geosciences

Article
Three-Dimensional Response of the Supported-Deep
Excavation System: Case Study of a Large Scale
Underground Metro Station
Ashraf Hefny 1 , Mohamed Ezzat Al-Atroush 2, * , Mai Abualkhair 1 and Mariam Juma Alnuaimi 1
1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain 15258, UAE;
a.hefny@uaeu.ac.ae (A.H.); 201350287@uaeu.ac.ae (M.A.); 201606076@uaeu.ac.ae (M.J.A.)
2 Department of Engineering Management, College of Engineering, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh 11543,
Saudi Arabia
* Correspondence: mezzat@psu.edu.sa; Tel.: +966-506362379




Received: 28 December 2019; Accepted: 15 February 2020; Published: 19 February 2020


Abstract: The complexities and the economic computational infeasibility associated in some cases,
with three-dimensional finite element models, has imposed a motive for many investigators to
accept numerical modeling simplification solutions such as assuming two-dimensional (2D) plane
strain conditions in simulation of several supported-deep excavation problems, especially for cases
with a relatively high aspect ratio in plan dimensions. In this research, a two-dimensional finite
element model was established to simulate the behavior of the supporting system of a large-scale
deep excavation utilized in the construction of an underground metro station Rod El Farrag project
(Egypt). The essential geotechnical engineering properties of soil layers were calculated using results
of in-situ and laboratory tests and empirical correlations with SPT-N values. On the other hand,
a three-dimensional finite element model was established with the same parameters adopted in
the two-dimensional model. Sufficient sensitivity numerical analyses were performed to make
the three-dimensional finite element model economically feasible. Results of the two-dimensional
model were compared with those obtained from the field measurements and the three-dimensional
numerical model. The comparison results showed that 3D high stiffening at the primary walls’ corners
and also at the locations of cross walls has a significant effect on both the lateral wall deformations
and the neighboring soil vertical settlement.

Keywords: supported deep excavation system; ground settlement; lateral deformation; diaphragm
wall; three-dimensional finite element model; wall corners; cross walls

1. Introduction
The rapid growth of urban areas always imposes development in the construction of underground
structures such as tunnels, underground parking garages, basements, and utilities, etc. Recently,
a new generation of transportation modes was proposed. These transportation modes aspire to
overcome the traffic congestion problems using a high-speed railway (HSR) technology of magnetic
levitation and vacuum underground tunnels and tubes [1]. For instance, in the United States, more
than 68.4 billion USD has been proposed to implement this new mode of transportation under the
name of the hyperloop [1]. This new system consists of a low-pressure tunnel with capsules that
are transported at both low and high speeds throughout the length of the tunnel. The capsules are
accelerated via a magnetic linear accelerator affixed at various stations on the low-pressure tunnel
with rotors contained in each capsule. Passengers may enter and exit the hyperloop at stations located
either at the ends of the tunnel, or at branches along the tunnel length. The average speed of this new
model is 164 mph (264 kph), and the travel time of 2 h and 38 min is expected between San Francisco

Geosciences 2020, 10, 76; doi:10.3390/geosciences10020076 www.mdpi.com/journal/geosciences

Geosciences 2020, 10, 76 2 of 19

and Los Angeles, compared with 1 h and 15 min by air and 5 h and 30 min by car. Thus, this new
mode of transport will provide benefits compared to the current modes without the negative aspects
of each. However, construction of such urban development projects always involves deep vertical
excavations and underground tunneling that are frequently close to existing structurally-sensitive
buildings and utilities. Implementation of such underground structures through soil deposits or
weak rock formations always requires meticulous considerations in terms of construction methods:
Movements in the soil surrounding the deep excavations might cause a settlement of the adjacent
ground surface, and affect the overlying structures [2].
It is well-acknowledged that the control of ground movements and protection of adjacent or
overlying structures is a significant concern in the design and construction of deep excavations and
tunneling in urban areas [2–8]. To date, failures of structures or roadways adjacent to excavation
still occur, despite the recent advances made in assessing the stability of excavations and eliminating
the expected effects of the excavation process on the response nearby soils. One of the most recent
examples of such failure case histories is the collapsed 13-floor building due to toppling in the Minhang
District of Shanghai, China (2009). The main reason for this failure, as explained by Chai et al., [9] was
a nearby deep excavation that overloaded the piles of the collapsed building. Chai et al., [9] indicated
that the failure was initiated by lateral overloading on the pile foundation due to excavation near one
side of the collapsed building and stockpiling the excavation at another side of the building. The
unbalanced excavation and fill on the sides of the collapsed building induced lateral loads on the piles,
also accompanied by unforeseen soil softening due to a rain event.
The ground movements associated with the construction of underground stations depend on
several factors such as the properties of the soil, the general dimensions of the excavations, the general
procedure of excavation, the bracing system employed, and the experience of the workmanship [3].
Therefore, the prediction of the response of the support systems of deep excavations is a challenge
because of the existence of those influencing factors [10].
Generally, deep excavation mainly has two principal effects on the neighboring soil. The first is
that the removal of the weight of the excavated soil causes a decrease in the vertical stress in the soil
beneath the excavation level. The second is that the removal of the inside soil from the excavation pit
causes a loss of lateral support for the soil around the excavation pit. Thus, the primary purpose of the
excavation-support system is to provide essential lateral support for the neighboring soil around the
excavation to eliminate the corresponding movements. Hence deep excavations initiate lateral and
vertical ground deformations due to stress relaxation and bottom heave associated with the excavation
process. The adjacent buildings and buried utilities become kinematically loaded by the induced
ground deformations, (magnitude and direction) and the building proximity to the excavations [7,8].
In the past decades, significant advances have been made in research, and several approaches have
been developed to estimate the deflection and expected deformation patterns and magnitudes induced
by deep excavations, for different soil types. However, empirical approaches such as [11–21] relied on
graphical methods and, most of them only depended on experience gained from previous cases.
On the other hand, one of the recent great achievements in geotechnical engineering is the
utilization of finite element analysis to solve several geotechnical problems. The soil properties,
including their strain dependence, the construction, excavation stages, and the stiffness of the support
system can be simulated [22]. The development in finite element analysis has become evident with
comprehensive field observations of the behavior of excavations and with improved in-situ methods
for evaluating the appropriate soil properties.
Different approaches have been utilized to simulate the in-situ response of soil-support systems
in deep excavations and to model the different stress-strain relationships such as linear, nonlinear,
inelastic, anisotropic, and time-dependent soil response. Realistic modeling of the stress-strain behavior
leads to reliable prediction for the performance of soil-support systems of deep excavations. Despite
that, several numerical studies have shown that the calculated horizontal displacements of the support
system are somehow inconsistent with the field measurements [23–27]. One of the most common
Geosciences 2020, 10, 76 3 of 19

reseasons of this inconsistency was presented and discussed in the numerical study [28]. It was
concluded that for typical rectangular excavation cases, the accuracy of predicted values is affected
by the existence of the corner of excavation, especially in excavations having relatively short walls.
Plane strain analysis might give conservative results, especially for the center section of a relatively
short excavation wall. For the sections near corners, the analysis would be much more conservative
because the three-dimensional effects in this region are not considered. Excavations are in nature,
three-dimensional problems [28].
Parametric three-dimensional finite element analyses [28] have also been presented to investigate
the features of three-dimensional deep excavation behaviors. A close relationship exists between
the aspect ratio of the excavation geometry (B/L) and the wall deformation while B and L are the
excavation dimensions in the horizontal plane in the direction of lateral wall measurements and the
perpendicular direction, respectively. Increasing B/L decreases the wall deformation. Additionally, the
wall deformation of a deep excavation is directly related to the smallest distance from the corner (d).
The smaller the value of d; the less is the wall deformation.
Ou et al., [28] defined a ratio called the Plane Strain Ratio (PSR) as the ratio of the maximum wall
deformation of the cross-section at a distance (d) from the excavation corner to the maximum wall
deformation in the plane strain conditions of the same geometry. They established the relationship
between (PSR), (B/L), and (d) based on the results of parametric studies.
In the same line, several studies [20,29] discussed the response of a supported deep excavations
system in soft to medium clays. The excavation was supported by a flexible sheet pile wall and
three levels of re-groutable anchors. They suggest a parallel distribution for the deformation to
account for the corner effect. They developed also a complementary error function (erfc) to define the
three-dimensional settlement distributions of ground movement around the excavation of finite length.
With that in mind, the differences between the two- and three-dimensional behavior of the
supported deep excavation systems may not only be affected by the corners but also by several factors
such as the cross walls which may be an additional cause for the lack of accuracy of 2D plane strain
numerical models. Since cross-walls are constructed before excavation, so this is expected to effectively
influence the lateral wall displacements and the subsequent ground settlements by the significant axial
stiffness. In this case, the anticipated effect of the cross walls may be also an issue.
In this paper, two- and three-dimensional finite element models were established to simulate
the in-situ response of the deep excavation soil-support system utilized to provide the essential
lateral stability during the construction of the large-scale underground metro station of Rod El
Farag (Cairo, Egypt). The results of these finite element models were used to assess the effect of
three-dimensional wall corners and cross walls on the performance of the support system of this
large-scale deep excavation.

