Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252

www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Deep excavation-induced ground surface movement

characteristics – A numerical investigation
Chungsik Yoo, Dongyeob Lee *

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, 300 Chun-Chun Dong, Jan-An Gu, Suwon,
Kyong-Gi Do 440-746, Republic of Korea

Received 13 August 2006; received in revised form 5 May 2007; accepted 6 May 2007
Available online 28 June 2007

Abstract

This paper concerns the characterization of deep excavation-induced ground surface movements, using the results of numerical inves-
tigation. A calibrated 2D finite element model using the Lade’s double hardening constitutive model for soil was used to form a database
of the wall and ground surface movements associated with deep excavation. The results indicated that the cantilever and the lateral bulg-
ing excavation stages produce distinctive patterns of ground surface movement profiles, and that final ground surface movement profiles
can be constructed by combining the cantilever and the lateral bulging components with a reasonable degree of accuracy. A two-step
approach for use in the prediction of ground surface movement profiles is proposed.
 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Deep excavation; Ground movement; Finite element analysis; Building damage; Double hardening model

1. Introduction planning, design, and construction of deep excavations in

Rapid urban developments have resulted in many deep
excavation projects for constructions of high-rise buildings
and subways. During deep excavation, changes in the state
of stress in the ground mass around the excavation and
subsequent ground losses inevitably occur. These changes
and ground losses affect the surrounding ground in the
form of ground movements, which eventually impose direct
strains onto nearby structures. The magnitude and distri-
bution of ground movements for a given excavation
depend largely on soil properties, excavation geometry
including depth, width, and length, and types of wall and
support system, and more importantly construction proce-
dures. Because of the increased public concern of the effects
of construction-induced ground movements on their prop-
erties, the prediction of ground movements and assessment
of the damage risk have become an essential part of the
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 31 290 7644; fax: +82 31 290 7549.
E-mail address: ldy0311@skku.edu (D. Lee).
urban environments.
Over the years, there have been a number of studies on
the subject of wall and ground movements associated with
deep excavation. Clough and O’Rourke [5] extended the
work by Peck [20] and developed empirical settlement enve-
lopes. Cording [7] provided a means of estimating the dis-
tribution of ground movements behind an excavation wall
on the basis of volume relationships based on field observa-
tions. Ou et al. [19] compiled and analyzed field data
regarding wall movement associated with deep excavation
and defined the apparent influence range (AIR) for damage
assessment of adjacent structures. More recently, Yoo [25]
collected field data on lateral wall movement for walls con-
structed in soils overlying rock from more than 60 different
excavation sites and analyzed the data with respect to wall
and support types.
The finite element method of analysis has also been
extensively used in studies concerning wall and ground
movements associated with deep excavation. The studies
by Clough et al. [4], Mana and Clough [17], Wong and

0266-352X/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2007.05.002
232 C. Yoo, D. Lee / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252
Broms [23], and Hashash and Whittle [10] were directed
toward the prediction of wall movement for excavations
in soft clay. Cording and O’Rourke [6] and later Cording
[7] developed a scaling relationship based on an elastic
assumption and investigated the effect of relative stiffness
of the wall system with respect to soil on lateral wall
movement.
Most of the aforementioned previous studies focused on
the maximum wall movement. Studies concerning ground
surface movement characterization have been scarce due
in large part to difficulties in obtaining complete sets of
data either from field instrumentation or numerical analy-
sis. Available information on the magnitude and distribu-
tion of ground surface movement associated with deep
excavation is somewhat outdated and provides limited
information required for building damage assessment.
This study is directed toward the development of predic-
tion method for deep excavation-induced ground surface
movement profiles that can be used in the framework of
currently available building damage assessment procedures
(Boscardin and Cording [2] and Burland [3]). In order to
correctly simulate the deep excavation-induced ground
movement characteristics, the Lade’s double hardening
constitutive model [14–16] was used to describe the
stress–strain-strength behavior of the model ground. The
finite element model adopted was validated by available
data [24] before conducting the parametric study.
A parametric study on deep excavation problems
encountered in Korea was performed using the validated
finite element model to form a database for use in the
development of a prediction method associated with deep
excavation-induced wall and ground surface movements.
The results of the parametric study were carefully analyzed
so that the ground surface movement characteristics could
be related to the sources of wall movements. A systematic
approach for prediction deep excavation-induced ground
movement profiles was then developed.
2. Parametric study
A series of 2D finite element analyses were performed
using a commercial finite element program ABAQUS [1]
to examine the ground surface movement characteristics
and to form a database for use in the development of a
ground movement profile prediction method. Subsequent
sections discuss the details of the parametric study.
2.1. Problem investigated
The configuration of the problem to be analyzed is
shown in Fig. 1, which represents a hypothetical case of
an excavation. For simplicity, an idealized symmetric plane
strain braced excavation geometry with an excavation
depth H and a width B of 20 and 30 m, respectively, was
considered. The wall is a 25 m in height and has with a
5 m toe penetration depth at the final excavation stage.
Because of symmetry about the excavation centerline, only
Fig. 1. Finite element mesh and modeling of interface element for
parametric study.
one-half of the excavation was considered in the finite ele-
ment model.
The excavation ground considered was assumed to be
composed of a weathered granite soil overlying a weath-
ered rock stratum. The weathered granite soil is the repre-
sentative soil in urban excavation sites in Korea and this
type of ground formation is a typical soil profile frequently
encountered in Korea. The excavation platform corre-
sponds to the top of the weathered rock stratum.
Primary variables included the wall bending stiffness
(EI)w, the cantilever excavation depth Hun, the unsup-
ported span length L below the lower-most support, and
soil stiffness Es. Combinations of (EI)w and L generated
the range of F shown in Table 1. In addition, a wide range
of conditions was analyzed by varying the primary vari-
ables mentioned above. The parameter F in Table 1 is the
flexibility ratio, defined by the following equation:
Es L3
F  ð1Þ
ðEIÞw
where Es is the soil stiffness, L is the unsupported excava-
tion length, and (EI)w is the wall flexural rigidity. The flex-
ibility ratio was originally introduced by Cording and
O’Rourke [6]. The range in wall flexibility ratio considered
in this study is approximately from 15 to 400, which is con-
sistent with the range for slurry, cast-in-place pile, sheet
pile, and soldier pile walls.
2.2. Finite element analysis
2.2.1. Finite element model
In the finite element modeling, the ground and the wall
were discretized by using eight-noded plane strain ele-
Table 1
Conditions analyzed
F Es (aver) L (m) Hun K (MN/
(MPa) (m) m)
15, 50, 74.2, 120, 150, 176, 26.2, 53.2 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 15
220, 400 6 4
Note: EIw, wall flexural rigidity; K, effective axial stiffness.
 C. Yoo, D. Lee / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252
ments, while the struts were modeled by using one-node
spring elements with an effective axial stiffness of 15 MN/
m considering the excavation width.
As shown in Fig. 1, a refined finite element mesh extended
to a depth of 1.0H below the final excavation platform and
laterally to a distance of 3.8H from the excavation centerline
to minimize the effect of the artificial boundaries on the
ground surface movement characteristics.
For the material modeling, the weathered rock stratum
was assumed to be an elasto-plastic material conforming
to the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion [1]. On the basis
of the extensive surveys of urban excavation sites in Korea,
the mechanical properties for the weathered rock in Table 2
were used in the parametric study. On the other hand, the
weathered soil was assumed to follow the Lade’s double
hardening model. Brief discussions on the double harden-
ing model and the model parameters used in the analysis
are given in Section 2.2.2.
A series of preliminary analyses indicated that the inter-
face modeling of the excavation side is crucial for obtaining
realistic ground surface movement profiles associated with
deep excavation. Although ABAQUS provides a surface-
based interface modeling option using ‘contact pair’, the
contact pair was not adopted in modeling the interface in
this study as significant numerical instabilities were
encountered during the excavation modeling. For that rea-
son, the Desai-type thin-layer interface model [9] shown the
inset in Fig. 1 was implemented in ABAQUS using UMAT
[1] to model the interface behavior between the wall facing
and the soil. Details of the Desai-type thin-layer interface
model can be found in [9].
The stiffness matrix of thin-layer element is the same as
general solid element assuming a linear elastic behavior.
Therefore, the elastic constitutive matrix of the thin-layer
element is expressed as:
 
