See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276207633

Analysis of Basal Heave Stability for Excavations in Soft Clay using The Finite
Element Method

Conference Paper · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

3 3,046

2 authors, including:

Aswin Lim
Universitas Katolik Parahyangan
29 PUBLICATIONS   130 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Construction Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Aswin Lim on 13 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Analysis of Basal Heave Stability for Excavations in Soft Clay using The Finite
Element Method

(GT 012)
1* 2
Aswin Lim , Chang-Yu Ou
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung, Indonesia
2
Department of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei,
Taiwan

*email of correspondent author : aswin_lim@yahoo.co.id

ABSTRACT

In recent years, finite element calculation can be done easily with computer software as tools. In
geotechnical field, many conventional equations and approaches are becoming obsolete, because users
must simplify the problems with some assumptions. Likewise basal heave stability analysis in deep
excavation, conventional methods (limit equilibrium methods) such as Terzaghi’s bearing capacity method,
Bjeerum and Eide’s method and Slip Circle method have a lot of assumptions especially in determining the
failure surface. As it has been known, finite element calculation can yield good result in deformation
problem. As matter of fact, stability problem is a kind of deformation also. The main purpose of this study is
to obtain factor of safety against basal heave in deep excavation using finite element method. Two total
stress undrained soil models namely Mohr Coulomb (φ=0) model and Undrained Soft Clay model were
used for simulating the excavation cases. These two models have been validated by simulating Taiwan
National Enterprise Centre excavation case which have well documented data and soil properties. In
addition, two failure excavation cases are included for developing reasonable method in obtaining the
value of factor of safety. Method A is developed based on shear strength reduction method, whereas
method B is modification of method A where wall bottom movement and soil bottom heaving behavior take
into consideration for obtaining the factor of safety. Both methods can yields reasonable factor of safety
depends on soil constitutive models that is used. Based on analyses results, method A is more compatible
with Undrained Soft Clay model, whereas method B is more compatible with Mohr Coulomb (φ=0) model.

Keywords : Basal heave, Deep excavation, Factor of safety, Finite element method.

1. INTRODUCTION

The main output of stability analysis is the factor of safety value. Basically, there are three methods to
obtain factor of safety, which are strength reduction method, load factor method, and dimension factor
method. Those three methods can be applied in basal heave stability analysis. Finite element analysis
using strength reduction was proposed by Zienkiewicz (1975) and updated by Brinkgreve, et al. (1991) by
adding arc-length technique to make the calculation procedure robust. The safety factor was evaluated by
the gradual reduction of the shear strength parameter (c, φ) of the soil inducing the divergence (failure) of
the nonlinear analysis. In total stress analysis where c = Su and φ=0, the reduced shear strength parameter
was determined by cf = c/FS, while in effective stress analysis (c=0), the reduced shear strength was
-1
determined by φf=tan (tanφ/FS).

The conventional methods (Limit equilibrium methods) to obtain FS against basal heave like Terzaghi’s
bearing capacity method (1943), Bjerrum and Eide’s method (1956), and Slip circle method adopted this
load factor method. It is often difficult to assess the accuracy of these solutions due to ad hoc assumptions
such as in selecting the shape of failure surface, in the search procedures used to locate the critical
surface, and the approximations used to solve the equilibrium calculations (i.e., interslice force
assumptions). Further complications arise in analyzing soil-structure interactions for embedded support
walls, tieback anchors, etc. (Ukritchon, et al. 2003). Goh (1994) has developed nodal displacement method
to obtain factor of safety. The factor of safety can be obtained in terms of N in which, N is modified strength
parameter with association to incipient failure. The displacement of selected nodal points were used for
predicting this situation. The results of this study is the thickness of the clay layer beneath the bottom of
excavation, the depth of the wall beneath the bottom of excavation, the width/height ratio of excavation,
and the stiffness of the wall, which will finally affect the factor of safety against basal heave in deep
excavation. Ukritchon, et al. (2003) studied the undrained stability of braced excavation in clay. In this
study, the upper and lower bounds numerical limit analyses were used. The analyses clarified how wall
embedment and bending capacity improve the stability of well braced excavations. In analyses, anisotropic
undrained shear strain was considered by the MIT-E3 soil model. The limit analyses predicted similar
failure depths as the finite element calculations when using mobilized anisotropic strengths corresponding
to shear strain levels in the range 0.6-1.0%. Limit analyses, using available undrained shear strength data
(assumed isotropic), provided credible estimates of stability for a series of braced excavations. Faheem, et
al. (2003) studied the base stability of excavations in soft soil using finite element method. In this study, the
base stability of excavations was significantly influenced by the ratio of the depth to the width of the
excavations, the thickness of the soil layer between the excavation base and hard stratum, the depth of the
embedded wall, and the stiffness of the walls around the excavation. To obtain good results using finite
element method for 2-dimension, several factors must be considered like: the ratio between the horizontal
distance measured from the wall to outer border of excavation, to the height must be at least 2. Then, the
vertical distance in the mesh under the base excavation should be as fine as possible. The method of
study was by dividing the excavation geometry part by part, likes varying the value of wall stiffness, varying
the ratio between depth to width of excavation, etc. Thus, no real failure case had been studied using finite
element analysis.