2. Case Study
Cairo belongs to one of the highly populated cities. Several decades ago, the Egyptian Government
decided to construct a transit underground network (Cairo Metro). Cairo Metro network contains
three lines, line 1 (Regional Line), line 2, and line 3. The regional line has been completed and has been
already in operation since 1987. Rod El Farag subway underground station is one of seven stations
constructed to serve the second line (Line 2) of the Greater Cairo Metro in phase A1.
Figure 1 presents the layout and cross-section of the Rod El Farag underground station. As shown,
dimensions of this large deep excavation were 150 m width, 24 m length, and nearly about 35 m
clear depth. A braced-system was used to provide the essential lateral support, compulsory for the
neighboring soil stability during the excavation process. The system consisted of four primary outer
walls and two interior cross diaphragm walls of 1.2 m thickness, and 48.0 m depth. Besides, three
levels of reinforced concrete slabs were also implemented to act as lateral supporting elements during
the excavation, namely, the roof, ticket, and technical slabs. Additionally, two rows of steel struts were
erected at elevations of + 4.0 m and + 0.77 m to provide sufficient stability at the deeper levels of
Geosciences 2020,
Geosciences 2020, 10,
10,76
x FOR PEER 44 of 19
of 19

levels of excavation. Also, inclined struts were implemented at the twelve corners of this large scale
excavation.
station. TheAlso, inclined
spacing struts
between were
the implemented
successive at thepipe
temporary twelve corners
struts wasof3 this large
m. The scale strut
upper station.
hadThe
an
spacing between the successive temporary pipe struts was 3 m. The upper strut had an outer
outer diameter of 1016 mm with a thickness of 12.7 mm. The lower strut had an outer diameter of 914 diameter
of
mm 1016
withmm with a thickness
a thickness of 12.7
of 12.7 mm. mm.
Also, The lower strut
a pre-stressing had
force of an outer
1500 diameter
kN/strut was of 914 mm with
developed a
on the
thickness of 12.7 mm. Also, a pre-stressing force of 1500 kN/strut was developed on the
temporary struts. Details of the monitoring of wall movement and soil deformation were reported in temporary
struts.
[30,31].Details of the monitoring of wall movement and soil deformation were reported in [30,31].

Figure 1. Layout and cross-section of Rod El-Farag subway station [30].

Figure 1. Layout and cross-section of Rod El-Farag subway station [30].
Several instrumentations were used to monitor the expected deformations of the soil and the
Several instrumentations were used to monitor the expected deformations of the soil and the
support system during different excavation stages. Ten settlement points were installed on the east
support system during different excavation stages. Ten settlement points were installed on the east
side of the diaphragm wall (E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, and E8), while eleven settlement points were
side of the diaphragm wall (E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, and E8), while eleven settlement points were
installed on the west side (W1-11). The locations of those settlement points are indicated in Figure 2
installed on the west side (W1-11). The locations of those settlement points are indicated in Figure 2
Unfortunately, the settlement points were installed after the diaphragm wall construction which
Unfortunately, the settlement points were installed after the diaphragm wall construction which
means that these settlement points did not monitor the soil settlement during the diagram walls’
means that these settlement points did not monitor the soil settlement during the diagram walls’
implementation and began only to monitor in the excavation phase.
implementation and began only to monitor in the excavation phase.
Three inclinometers were installed at the instrumented section of the station. Two inclinometers
Three inclinometers were installed at the instrumented section of the station. Two inclinometers
were installed inside the east (RIED) and the west (RIWD) diaphragm walls (diaphragm wall
were installed inside the east (RIED) and the west (RIWD) diaphragm walls (diaphragm wall
inclinometers), while the third inclinometer was installed in the soil at the east side (RIES), as shown
inclinometers), while the third inclinometer was installed in the soil at the east side (RIES), as shown
in Figure 2. A steel casing of 0.10 m was implemented within the reinforcement cage to protect the
in Figure 2. A steel casing of 0.10 m was implemented within the reinforcement cage to protect the
inclinometer during the concrete casting phase.
inclinometer during the concrete casting phase.
Embedment strain gauges were welded on the horizontal steel struts, and on the reinforcement
Embedment strain gauges were welded on the horizontal steel struts, and on the reinforcement
of the concrete slabs to measure the induced strains in the structural elements due to the excavation
of the concrete slabs to measure the induced strains in the structural elements due to the excavation
process. On the other hand, piezometers were utilized to record the change in water level during the
process. On the other hand, piezometers were utilized to record the change in water level during the
dewatering process.
dewatering process.
Geosciences 2020, 10, 76 5 of 19

Geosciences 2020, 10, x FOR PEER 5 of 19

Geosciences 2020, 10, x FOR PEER 5 of 19

Figure 2. 2.Instrumentation
Figure systemlayout
Instrumentation system layout[30].
[30].
Figure 2. Instrumentation system layout [30].
2.1. Site
2.1.Conditions
Site Conditions
2.1. Site Conditions
Geotechnical investigation
Geotechnical investigationofofRod
RodElElFarag
Farag subway stationincluded
subway station included thethe drilling
drilling of more
of more than than
five Geotechnical
boreholes, investigation
standard of Rod
penetration El
tests, Farag
and subway
cone station
penetrations included
tests. A the drilling
layout
five boreholes, standard penetration tests, and cone penetrations tests. A layout plan and elevation plan of
and more than
elevation
five
showing boreholes,
showing standard
the locations
the locations of penetration
boreholes
of boreholes and tests,
and andtests
in-situ
in-situ coneconducted
tests penetrations
conducted tests.
atatthe A layout
subway’s
the subway’s plan
location and elevation
are presented
location are presented
showing
in Figure the locations
3 below. of boreholes and in-situ tests conducted at the subway’s location are presented
in Figure 3 below.
in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3. Layout plan, and the elevation of the borehole locations at Rod El Farag subway station [30].
3. Layout
Figure
Figure plan,
3. Layout and
plan, the
and elevation
the elevationof
of the boreholelocations
the borehole locationsatat
RodRod El Farag
El Farag subway
subway station
station [30]. [30].
Geosciences 2020, 10, 76 6 of 19

Geosciences 2020, 10, x FOR PEER 6 of 19

Figure 4 shows the details of borehole no.46-B that lies in the section under study (North Block).
Data obtained
Figure 4from
shows thisthe
borehole
details ofwere used in
borehole this study.
no.46-B Based
that lies onsection
in the the results
underof study
the conducted in- situ
(North Block).
andData
laboratory
obtainedtests,
fromthe thisgroundwater
borehole were existed
used at inan
thisaverage depth on
study. Based of 2.50 m below
the results the conducted
of the ground surface.
in-
Also,
situthe
andsoil stratification
laboratory tests,can
thebe summarizedexisted
groundwater as follows:
at an Layer
average (1)depth
startsof
at2.50
levelm(+18.50)
below the andground
extends
to level
surface.(+16.5),
Also, and it isstratification
the soil a fill layer consisting of sand and
can be summarized as silt intermixed
follows: Layer (1)with gravel,
starts asphalt,
at level and
(+18.50)
and extends
building debris.toLayer
level (+16.5),
(2) begins andfrom
it is alevel
fill layer
(+16.5)consisting
to level of sand and
(+12.5), andsilt intermixed
it consists with gravel,
of slightly sandy
siltasphalt,
clay soilandwithbuilding
a liquiddebris.
limit andLayer (2) begins
plasticity from
index of level (+16.5)
48% and 21%,to respectively.
level (+12.5), and
Layer it consists of
(3) is a thick
slightly sandy silt clay soil with a liquid limit and plasticity index of 48% and
segment of silty sand that starts from level (+12.5) to level (−17.5) with a thickness of 30.0 m; water 21%, respectively. Layer
(3) is aobtained
content thick segment
for this of layer
silty sand
rangesthatfrom
starts17%from tolevel
25%.(+12.5)
Layerto(4)level (−17.5)
starts from with a thickness
level (− 17.00)ofto30.0
level
m; water content obtained for this layer ranges from 17% to
(−30.00), and it consists of very dense medium to fine sand underlined by cobbles and 25%. Layer (4) starts from level (− 17.00)
gravel with
to level (−30.00), and it consists of very dense medium to fine sand underlined
a thickness of 6.0 m. The last layer is medium to fine sand extended to the end of boring. Figure 4 by cobbles and gravel
with a thickness of 6.0 m. The last layer is medium to fine sand extended to the end of boring. Figure
illustrates the soil profile along with the Rod El Farag station and also shows the different layers and
4 illustrates the soil profile along with the Rod El Farag station and also shows the different layers
NSPT results for each segment.
and NSPT results for each segment.