½C nn i ½C ns i
½Ci ¼ ð2Þ
½C sn i ½C ss i
where [Cnn] and [Css] are related to normal and shear com-
ponents, respectively, and [Cns], [Csn] represent coupling ef-
fects. However, the coupling effects are not included for
simplification in this study.
For isotropic linear elastic behavior, [C]i can be written
in matrix form as:
2 3
M k k 0 0 0
6 k M k 0 0 07
6 7
6 7
6 k k M 0 0 07
6
½Ci ¼ 6 7 ð3Þ
7 system of units to another more convenient. Thus, the units
6 0 0 0 G 0 07
6 7
4 0 0 0 0 G 05
0 0 0 0 0 G
Table 2
Typical mechanical properties for weathered rock in Korea
Material C (kPa) / () w () m Es (MPa)
Weathered rock 100 46 6 0.3
233
Eð1mÞ Em
where, M ¼ ð1þmÞð12mÞ and k ¼ ð1þmÞð12mÞ
Under the two-dimensional plane strain condition, Eq.
(3) can be reduced to the following equation:
2 3
M k 0
6 7
½Ci ¼ 4 k M 0 5 ð4Þ
0 0 G
Based on the results of a series of preliminary analyses
for model calibration, a relatively low shear modulus of
50 kPa with high bulk modulus was assigned to the inter-
face elements.
In simulating the step-by-step excavation process, the
initial vertical state of stress was first created by turning
on the gravity with the assumption of wished-in-placed
wall. The lateral stress state was then created by multiply-
ing the vertical stresses by the lateral earth pressure coeffi-
cient K0 = 0.5. The excavation process was then modeled
by adding and removing elements at corresponding steps.
Although the ground water lowering due to excavation
generally affects the ground movement characteristics, the
ground water was not considered for simplification and
the free-draining characteristics of typical weathered soils
in Korea.
2.2.2. Constitutive modeling of weathered soil
It has been shown that a traditional elasto-perfectly-
plastic model such as Mohr–Coulomb model does not
yield satisfactory results in estimating deep excavation-
induced ground movement, especially for ground surface
settlements [21]. The double hardening model, which has
been proven to be applicable for the weathered soil fre-
quently encountered in Korea [13], was selected and imple-
mented in ABAQUS using the user subroutine capability
to represent the soil behavior in this study. In this section,
the brief descriptions of the double hardening model based
on the nonlinear elasto-plastic model are given as below.
Details of the double hardening model can be found in
[14–16].
In the double hardening model, the incremental total
strains are assumed to be divisible into elastic strains, plas-
tic collapse strains, and plastic expansive strains. The elas-
tic strains are calculated from Hooke’s law using the
unloading–reloading modulus defined as:
Eur ¼ K ur  P a  ðr3 =P a Þn ð5Þ
where Kur and n are dimensionless model parameters and
Pa is atmospheric pressure to make conversion from one
of Eur and r3 are the same as units of Pa.
The plastic collapse strains are associated with volumet-
ric strains and mean effective stress. They are computed
using a cap type yield surface conforming associated flow
rule and a work-hardening relationship which can be deter-
mined from an isotropic compression test. The yield crite-
rion, fc, and the plastic potential function, gc, are expressed
500
in terms of the first and second invariants, I1, I2, as follows:
234 C. Yoo, D. Lee / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252

fc ¼ gc ¼ I 21 þ 2I 2 ð6Þ where a and b represent the intercept and slope of a

straight line, respectively.
where I1 and I2 are first and second stress invariants.
From Eq. (12), the increment in plastic expansive work
An empirical relationship for the collapse work-harden-
can be expressed as follows:
ing as a function of fc is defined as:
 p dfp 1
fc dW p ¼   ð15Þ
W c ¼ C  Pa  2 ð7Þ fp 1
b
Pa qW p