2. METHODOLOGY

In order to investigate the factor of safety against basal heave in excavation using numerical analysis; the
tools such as computer software and advanced soil model are needed. PLAXIS software has been chosen
in this research not only because of its user-friendliness but also user can define its own soil model inside
by using the user-defined model option. The advanced soil model was adopted to get more accurate
results. Here, The Mohr-Coulomb (φ=0) model and The Undrained Soft Clay model were used as soil
constitutive models. The Undrained Soft Clay model, abbreviated as the USC model, is a stress path
dependent total stress model, which was developed with the following considerations (Hsieh et al. 2010):

1. Variation of undrained shear strength with principal stress rotation

2. Variation of Young’s modulus with the increase of stress level
3. High stiffness of soil at small strain
4. Rational way to determine the undrained shear strength

These two soil models have been calibrated through the Taiwan National Enterprise Centre (TNEC)
excavation case which well documented field monitoring and soil properties data (Ou et al., 1998, 2000).
Wall displacement and ground settlement curve were plotted for each excavation stages. Both models
showed reasonable numerical results as shown in Figure 1. After soil models calibration, two failure
excavation cases were simulated to obtain the safety factor number.

The stability of these two failure cases were analyzed using the finite element method. Shear strength
reduction method was adopted to obtain factor of safety. From the simulation results, two failure
mechanisms of deep excavation were observed, such as the maximum wall bottom movement and the
heaving at excavation bottom. With these two observation data, the factor of safety were obtained from
basic statistical approach. Thus, it was concluded that there are two methods which can be used to obtain
factor of safety using shear strength reduction namely method A and method B. The factor of safety results
from method A were purely from shear strength reduction method without any judgment regarding to the
maximum wall bottom movement or the heaving at excavation bottom. The factor of safety results from
method B also used the shear strength reduction method, but the maximum wall bottom movement and
the maximum soil heaving at excavation bottom were taken into consideration in the determination of
factor of safety. In other words, some geotechnical judgement should be considered here regarding to the
failure mechanism of deep excavation, like the wall bottom “kick out” phenomena or the soil bottom
heaving inside the excavation zone.
 Settlement (cm)
Settlement (cm)

Depth (m)
Depth (m)

Figure.1 The comparison of measured wall displacement and ground settlement profile with predicted
using Mohr-Coulomb (φ=0) model and USC model

3. Case History

Two failure excavation cases, namely case 1 and case 2 were located in Taipei, Taiwan. The shape of
excavation in case 1 was rectangle with 100 meter long by 26 meter wide. The length of diaphragm wall
was 24 meter and the thickness was 0.7 meter. The final excavation depth was 13.45 meter with horizontal
bracing space varying from 4.1 meter to 5.8 meter. The subsoil profile and construction sequence for case
1 is shown in Figure 2(a). The excavation site was located at the backfill zone of a deserted watercourse.
The level above the ground surface (GL) of -8.7 meter was the backfill level. The level ranging from GL -
10.7 to -44.7 meter was thick, soft, silty clay (CL). The groundwater level was approximately at GL -2.8
meter. The basal heave failure occurred about 2.5 hours after the final stage of excavation had been
completed causing the collapse of entire internal bracing system. The subsided zone covered an area of
132 meter long by 40 meter wide.