Figure 4. Soil profile at the location of BH No. 46-B. [30].

Figure 4. Soil profile at the location of BH No. 46-B. [30].
2.2. Stages of Construction
2.2. Stages of Construction
Figure 5 describes the top and down sequence followed in the construction of the metro subway.
Figure 5 describes the top and down sequence followed in the construction of the metro subway.
Eight stages of construction were adopted as follows:
Eight stages of construction were adopted as follows:
• 1st Stage: Construction of diaphragm walls to a depth of 48.0 m. Bentonite slurry installation
• 1st Stage: Construction of diaphragm walls to a depth of 48.0 m. Bentonite slurry installation
procedure was involved in this stage.
procedure was involved in this stage.
• • 2nd2nd Stage: Groutingthe
Stage: Grouting theessential
essential
waterwater
plug plug
with awith a thickness
thickness of 7.0 m
of 7.0 m between the between
diaphragm the
diaphragm
walls. walls.
• • 3rd3rd Stage: Dewatering
Stage: Dewatering thethe
groundwater
groundwater table to to
table level of of
level (–3.30), excavation
(–3.30), excavationto to
roof slab
roof level,
slab and
level,
roof slab
and concreting.
roof slab concreting.
• • 4th4th Stage:
Stage: Excavationtototechnical
Excavation technicalslab
slablevel
leveland
and technical
technical slab
slab concreting.
concreting.
• • 5th Stage: Excavation to the level of the first row of struts and installation
5th Stage: Excavation to the level of the first row of struts and installationofofsteel
steelbeams.
beams. Also,
Also,
a pre-stressing force of 1500 kN was applied on each strut steel beam
a pre-stressing force of 1500 kN was applied on each strut steel beam in this stage. in this stage.
• 6th Stage: Excavation to the level of the second row of struts, then installation and pre-stressing
• 6th Stage: Excavation to the level of the second row of struts, then installation and pre-stressing
of the second row of steel struts.
of the second row of steel struts.
• 7th Stage: Excavation to raft slab level and raft slab concreting.
• • 7th8thStage: Excavation to raft slab level and raft slab concreting.
Stage: Removal of the first and the second rows of struts.
• • 8th9thStage: Removal
Stage: of the
Concreting thefirst and
ticket theand
slab second rowsthe
stopping of dewatering
struts. process.
• 9th Stage: Concreting the ticket slab and stopping the dewatering process.
Geosciences 2020, 10, 76 7 of 19
Geosciences 2020, 10, x FOR PEER 7 of 19

Fundamental to note is that the groundwater table was lowered to be at a level of 0.90 m below
Fundamental to note is that the groundwater table was lowered to be at a level of 0.90 m below
the raft slab level, and this dewatering process was accomplished before starting excavation works
the raft
[30].slab level,
Ticket slaband this dewatering
concreting mentioned process was
in stage accomplished
9 was before
performed on starting
a date excavation
after this works
field study was [30].
Ticket slab concreting
completed so that mentioned in stage effect
the corresponding 9 was of
performed
this stageonon
a date after this field
the diaphragm wallstudy was completed
response is not
so that the
included.corresponding effect of this stage on the diaphragm wall response is not included.

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

(e) (f) (g) (h)

Figure 5. Stages of construction of Rod El Farag subway station case study [30]. (a) Stage 1: Wall
Figure 5. Stages of construction of Rod El Farag subway station case study [30]. (a) Stage 1: Wall
construction. (b) Stage 2: Grouting. (c) Stage 3: Dewatering Excavation to roof slab level and concreting
construction. (b) Stage 2: Grouting. (c) Stage 3: Dewatering Excavation to roof slab level and
roof slab. (d) Stage 4: Excavation to technical slab level and concreting technical slab. (e) Stage 5:
concreting roof slab. (d) Stage 4: Excavation to technical slab level and concreting technical slab. (e)
Excavation to the first to
Stage 5: Excavation layer of struts
the first layer and installing
of struts the struts.
and installing (f) Stage
the struts. 6: Excavation
(f) Stage to the
6: Excavation to second
the
layersecond
of struts and installing the strut. (g) Stage 7: Excavation to raft slab level and concreting raft slab.
layer of struts and installing the strut. (g) Stage 7: Excavation to raft slab level and concreting
(h) Stage 8: Removal
raft slab. ofRemoval
(h) Stage 8: struts concreting ticket slabticket
of struts concreting and slab
stopping dewatering.
and stopping dewatering.

2.3. 2.3.
Field Measurements
Field Measurements
Measurements
Measurementsofofthe thediaphragm
diaphragm wallswalls lateral displacementwere
lateral displacement wereobtained
obtained using
using the the
two two
inclinometers
inclinometers implemented
implementedin inboth theeast
both the eastandand west
west sides
sides (RIED,
(RIED, and RIWD).
and RIWD). FigureFigure 6a presents
6a presents the
the variation
variation in in diaphragm
diaphragmwalls wallslateral
lateraldisplacement
displacement with
with depth.
depth. TheThe relation
relation between
between the the in-situ
in-situ
measurements
measurements of the
of the soil
soil surfacesettlement
surface settlement andand the
the horizontal
horizontaldistance
distance from
fromthethe
excavation areaarea
excavation are are
alsoalso
shownshown in Figure
in Figure 6b,c
6b,c forboth
for bothmeasurements
measurements obtained
obtainedusing
usingthethesettlement
settlement points erected
points in east
erected in east
and west sides (E1-8, and W1-11) of the excavation area. Fundamental to
and west sides (E1-8, and W1-11) of the excavation area. Fundamental to note is that measurements note is that measurements
shownshown in the
in the figures
figures were
were observedafter
observed afterthe
theaccomplishment
accomplishment ofofdiaphragm
diaphragm walls’
walls’ construction.
construction.
The maximum wall lateral displacements measured at the end of excavation stages were 29.5
The maximum wall lateral displacements measured at the end of excavation stages were 29.5 mm
mm and 31.5 mm at an elevation of (0.00) as recorded by RIED and RIWD respectively, while the
and 31.5 mm at an elevation of (0.00) as recorded by RIED and RIWD respectively, while the maximum
maximum soil displacement was 21.50 mm at the same elevation. These displacements represent the
soil displacement was 21.50 mm at the same elevation. These displacements represent the percentage
percentage of 0.09%, 0.10%, and 0.07%, respectively, of the maximum depth of excavation.
of 0.09%,As 0.10%,
shown and 0.07%,6a,
in Figure respectively, of themonitored
the performance maximumbydepth of excavation.
the west wall inclinometer (RIWD) is in
As shown in Figure 6a, the performance monitored
good agreement with the diaphragm wall inclinometer (RIED) measurements. by the west wall inclinometer (RIWD) is in
Also, the maximum
good agreement
soil displacementwith recorded
the diaphragmby RIESwallwasinclinometer
less than the (RIED) measurements.
maximum diaphragmAlso,wallthe maximum soil
displacement
displacement
recorded by recorded
RIED with by only
RIES8.0 was
mm,lessand
than the maximum
approximately diaphragm
at the wall displacement recorded by
same elevation.
RIED with Ononly 8.0 mm,
the other hand,andthe approximately
maximum ground at vertical
the same elevation.
settlement value of about 35 mm was recorded
atOn
E1 the
(eastother
side).hand,
The observed
the maximum ground vertical settlement valuepattern
settlement rough agreed with the general of ground
of about 35 mmmovement
was recorded
at E1presented
(east side). by The
Clough and O’Rourke
observed settlement [14].
roughIn case thewith
agreed excavation cumulative
the general patternadvanced
of groundtomovement
more
presented by Clough and O’Rourke [14]. In case the excavation cumulative advanced to more profound
elevations, Clough and O’Rourke [14] found that on the contrary the maximum settlement did not
occur at the nearest point to the diaphragm wall.
 Geosciences 2020, 10, x FOR PEER 8 of 19

Geosciences 2020, 10, 76 8 of 19

profound elevations, Clough and O’Rourke [14] found that on the contrary the maximum settlement
did not occur at the nearest point to the diaphragm wall.