where C and p are material parameters and the incremental In implementing the double hardening model using the
plastic collapse work (dWc) can be determined from the user subroutine capability the soil is assumed to follow
derivative of Wc with regard to fc: an elastic behavior and then the stress invariants are calcu-
 1p lated to estimate the current collapsive yield stress and
Cp P 2a expansive yield stress. The current collapsive yield stress
dW c ¼ dfc ð8Þ
P a fc and expansive yield stress are then compared to the maxi-
The plastic expansive strains are related to the deviatoric mum past collapsive yield stress and the maximum past
stresses and they are computed using a conical yield surface expansive yield stress to determine the loading conditions.
and conform non-associated flow rule. The conical yield After comparing the present and the past yield stresses, the
surface is described in terms of the first and third stress maximum past yield stresses are replaced with larger one
invariants, I1 and I3: and then they are stored in the solution-dependent state
 3  m variables array. Four different conditions may exist: (1)
I I1 only elastic strains occur, (2) only plastic collapsive surface
fp ¼ 1  27 6 g1 ð9Þ
I3 Pa is activated, (3) only plastic expansive surface is activated
where m is a model parameter describing the curvature of and (4) both plastic collapsive and expansive surfaces are
the failure surface, and g1 is a work-hardening parameters activated. After determining the loading conditions, the
which defines the size of the failure surface. The plastic po- stresses are calculated by using stiffness matrix suitable
tential function is modeled on the yield function as follows: for each yielding condition and then they are updated
  m  and stored to the stress array.
Pa A total of 14 parameters are required in the double
gp ¼ I 31  27 þ g2   I3 ð10Þ
I1 hardening model to define soil behavior: three parameters
where g2 can be modeled by the following simple (Kur, n, and m) define the elastic behavior, two parameters
expression: (p, c) define the collapsive plastic strains, two parameters
 1=2 (g1, m) define failure surface, and three parameters (S, R,
r3 and t) define the direction strain increment but the required
g2 ¼ Sfp þ t þ R  ð11Þ
Pa parameters can be entirely derived from the conventional
triaxial test with volume change measurement. Table 3 pre-
where S, t, and R are model parameters.
sents the double hardening model parameters of the weath-
An empirical relationship between the plastic expansive
ered soil used in the model ground. Note that the values are
work done (Wp) and fp is defined by the following
based on the previous study [13] which reports ranges of
expression:
 1=q
Wp
fp ¼ a ebW p ð12Þ
Pa
 1=q Table 3
with a ¼ g1 Weppeak
Pa
and b ¼ qW 1 Parameters for the weathered soil
ppeak

where Wppeak and q are constants for a given value of r3 Parameters Weathered soil Strain component
and e is the base for natural logarithms. Wppeak is the value Kur 2:57 Elastic component
of Wp at the peak point and its variation with r3 can be n 0.865
approximately expressed by the following empirical Poisson’s ratio 0.25
relationship: Collapse const. (C) 0.0086 Plastic collapse component
 l Collapse expo. (p) 0.789
W ppeak r3
¼P ð13Þ Yield const. (g1) 38 Plastic expansive component
Pa Pa Yield expo. (m) 0.113
where P is the value of Wppeak/Pa when Pa = 1. The varia- P1. potent. const. (R) 1.406
P1. potent. const. (t) 0.488
tion of the parameter q with r3 can be represented by a sim- P1. potent. const. (S) 0.406
ple expression as follows: Work-hard. const. (a) 1.254
  Work-hard. const. (b) 0.072
r3 Work-hard. const. (P) 0.52
q¼aþb ð14Þ
Pa Work-hard. expo. (I) 0.653
 C. Yoo, D. Lee / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252 235

the double hardening model parameters for weathered soils Table 5

encountered in Korea. Material properties for an urban excavation site in Korea
Material C (aver) / w m Es (aver) USCS
2.2.3. Model validation (kPa) (aver) (aver) (aver) (MPa)
() ()
The finite element model adopted in this study was vali-
dated to a limited extent against measured data for an Fill 10 30 8 0.3 17 SM
Weathered 25 40 6 0.3 30 SM
urban excavation site in Korea [24]. The same modeling soil
approach for parametric study given in Section 2.2.1 was Weathered 300 41 6 0.3 110 None
employed in the finite element modeling. Fig. 2 presents rock
the standard cross-section and soil profile for the site. The
wall of 26 m in height with an embedment depth of approx-
in terms of the Mohr–Coulomb shear strength parameters
imately 2 m consisted of soldier pile was supported by struts
and the elastic stiffness reported in [24] to give general
and detailed descriptions of the site are given in Table 4 [24].
information of the soils layer and the rock layer. In mate-
As shown in Fig. 2, the vertical spacing of the struts and
rial modeling, although the fill layer and the weathered soil
the unsupported span length were varied by the construc-
in the site have a bit different shear strength parameters as
tion sequences for simulating the field conditions in detail.
shown in Table 5, these soils were considered to have the
The average of the vertical spacing of the struts and the
same double hardening model parameters. This is justified
unsupported excavation length are 2.5 m and 2–3 m respec-
since the fill layer and the weathered soil are reported to be
tively. Cantilever excavation depth of 3–4.5 m, excavation
similar in nature, i.e., classified as SM according to USCS
depth 23.7 m, and the over excavation depth of 2.5–3 m
[24] and the thickness of the fill layer was less than 1.5 m.
are applied to the analysis.
Such an approach was adopted due to the limited informa-
As illustrated in the figure, the ground consists of a fill
tion available and therefore the validation given in this sec-
material, a weathered soil, and a weathered rock. Most
tion should thus be viewed as qualitative. The rock layer is
of the excavation took place within the weathered soil.
assumed to follow the Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion with
Table 5 summarizes the mechanical properties of the site
the material properties in Table 5. Thus, the site was
assumed to be composed of a weathered soil overlying a
weathered rock.
Fig. 3 presents the comparisons between the measured
and predicted ground surface settlements. The solid lines
represent the predictions from the double hardening model
and the points represent the measured results. Note that
due to the general practice of not measuring horizontal
ground surface settlements during excavation, only the ver-
tical ground settlement data were used for validation. As
shown in the figure, the predicted maximum settlement of

Fig. 2. Cross-section and soil profile for an urban excavation site in

Korea.

