.3
560
-8
480
Depth, m

400

Heave, mm
320
240
-16 160
80
0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-24 Distance to wall, m

(a) (b)
 CY Ou

Wall deflection, mm
Width effect 0 40 80 120 160 200

0
B = 10 m
-4 B = 25 m
B = 105 m
-8

-12 300

-16
Depth, m

Heave, mm
200
-20

-24
100
-28

-32 0

-36 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Distance to wall, m
-40

(a) (b)
 CY Ou
Excavation depth effect

0.15

0.12
δ hm = 0 .5%H e  hm = (0 .2% 
0.5%) H e
0.09
δ hm (m )
0.06

δ hm = 0 .2%H e
0.03

0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
He (m)

The data from excavations in Taipei, about 40 m excavation width

 CY Ou

Penetration depth effect 0

Wall deflection, mm
100 200 300 400

-4 Hp/He = 0.6
Hp/He = 1.8
-8
Hp/He = 2.6
-12 400

-16
Depth, m
300

Heave, mm
-20
200
-24

-28 100

-32 0
-36 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Distance to wall, m
-40
 CY Ou
Wall thickness effect
Wall deflection, mm Wall deflection, mm
-100 0 100 200 300 400 40 80 120 160 200

0 0

-4

-4 -8

-12

-8 -16

Depth, m

Depth, m
-20

-12 -24

-28

-16 -32

-36

-20 -40

tw = 0.6 m
tw = 0.9 m
tw = 1.3 m

(a) (b)

H p / H e = 0.6 H p / H e = 2.6
 CY Ou

Wall deflection, mm
Strut stiffness effect 0 40 80 120 160 200 240

-4 Str = 25 %
Str = 100 %
-8
Str = 250 %
-12 160

Depth, m -16
120

Heave, mm
-20
80
-24

-28 40

-32 0
-36
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-40 Distance to wall, m
 CY Ou

High strut Stiffness

｛
struts

Excavation surface
Retaining wall

(a) (b) (c)

 CY Ou

Low strut stiffness

struts

Excavation surface
Retaining wall

(a) (b) (c)

 Lateral wall deflection (cm) CY Ou

0 5 10 15
0

10

Depth (m) 20

TNEC
30 STAGE 1
STAGE 3
STAGE 5
40 STAGE 7
STAGE 9
STAGE 11B
STAGE 13
50

(a)
 CY Ou

Strut spacing

Horizontal spacing：
Vertical spacing：
The meaning of "unsupported length"：
 CY Ou

Strut preloading effect

Struts

Active earth pressure

Soil reaction
force

FIGURE 6.9 Relationship between earth pressures, strut loads, and reactions of soil
 CY Ou
6.4 Characteristics of Ground Movement Induced by Excavation

Retaining wall
Dm

Concave type of settlement

Spandrel type of settlement

 CY Ou

struts

Excavation surface
Retaining wall

(a) (b) (c)

 CY Ou

struts

Excavation surface
Retaining wall

(a) (b) (c)

 CY Ou

Ac1 Ac 2

As

Early stages where a

cantilevered deformation Final excavation stage
is produced

Ac = max ( Ac1 , Ac 2 )
 CY Ou
2.0 e
Concave type
Spandrel type
1.5 c
As = 1 .6 Ac
Ac (m2)
1.0 c 8
4
6

0.5 11 1
9 b b
10 d 5 32
a f f 7
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

As (m2)
 CY Ou

Influence Zones of Settlement

The influence zones includes：

Primary Influence Zone, PIZ─
Secondary Influence Zone, SIZ─
 CY Ou
The characteristics of influence zone (take the TNEC excavation for example)

Distance form the back of the wall (m)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
Settlement (cm)

-2

-4
STAGE 1
STAGE 3
-6
STAGE 5
STAGE 7
-8 STAGE 9
STAGE 11B
STAGE 13
-10
(b)

TNEC excavation
 CY Ou
Influence Zones of Settlement

Basal heave
Primary
B influence zone
Hf
Hf
He X
Soft soil
Silt, sand, stiff clay and the likes

(a) (b)