γt
γt

γt
γt

γt γt

γt
γt

Figure 2. The subsoil profile and construction sequence for (a) case 1 and (b) case 2

The shape of excavation in case 2 was rectangle with 12.3 meter long by 45 meter wide. The length of
diaphragm wall was varying between 13.8 to 17 meter, the average was 15.4 meter and the thickness was
0.5 meter. The final excavation depth was 9.3 meter with a horizontal bracing structure. The subsoil profile
and construction sequence for case 2 is shown in Figure 2(b). The level between GL -5.5 and -4.1 meter
was a thick layer of silty clay (CL). The groundwater level was at about -1.5 meter. The basal heave failure
occurred when this site was excavated down to the final excavation depth. The finite element meshes used
for simulating the case-1 and case-2 excavation was shown in Figure 3.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Failure excavation case 1

Firstly, the excavation was simulated using Mohr-Coulomb model, then, at the end of excavation stage,
phi-c reduction feature in PLAXIS was performed to obtain the factor of safety from this excavation. From
the c-phi reduction feature provided by PLAXIS, the safety factor of this excavation was 2.12. Considering
that the excavation failed 2.5 hours after last stage excavation, the obtained safety factor number was not
reasonable. The reasons why phi-c reduction gave a large number were because the shear strength of soil
was not reduced from the beginning of excavation stage and the stiffness of diaphragm wall and struts also
induced the failure of excavation. In other words, the soil elements might collapse, but not for the structure
elements. Under such condition, the phi-c reduction kept running until both soil and structure elements
collapsed. Because phi-c reduction analysis from PLAXIS could not be used in this excavation case, then
manually shear strength reduction was performed. The concept of manually shear strength reduction is to
gradually increase or decrease the value of shear strength until divergence (failure) occurred in finite
element calculation (Faheem, et al. 2002). Using the manually shear strength reduction method, the factor
of safety was 1.4 (method A). The number 1.4 came from the amounts of shear strength reduction ratio
(SR) which was used to reduce the soil shear strength until the finite element computation become
divergence (failure). The factor of safety equal to 1.4 seems too large for such failure excavation case.
Afterwards, another factors, such as the wall bottom displacement and the soil heaving at excavation
bottom were considered (method B). The definition of SR (shear strength reduction ratio) is ratio between
actual shear strength to reduction shear strength. Six sets of different values of shear strength reduction
ratio (SR = 0.8 to 1.3) were prepared to simulate this excavation case. Here, SR = 1.0 means the input
shear strength value is equal to actual shear strength value divided by SR value where actual shear
strength obtained from test results. The wall displacement and the heaving behavior were the main
concern for all sets of simulation because the failure mechanism of deep excavation can be observed from
significant increment of the wall bottom displacement or the “wall kick-out” phenomena and large heaving
movement. Then, the final stage wall displacement, soil bottom heaving movement and ground settlement
for each shear strength ratio were plotted together as shown in Figure 4(a). As indicated in Figure 4(a), for
SR equal to 0.8, 0.9, and 1.0, there was no large increment of displacement occurred at the wall bottom for
final stage excavation and the heaving movement also did not show significant difference. But, for SR
equal to 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3, the “kick-out” phenomena occurred together with the large increment of wall
bottom displacement at last stage of excavation and the heaving movement also suddenly increased at the
same time.
13.45 m

9.3 m

41 m
45 m

Figure 3. Finite element mesh of (a) case 1 and (b) case 2 used for analysis
Settlement (cm)

Settlement (cm)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

Movement (cm)

Heave (cm)