Table 4
Descriptions of an urban excavation site in Korea
Excavation depth, H (m) 23.7
Wall type Soldier pile (I = 1.26 · 104 m4) and lagging
wall
Soil type Fill + weathered soil
Support type and average Strut (A = 0.0053 m2), horizontal
spacing spacing = 4.0 m, vertical spacing = 2.5 m
Fig. 3. Comparison between results of proposed method and measured
Flexibility ratio (F) 150–250
data.
236 C. Yoo, D. Lee / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252
0.16%H agrees well with the measured one. The extent of
the settlement zone is also well predicted as 2.5–3.0H. More
importantly, the results agree fairly well in qualitative
terms suggesting that the finite element modeling
approach, including the constitutive modeling of the
weathered soils using the double hardening model, is rea-
sonably appropriate for use in this study.
It should however be noted that a small-strain stiffness
model may yield better results, especially in terms of lateral
extent of the settlement profiles, such a model was not
adopted in this study due to limited information available
as to the applicability of the model to typical weathered
soils encountered in Korea. Considering that the double
hardening model is based on the nonlinear isotropic elastic-
ity, the results may be comparable to those based on a
small-strain stiffness model. However, a further study con-
cerning the use of a small-strain stiffness model for typical
ground conditions in Korea is warranted.
3. Wall and ground movement characteristics
The results of the finite element analyses were compiled
such that the patterns of wall and ground movements could
be related to the parameters comprising the flexibility ratio.
Important findings are discussed under the subsequent
subheadings.
3.1. Effect of wall stiffness
Fig. 4 illustrates the effect of wall bending stiffness on
the wall and ground surface movement patterns. In the plot
of the ground surface displacements, two sets of curves are
shown. For the horizontal displacements, the displacement
toward the excavation wall was taken as positive. Likewise
the downward movement was taken as positive for the ver-
tical settlements. Note that cantilever excavation depth and
the unsupported span length during the lateral bulging
Fig. 4. Variation of wall and ground movements with (EI)w.
stage were kept constant at Hun = 4 m and L = 5 m,
respectively.
As expected, an increase in the wall stiffness (EI)w
resulted in the decreases in the wall and ground surface
movements. The results are described by more of a step
function than a gradual change with the wall stiffness. As
seen in Fig. 4, as the wall stiffness decreases, the shape of
the wall displacements changes from the cantilever form
to the lateral bulging form for wall movements, and the
horizontal component of the ground surface settlement
profiles tend to become convex up and also the vertical
component yields concave down. In terms of the maximum
values, the location of the maximum settlement tends to
move away from the edge of excavation as the wall stiffness
increases. This trend indicates that for a given excavation
condition, the wall bending stiffness influences not only
the magnitudes of ground surface movements but also
the pattern of the movements. In addition, the location
of maximum settlement greatly varies at the flexibility ratio
of F = 120.
Moreover, as seen in Fig. 4b, significant horizontal
ground surface displacements are developed, as great as
100–127% of the vertical settlements in terms of maximum
values. These results demonstrate the need for considering
horizontal ground surface displacements when assessing
the risk of damage especially for buildings with small resis-
tance to lateral ground displacements, as noted by Cording
et al. [8], although the lateral building strains are signifi-
cantly less than the lateral ground strains.
Presented in Figs. 5 and 6 are the results of four cases
having the same flexibility ratio of F = 120 but different
combinations of (EI)w and L and different Hun, one with
Hun = 1 m and the other with Hun = 4 m. The differences
in the wall and ground surface movements between the
cases thus represent the combined effect of (EI)w and L.
As seen in these figures, the wall and ground surface dis-
placement profiles tend to significantly vary in shape
 C. Yoo, D. Lee / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252 237

Fig. 5. Variation of wall and ground movements according to combination of (EI)w and L (Hun = 4 m, F = 120 and Es = 26.2 MPa).

Fig. 6. Variation of wall and ground movements according to combination of (EI)w and L (Hun = 1 m, F = 120 and Es = 26.2 MPa).

depending on the combination of (EI)w and L despite the
same F.
For the wall deformations, the maximum displacements
of the wall do not vary in direct proportion to the bending
stiffness. Furthermore, the curve 2 with the larger L and
(EI)w yields greater wall and ground surface movements
than the curve 1 with the smaller L and (EI)w due to the
over excavation. A similar trend is shown in curves 3 and
4, suggesting that L and over excavation have a greater
influence on the performance of a given excavation than
(EI)w. For each unsupported excavation depth L (=3, 4,
5, 6 m), the depth of over excavation is 0.5, 1.5, 0, and
1.0 m, respectively. The trends shown in these figures illus-
trate the dependency of the wall and ground movements on
the combined effect of (EI)w and L and suggest that the
wall flexibility ratio F alone cannot correctly capture the
wall and ground responses to a given excavation.
3.2. Effect of unsupported excavation depth
During an excavation, unsupported excavation is inevi-
tably carried out both in the cantilever and the lateral bulg-
ing stages. The effect of cantilever excavation depth Hun on
the wall and ground movements is illustrated in Fig. 7. The
cantilever excavation depth Hun was controlled in the anal-
yses by varying the maximum depth of excavation before
installing the top most support but keeping the other vari-
ables constant. Therefore, the differences in the wall and
ground movements between the different cases solely reflect
the effect of Hun.
238 C. Yoo, D. Lee / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252

Fig. 7. Variation of wall and ground movements with Hun (F = 120 and Es = 26.2 MPa).

As seen in Fig. 7, it appears that the wall movements
during the cantilever stage became significant when allow-
ing Hun greater than 3 m, resulting in the ground surface
displacement profiles with large volume losses in close
proximity to the edge of the excavation. A strict provision
on Hun should be placed during the early stages of excava-
tion for cases in which buildings and buried utilities are
located in close proximity to the edge of excavation.
In addition, the wall deformations are almost constant
with the increase of Hun, and similar results are shown
for the vertical components. Hence, it is seen that maxi-
mum wall deformation and the vertical displacement of
ground settlements are more dependent on the wall bend-
ing stiffness and the unsupported length L than the cantile-
ver excavation depth Hun.
Examples with different Hun used to show the influences
of the unsupported span length L for a given wall stiffness
are illustrated in Figs. 8 and 9. As shown in these figures,
an increase in L from 3 to 6 m results in substantial
increases in the wall and ground surface movements by
approximately an order of magnitude.
An important observation is that an increase in the
unsupported span length L results in increases in the mag-
nitude of ground surface settlements and tends to modify
the settlement profiles to more a concave downward shape
because of the increased deep-seated movements. Although
the flexibility due to the increase of the unsupported length
L is increased, the wall and ground movements are severely
varied by over excavation. Such results shown in these fig-
ures demonstrate that the excavation procedure during

Fig. 8. Variation of wall and ground movements with L (Hun = 4 m).