Lateral Displacement (mm)

Property Line
0 20 40

E7

E8
E6
E4

E5
E2
0

E3
E1
Distance to Excavation (m)
14 0 10 20 30 40
5 -10

Vertical Displacement (mm)

0
10 8
10
15
2 20

20 30
-4 Excavation to Raft slab
40
25
Elevation (m)

(b)
-10
Depth (m)

30 Property Line

W9
W8
W7
W6
W5
W3
-16
35 Distance to Excavation (m)
0 10 20 30 40
0
40 -22
Vertical Displacement (mm)

RIED Inclinometer
Field Reading 10
45
RIWD -28
Inclinometer Field
Reading 20
50 RIES Inclinometer
Field Reading
-34
30
55 Excavation to Raft slab

-40 40

(a) (c)
Figure
Figure 6. Summary
6. Summary of in-situ
of in-situ measurements
measurements of lateral
of walls walls deformation
lateral deformation and surface
and ground groundsettlement
surface
settlement for both the west and east sides. (a) Lateral diaphragm wall displacement
for both the west and east sides. (a) Lateral diaphragm wall displacement at East (RIED) and at East (RIED)
west
and west (RIWD) sides. (b) Settlement profile adjacent to the excavation on the east side. (c) Settlement
(RIWD) sides. (b) Settlement profile adjacent to the excavation on the east side. (c) Settlement profile
profile adjacent to the excavation at the west side.
adjacent to the excavation at the west side.

3. Numerical
3. Numerical Modeling
Modeling
Two Two
andand three-dimensionalfinite
three-dimensional finiteelement
elementmodels
models were
were established
establishedto tosimulate
simulatethe
thebehavior
behavior of of
the supported deep excavation system of Rod El Farag underground station. Fundamental
the supported deep excavation system of Rod El Farag underground station. Fundamental to note to note is is
that the effect of the three-dimensional corners, and the cross walls as well as the inclined-bracing
that the effect of the three-dimensional corners, and the cross walls as well as the inclined-bracing are are
not included in the 2D numerical model. However, the impact of these parameters on the results of
not included in the 2D numerical model. However, the impact of these parameters on the results of
both soil settlement, and wall lateral deformation, can be simulated through the three-dimensional
both soil settlement, and wall lateral deformation, can be simulated through the three-dimensional
finite element model. So that comparing results of both numerical models (2D and 3D) with the field
finite element model. So that comparing results of both numerical models (2D and 3D) with the field
measurements will be vital to assess the effect of 3D corners and the cross walls on the behavior of
measurements will be vital to assess the effect of 3D corners and the cross walls on the behavior of the
the supported system.
supported system.

3.1. Properties of the Soil Model

In several practical cases, it has always been appropriate to use the Modified Mohr–Coulomb
constitutive model (also known as the Hardening Soil Model), to define the drained and undrained
conditions of soil layers, as has been concluded by different authors e.g., [10] that this model is superior to
Geosciences 2020, 10, 76 9 of 19

the Mohr-Coulomb model in predicting the displacements of the supported deep excavations problems.
The reason being, this constitutive model simulates the soil material more precisely by considering
three different values of stress-dependent moduli [Eeod , E50, and Eur ] [32]. Also, the stress-strain
behavior for primary loading is highly nonlinear, and unloading response can be represented.
For the cohesive soil layer, the undrained shear strength (Cu) is calculated using Equation (1) [33],
based on the in-situ measurements of N-SPT, and plasticity index (PI). Also, the undrained Young’s
modulus (Eu) of the cohesive soil layers is estimated using Equation (2) [34], based on the determined
undrained shear strength Cu, the plasticity index PI, and the over consolidation ratio (OCR) obtained
from the CPT results.
On the other hand, shear strength parameters of cohesionless soil layers are mainly determined
based on the corrected in-situ N-SPT measurements. Also, the in situ water content is used to calculate
the drained soil Young’s modulus (Eeod ) using the Janbu chart [35].

Cu (kPa) = f * (N60 ) (1)

where, f is a factor, function in the plasticity index PI.

Eu = k * Cu (2)

where k is estimated using Duncan chart [34].

K0 = (1−sinØ) OCR sin Ø (3)

In several practical cases, it was appropriate to set Eur equal to two to five times the E50 , and to
adopt the E50 with a value equal to the calculated value of Eeod [32]. The soil lateral earth pressure
coefficient (k0 ) is calculated using the effective friction angle, and over-consolidation ratio obtained
using the in-situ soil testing (Equation (3)) [36].
Mohr-Coulomb criterion is used to distinguish between the elastic interface behavior where small
displacements can occur within the interface and plastic interface behavior when permanent slip
may occur. Also, shear strength parameters of the interface elements are linked to the strength of the
neighboring soil layers through a strength reduction factor (R), as given in Table 1, which summarizes
the soil parameters adopted in this numerical study.

Table 1. Properties of soil layers and interface.

Sandy Sandy Silty Sandy Dense Cobbles Med. to

Soil Layer Soil Fill Silty Clayey Sand Cobbles Sand/ and Fine
Parameter Clay Silt Gravel Gravel Sand
Unit weight γsat (kN/m3 ) 17 18 18 19.9 21 21 22 21
Triaxial loading stiffness E50 (MPa) 4 10 16 30 40 50 75 40
Oedometer loading stiffness Eoed
4 10 16 30 40 50 75 40
(MPa)
Triaxial unloading stiffness Eur
16 30 48 90 120 150 220 120
(MPa)
Poisson’s ratio v (-) 0.30 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Cohesion Cref (kPa) 0.1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Friction angle φ (degrees) 28 30 30 34 36 38 40 36
Dilatancy angle ψ (degrees) 0 0 0 0 2 3 5 3
lateral earth pressure coefficient (K0 ) 0.53 0.5 0.5 0.44 0.412 0.38 0.33 0.412
interface reduction factor (R) 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67
Geosciences 2020, 10, 76 10 of 19
Geosciences 2020, 10, x FOR PEER 10 of 19

3.2. Two
3.2. Two Dimensional
DimensionalNumerical
NumericalModeling
Modeling
Quadratic high
Quadratic high order
order 8-noded
8-noded two-dimensional
two-dimensional mesh mesh elements
elements were were used
used toto simulate
simulate the the soil
soil
layersininthe
layers thetwo-dimensional
two-dimensional finite
finite element
element model.
model. Also,Also, one-dimensional
one-dimensional structural
structural embedded embedded
beam
beam elements were utilized to simulate the diaphragm walls and the two
elements were utilized to simulate the diaphragm walls and the two rows of temporary struts. Three rows of temporary struts.
Three different
different mesh sizesmeshwere
sizesused
weretoused to investigate
investigate the sensitivity
the sensitivity of the of the
soil soil mesh
mesh refinement
refinement and
and their
their effect
effect on theon the deformation
deformation results.results. Excellent
Excellent enhancement
enhancement was observed
was observed in the in the results
results when finewhen fine
mesh
mesh (1.0 m) was adopted in the analysis. However, the analysis time and
(1.0 m) was adopted in the analysis. However, the analysis time and the computational usage were the computational usage
were significantly
significantly increased.
increased.
AA sensitivity
sensitivityanalysis
analysisstudy
studywas wascarried
carriedoutout and
and based
based on on
thethe obtained
obtained results,
results, dimensions
dimensions of theof
the geometry were adopted as 225 m width and 120 m depth, as indicated
geometry were adopted as 225 m width and 120 m depth, as indicated in Figure 7. The distance between in Figure 7. The distance
between
the the boundaries
boundaries and the walls and the walls
is about 99.50ism,about
which99.50 m, which
represents aboutrepresents
three timesabout three times
the excavation depththe
excavation depth (3H). Based on the results of the sensitivity analysis the adopted
(3H). Based on the results of the sensitivity analysis the adopted positions of the model boundaries do positions of the
model
not boundaries
affect the obtained do not affect
results ofthe obtained
stresses andresults of stresses
displacements and displacements
around aroundBesides,
the support system. the support
the
system.
outer Besides, the
boundaries outer
of the boundaries
model of the model
are supported are supported
to avoid instability to avoid instability
(singularity) of the (singularity)
finite element of
the finite element model. These outer edges are considered as fixed in the
model. These outer edges are considered as fixed in the horizontal direction, and free to move in horizontal direction, and
freevertical
the to movedirection.
in the vertical direction.
The bottom The bottom
boundary boundary
is deemed is deemed
to be fixed in to be horizontal
both fixed in both andhorizontal
vertical
and vertical
directions, anddirections, and the top
the top boundary wasboundary
taken as was
free.taken as free.

Figure 7. Two-dimensional plane strain finite element model.

