Numerical Analysis in Geotechnics – NAG2015, 20 August 2015, Hanoi

Modified elastic foundation beam model for retaining structure of

deep excavation

Pham Van Minh

Hydraulic Construction Institute, Hanoi, Vietnam. E-mail: vanminhvtc@gmail.com
Vu Ba Thao
Hydraulic Construction Institute, Hanoi, Vietnam. E-mail: vubathao@gmail.com
Nguyen Quoc Dung
Hydraulic Construction Institute, Hanoi, Vietnam. E-mail: nguyenquocdunghsc@gmail.com

Keywords: Earth pressure, Prestressed Fish-Bellied beam, Elastic foundation beam model, Deep
excavation, Innovative prestressed support system

ABSTRACT: Innovative Prestressed Support (IPS) system is a new technology for the temporary
retaining structure of deep excavation. Based on calculation requirements of the internal forces and
displacements of the retaining structures using IPS system, the authors have modified the elastic
foundation beam model to calculate the excavation retaining structure. The interaction between
excavation structure and surrounding soil masses was considered as a spring system, depending on the
directions of displacement of the wall toward either outside or inside of the foundation pit to estimate
either compressed springs or tension spring. On the basis of calculating principles of the beams on elastic
foundation and finite element method, the authors adopted Matlab to develop a program to calculate the
earth pressures, internal forces, and displacements of the retaining structure. This modified model was
applied for an actual project. It was revealed that the results of modified model analysis are well
agreement with the monitor data.

(outwards or inwards the excavation) to judge

1. INTRODUCTION
In Innovative Prestressed Support (IPS) system, the
fish-bellied beams and struts preload when the
struts are installed, the interaction between the
retaining wall and soil behind the wall causes the
dynamic changes of the earth pressure, internal
force, and displacement at various excavation
stages. Shanghai technical code for excavation
engineering (2010) suggests using the traditional
elastic foundation beam model for excavation
retaining structure. However, this model can not
simulate the reaction of soil behind the wall when
the wall tends to move towards the excavation.
To solve this problem, the authors attempted to
modify the traditional elastic foundation beam
method by modelling the soil at the back of the
wall above the excavated bottom level as springs,
according to the displacement direction of the wall
whether these springs are compressed (effective
springs) or tensional (ineffective springs).
Subsequently, programming language Matlab was
adopted to write a program for calculating the earth
pressure, internal force and displacement of the
retaining wall when IPS method is employed. The
modified model was verified by comparing its
calculated results with the monitor data of an actual
project.
2. CALCULATION MODELS FOR
EXCAVATION RETAINING STRUCTURE
2.1 Calculation models
The elastic foundation beam model has widely
used in deep excavation engineering to calculate
the internal force and displacement of the retaining
wall at various excavation stages. By selecting a
unit length of the wall, the flexural differential
equations of the retaining wall are as follows.
d4y
EI  ea (z)  0 (0 ≤ z ≤ hn) (1)
dz 4
d4y
EI  m(z h n ) y ea (z)  0 (z ≥ hn) (2)
dz 4
where: EI is flexural rigidity of the retaining wall;
y is displacement of the retaining wall; z is
calculating depth; ea(z) is distribution function of
Rankine’s active earth pressure; m is modulus of
horizontal subgrade reaction; hn is excavated depth
of nth stage.
In model 1a (see Fig. 1a), the retaining wall is
modeled as a beam, the soil is modeled as a set of
springs, and the struts are also modeled as springs.
Moreover, lateral pressure distributions are taken
as triangular shape above the bottom level of
excavation while rectangular shape under the
bottom level. The lateral pressure are evaluated by
the sum of the water and earth pressure. Model 1a
is quite simple to calculate, but it is impossible to
determine the earth pressure and displacement of
the wall at various excavation stages. Shanghai
technical code for excavation engineering (2010)
suggests using this model.
(a) (b)
Figure 1. Calculation models of the beam on elastic foundation method. (a) Springs are placed in the front of the
continuous beam, (b) Springs are placed at both sides of the continuous beam, and (c) Springs are placed
at the back of the wall above the excavated plane and at the front of the continuous beam.
2.2 Forces of the model
Active earth pressure
Liu and Wang (2009) applied Rankine’s active
earth pressure theory to calculate the lateral
pressure at the back of the wall. According to the
nature of the soil, we can choose total stress or
effective stress approach for lateral earth pressure.
Active earth pressure is determined by Eq. (3).
Model 1b (see Fig. 1b) was proposed by
Japanese Morishige Ryoma (Meng, 2011), in this
model the soil at both sides of the wall are modeled
as springs. This model not only can repeatedly
adjust the active earth pressure and the passive
earth pressure but also can consider the interaction
between earth pressure and displacement of the
wall at various excavation stages. However, in this
model, when the wall moves inwards the
excavation, the lateral pressure behind the wall is
active earth pressure, the soil springs behind the
wall will thus become tensional. To the fact that
the soil springs couldn’t be tensional at any
circumstance, so the calculation results of this
model would not be close to the actual situation.
We developed model 1c (as seen in Fig. 1c) that
can exert the advantages and overcome the
disadvantages of model 1b. In this model, the soil
at the back of the wall above the excavated bottom
level is modeled as springs. According to the
displacement direction of the wall (outwards or
inwards the excavation) to judge whether these
springs are compressed (effective springs) or
tensional (ineffective springs). This model can give
reasonable prediction of the lateral displacement of
the retaining wall which would simplify the
calculation process.
(c)
pak     i hi  qk  Ka  2ck Ka (3)
k
K a  tan 2 (45  ) (4)
2
where, Pak is active earth pressure, i is unit weight
ith level of soil, hi is depth of retaining wall at node
i, qk is surcharge, Ka is coefficient of the active
earth pressure, ck is cohesion, k is angle of internal cross-sectional area of the bracing, L is half of the
friction. bracing length, S is horizontal distance between
struts.
Spring stiffness at the back of the wall
However, for a complicated bracing system, Eq.
According to the displacement direction of the wall, (10) may not give reasonable stiffness value. Since
the model can judge whether the springs at the the bracing members including the struts and wales
back of the wall are compressed or tensional. The at the same level form a plane bar system, a simple
spring stiffness here can be calculated according to method to calculate the equivalent stiffness of the
Eq. (5). strut system is as follows.
K A  kabh (5) p
KB  (11)