 C. Yoo, D. Lee / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252 239

Fig. 9. Variation of wall and ground movements with L (Hun = 1 m).

construction significantly affects the patterns of ground
surface displacement profiles and the wall deformations.
3.3. Effect of soil stiffness
The relative stiffness between the excavation wall and
the soil has a significant influence on the magnitude and
distribution of wall and ground movements for a given
excavation. With respect to ground movement prediction,
it would be more convenient if cases having the same flex-
ibility ratio but different combinations of (EI)w and Es
would yield similar ground surface movement profiles.
Figs. 10–15 represent the ground surface movement pro-
files at the cantilever, lateral bulging, and final stages for
cases having F = 50 and 150 but different combinations
of (EI)w (=21.8, 44.4, 65.4, 133.1 MN m2/m) and Es
(=26.2, 53.2 MPa) and different Hun. In all cases, the
unsupported depth during the lateral bulging stage was
kept constant at L = 5 m. Note that Es represents the aver-
age soil modulus of the excavation ground calculated using
the hyperbolic relationship given by Janbu [12] in the fol-
lowing equation:
n
Es ¼ K  P a  ðr3 =P a Þ ð16Þ
According to Wong and Duncan [22], the parameter Kur
in Eq. (5), which is the modulus parameter determining
Eur, is generally 1.2–3 times greater than K, which is the
modulus parameter for Es. Considering this, the average
value of Es was back-calculated from Eur.
As seen in these figures, it appears that the cases with
a same F would yield similar settlement profiles in terms
of magnitude and slope despite the differences in the

Fig. 10. Ground movements profiles with soil stiffness (Hun = 4 m): (a) F = 50 and (b) F = 150.
240 C. Yoo, D. Lee / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252

Fig. 11. Ground movements profiles with soil stiffness (Hun = 4 m): (a) F = 50 and (b) F = 150.

Fig. 12. Ground movements profiles with soil stiffness (Hun = 4 m): (a) F = 50 and (b) F = 150.

combination of (EI)w and Es. The general shapes of the hor-
izontal displacement profiles for a given F are similar, and
the case with less rigid ground and wall tends to yield larger
movements. An important conclusion is that as long as L is
the same, the flexibility ratio F can be used as a common
index for the prediction of ground surface settlement profiles
for cases having different combinations of (EI)w and Es.
3.4. Maximum wall and ground surface displacements
During a design stage, the maximum ground surface set-
tlement (dv,max) is usually taken as a fraction of the maxi-
mum lateral wall movement (dw,max). The results of the
finite element analyses are compiled such that the maxi-
mum ground surface movements (dv,max and dh,max) can
be related to the maximum lateral wall movements (dw,max)
for cases having different wall flexibilities. The maximum
values for each component, i.e., the cantilever and the lat-
eral bulging, are separately analyzed, and that the results
are only relevant to the cases with ground conditions sim-
ilar to those considered in this study.
Presented in Figs. 16–19, dv,max/dw,max and dh,max/dw,max
ratios are plotted against the flexibility ratio F for the can-
tilever as well as the lateral bulging components in a semi-
log plot. The case with the unsupported length L = 5 m
was chosen to eliminate the effect of over excavation.
As seen in Fig. 16a, the dv,max/dw,max ratio tends to lin-
early decrease with increasing F because of the increase
of dw,max at an approximately same rate, regardless of the
soil stiffness in the cantilever stage. The range of decrease
 C. Yoo, D. Lee / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252 241

Fig. 13. Ground movements profiles with soil stiffness (Hun = 1 m): (a) F = 50 and (b) F = 150.

Fig. 14. Ground movements profiles with soil stiffness (Hun = 1 m): (a) F = 50 and (b) F = 150.

is within 20%. In the lateral bulging stage, as the result of
the decrease of the wall bending stiffness, dv,max/dw,max
ratio tends to linearly increase with F, and the rate of
increase for the soil stiffness remains almost constant
within 10%.
The dh,max/dw,max ratio shown in Fig. 17 appears to sig-
nificantly vary with F in the cantilever stage, in the range of
about 30%. This result suggests that even for a rigid wall
system, a large amount of volume loss can be led in the
cantilever stage. For a flexible wall system, as a result of
the increase of wall deformation, dh,max/dw,max ratio tends
to decrease and the effect of soil stiffness is insignificant like
dv,max/dw,max. As seen in Fig. 17b, the dh,max/dw,max ratio
does not appear to significantly vary with F in the lateral
bulging stage, exhibiting similar results displayed by
dv,max/dw,max ratio. The difference in soil stiffness results
from the lateral expansion of the retained soil.
As illustrated in Fig. 18, the change of the vertical com-
ponent lies within 5% because of the decrease in Hun and
the immediate installation of struts after excavation. In
the lateral bulging stage, the effect of the flexibility is also
insignificant, and only the change associated to the soil
stiffness appears. As seen in Fig. 19, dh,max/dw,max ratio also
displays an almost similar trend for the case of Hun = 4 m.
However, the range of variation is within 15%, and the
effect related to the wall and the soil stiffness decreases.
This result, as previously mentioned, reflects the influence
of Hun. Therefore, dv,max/dw,max is dependent on Hun and
F, regardless of the soil stiffness in the cantilever stage,
and the lateral bulging stage is affected by Es, F, and
242 C. Yoo, D. Lee / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252

Fig. 15. Ground movements profiles with soil stiffness (Hun = 1 m): (a) F = 50 and (b) F = 150.

Fig. 16. Variation of dv,max/dw,max with flexibility ratio (Hun = 4 m): (a) cantilever stage and (b) lateral bulging stage.

Hun. As discussed in Section 3.2, the change of the horizon-
tal component of ground settlement is greatly affected by
the cantilever excavation depth. A constant value for
dh,max/dw,max can be assumed for the lateral bulging stage
without introducing a significant error, at least, within
the limits of the F considered.
Fig. 20 represents the ratio of settlement volume to wall
displacement volume (Vs/VL). As seen in Fig. 20, the ratio
of settlement volume to wall displacement volume almost
linearly increases with increasing F in the semi-log plot.
These results are a direct consequence of the increase in
the ground settlement volume relative to the volume of wall
displacement as the wall stiffness decreases.
Fig. 21 illustrates the relationship between the normal-
ized maximum ground displacements and wall movements.
As seen in the figure, the range of dv,max/dw,max ratio lies
within 0.5–1.0. This trend is similar to the field data [24] in
Fig. 21c and strongly supports the trends observed in the
results of the finite element analyses, in which the wall flex-
ibility increased due to the increase in L as the excavation
proceeded. A similar trend has been reported by O’Rourke
[18], in which the ratio of the volume of ground settlement
increased, to as great as 1.0, as the wall flexibility increased
by the increase in L. This similarity indicates that the way in
which the ground loss at the wall is reflected to the ground
surface depends not only on the dilatancy characteristics
of the ground but also on the wall flexibility. The wall flex-
ibility should therefore be taken into consideration when
inferring the maximum ground surface settlement from the
maximum lateral wall movement for a given excavation.
 C. Yoo, D. Lee / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252 243

Fig. 17. Variation of dh,max/dw,max with flexibility ratio (Hun = 4 m): (a) cantilever stage and (b) lateral bulging stage.