Figure 7. Two-dimensional plane strain finite element model.
3.3. Three Dimensional Numerical Modeling
Hexahedral high order 20-noded mesh elements were used to represent the soil layers in the
three-dimensional finite
3.3. Three Dimensional elementModeling
Numerical model. The density of the mesh within the excavation had a major
effect on the accuracy of analysis and, the mesh density outside the excavation apparently had less
Hexahedral high order 20-noded mesh elements were used to represent the soil layers in the
significant impact on the accuracy of analysis [28]. Based on the sensitivity performed using the
three-dimensional finite element model. The density of the mesh within the excavation had a major
two-dimensional model, fine mesh (1.0 m) was also adopted in the three-dimensional model. However,
effect on the accuracy of analysis and, the mesh density outside the excavation apparently had less
the time of the analysis and computational usage were significantly increased. So that as a compromise
significant impact on the accuracy of analysis [28]. Based on the sensitivity performed using the two-
solution, a zone of fine mesh with a size of 1.0 m was adopted inside, around and below the excavation
dimensional model, fine mesh (1.0 m) was also adopted in the three-dimensional model. However,
zone and gradually increased to be 3.0 m after a horizontal distance of 35 m (H) and to be 12 m at
the time of the analysis and computational usage were significantly increased. So that as a
the locations of the external boundaries. This solution significantly reduced the number of degrees
compromise solution, a zone of fine mesh with a size of 1.0 m was adopted inside, around and below
of freedom which makes three-dimensional analysis economically feasible. Besides, as shown in
the excavation zone and gradually increased to be 3.0 m after a horizontal distance of 35 m (H) and
Figure 8a, a few triangular mesh elements were automatically generated to adjust for the aspect ratio
to be 12 m at the locations of the external boundaries. This solution significantly reduced the number
of the model geometry in the transition zone.
of degrees of freedom which makes three-dimensional analysis economically feasible. Besides, as
Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the estimated geometry dimensions on the analysis
shown in Figure 8a, a few triangular mesh elements were automatically generated to adjust for the
results. Based on the obtained results of those attempts, dimensions of the geometry were adopted as
aspect ratio of the model geometry in the transition zone.
600 m length, 225 m width, and 120 m depth, as indicated in Figure 8a. The outer boundaries in both X,
Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the estimated geometry dimensions on the
and Y directions of the model were supported to avoid instability (singularity) of the finite element
analysis results. Based on the obtained results of those attempts, dimensions of the geometry were
adopted as 600 m length, 225 m width, and 120 m depth, as indicated in Figure 8a The outer
Geosciences 2020, 10, 76 11 of 19
Geosciences 2020, 10, x FOR PEER 11 of 19

Geosciences 2020, 10, x FOR PEER 11 of 19

boundaries
model. in both
These outer X, and
edges Y considered
are directions of fixed
the model were
in the supported
lateral to avoid
direction, and instability
free to move (singularity)
in the vertical
of theboundaries
finite element model. These outer edges are considered fixed in the lateral direction, and
direction (Z-Direction). in both
TheX,bottom
and Y directions
boundary of is
thedeemed
model were
to besupported
fixed andtothe avoid
topinstability
boundary isfree
(singularity)
taken as
to move in the vertical direction (Z-Direction). The bottom boundary is deemed to be fixed and the
free. On the other hand, one-dimensional structural beam elements were utilized to simulate thefree
of the finite element model. These outer edges are considered fixed in the lateral direction, and two
top boundary
to move in is the
taken as free.
vertical On the (Z-Direction).
direction other hand, one-dimensional
The bottom boundarystructural beam elements
is deemed to be fixedwereand the
rowsutilized
of temporary struts (Figure 8b).
to simulate the two rows of temporary struts (Figure 8b).
top boundary is taken as free. On the other hand, one-dimensional structural beam elements were
utilized to simulate the two rows of temporary struts (Figure 8b).

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 8. Three-dimensional
8. Three-dimensional (a)finite
finite element
element model.
model. (a) Geometry
(a) Geometry dimensions (b) boundary
dimensions
and and boundary
conditions.
conditions.
(b) Temporary (b)
Figuretwo Temporary
8. steel two steel strut rows.
strut rows. finite element model. (a) Geometry dimensions and boundary
Three-dimensional
conditions. (b) Temporary two steel strut rows.
Diaphragm
Diaphragm walls
walls canbe
can berepresented
represented by by shell
shell(Plate)
(Plate)elements
elements (Figure 9b) or
(Figure 9b)volume elements
or volume elements
(Figure 9c). Two numerical
Diaphragm walls analyses attempts
can be represented were performed
by shell to identify
(Plate) elements the most
(Figure efficient element
(Figure 9c). Two numerical analyses attempts were performed to identify the 9b)
mostor efficient
volume elements
element
type that can 9c).
(Figure accurately
Two representanalyses
numerical the behavior of diaphragm
attempts were walls with
performed to respectthe
identify to the
most analysis time
efficient element
type that can accurately represent the behavior of diaphragm walls with respect to the analysis time and
and economic feasibility
type that can of the
accurately computational
represent analysis
the behavior method. walls
of diaphragm Two dimensional
with respect to8-noded shell time
the analysis
economic
elementsfeasibility
and of the computational
hexahedral 20-noded analysis method.
three-dimensional elementsTwoweredimensional
utilized in 8-noded
this shell The
evaluation. elements
and economic feasibility of the computational analysis method. Two dimensional 8-noded shell
and same
hexahedral 20-noded
soil properties three-dimensional
and mesh20-noded elements
size werethree-dimensional were utilized
used in the two analysis in this
attempts. evaluation.
Figurein9this The
compares same soil
the The
elements and hexahedral elements were utilized evaluation.
properties
obtained and
same
mesh
results sizediaphragm
of the
soil properties
were used
and mesh
in
wall the two
lateral
size
analysis attempts.
weredisplacement using
used in the two
Figure
the two
analysis
9 compares
analyses
attempts. attempts.
Figure
the obtained
9 compares the
results ofobtained
the diaphragm wall lateral displacement using the two analyses attempts.
results of the diaphragm wall lateral displacement using the two analyses attempts.
Lateral Displacement (mm)
0 10 20 30 40
0 Lateral Displacement (mm)
0 10 20 30 40
5 0

10 5

15 10

20 15

25 20
Depth (m)

30 25
(b)
Depth (m)

35 30 (b)

40 35 RIED Inclinometer
Field Reading
40 RIED Inclinometer
45 Shell 2DField
8 noded
Reading
elements
45 Shell 2D 8 noded
50 hexahedral 3D 20-
elements
noded element
50 hexahedral 3D 20-
55 noded element
55
(a) (c)
(a) (c)

Figure 9. (a) Comparison between wall lateral displacement results obtained using two different
methods of wall simulation. (b) Two-dimensional shell element (8-noded) [37]. (c) Three-dimensional
hexahedral element (20-noded) [37].
Geosciences 2020, 10, 76 12 of 19

It can be seen from Figure 9a that the obtained wall lateral deformation using two-dimensional
quadratic shell mesh elements is greater than those obtained using 3D hexahedral elements. Also, as
shown the obtained results using 2D shell elements are much closer to the field measurements (RIED).
In contrast, the obtained results using the 3D hexahedral elements show a more stiff behavior. The
obtained lateral deformation results are less than those found using the 2D shell elements. This is
attributed to the efficiency of shell elements in considering both the bending and shear deformations
in the analysis. This difference of wall lateral deformation between modeling using shell elements and
volume elements agrees well with previous studies such as [38,39].

3.4. Analysis Stages

The same soil, and structural element properties presented in Tables 1 and 2 respectively were
utilized in both two- and three-dimensional models. For both 2D and 3D models analysis was
performed in ten stages. The first stage represents the initial stresses of the soil before the support
system implementation. The second stage starts with changing the diaphragm walls’ volume to
concrete material as a replacement for soil material. At this stage, rigid interface elements were used to
connect the wall and soil mesh elements to avoid any numerical instability (singularity) [37,40], and
the wall’s self-weight is also considered at this stage. The calculated deformations of the first and
second stages of analysis were discarded in order to start to account for wall deformation due to the
excavation process only. Interface elements were activated in the third stage of analysis, and the rigid
interface elements were deactivated. Similar to the field case study, the remaining analysis stages were
considered with the same sequence presented in Section 2.2 (Figure 5).

Table 2. Properties of structural elements.