ka  mz (6)
where, p is uniform load acting on the wales
0.2 2    c (p=1N/m),  is mean displacement of the
m (7)
vb intersections between the wales and struts caused
by p.
where, KA is spring stiffness at the back of the wall,
ka is coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction, z is 2.3 Calculation program
depth, h is height of retaining wall, b is width of
retaining wall, m is modulus of horizontal subgrade Based on calculation model 1c, the authors used
Matlab to develop a program for calculating the
reaction, c is cohesion,  is angle of internal
earth pressure, internal force and displacement of
friction, vb is displacement of the wall at the
the wall. Matlab is known as a high-level language
bottom level of the excavation; Beijing technical
for technical computing which is often used by
specification for retaining and protection of
engineers to design system or analyses a system’s
building foundation excavations (2012) proposes vb
behavour (Tran, 2010). The system flow chart
= 10 mm.
diagram and procedure is as follows.
Spring stiffness at the front of the wall
It should be taken into account the effect of soil
improvement, the dewatering of excavation and
pile layout when calculating the spring stiffness.
Spring stiffness at the front of the wall is
determined by Eq. (8) below.
K H  kH hb (8)
kH  mz (9)
where, KH is spring stiffness in front of the wall, kH
is coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction, z is
depth, m is modulus of horizontal subgrade
reaction.

Strut stiffness
For the strut system that is composed of crosslot
bracing and wales, the theoretical value of the Figure 2. Flow chart of analysis of the beam on elastic
stiffness of the struts can be defined in terms of its foundation method
axial stiffness and calculated by Eq. (10).
where, n is number of construction stages, m is
2EA number of nodes, i is the ith construction stage, j is
KB  (10)
LS the equivalent spring of soil at node j, ki-1 is
stiffness of the (i-1)th level of struts, i-1 is wall
where, KB is strut axial stiffness, α is discount
movement at the location of (i-1)th strut at the (i-1)
coefficient, E is elastic modulus of the bracing, A is
construction stage before the (i-1)th level of strut is
installed, Pi-1 is auxiliary nodal force of the (i-1)th
level of struts, Pj is capacity of the equivalent
spring of soil at node j, Rj is reaction force of
equivalent spring of soil at node j.
3. APPLICATION OF MODIFIED
CALCULATION MODEL FOR AN ACTUAL
EXCAVATION
This calculation model was applied for an
excavation retaining structure using prestressed
fish-bellied beams IPS. IPS system is a kind of
fish-bellied beams which composes of prestress,
standard parts, connecting parts, cover plate,
connection piece, pedestal support, bearing beam,
force transmission key, prestress unit, and tension
chord steel strand prestress, as seen in Fig. 3 and
Fig. 4. This system can control excavation
deformation, reduce construction time, improve the
overall stability, and increase working space.