Fig. 18. Variation of dv,max/dw,max with flexibility ratio (Hun = 1 m): (a) cantilever stage and (b) lateral bulging stage.

4. Ground surface movements characterization
In the sections that follow, the ground surface move-
ment profiles for the conditions analyzed are decomposed
into cantilever and lateral bulging components, and the
characteristics of each component are discussed.
4.1. Components of ground surface movement profiles
Illustrated in Figs. 22 and 23 are the ground surface
movement profiles for two cases, both of which have the
same wall and excavation conditions but different Hun.
Each figure shows three curves; one for the final, and the
other two for the cantilever and the lateral bulging compo-
nents, respectively. Note that the lateral bulging component
of a given movement profile is obtained by subtracting the
cantilever component from the final profile. Comparisons
between the two cases thus provide insights into the general
characteristics of the cantilever and the lateral bulging com-
ponents of ground surface movement profiles.
As seen in Fig. 22a for the case of Hun = 1 m, it is evi-
dent that the cantilever components are negligibly small,
and that the final profiles and the lateral bulging compo-
nents are practically the same. For the case of Hun = 4 m
shown in Fig. 22b, in which significant cantilever-type wall
movements are allowed to develop, both the cantilever
and the lateral bulging components are apparent. A sali-
ent feature observed in Fig. 22 is that the final settlements
of the two cases are practically identical, regardless of
Hun, illustrating that the cantilever excavation depth Hun
has a transitional effect on the final settlements of a given
excavation.
244 C. Yoo, D. Lee / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252

Fig. 19. Variation of dh,max/dw,max with flexibility ratio (Hun = 1 m): (a) cantilever stage and (b) lateral bulging stage.

Fig. 20. Relationship between Vs and VL (L = 5 m): (a) Hun = 4 m and (b) Hun = 1 m.

As seen in Fig. 23, cases having different combinations
of (EI)w and Es exhibit the same trend. The results illus-
trated in these figures have significant practical implica-
tions on the prediction of ground movement profiles, as
they imply that the cantilever and the lateral bulging com-
ponents are separable and independent of each other.
Therefore, any deep excavation-induced ground movement
profiles can be conveniently constructed by simply adding
the cantilever and the lateral bulging components. This is
discussed further later in this paper.
4.2. Cantilever component
Cantilever-type movements develop during excavation
to upper levels of supports. The magnitude and distribu-
tion of ground movement due to cantilever wall move-
ments for a given excavation depend basically on the
depth of cantilever excavation Hun and the relative wall
stiffness with respect to soil stiffness.
A survey conducted on deep excavation practice in
Korea as part of this study indicated that the depth of can-
tilever excavation was approximately 4–5 m with wall flex-
ibility F = 10–250. For this reason, the results for cases
having four levels of flexibility ratio, i.e., F = 15, 74.2,
120, and 220 with the soil stiffness of Es = 26.2 MPa are
presented in Fig. 24 associated with the cantilever-type lat-
eral wall movements.
As noticed, the vertical settlement profiles are essentially
bilinear in shape with the maximum values occurring near
the edge of excavation. The horizontal displacement pro-
files change from parabolic to bilinear in shape as the wall
bending stiffness decreases. In addition, significant horizon-
 C. Yoo, D. Lee / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252 245

Fig. 21. Relationship between dv,max and dw,max: (a) Hun = 4 m, (b) Hun = 1 m and (c) field data.

tal and vertical movements develop in the region within
0.2H from the edge of excavation. Buildings and utilities
located in close proximity to a deep excavation with a flex-
ible wall, therefore, can experience significant levels of
angular as well as lateral distortions even in the early stages
of excavation.
4.3. Lateral bulging component
The lateral bulging components of the ground surface
movement profiles are illustrated in Figs. 25 and 26 for
cases having two levels of flexibility ratio, i.e., F = 15 and
220 with different Hun. For each flexibility ratio, a number
of profiles having different combinations of (EI)w and L are
presented.
As seen in these figures, the vertical and the horizontal
settlement profiles follow predominantly concave upward
and downward shapes with the maximum values occurring
approximately at 0.3–0.4H and 0.5–0.6H away from the
edge of excavation for the lateral bulging stage, respectively.
Salient features shown in these figures are two-fold.
First, for a given flexibility ratio, the movement profiles
tend to vary depending on the combination of (EI)w and
L with this trend being more pronounced as the wall flexi-
bility increases. This trend supports the results presented
earlier that L and the depth of the over excavation are by
far a more important controlling factor of ground move-
ment than the wall stiffness (EI)w for excavation cases. Sec-
ondly, although not as apparent, the locations of the
maximum horizontal displacement and vertical settlement
246 C. Yoo, D. Lee / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252

Fig. 22. Ground surface displacement profiles (F = 120 and Es = 26.2 MPa): (a) Hun = 1 m and (b) Hun = 4 m.