Poisson’s Modulus of
Unit Weight Thickness
Element Material Ratio Elasticity
(kN\m3 ) (m)
(-) (MPa)
Diaphragm wall Concrete 25.0 1.20 0.15 24,100
Raft slab Concrete 25.0 2.20 0.15 24,100
Roof slab Concrete 25.0 1.40 0.15 24,100
Technical slab Concrete 25.0 1.10 0.15 24,100
Ticker slab Concrete 25.0 1.20 0.15 24,100
Strut Beams Steel 78.0 12.7 mm 0.3 210,000

4. Results and Discussion

Figure 10 shows the deformed shape in the horizontal direction (X-Direction) for both the 2D and
3D numerical models. As shown, the maximum lateral deformation result is obtained at almost the
middle of the diaphragm height in both the 2D and 3D numerical models. However, the 3D model
results showed that the lateral displacement of walls varies along the primary wall length. This is
because horizontal displacement is relatively small (near about zero value) at the location of both the
wall corners and the cross walls, and increases to achieve its maximum value at the mid-length of
the three excavation panels (spans between the cross walls). These results can be explained as lateral
wall deformation significantly decreases at the higher wall stiffness zones such as locations of wall
corners and cross walls. These results are also consistent with the findings of [29]; and [20], although
their studies only focused on the 3D corner effect without considering the impact of the cross walls.
However, the shown numerical results below pinpoint to the significant effect of the stiffness of the
cross walls on the wall lateral deformation.
Geosciences2020,
Geosciences 2020,10,
10,76
x FOR PEER 13 19
13 of 19

Geosciences 2020, 10, x FOR PEER 13 of 19

Figure 10. Deformed shape showing results of three-dimensional diaphragm walls’ lateral
deformation.
Figure 10.Deformed
Deformed shape showing
Figure 10. shape showing resultsresults of three-dimensional
of three-dimensional diaphragmdiaphragm
walls’ lateralwalls’ lateral
deformation.
deformation.
Figure 11 presents the results of the vertical soil settlement distribution around the excavation
Figure 11 presents the results of the vertical soil settlement distribution around the excavation zone
zone using 11 contour lines
theobtained from the three-dimensional numerical model. As shown in this
usingFigure presents
contour lines obtained results of
from the the vertical soil settlement
three-dimensional distribution
numerical model. As around
shownthein excavation
this figure,
figure,
zonehigherthe higher
usingstiffness
contour atstiffness
lines at the corners and cross wall locations, also affected the vertical soil
the the obtained
corners andfrom the wall
cross three-dimensional
locations, alsonumerical model.
affected the Assoil
vertical shown in this
settlement
settlement
figure, as results
thesoil
higher as soil
stiffnesssettlement is
at the cornersdecreased at the
and crossofwallpositions of both wall corners and the cross
results settlement is decreased at the positions bothlocations, alsoand
wall corners affected the walls.
the cross vertical soil
walls.
settlement results as soil settlement is decreased at the positions of both wall corners and the cross
walls.

Figure 11.
Figure 11. Contour
Contour lines
lines showing
showing the
the results
results of
of vertical
vertical soil
soil settlement
settlement around
aroundthe
theexcavation
excavationpit.
pit.
Figure 11. Contour lines showing the results of vertical soil settlement around the excavation pit.
Numerical
Numericalresults
resultsofof
both lateral
both wall
lateral displacement
wall andand
displacement vertical soil settlement
vertical were obtained
soil settlement using
were obtained
the two
using and two
the
Numericalthree-dimensional
of bothmodels.
and three-dimensional
results Themodels.
lateral wall obtained results
The
displacement arevertical
obtained
and compared soilwith
results are field measurements
compared
settlement werewith in
field
obtained
Figure 12a,b
measurements to assess
in the
Figure capability
12a,b to of both
assess finite
the element
capability models
of both in accurately
finite element
using the two and three-dimensional models. The obtained results are compared with field predicting
models the
in response
accurately
of the deep the
predicting
measurementsexcavation
response
in Figuresupported
of12a,b to system.
the deep excavation
assess supported
the capability of system.
both finite element models in accurately
predicting the response of the deep excavation supported system.
Geosciences 2020, 10, 76 14 of 19
Geosciences 2020, 10, x FOR PEER 14 of 19

Lateral Displacement (mm)

0 20 40 60
0

14
5

10 8

Distance From the Diphragm wall (m)

15
2 0 10 20 30 40

Ground subsidence (mm)

0
20
-4 5

25 Elevation (m) 10
-10
Depth (m)

30 15

-16 20
35 Field Measurements
25 Results of the 2D Finite Element Model
RIED Inclinometer
40 Field Reading -22 Results of the 3D Finite Element Model
30
RIWD Inclinometer
Field Reading
45
3D Finite Element -28
Model (MMC)
50 2D Finite Element
Model (MMC) -34
RIES Inclinometer
55 Field Reading

-40

(a) (b)
Figure12.
Figure 12.Comparison
Comparisonbetween
betweenfield
fieldmeasurements
measurements and
and thethe obtained
obtained numerical
numerical results.
results. (a) (a) Results
Results of
of lateral
lateral wallwall deformation.
deformation. (b) (b) Results
Results of vertical
of vertical ground
ground settlement.
settlement.

ItItcan
canbe beseen
seenfrom
fromFigure
Figure12a,12a,that
thatananexcellent
excellentagreement
agreementisisobtained
obtainedbetween
betweenthe thewall
walllateral
lateral
deformation measured
deformation measured in inthe
thefield
fieldand andthat
thatcalculated
calculatedusing
usingthethe3D 3Dfinite
finiteelement
elementmodel.
model.Although
Although
the same
the same soil,
soil, wall,
wall, interface
interface properties
properties are are adopted
adopted in in both
both the
the 2D,2D, 3D
3D finite
finiteelement
element models,
models, the the
three-dimensional finite
three-dimensional finite element
element model
model seems
seems toto bebe superior
superior to to the
thetwo-dimensional
two-dimensional plane plane strain
strain
model in
model in predicting
predicting the lateral wall wall deformation:
deformation:The Themax
maxwallwalllateral
lateraldisplacement
displacement is is
obtained
obtained as as
47
mm
47 mm using
using the
the2D2D numerical
numericalmodel,
model,which
whichisishigher
higherthan
thanthethein-situ
in-situ measurements
measurements with a difference
difference
ofabout
of about54%. 54%. InIn contrast,
contrast, the
the three-dimensional
three-dimensional analysis
analysis provides
provides aa moremore realistic
realistic prediction
prediction of of the
the
maximumlateral
maximum lateralwall
walldisplacements.
displacements.
Figure 12b
Figure 12b compares
compares the the measured
measured ground
ground surface
surface settlements
settlements compiled
compiled at at the
the end
end ofof the
the
constructionof
construction ofthe
theRod
Rod ElEl Farag
Farag subway,
subway,withwiththe
the results
results determined
determined using using both
both 2D
2D and
and 3D analyses.
Thein-situ
The in-situmeasured
measuredgroundground settlement
settlement ranged
ranged fromfrom
4 to4 25
to mm
25 mm (west-side).
(west-side). As shown
As shown in Figure
in Figure 12b,
12b, good
good agreement
agreement is alsoisobtained
also obtained
between between the three-dimensional
the three-dimensional finite element
finite element modelofresults
model results verticalof
vertical
soil soil settlement
settlement and the
and the field field measured
measured values. Invalues. In contrast,
contrast, large differences
large differences rangingranging
from 5%from to 49%5%
to observed
are 49% are between
observedthebetween
2D model the 2D model
obtained obtained results
soil settlement soil settlement results
and the field and the field
measurement.
measurement.
The significant difference between the results of the two-dimensional model and the field
The significant
measurements is mainlydifference
attributed between the results
to the small distance ofbetween
the two-dimensional
the corners andmodelmid-spanand points
the fieldof
measurements is mainly attributed to the small distance between the corners and mid-span points of
each excavation panel (point of maximum lateral deformation), as explained before in [28] where it
Geosciences 2020, 10, 76 15 of 19