Figure 3. Layout of IPS system. 1. prestressed fish-bellied beams, 2. connecting parts AS, 3. connecting parts FJ,
4. strut, 5. pedestal support, 6. steel lattice column, 7. connection piece, 8. pretress unit, 9. H steel
standard parts, 10. cover plate, 11. wale, 12. connection piece.

Figure 4. Prestressed fish-bellied beams IPS of the construction.

Project description
Figure 5 shows the plan view of the excavated area
and Figure 6 displays the sectional view of
excavated pit. The building is mainly used for
office spaces. The pile raft foundation is adopted
for both parts and their basements are connected
together. The thickness of the bottom slab of the
building is 0.9 m. The shape of the excavated pit is
a regular square with an area of about 86,540 m2.
The depth of the excavation is 9.0 m.
 Figure 5. Layout of retaining system. Unit: mm. (Kunshan project, 2013)
The excavation was retained by soil mixing wall
(SMW) with the thickness of 850 @1200 mm and
the depth of 17.5 m. Installed section H700 x 300 x
13 x 24 mm, the center to center spacing of H steel
was 1.2 m. The arrangement of IPS strut is shown
in Fig. 5. It was expected that with this
arrangement, larger working space for the
excavation is available. The first strut level was
installed elevation of -2.4 m, preload N1=130 kN.
The second strut level was installed at elevation of
-5.9 m, preload N2=150 kN. Table 1 gives the
parameters of the in situ soils. Values of cohesion c
and angle of internal friction  were obtained from
the direct shear test. Table 1 presents properties of
soil layers. Table 2 shows the schedule of the
construction activities of this project.
Table 1. Properties of soil layers
Soil layer
Thickness  c 
Figure 6. Sectional view of excavated pit. Unit: mm.
(m) km (kPa) 
(Kunshan project, 2013)
Fill 1.72 18.5 10.0 10.0
Silty clay 0.7 18.5 26.2 11.2 Table 2 Excavation sequences
Interval
Mucky silty Stage Construction activities
6.1 17.6 10.4 7.8 (days)
clay
1 Excavate to elevation of -3.4 m 21
Clay 0.8 19.4 56.5 14.9
Install first strut level at elevation of
Silty clay 1.6 18.8 37.9 13.2 2 2
-2.4 m
Silt 1.9 18.5 5.1 22.6 3 Excavate to elevation of -6.9 m 12
Silt 9.6 18.6 4.3 23.2 Install second strut level at elevation
4 3
of -5.9 m
5 Excavate to elevation of -10.0 m 15

Calculation results
Model 1a and model 1c were adopted to calculate
displacement, moment, and shear force of the
retaining wall at various excavation stages;
subsequently a comparison was made to reveal the
difference between them. The calculation results
are shown in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8.
 Displacement (mm) Moment (kN.m) Shear force (kN)
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -300 -150 0 150 300 450 600 750 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
0 0 0

-2 -2 -2

-4 -4 -4

-6 -6 -6

Depth (m)
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
-8 -8 -8

-10 -10 -10

-12 -12 -12

Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 1
-14 Stage 2 -14 Stage 2 -14 Stage 2
Stage 3 Stage 3 Stage 3
Stage 4 Stage 4 Stage 4
-16 -16 -16
Stage 5 Stage 5 Stage 5

-18 -18 -18

(a) Displacement (b) Moment (c) Shear force

Figure 7. Displacement, moment, and shear force of retaining wall calculated by model 1a.
Displacement (mm) Moment (kN.m) Shear force (kN)
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -300 -150 0 150 300 450 600 750 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
0 0 0

-2 -2 -2

-4 -4 -4

-6 -6 -6
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
Depth (m)

-8 -8 -8

-10 -10 -10

-12 -12 -12

Stage 1
Stage 1 Stage 1
Stage 2
-14 -14 Stage 2 -14 Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 3 Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 4 Stage 4
-16 Stage 5 -16 -16
Stage 5 Stage 5

-18 -18 -18

(a) Displacement (b) Moment (c) Shear force

Figure 8. Displacement, moment, and shear force of retaining wall calculated by model 1c.
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 0
130KN
-2 -2 130KN