Fig. 23. Ground surface displacement profiles (F = 120 and Es = 53.2 MPa): (a) Hun = 1 m and (b) Hun = 4 m.

tend to move slightly farther away from the edge of exca-
vation as L increases, due primarily to the deep-seated
movements associated with increasing L.
4.4. Normalized ground surface displacement profiles
With respect to the ground surface movement predic-
tion, it would be desirable if normalized relationships can
be established among different cases. Figs. 27 and 28 pres-
ent the lateral bulging components of the ground surface
movement profiles normalized with their respective maxi-
mum values for cases having F = 15 and 220.
Interestingly, the normalized profiles for a given F but
different combinations of (EI)w and L tend to collapse more
or less into one curve. This trend indicates that although dif-
ferent in magnitude, normalization holds for the ground
surface movement profiles for cases having the same flexi-
bility ratio. The variation in the region beyond the maxi-
mum values is of little practical importance on account of
the relatively small magnitudes. Although not included
here, other cases exhibited the same trend.
Fig. 29 presents normalized profiles for the case of
Hun = 4 m with their respective maximum values at the
final excavation stage for the cantilever as well as the lat-
eral bulging components, which can be readily used to
make the prediction of deep excavation-induced ground
movements for cases with similar excavation conditions
considered in this study.
The normalized profiles for the cantilever component
shown in Fig. 29a represent cases with a cantilever excava-
 C. Yoo, D. Lee / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252 247

Fig. 24. Cantilever components of the ground movements profiles (Es = 26.2 MPa): (a) Hun = 4 m and (b) Hun = 1 m.

Fig. 25. Lateral bulging components of ground movements profiles (Hun = 1 m).

tion depth of Hun = 4 m. Fig. 29b presents the normalized
lateral bulging components for various flexibility ratios.
The flexibility ratios covered in this figure bracket a wide
range of cases frequently encountered in practice, and
therefore, these profiles can be used to make a prediction
of ground movement profiles for a given excavation with
a reasonable degree of accuracy. A two-step approach is
proposed for prediction of deep-excavation-induced
ground movement profiles, in which the normalized canti-
lever and lateral bulging components of ground surface
movements are first systematically determined from
Fig. 29a and b, respectively, based on the wall stiffness
(EI)w and the flexibility ratio F for a given excavation.
Actual cantilever and lateral bulging components are then
obtained by multiplying the normalized profiles with their
respective maximum values obtained either from Fig. 29
or local experience. Complete ground surface movement
profiles can then be constructed by simply adding the can-
tilever and the lateral bulging components of profiles.
4.5. Estimation of settlement influence zone
The influence zone of ground settlements should be rea-
sonably established to evaluate the damage of adjacent
buildings caused by deep excavation. In this study, the
influence zone of ground movement obtained by FE anal-
ysis is compared with that of a previous study by Hsieh and
Ou [11]. Figs. 30–33 show the normalized ground surface
profiles with their maximum horizontal and vertical
ground settlements for cases having various flexibility
248 C. Yoo, D. Lee / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252

Fig. 26. Lateral bulging components of ground movements profiles (Hun = 4 m).

Fig. 27. Normalized lateral bulging components of ground movement profiles (Hun = 4 m).

ratios, different cantilever excavation depths, and soil stiff-
ness. In these cases, the unsupported excavation span
length is held constant at L = 5 m. In these figures, the dot-
ted line represents the influence zone of ground surface set-
tlements obtained by Hsieh and Ou [11] and the solid lines
represent the results from this study.
As indicated in Fig 30a, the ratio of dv/dv,max is approx-
imately equal to 0.5 and agrees well with the results of
Hsieh and Ou [11]. The primary influence zone and the sec-
ondary influence zone are about to 1.7H and 3H, respec-
tively. These results are smaller than those proposed by
Hsieh and Ou [11] but agree with the results obtained by
the method of Clough and O’Rourke [5] as well as the field
measurements [24] as presented in this study. According to
the studies by Hsieh and Ou [11], the distance from the wall
where dv,max occurs is half the final excavation depth 0.5H.
Compared to the results of Hsieh and Ou [11], however,
dv,max from this study occurs at a shorter distance, approx-
imately 0.28–0.36H. In the relationship between dw,max and
dv,max, the ratio of the distance where dv,max occurs to the
depth where dw,max occurs increases to approximately
0.51–0.86 for the rigid wall as L increases. This trend indi-
cates that the distances where dv,max and dw,max occur vary
with the unsupported excavation length L. For the flexible
wall, the ratio increases approximately to 0.47–0.62 with
increasing L.
The influence zone of the horizontal ground settlements
is examined in this study. In most previous studies, there is
no guideline for the prediction of the horizontal settlement
profiles because of the difficulty in measuring horizontal
 C. Yoo, D. Lee / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252 249

Fig. 28. Normalized lateral bulging components of ground movement profiles (Hun = 1 m).

Fig. 29. Normalized ground movement profiles (Hun = 4 m and L = 5 m): (a) cantilever component and (b) lateral bulging component.

ground surface displacements, and consequently, only the
influence zone for the vertical ground surface profiles has
been proposed.
Presented in Fig. 30b is the ratio of dh to dw,max at the
wall, being a range of 0.7–1.0. This range decreases with
increasing F. For the rigid wall system, the horizontal
ground movements at the wall is directly associated with
the wall displacement but the maximum horizontal ground
displacement occurs away from the wall for the flexible
wall system due to the lateral bulging. The maximum value
of dh/dh,max occurs at 0.5H except for rigid wall system, and
the primary influence and secondary influence zones for the
horizontal ground surface movements are approximately
equal to 1.7H and 3.0H, respectively. Such results are sim-
ilar to the cases for the vertical ground surface movements.
As shown in Fig. 31 for the case with Hun = 1 m, the results
exhibit the same trend as the case with Hun = 4 m except
that the displacements at the wall greatly decrease due to
the installation of the top most support. As seen in Figs.
32 and 33, the results yield similar settlement profiles in
terms of the magnitudes and the slope despite of the differ-
ences in Es.
Based on the finite analyses, it can be concluded that the
primary influence and the secondary influence zones are
approximately equal to 2H and 3H, respectively. These
results agree with the method of Clough and O’Rourke
[5] and almost coincide with the study by Hsieh and Ou
[11]. Therefore, the influence zone of ground surface move-
ment can be estimated by using the double hardening
model implemented in this study with a reasonable degree
250 C. Yoo, D. Lee / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252

Fig. 30. Estimation of settlement influence zone (Hun = 4 m, L = 5 m and Es = 26.2 MPa): (a) vertical component and (b) horizontal component.