Geosciences
each 2020, 10, xpanel
excavation FOR PEER
(point of maximum lateral deformation), as explained before in [28] where15 of 19
it
was concluded that, the wall deformation decreases with decreasing distance from the corner. In the
was concluded that, the wall deformation decreases with decreasing distance from the corner. In the
Rod El Farag case despite the relatively high aspect ratio (6.25) of the plan dimensions of this large
Rod El Farag case despite the relatively high aspect ratio (6.25) of the plan dimensions of this large
scale station, the existence of the interior cross walls significantly affected the lateral wall deformation.
scale station, the existence of the interior cross walls significantly affected the lateral wall
This is beacuse the location of the maximum lateral wall deformation point is shifted from the mid-
deformation. This is beacuse the location of the maximum lateral wall deformation point is shifted
span of the whole primary wall length (150.0 m/2.0 (If there are no cross walls)), to be at the mid-span
from the mid- span of the whole primary wall length (150.0 m/2.0 (If there are no cross walls)), to be
points of every single panel (about 50.0 m/2) as shown previously in Figure 10. Also, in this case,
at the mid-span points of every single panel (about 50.0 m/2) as shown previously in Figure 10. Also,
intersections between primary walls and cross walls almost similarly act as the traditional wall corners,
in this case, intersections between primary walls and cross walls almost similarly act as the traditional
which explains the relatively large wall lateral deformation results obtained using the two-dimensional
wall corners, which explains the relatively large wall lateral deformation results obtained using the
finite element model.
two-dimensional finite element model.
Fundamental to note is that the results of both 2D and 3D are consistent with the field measurements
Fundamental to note is that the results of both 2D and 3D are consistent with the field
in terms of locations of both maximum lateral wall displacement and vertical soil settlement. Besides,
measurements in terms of locations of both maximum lateral wall displacement and vertical soil
as shown in Figure 12b after a horizontal distance of about 30 m (almost equals the excavation depth
settlement. Besides, as shown in Figure 12b after a horizontal distance of about 30 m (almost equals
(H)), the effect of the excavation becomes insignificant, as indicated from the results of vertical soil
the excavation depth (H)), the effect of the excavation becomes insignificant, as indicated from the
settlement of both west and east directions.
results of vertical soil settlement of both west and east directions.
On the other hand, in-situ field measurements of the Rod El Farag case study were utilized
On the other hand, in-situ field measurements of the Rod El Farag case study were utilized to
to assess the estimated deformation using two empirical approaches [11,14]. Figure 13 illustrates
assess the estimated deformation using two empirical approaches [11,14]. Figure 13 illustrates the
the allocation of the in-situ measurements on the Peck’s chart [11] of the estimated ground vertical
allocation of the in-situ measurements on the Peck’s chart [11] of the estimated ground vertical
settlement roughs. As shown, the in-situ measurements of the Rod El Farag case lie in zone (I) for
settlement roughs. As shown, the in-situ measurements of the Rod El Farag case lie in zone (I) for
excavations in the sand and hard clay layers. The comparison indicates that for this case, the Peck’s
excavations in the sand and hard clay layers. The comparison indicates that for this case, the Peck’s
chart is overestimating the induced deformation resulting due to deep excavation.
chart is overestimating the induced deformation resulting due to deep excavation.

𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐄𝐱𝐜𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

𝐌𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐦 𝐃𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐱𝐜𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
-0.5
%

0
𝐌𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐦 𝐃𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐱𝐜𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

0.5 I
𝐒𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

1 I Sand and soft to hard clay, Avg.

II workmanship
II Very soft to soft clay
1.5
III Very soft to soft clay
(after Peck, 1969)
2 III
In-situ Measurement (East side)
In-situ Measurement (West side)
2.5 Results of the 3D Finite Element Model

Figure 13. Allocation of the measured soil vertical settlement corresponding to horizontal distance
Figure 13. Allocation of the measured soil vertical settlement corresponding to horizontal distance
from the excavation zone on the Peck’s chart [11].
from the excavation zone on the Peck’s chart [11].

In the
In thesame
sameway,
way, Figure
Figure 14 compares
14 compares the estimated
the estimated values
values of vertical
of vertical soil settlement
soil settlement using
using Clough
Clough
and and O’Rourke’s
O’Rourke’s chartthe[14],
chart [14], with with
in-situ the in-situ As
measurements. measurements.
shown, the in-situAs measurements
shown, the in-situ
of the
soil settlement using east and west settlement points lie close to the estimated charttobythe
measurements of the soil settlement using east and west settlement points lie close estimated
Clough and
chart by Clough
O’Rourke and O’Rourke
[14]. Furthermore, [14]. 15,
Figure Furthermore, Figure
compares the 15, compares
estimated maximum thesoil
estimated
verticalmaximum
settlementsoil
by
vertical settlement by Clough and O’Rourke [14] corresponding to the excavation depth, and the field
measurements of the Rod El Farag station. As shown, good agreement is also obtained between the
field measurements and the estimation of Clough and O’Rourke [14]. As the allocated point of field
measurements lies close to the first line that represents the measured settlement of several supported
Geosciences 2020, 10, 76 16 of 19

Clough and O’Rourke [14] corresponding to the excavation depth, and the field measurements of the
Rod El Farag station. As shown, good agreement is also obtained between the field measurements
and the estimation of Clough and O’Rourke [14]. As the allocated point of field measurements lies
Geosciences 2020, 10, x FOR PEER 16 of 19
close to the
Geosciences first
2020, 10, xline
FORthat
PEERrepresents the measured settlement of several supported excavations 16 ofby
19
the diaphragm wall system as compiled in various case studies, the ratio between the maximum
excavations by the diaphragm wall system as compiled in various case studies, the ratio between the
excavations
settlement toby the diaphragm
excavation depth wall
is lesssystem as compiled
than 0.15%, which in various
agrees case
with thestudies, the ratioofbetween
measurements the RodtheEl
maximum settlement to excavation depth is less than 0.15%, which agrees with the measurements of
maximum
Farag settlement to excavation depth is less than 0.15%, which agrees with the measurements of
case study.
the Rod El Farag case study.
the Rod El Farag case study.

𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐄𝐱𝐜𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐄𝐱𝐜𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
𝐌𝐚𝐱.𝐓𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐡 𝐃𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐡
𝐌𝐚𝐱.𝐓𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐡 𝐃𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐡
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-0.02
-0.02
%%
𝐃𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐡
𝐌𝐚𝐱.𝐓𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐡 𝐃𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐡

0.08
𝐒𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

0.08
𝐒𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭
𝐌𝐚𝐱.𝐓𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐡

0.18
0.18 Clough and O’Rourke (1990)
Clough and O’Rourke (1990)
In-situ Measurement (East side)
In-situ Measurement (East side)
In-situ Measurement (West side)
In-situ Measurement (West side)

0.28
0.28
Figure 14. Allocation of the in-situ measured soil vertical settlement corresponding to the horizontal
Figure 14. Allocation
Figure 14. Allocation of
of the
the in-situ
in-situ measured
measured soil
soil vertical
vertical settlement
settlement corresponding
corresponding to
to the
the horizontal
horizontal
distance from the excavation zone on the Clough and O’Rourke, chart [14].
distance from the excavation zone on the Clough and O’Rourke, chart
distance from the excavation zone on the Clough and O’Rourke, chart [14]. [14].

200
200
Rod Al Farag Case study
(mm)

RodFinite
3D Al Farag Case
element study
model
vm(mm)

160 3D Finite element model

160
Settlement,δ δvm

120
120
SoilSettlement,

80
80
MaxSoil

40
Max

40

0
0 0 10 20 30 40
0 10 20 30 40
Depth of Excavation H, (m)
Depth of Excavation H, (m)

Figure 15. Allocation of the obtained ratio of the maximum measured vertical soil settlement to the
Figure 15.
Figure 15. Allocation
Allocation ofof the
the obtained
obtained ratio
ratio of
of the
the maximum
maximum measured
measured vertical
vertical soil
soil settlement
settlement to
to the
the
excavation depth of the Rod El Farag case study on the Clough and O’Rourke chart [14].
excavation depth
excavation depth of
of the
theRod
RodEl ElFarag
Faragcase
casestudy
studyon onthe
theClough
Cloughand
andO’Rourke
O’Rourkechart
chart[14].
[14].
Geosciences 2020, 10, 76 17 of 19

5. Conclusions
In this numerical study, three-dimensional behavior of the supported deep excavation was
investigated and the following conclusions drawn:

1. Excellent agreement was obtained between field measurements and results of the
three-dimensional finite element model in both wall lateral displacement and neighboring
soil vertical settlement.
2. In this case, the three-dimensional finite element model was superior to the two-dimensional
plane strain model, in terms of prediction of both the diaphragm wall lateral deformation and the
vertical soil settlement. The maximum wall lateral deformation obtained using the 2D model was
54% greater than the in-situ measured values.
3. In the Rod El Farag case, despite the relatively high aspect ratio (6.25) of the plan dimensions, the
existence of cross walls significantly affected the lateral wall deformation. This is because the
location of the maximum lateral wall deformation point was shifted from the mid-span of the
whole primary wall length, to be at the mid-span point of every single panel.
4. The higher stiffness not only at the primary wall corners but also at the cross wall locations
significantly causes the three-dimensional behavior of the supported deep excavation systems,
and the lateral wall deformation decreased with decreasing distance from both the wall corners
and the cross walls.
5. The three-dimensional stiffening effect at corners and cross walls has a significant impact not only
on the lateral wall deformations but also on the neighboring soil vertical settlement.
6. The zone influenced by deep excavation may be affected and depends mainly on the magnitude
of absolute settlement and the slope angle of the settlement rough. For the Rod El Farag case, the
vertical ground settlement became insignificant at a horizontal distance equal to one times the
excavated depth from the diaphragm wall.
7. In this case, the lateral wall movements (0.11% of excavated depth) were in good agreement
with the practical approach proposed by Clough and O’Rourke (1990). However, Peck’s (1969)
approach overestimated the induced deformation resulting due to deep excavation.
8. Three-dimensional finite element analysis is recommended for deep excavation cases with internal
cross walls, even for cases with relatively high aspect ratios.