PIZ 1 = min (H f , B ) Hf: bottom of the depth of the soft soil

 CY Ou

Active condition
Primary influence zone

He
He
Hg
Hg

The rock-like soil

(b) Hg ≤ 2He
(a) Hg > 2He

PIZ 2 = min (2 H e , H g )
 CY Ou

Schematic description of Hg and Hf

Ground surface level

Hf Basal heave
Soft clay
{ }
Active failure
may occur

Hg

Sand, stiff clay or silt {Active failure}may occur

Rock-like soil
 CY Ou

The primary influence zone is the larger of PIZ 1

and PIZ 2 :

PIZ = max( PIZ 1 , PIZ 2 )

 CY Ou

4.5.3 Locations of the Maximum Settlement

The location of the maximum settlement of the cantilevered type：

Retaining wall
Dm

Dm = PIZ / 3
Concave type of settlement

Spandrel type of settlement

 CY Ou

Magnitude of the Maximum Settlement

2.4
San Francisco
 vm =  hm
2.0 Oslo
 vm = 0 .75 hm
Chicago
Taipei
1.6
 vm / H e (%)
1.2  vm = 0 .5 hm
0.8

0.4

0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4
 hm / H e (%)
 CY Ou
Soil Movements

8m 6m 2m

Movement ratio
0 5 10 (cm)

GL - 19.7 m

STAGE 5
STAGE 9
STAGE 11B
STAGE 13
 CY Ou
6.5 Characteristics of excavation Bottom Movement

(a) (b) (c)

FIGURE 6.16 Mechanism of excavation bottom movement

(a) due to elastic unloading
(b) due to lateral movement of the retaining wall
(c) due to plastic basal heave
 CY Ou
4.4 Characteristics of excavation Bottom Movement Induced by
Excavation

Struts heave

Central posts

FIGURE 6.17 Influence of the heave of the central post on the strutting system
 CY Ou
4.4 Characteristics of excavation Bottom Movement Induced by
Excavation
20
18
T1
Bottom movement (cm) 16 T2
14 K1, K2
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Excavation depth (m)

FIGURE 6.18 Relations between excavation bottom heaves and excavation depths
 CY Ou

10
(17)
Numbers in（）are the waiting days
8 (15)
Bottom movement (2)
6 (21)

4 (21)
(8)
(cm)

(1)
2

0
0 5 10 15 20
Excavation depth (m)

FIGURE 6.19 Excavation bottom movement and excavation depth of the TNEC excavation
 CY Ou

6.6 Time Dependent Movement

Bottom-up excavation method：about 1~2 weeks.

Top-down construction method：cast floor slabs, each
stage took a waiting period of 30~60 days (TNEC).
During the waiting periods, the lateral displacement of
the retaining wall, the ground surface settlement, and the
movement of the excavation bottom all increased.
Consolidation？
Creep？
 Lateral wall deflection (cm) CY Ou
0 5 10 15
0

10

Depth (m) 20
He = 4.9m; day189
3 He = 4.9m; day221
0 He = 8.6m; day256
He = 8.6m; day281
4 He =15.2m; day379
0 He =15.2m; day401
He =19.7m; day464
He =19.7m; day470
5
0
(a)

Time-dependent
 CY Ou

The maximum wall deflection rates and the excavation depths.

1.0
Rate of max. wall deflection (mm/day)

Numbers in（）are the waiting days I-1

0.8 I-2
I-3
(10) (6)
0.6
(6)
(10) (22)
0.4
(20) (22) (30)
(20) (30)
(42) (30)
0.2 (23) (18) (22)
(32) (25) (18) (6)
(10) (23) (42)
(70)(46) (46)
(42)
0.0
0 5 10 15 20
Excavation depth (m)

FIGURE 6.21 Relationships between the rates of max. wall deflection and
excavation depths of the TNEC excavation
 CY Ou

Mana and Clough's study point out that

the deflection rate of walls about 0.3～
30mm/day
 CY Ou

Distance from the back of the wall (m)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
settlement (cm)
-2

-4
He = 4.9m; day214
-6 He = 4.9m; day233
He = 8.6m; day259
-8 He = 8.6m; day282
He =15.2m; day380
-10 He =15.2m; day400
He =19.7m; day464
He =19.7m; day505
(b)
 CY Ou
The rate of ground surface settlement of the soil 13m from the
retaining wall：
1.0
Rate of settlement (mm/day)
0.8
Numbers in（） are the waiting days.