Figure 4(a). Final stage wall displacement, Figure 4(b). Wall displacement, ground settlement
ground settlement and wall bottom heaving and soil heaving curves for case 1 using the Mohr-
curves for case 1 using Mohr-Coulomb (φ=0) Coulomb (φ=0) model, when FS = 1.15
model
From these six sets of simulation, the final stage of maximum wall bottom displacement for each sets of
simulation was plotted together likewise the maximum heaving movement for each sets of simulation as
described in Figure 5. Figure 5 shows that the maximum wall bottom displacement and maximum heaving
movement have linear relationship regarding to the SR values. When SR is equal to 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, and 1.1,
it can be extrapolated to become one linear line. Meanwhile, when SR equal 1.2 and 1.3 also can be
extrapolated to become one linear line. Then, the value of chart axis from intersection of these two linear
lines was known as the safety factor (method B) for this excavation case. The factor of safety obtained
from method B was 1.15 for this excavation case using the Mohr-Coulomb (φ=0) model. The typical of wall
displacement, ground settlement, soil heaving movement, and wall bending moment from FS equal 1.15
can refer to Figure 4(b).In excavation simulation using the USC model, the factor of safety also obtained
from manually shear strength reduction method. In the USC model, when SR is equal to 1.05, it will cause
the calculation become divergence (failure). Thus, the factor of safety is 1.05 by method A.

Figure 5. Factor of safety considered from (a) the wall bottom displacement and (b) the soil bottom
heaving using Mohr Coulomb (φ=0) model for case 1

Using the same procedure as mentioned previously, six sets of shear strength reduction ratio were
performed. The final stage maximum wall displacement and maximum soil bottom movement were plotted
together as shown in Figure 6. The safety factor from the intersection line is equal to 0.92, but when SR
equal 0.92, it did not show failure mechanism occurred as shown in Figure 7(a). Then from wall deflection
shape, the FS can be judge in range of 0.95 – 1.0 as shown in Figure 7(b).
Soil heaving movement (cm)
Wall displacement (cm)

Figure 6. Factor of safety considered from (a) wall bottom displacement and (b) soil bottom heaving using
the USC model for case 1

4.2 Failure excavation case 2

The same analysis procedures were applied for case 2. The results showed good agreements also with
case 1. The summary of the safety factor is shown in Table 1.
 Settlement (cm)

Settlement (cm)
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
Heave (cm)

Heave (cm)
Figure 7. The typical wall displacement, ground settlement and soil heaving curves of case 1 using the
USC model with (a) SR = 0.92 and (b) SR = 1.0

Table 1. The summarization of the safety factor for case 1 and case 2

Factor of safety
Case Soil model
Method A Method B
Mohr Coulomb (φ=0) 1.4 1.15
1
Undrained Soft Clay 1.05 0.95-1.0
Mohr Coulomb (φ=0) 1.3 0.97
2
Undrained Soft Clay 1.05 0.9-1.0

4.3 Discussion

In general, the USC model gives lower factor of safety value compared to the Mohr-Coulomb model. For
the USC model, method A is more compatible than method B in order to obtain factor of safety. In the USC
model, the SR value could not exceed 1.0 because it will cause divergence (soil failure) in numerical
calculation. This indicates that the maximum or critical SR is 1.0. In order to force the calculation become
divergence, SR value increased to 1.05. When SR equal 1.05, the calculation become divergence and it
can be concluded that the FS equal 1.05. Because the SR could not exceed 1.0, than the observation of
the wall bottom displacement and the soil bottom heaving become limited. This causes the factor of safety
value obtained from method B become lower.

For the Mohr-Coulomb model, method B is more compatible than method A in order to obtain factor of
safety. In the Mohr-Coulomb model, the SR value can be increased to 1.3 or 1.4 to force the divergence in
numerical calculation. As the matter of fact, for failure excavation case, the factor of safety should be
smaller or close to 1.0. Then, another approach should be considered such as observing the significant
increment of wall bottom displacement and soil bottom heaving because these behavior usually occurred
when excavation failure. With method B, the Mohr-Coulomb model yield reasonable factor of safety value.