Author Contributions: A.H. and M.E.A.-A. collaborated to outline the study, together with the methodology, data
analysis, and writing. Both M.J.A. and M.A. authors assisted in collecting the literature review. A.H., M.E.A.-A.,
M.J.A. and M.A. collaborated in the reviews of the final stage of the writing to discuss the interpretation of the
outcomes. All authors have agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study is substantially supported by the United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) Grant
No. G00002855.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. The funders were not involved in the
design of the research; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of the results; in the writing of the manuscript,
or in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. Niu, Y.; Deng, X.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, N. Hexagonal Diamond Model for International Competitive Advantages
of High-Speed Railway Industry. J. Manag. Eng. 2020, 36, 04020001. [CrossRef]
2. Gill, S.A.; Lukas, R.G. Ground Movement Adjacent to Braced Cuts. In Design and Performance of Earth
Retaining Structures; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 1990.
3. Son, M. The Response of Buildings to Excavation-induced Ground Movements. Ph.D. Thesis, Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA, 2003.
4. Son, M.; Cording, E.J. Estimation of Building Damage Due to Excavation-Induced Ground Movements.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005, 131, 162–177. [CrossRef]
Geosciences 2020, 10, 76 18 of 19

5. Son, M.; Cording, E.J. Evaluation of Building Stiffness for Building Response Analysis to Excavation-Induced
Ground Movements. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2007, 133, 995–1002. [CrossRef]
6. Hsiao, C.L. Wall and Ground Movements in a Braced Excavation in Clays and Serviceability Reliability of
Adjacent Buildings. Ph.D. Thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA, 2007.
7. Zapata-Medina, D.G. Semi-Empirical Method For Designing Excavation Support Systems Based on
Deformation Control. Master’s Thesis, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA, 2007.
8. Lam, S. Ground Movements due to Excavation in Clay: Physical and Analytical Models. Ph.D. Thesis,
Churchill College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, 2010.
9. Chai, J.; Shen, S.; Ding, W.; Zhu, H.; Carter, J. Numerical investigation of the failure of a building in Shanghai,
China. Comput. Geotech. 2014, 55, 482–493. [CrossRef]
10. Hefny, A.M.; Sorour, T.M.; Ezzat, M.; Bulut, R.; Yu, X.; Yang, S.-R. Prediction of the Field Response of
Soil-Support Systems in Deep Excavations. In Proceedings of the Geo-China, Shandong, China, 25 July 2016;
pp. 141–151.
11. Peck, R.B. State-of-the-art: Deep excavation and tunneling in soft ground. In Proceedings of the Seventh
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico, 1969;
pp. 225–290.
12. Mana, A.I.; Clough, G.W. Prediction of movements for braced cuts in clay. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 1981, 107,
759–777.
13. Clough, G.W.; Smith, E.M.; Sweeney, B.P. Movement Control of Excavation Support Systems by Iterative
Design. In Foundation Engineering: Current Principles and Practices; American Society of Civil Engineers:
Reston, VA, USA, 1989.
14. Clough, G.W.; O’Rourke, T.D. Construction Induced Movements of Insitu Walls. In Design and Performance of
Earth Retaining Structures; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 1990.
15. Bowles, J.E. Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1988; pp. 589–646.
16. Hsieh, P.G.; Ou, C.Y. Shape of ground surface settlement profiles caused by excavation. Can. Geotech. J. 1998,
35, 1004–1017. [CrossRef]
17. Ou, C.Y.; Hsieh, P.G.; Chiou, D.-C. Characteristics of ground surface settlement during excavation. Can.
Geotech. J. 1993, 30, 758–767. [CrossRef]
18. Long, M. Database for Retaining Wall and Ground Movements due to Deep Excavations. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 2001, 127, 203–224. [CrossRef]
19. Moormann, C. Analysis of wall and ground movement due to deep excavation in soft soil based on a new
worldwide database. Soils Found. 2004, 44, 87–98. [CrossRef]
20. Roboski, J.; Finno, R.J. Distributions of ground movements parallel to deep excavations in clay. Can. Geotech. J.
2006, 43, 43–58. [CrossRef]
21. Finno, R.J.; Hashash, Y.M.A. Integrated Tools for Predicting, Monitoring and Controlling Ground Movements
due to Excavations. In Proceedings of the NSF Engineering Research and Innovation Conference, Honolulu,
HI, USA, 22–25 June 2009.
22. Ralph, B. Peck, Fifty Years of Lateral Earth Support. In Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures;
American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 1990.
23. Wood, L.A.; Perrin, A.J. Observations of a strutted diaphragm wall in London clay: A preliminary assessment.
Géotechnique 1984, 34, 563–579. [CrossRef]
24. Powrie, W.; Li, E.S.F. Finite element analyses of an in situ wall propped at formation level. Géotechnique 1991,
41, 499–514. [CrossRef]
25. El-Nahhas, F. Prediction of ground movement adjacent to a supported deep excavation. In Proceedings of
the Ninth Regional Conference for Africa on SMFE, Lagos, Nigeria, 1987; pp. 285–291.
26. Konokike, K.; Ono, K. Prediction of the behavior of earth retaining walls. In Proceedings of the 9th Southeast
Asian Geotechnical Conference, Bankok, Thailand, 7–11 December 1987.
27. Fang, M.L. A Deep Excavation Taipei Basin. In Proceedings of the 9th Southeast Asian Geotechnical
Conference, Bankok, Thailand, 7–11 December 1987.
28. Ou, C.Y.; Chiou, D.C.; Wu, T.S. Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Deep Excavations. J. Geotech.
Eng. 1996, 122, 337–345. [CrossRef]
29. Finno, R.J.; Roboski, J.F. Three-Dimensional Responses of a Tied-Back Excavation through Clay. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 2005, 131, 273–282. [CrossRef]
Geosciences 2020, 10, 76 19 of 19

30. Abd El-Salam, N. Insitu Performance Of A Subway Station in Cairo. Master’s Thesis, Ain Shams University,
Cairo, Egypt, 1995.
31. Ahmed, A.A.; Abd El-Salam, N. In-Situ Performance of Subway Stations in Cairo. In Proceedings of the
Seventh International Colloquium on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, El-Abaseya, Egypt, 1996;
pp. 447–460.
32. Ezzat, M.; Zaghloul, Y.; Sorour, T.; Hefny, A.; Eid, M. Numerical Simulation of Axially Loaded to Failure
Large Diameter Bored Pile. Int. J. Earth Energy Environ. Sci. 2019, 13, 1–15.
33. Stroud, M.A. The standard penetration test in insensitive clays and soft rocks. In Proceedings of the European
Symposium on Penetration Testing; National Swedish Building Research: Stockholm, Sweden, 1974; pp. 367–375.
34. Duncan, J.M.; Buchignani, A. An Engineering Manual for Settlement Studies; University of California: Oakland,
CA, USA, 1976.
35. Janbu, N. Soil compressibility as determined by oedometer and triaxial tests. Proc. Europ. Conf. SMFE 1963,
1, 19–25.
36. Kulhawy, F.H.; Mayne, P.W. Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design; Report No. EPRI
EL-6800; Electric Power Research Institute: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1990; pp. 2–25.
37. MIDAS, GTS. NX user manual, Analysis Reference chapter 4 materials, Section 2. Plast. Mater. Prop. 2009, 3,
33–68, 120–165.
38. Zdravković, L.; Potts, D.M.; John, H.D.S. Modelling of a 3D excavation in finite element analysis. Géotechnique
2005, 55, 497–513. [CrossRef]
39. Dong, Y.; Burd, H.; Houlsby, G.; Hou, Y. Advanced finite element analysis of a complex deep excavation case
history in Shanghai. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2014, 8, 93–100. [CrossRef]
40. Eid, M.; Hefny, A.; Sorour, T.; Zaghloul, Y.; Ezzat, M. Numerical Analysis of Large Diameter Bored Pile
Installed in Multi Layered Soil: A Case Study of Damietta Port New Grain Silos Project. Int. J. Curr. Eng.
Technol. 2018, 8, 220–226. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).