0.6

0.4
(20)
(21) (46)
0.2 (24) (23)
(43)
(50)
0.0 1 1 2
0 5
0 5 0
Excavation depth (m)

FIGURE 6.22 Relationships between the rates of ground surface settlement and
excavation depths of the TNEC excavation
 CY Ou
6.7 Analysis of Wall Deformations Induced by Excavation

Sheet piles 1 m-thick diaphragm wall

m m
2.5

2.0
 hm / H e (%)
1.5

0.9
Fb
1.0 1.0

1.1
0.5 1.4
2.0
3.0

( )
10 30 50 70 100 300 500 700 1000 3000

(EI ) 4
w havg

 hm = (0.2%  0.5%) H e
FIGURE 6.3 Relationships between the maximum deflections of walls, stiffness of strutting
systems, and factors of safety against basal heave
 CY Ou

The predicted maximum wall deflection (hm):

Ew I w
 hm = exp( X m ) Sw = Sa = Ast Est / s
 w ha 4
X m = 0.0678H e + 0.0076B − 5.2803exp( su / s v )
− 0.000099S w − 0.2316ln(S a ) + 5.2828
Ew is the Young’s modulus of the diaphragm wall; Iw is the moment of inertia of
the wall per unit length of the diaphragm wall; w is the unit weight of water; ha is
the average vertical spacing of lateral struts; Ast is the average cross sectional area
of the lateral struts for each level; Est is the Young’s modulus of the lateral strut ;
s is the horizontal spacing between the lateral struts
 CY Ou

B (m) Sa (MN/m)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
700 260
240
600 220
For He 200 For Sw
500
180
160

hm (mm)
hm (mm)

400
140
For B 120
300
100 For Sa

200 80
60
100 For su /s´v 40
20
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
He (m) Sw

0.25 0.27 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.35

s u /s'v
 CY Ou
6.8 Analysis of Ground Surface Settlements Induced by Excavation

Peck's Method
d/He (%)
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
0
I

II d
1
v / He (%)

III
He v
2

FIGURE 6.23 Peck's method (1969) for estimating ground surface settlement
 CY Ou

Bowles' Method
x
D

D = ( H e + H d ) tan(45 − )
2
 Theoretically, excavating in
 vm v

undrained saturated soft soils,

2
 x 
 v =  vm    the area of lateral wall
 D 
4  ad displacement should be
 vm =
D about that of ground surface
settlement.
 vm should equal 3a d / D
FIGURE 6.24 Bowles' method for estimating ground surface settlement
 CY Ou
Clough and O'Rourke's Method

d/He d/He
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.0 0.0
Settlement Settlement envelope
 v /  vm envelope
0.5
 v /  vm 0.5
d
1.0
1.0
He
 vm v
(a) (b)

d/He
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
0.0
0.75 d

 v /  vm 0.5
He
v  vm
1.0 Settlement envelope

(c)

FIG. 6.25 Clough and O'Rourke's method (1990) for estimating ground surface settlement
(a) sand (b) stiff to very stiff clay (c) soft to medium soft clay
 CY Ou

Ou and Hsieh's Method

d PIZ d PIZ
0.0 1/3 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.4 0.81.0 1.2 1.6 2.0
0.0 0.0
d c
1/6 1/6
c b
0.2
 v /  vm

0.4

 v /  vm
0.5 a
0.6

0.8

1.0 b a
1.0
PIZ SIZ PIZ SIZ
(a) Concave type (b) Spandrel type
 CY Ou

Predicted procedure：
1. Estimate the value of  hm
2.Determine the type of ground surface settlement
3.Estimate the value of  vm
4.Compute various settlements occurring in
different positions in back of the wall
 CY Ou