Fig. 31. Estimation of settlement influence zone (Hun = 1 m, L = 5 and Es = 26.2 MPa): (a) vertical component and (b) horizontal component.

of accuracy, and the double hardening model can be
applied to the damage assessment of adjacent buildings
induced by deep excavation in urban areas.
5. Conclusions
This paper presents the results of numerical investiga-
tion on deep excavation-induced ground surface move-
ment characteristics under the ground conditions
encountered in Korea. In order to realistically model
ground movements associated with deep excavation,
Lade’s double hardening model was incorporated into
ABAQUS and used to simulate stress–strain behavior of
the weathered soil. The appropriateness of the Lade’s dou-
ble hardening model and the finite element model adopted
in this study was validated using available field instrumen-
tation data. The finite element model was then employed
for a parametric study on deep excavations with emphasis
on ground movements. On the basis of the parametric
study, a method for predicting deep excavation-induced
ground movement profiles is proposed, which is of prime
importance in damage assessment of adjacent structures.
Based on the results of the present study, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The general shape of a ground surface settlement pro-
file is closely related to the sources of wall move-
ments, and that the unsupported span length has a
 C. Yoo, D. Lee / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252 251

Fig. 32. Estimation of settlement influence zone (Hun = 4 m, L = 5 m and Es = 53.2 MPa): (a) vertical component and (b) horizontal component.

Fig. 33. Estimation of settlement influence zone (Hun = 1 m, L = 5 m and Es = 53.2 MPa): (a) vertical component and (b) horizontal component.

significant influence on the magnitude and distribu-
tion of wall and ground movement characteristics.
(2) For a given ground condition, the ratio of the maxi-
mum ground surface settlement to the maximum wall
movement decreases with increasing wall flexibility for
the cantilever component but increase with increasing
wall flexibility for the lateral bulging components.
(3) The cantilever and the lateral bulging stages of exca-
vation produce distinctive ground surface displace-
ment profiles, which are separable and independent
of each other. Deep excavation-induced ground sur-
face movement profiles for a given excavation can
be predicted with a reasonable degree of accuracy
by combining the cantilever and the lateral bulging
components.
(4) The primary influence and the secondary influence
zones are approximately equal to 2H and 3H for ver-
tical ground movements, respectively. The results
agree with the previous studies by Clough and
O’Rourke and Hsieh and Ou.
(5) The proposed method for predicting ground surface
movement profiles captures the fundamental charac-
teristics of ground surface movement profiles, and
therefore can be used with a reasonable degree of
accuracy to make an estimate of ground surface
movement profiles.
252 C. Yoo, D. Lee / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 231–252
References
[1] ABAQUS (ver. 5.8) User’s Manual. Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen
Inc.; 1999.
[2] Boscardin MD, Cording EJ. Building response to excavation-induced
settlement. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1989;115(1):1–21.
[3] Burland JB. Assessment of risk of damage to buildings due to
tunneling and excavations. In: Invited special lecture to IS-ToKyo
’95: proceedings of the first international conference on earthquake
geotechnical engineering; 1995.
[4] Clough GW, Hansen LA, Mana AI. Prediction of supported
excavation movements under marginal stability conditions in clay.
In: Proceedings of the third international conference on numerical
methods in geomechanics; 1979. p. 1485–502.
[5] Clough GW, O’Rourke TD. Construction induced movements of
insitu walls. In: Proceedings of the design and performance of earth
retaining structures, ASCE special conference; 1990. p. 439–70.
[6] Cording EJ, O’Rouke TD. Excavation, ground movements, and their
influence on buildings, protection of structures adjacent to braced
excavation. In: Proceedings of the ASCE annual convention; 1977
[preprint].
[7] Cording EJ. Evaluation and control of ground movements around
tunnels and excavations in soil. In: Proceedings of the XII interna-
tional conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering;
1985. p. 106–31.
[8] Cording EJ, Long JH, Son M, Laefer DF. Modeling and analysis of
excavation-induced building distortion and damage using a strain-
based damage criterion. In: Proceedings of the international confer-
ence response of buildings to excavation-induced ground movements,
CIRIA; 2000.
[9] Desai CS, Zaman MM, Lightner JG, Siriwardance HJ. Thin-layer
elements for interfaces and joints. Int J Numer Anal Method
Geomech 1984;8(1):19–43.
[10] Hashash YM, Whittle AJ. Ground movement prediction for
deep excavations in soft clay. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1996;122(6):
474–86.
[11] Hsieh PO, Ou CY. Shape of ground surface settlement profiles caused
by excavation. Can Geotech J 1998;35:1004–17.
[12] Janbu N. Soil compressibility as determined by oedometer and
triaxial tests. In: Proceedings of the European conference on soil
mechanics and foundation engineering, vol. 1; 1963. p. 19–25.
[13] Kang Byung Sun, Yang Jae Hyouk. Adoptability of double harden-
ing constitutive model for compacted decomposed granite soil,
KSCE. J Civil Eng 1999;19(3):1013–20.
[14] Lade PV. Elasto-plastic stress–strain theory for cohesionless soil with
curved-yield surfaces. Int J Soild Struct 1977;13:1019–35.
[15] Lade PV, Nelson RB. Incrementalization procedure for elasto-plastic
constitutive model with multiple, intersecting yield surfaces. Int J
Numer Anal Method Geomech 1984;8:311–23.
[16] Lade PV. Three-dimensional behavior and parameter evaluation of
an elastoplastic soil model. Geomech Model Eng Pract 1986:297–311.
[17] Mana AI, Clough GW. Prediction of movement for braced cuts in
clay. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1981;107(6):759–77.
[18] O’Rourke TD. A study of two braced excavation in sands and
interbedded stiff clay. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign; 1975.
[19] Ou CY, Hsieh PO, Chiou DC. Characteristics of ground surface
settlement during excavation. Can Geotech J 1993;30(5):758–67.
[20] Peck RB. Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground. state-of-
the-art report. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference
on soil mech. and found. engineering, state-of-the-art volume; 1969.
p. 225–90.
[21] Viggiani Gioacchino, Tamagnini Claudio. Ground movements
around excavations in granular soils: a few remarks on the influence
of the constitutive assumptions on FE predictions. Mech Cohes Frict
Mater 2000;5:399–423.
[22] Wong KS, Duncan JM. Hyperbolic stress–strain parameters for
nonlinear finite element analyses of stresses and movements in soil
mass. Geotechnical engineering research report no. TE/74-3, Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley; 1974.
[23] Wong KS, Broms BB. Lateral wall deflections of braced excavations
in clay. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1989;15(6):853–70.
[24] Yang G. Analysis of adjacent ground movements for deep excava-
tions in urban areas. PhD thesis, Seoul National University; 1996.
[25] Yoo C. Behavior of braced and anchored walls in soils overlying rock.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 2001;27(3):225–33.