5. CONCLUSION

Two total stress undrained soil model were used, namely the Mohr-Coulomb (φ=0) model and the
Undrained Soft Clay model (Hsieh et al, 2010). The Undrained Soft Clay must be programmed in user-
defined model in PLAXIS in order to be used in numerical simulation. The Undrained Soft Clay model had
been verified by simulating the TNEC excavation case which yielded almost similar wall displacement
curves as well as ground settlement with field observation data. The Mohr-Coulomb (φ=0) model is well
known soil constitutive model. The Mohr-Coulomb model yield good and reasonable wall displacement
curves for intermediate and final stage of excavation, but not for early stage excavation and ground
settlement curves as long as the input parameters such as Eu/Su has been calibrated.
 PLAXIS software was assigned as a tool for finite element calculation. Phi-c reduction feature in PLAXIS is
not suitable for computing factor of safety in deep excavation case because the soil undrained shear
strength is not reduced from the early stage excavation. In additional, Phi-c reduction will keeps running
until both soil elements and structural elements collapse so that will yield large number of safety factor
even in failure excavation case. Method A and Method B are introduced in this study in order to cover Phi-
c reduction feature. Method A is manually shear strength reduction method which is the shear strength of
soil is reduced manually by shear strength reduction ratio (SR) from initial condition. Then, the excavation
is performed until the calculation divergence (failure). The shear strength reduction ratio (SR) when
excavation simulation failed is the factor of safety. Method B is modification from method A with
consideration of wall bottom displacement and soil bottom heaving. Both methods can yield reasonable
factor of safety number depends on soil constitutive model that is used for analyses.

6. REFERENCES

Bjerrum, L., and Eide, O. (1956). “Stability of strutted excavation in clay.” Geotechnique, Vol. 6, pp. 32-47

Brinkgreve, R. B. J., Broere, W., and Waterman, D. (2006). “Plaxis Manual.” Plaxis bv, Netherlands

Brinkgreve, R. B. J., and Bakker, H. L. (1991). “Non-linear finite element analysis of safety factor.”
Proceeding of the seventh international conferenceon computer methods and advances in geomechanics,
Cairns.

Faheem, H., Cai F., Ugai K., and Hagiwara T (2003). “Two-dimensional base stability of excavations in soft
soils uing FEM.” Computers and Geotechnics, ELSEVIER, Vol. 30, pp. 141-163.

Goh, A. T. C. (1994). “Estimating basal-heave stability for braced excavations in soft clay.” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 8, pp. 1430-1436

Hashash, Y. M. A., and Whittle, A. J. (1996). “Ground movement prediction for deep excavations in soft
clay.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 122, No. 6, pp. 474–486.

Hsieh, P. G., Ou, C. Y. and Liu, H. T. (2008). “Basal heave analysis of excavations with consideration of
anisotropic undrained strength of clay.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 45, No. 6, pp. 788-799.

Hsieh, P. G., Ou, C. Y. and Lim, A. (2010). “Use of the total stress undrained model to the analysis of deep
th
excavation.” Proceedings of the 17 Southeast Asian Geotechnocal Conference, Taipei, Taiwan.

Lim, A., Ou, C. Y., and Hsieh, P. G (2010). “Evaluation of clay constitutive models for analysis of deep
excavation under undrained condition.” Journal of GeoEngineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 9-20.

Ou, C. Y. (2006). Deep Excavation: Theory and Practice. Taylor & Francis, Netherlands.

Ou, C. Y., Liao, J. T., and Lin, H. D. (1998). “Performance of Diaphragm Wall Constructed Using Top-
Down Method.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 9,
pp. 798-808.

Ou, C.Y., Liao, J.T. and Cheng, W.L. (2000). “Building response and ground movements induced by a
deep excavation.” Geotechnique, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 209-220.

Sloan, S. W., and Randolph, M. F. (1982). “Numerical prediction of collapse loads using finite element
methods.” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 6, pp. 47-76.

Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.

Ukritchon, B., Whittle, A. J., and Sloan, S. W. (2003). “Undrained stability of braced excavations in clay.”
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromental Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 8, pp. 738-755.

Vermeer, P. A., and Van Langen, H (1989). “Soil collapse computations with finite elements.” Ingenieur-
Archiv, Vol. 59, pp. 221-236.

Zienkiewics O. C., and Humpheson C., Lewis R. W. (1975). “Associated and non- associated visco-
plasticity and plasticity in soil mechanics.” Geotechnique, Vol 25, pp. 617-689.

View publication stats