4.9.5 Comparison of the Various Analysis Methods

Lateral wall deflection (cm) Distance from the wall back (m)
12 8 4 00 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 CL 0
su = 10~40kPa Strut 2
5

Settlement (cm)
SM ' =31
10 4
15 6
Depth (m)

CL
20 8
25 su = 0 .32 s v 10
30
35 SM ' =31
CL =28~32%
40 ML or SM
45
' =32 Measurement
Stage 1 Clough & O'Rourke (1990)
GP Final stage Ou and Hsieh (2000)
50

(a)

FIGURE 6.27 Comparisons of predicted and observed ground surface settlements

(a) Case I: the excavation of TNEC
 CY Ou

Lateral wall deflection (cm) Distance from the wall back (m)
12 8 4 00 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 Fill 0
5 Strut 2

Settlement (cm)
CL
4
10 =26~36%
PI=8~16 6
Depth (m)

15 LL=25~45 8
20 su = 0 .3s v 10

25
ML
=22~30%
30 ' =30
Measurement
35 Gravel Rock Clough & O'Rourke (1990)
Stage 1 Ou and Hsieh (2000)
Mudstone Final stage
40

(b)
FIGURE 6.27 Comparisons of predicted and observed ground surface settlements
(b) Case II: the excavation of a building
 CY Ou

Lateral wall deflection (cm) Distance from the wall back (m)
14 10 6 2 00 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 0
ML-CL
su = 25 kPa Strut 4

Settlement (cm)
5
ML '=33
10 8
ML-CL
PI=6~16 I II 12
15
Depth (m)

LL=25~40 16
20 su = 0 .3s v
20
25 ML-CL
PI=6~16
30 LL=25~40
su = 0 .35s v
Measurement
35 Gravel Peck (1969)
40 Bowles (1986)
CL Stage 1 Clough & O'Rourke (1990)
45 Final stage Ou and Hsieh (2000)

(c)
FIGURE 6.27 Comparisons of predicted and observed ground surface settlements
(c) Case III: the excavation of a building
 CY Ou

F1 F2

Retaining wall

12 Ground surface

settlement
d1 L12

Excavation surface 12

12 =
L12

where 12 = differential settlement between the two footings

L12 = distance between the two footings
 CY Ou

TABLE 6.1 Comparisons of the predicted and observed angular distortions at the final
excavation stage of the case

Observation & d1 / H e
Case
prediction method
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Observation 1/200 1/5000 1/300 1/750

Case I Clough and O'Rourke 0 1/7350 1/320 1/320
Ou and Hsieh 1/300 1/4100 1/400 1/400

Observation 1/150 1/870 1/660 1/1400

Case II Clough and O'Rourke 0 1/6800 1/530 1/530
Ou and Hsieh 1/390 1/540 1/520 1/750

Observation 1/180 1/370 1/450 1/820

Clough and O'Rourke 1/540 1/540 1/540 1/540
Case III
Bowles 1/430 1/485 1/555 1/660
Ou and Hsieh 1/125 1/390 1/530 1/1100
 CY Ou

6.9 Three Dimensional Excavation Behavior

C A
D

B B E D
Diaphragm
wall
A
(a) (b)
 CY Ou

 hm , d
PSR =
 hm , ps

Maximum wall deflection at the distance of d from the corner：

 hm, d = PSR   hm, ps

 CY Ou

2.6
PSR
2.4 =0.1
0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6
2.2 0.7 0.8 Section to be
0.3
evaluated
2.0
1.8
PSR
1.6 =0.9 B d
L
1.4
B/L

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6 Section to be
evaluated
0.4
0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 L
Distance to the corner (m)
d B

B=Width L= Length d=Distance to the corner PSR=Plane strain ratio

(a) (b)
FIGURE 6.30 Relationship between the plane strain ratio and the aspect ratio of an excavation
(a) PSR, the length-width ratio, and the distance from the corner
(b) symbol explanation
 CY Ou
6.11 Stress Analysis
0.25H e 0.25H e

He 0.50 H e
0.75H e

0.25H e

0.65K a H e K a H e
0.2H e to 0.4H e
4s
Ka = 1 − m u
H e
(a) (b) (c)