-4 150KN -4 150KN

-6 -6
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

-8 -8

-10 -10

-12 -12

-14 Model 1a -14 Model 1a

Model 1c Model 1c
Monitoring Monitoring
-16 -16

-18 -18

(a) Stage 2 (b) Stage 4 (c) Stage 5

Figure 9. Comparison between calculated and monitored displacement of the retaining wall at various
 excavation stages.
Active earth pressure (kPa) Active earth pressure (kPa) Active earth pressure (kPa)
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
0 0 0

-2 -2 -2

-4 -4 -4

-6 -6 -6

Depth (m)

Depth (m)
Depth (m)

-8 -8 -8

-10 -10 -10

-12 -12 -12

-14 -14 -14

Model 1a Model 1a Model 1a
Model 1c Model 1c Model 1c
-16 -16 -16

-18 -18 -18

(a) Stage 2 (b) Stage 4 (c) Stage 5

Figure 10. Comparison between active earth pressures of the retaining wall attained by model 1a and 1c at
various excavation stages.
1c. Excavated to elevation of -10.0 m (stage 5), the
The design method was checked by comparing the
minimum displacement was -2.38 mm at model 1a
calculated results and the measured values. Table 3
and 0.63 mm at model 1c. Since the influence of
presents the displacement of the retaining wall at
previous stages, the difference still existed at stage
stages 2, 4, and 5 calculated by model 1a, model 1c
5 although there was no pre-stress, so the two
and the measured values.
calculation models were the same here. These
Table 3 Comparison of calculated and monitored differences were because model 1c can adjust earth
displacement pressure and consider the interaction between earth
Value Model Model pressure and displacement of the wall at various
Stage Monitored
1a 1c excavation stages.
Max (mm) 1.23 1.61 1.20
2 Moreover, Fig. 10 shows the obvious increase of
Min (mm) -16.05 -9.55 -8.68
the earth pressure behind the wall in model 1c
Max (mm) 4.55 5.94 5.45 comparing with model 1a, especially at stage 2
4
Min (mm) -16.82 -7.97 -6.53 from 0 m to -1.52 m and at the stage 4 from 0 m to
Max (mm) 21.12 22.83 21.61 -3.48 m. This is because of the reaction of the soil
5 springs at the back of the wall above the excavated
Min (mm) -2.38 0.63 2.26
bottom level (which only existed in model 1c)
Discussion when preload of the strut was installed.

Fig. 9 shows comparison between calculated and 4. CONCLUSIONS

monitored displacement of the retaining wall at
The elastic foundation beam model has been
various excavation stages. It can be seen that the
modified to calculate the excavation retaining
calculated deformation shapes of model 1c agree
structure. The modified model was then applied for
well with the measured values. The minimum
an actual excavation. The following conclusions
displacement of model 1a is much larger than that
can be drawn:
of model 1c: Installed first strut level with
elevation of -2.4 m, preload N1=130 kN (stage 2)  The modified model (model 1c) can consider
the minimum displacement was -16.05 mm at the interaction between the earth pressure and
model 1a and -9.55 mm at model 1c. Installed the displacement of retaining wall. The model
second strut level with elevation of -5.9 m, preload allows to adjust the preload and displacement
N2=150 kN (stage 4), the minimum displacement of the retaining wall at various excavation
was -16.82 mm at model 1a and -7.97 mm at model stages, and it is important to select appropriate
 preload of the struts which can effectively
control the wall deformation as well as the cost
of the excavation.
 In the modified model, the springs place at the
back of the wall above the bottom level of the
excavation and at front of the continuous beam
is a reasonable model to estimate the
displacements and internal forces of the
excavation retaining wall.
 It is suggested that the new modified model
also could determine the internal forces and
displacements of the excavation retaining
structure using prestressed anchor or
prestressed pipe-steel.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their sincere
thanks to Shanghai strong foundation engineering
Co., Ltd for their data, and to Dr. Do Hoai Nam for
his suggestions in complete this paper.

REFERENCES
Beijing technical specification for retaining and
protection of building foundation excavations,
(2012). JGJ120-2012.
Meng. Y. (2011). Earth pressures and deformation
analysis of the retaining structure, Master thesis,
Beijing jiaotong university, China.
Liu, G.L. and Wang, W. D. (2009). Excavation
engineering manual, China architecture &
building press, Beijing.
Shanghai strong foundation engineering Co., Ltd,
(2013). Suzhou Kunshan projectShanghai
technical code for excavation engineering,
(2010). DG/TJ08-61-2010 J11577-2010.
Tran, Q. K. (2010). Matlab application, Science
building press.