FIGURE 6.32 Peck's apparent earth pressure diagram

(a) sand
(b) soft to medium soft clay ( H s  4 )
(c) stiff clay ( H e s u  4 )
e u
 CY Ou
The Assumed Support Method

In the limiting state：

The earth pressure acting on the wall is active earth pressure,
soil resisting against the wall is passive earth pressure

Under working loading：

The earth pressure acting on the wall ─ active earth pressure
soil resisting against the wall ─ assumed support
 CY Ou

The Assumed Support Method

（1）Distribution of lateral earth pressure

active side ─ active earth pressure

Rankine？
Coulomb？
Caquot-Kerisel？
Peck's apparent earth pressure？
 CY Ou

（2）Location of the assumed support

1.Location of the assumed support (  ) equal to
Strut
Pa  a
s
= −s (6.20)
a Pp
 Pa
Pp A

A is the location of the assumed support

FIGURE 6.35 Determination of the location of the assumed support by way of the moment
equilibrium of earth pressures below the lowest level of struts
 CY Ou

（2）Location of the assumed support

Sandy Soils Clayey Soils The locations of the

assumed supports
Dense soils N  50 N  15  = 0 ~ 0.5 m
Medium dense soils 10  N  50 4  N  15  = 1.0 ~ 2.0 m
Soft soils N  10 N 4  = 3.0 ~ 4.0 m
 CY Ou

（3）Computation procedure

simply supported beam model？

continuous beam model？

simply supported beam model ：

one-stage loading method
phased loading method
 CY Ou

Excavation surface

Assumed support

Earth pressure distribution Bending moment Shear

FIGURE 6.37 One-stage loading simply supported beam method

(the simply supported beam model)
 CY Ou

MA M B = − (0 .2 ~ 0 .5 )M max
RA MB
First level of strut Second level of strut B RB
M E
Excavation surface E M1
ME Computed
M E = M max bending moment
M1

Computed
Excavation surface ME M E
E Modified
bending moment ME = M max bending
Modified moment
bending moment RH MH
H
RH MH
Assumed support
M H = − (0.2 ~ 0.5)M max
M H = − (0.2 ~ 0.5)M max

(a) (b) (c) (d)

FIGURE 6.38 Phased loading assumed supported method

(a) earth pressure distribution at the second excavation stage
(b) computation of bending moment at the second excavation stage
(c) earth pressure distribution at the third excavation stage
(d) computation of bending moment at the third excavation stage
 CY Ou

Strut
A

M B = − 0.3M max

Strut MB
B B Modified bending
moment

M1
Strut removed
C PC
MC M C
C
F F MF
Raft foundation Computed bending
M C = M max moment M F = −0.5 M max

FIGURE 6.39 Phased loading assumed support at the stage of strut demolition
 M A = −0.3M max
CY Ou
Modified
RA bending
MA
A
Strut moment

M2
Strut removed
B PB + RB M B M B

RF Computed
Floor slab bending MF
M B = M max moment M F = −0.5M max

Raft foundation

(b)

FIGURE 6.39 Phased loading assumed support at the stage of strut demolition ( RB , RR , RA , RF are
reaction forces due to demolition of the struts; PC , PB are strut loads at the final
stage of excavation and can be computed using the apparent earth pressure diagram)
 CY Ou

First level of struts R1 M1

Excavation surface
M2

Assumed support RH M H = −(0.2 ~ 0.5) M 2

Pressure distribution Bending moment

(a)

FIGURE 6.40 Computing procedure for the assumed supported method

 CY Ou

Second level of struts R2

M3
Excavation surface

Assumed support RH

MH = −(0.2 ~ 0.5) M3
Pressure distribution Bending moment

(b)

FIGURE 6.40 Computing procedure for the assumed supported method

 CY Ou

Third level of struts R3

Excavation surface M4

Assumed support RH

M H = − (0.2 ~ 0.5)M 4
Pressure distribution Bending moment

(c)

FIGURE 6.40 Computing procedure for the assumed supported method