Establishment of Localized Utilization Parameters

Article Not peer-reviewed version
Establishment of Localized
Utilization Parameters for
Numerical Simulation Analysis
Applied to Deep Excavations
*
Chien-Yi Wu and Chia-Feng Hsu
Posted Date: 21 July 2023
doi: 10.20944/preprints202307.1400.v1
Keywords: Numerical Simulation of Deep Excavation; Gravel Layers; Localized Soil Elastic Modulus; PLAXIS;
SoilWorks
Preprints.org is a free multidiscipline platform providing preprint service that
is dedicated to making early versions of research outputs permanently
available and citable. Preprints posted at Preprints.org appear in Web of
Science, Crossref, Google Scholar, Scilit, Europe PMC.
Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 21 July 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202307.1400.v1
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and
contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting
from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products referred to in the content.
Article
Establishment of Localized Utilization Parameters for
Numerical Simulation Analysis Applied to Deep
Excavations
Chien-Yi Wu 1 and Chia-Feng Hsu 2,*
1 Kenkul Corporation Company ; [email protected]
2 Department of Civil Engineering, ChienKuo Technology University, Taiwan. ; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +886 958786134
Abstract: The objective of this study is to investigate the use of excavation behavior prediction and analysis
software in the field of civil en-gineering. PLAXIS and SoilWorks, widely used in the engineering and academic
communities, were employed as research tools for analyzing gravel layers and deriving appropriate ranges of
soil elastic modulus for different software programs. By collecting excavation cases in the Xindian area of New
Taipei City, Taiwan, and conducting deep excavation analysis using the displacement of retaining walls, this
study provides recommended ranges for localized selection of soil elastic modulus. The suggested range for
PLAXIS is 7,840 N/m² to 9,800 N/m², while Soil-Works suggests a range of 2,450 N/m² to 3,430 N/m². These
ranges allow for reasonable estimation of maximum deformations during the final excavation stage. Based on
the research findings, it is recommended that engineers refer to the provided ranges when selecting soil elastic
modulus for excavation analysis in gravel layers using different soft-ware programs in the Xindian area of
Taiwan to improve the accuracy of deformation predictions during the final excavation stage. These results
serve as important references for engineers and contribute to the effective prediction and management of
excavation behavior in civil engineering projects.
Keywords: numerical simulation of deep excavation; gravel layers; localized soil elastic modulus;
PLAXIS; SoilWorks
1. Introduction
The issue of land spatial utilization is a common problem faced by urban areas in Taiwan's
development. To effectively compete for space, there is a growing trend of existing buildings
undergoing renovations or new buildings being constructed with increased above-ground floors, as
well as a shift towards underground development. As a result, building foundations are being dug
deeper, and the scale of deep excavation projects is increasing. In recent years, with the continuous
updates and changes in analysis software, there has been a development of software that combines
and utilizes drawing software to quickly establish analysis models, set parameters, and perform
excavation simulation analyses at various stages, such as GTS and SoilWorks.
This study utilizes the 2D PLAXIS and SoilWorks programs as research tools to collect case
studies of gravel layer excava-tions in the Xindian area of New Taipei City. The displacement of
retaining structures is used to conduct feedback analysis of the parameters for deep excavation
analysis. The aim is to pro-vide recommendations for the selection range of soil elastic modulus in
numerical simulation analysis parameters for the analyzed case area or similar geological conditions.
The ex-pected outcomes of this study can serve as a reference for the engineering community in
future deep excavation analysis and design.
1.1. Engineering Properties and Zoning of Taipei Basin Soils

In regard to the engineering properties and zoning of soils in the Taipei Basin, Hung et al., in
1994, divided the area west of the Tamsui River into four zones based on administrative districts and
in-situ standard penetration test results [1]. Liu et al. further divided the region west of the Tamsui
© 2023 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

River, south of the Xindian River, and the Da Han River basin into seven zones based on geological
formations [2].
Li et al., in 1996, established a geotechnical database system using approximately 1,600 borehole
data [3]. They subdivided the engineering geology zoning of Taipei City into 13 zones and extended
the zoning to New Taipei City by incorporating approximately 400 borehole data within the New
Taipei City area, resulting in a total of 7 zones. The proposed engineering geology zoning map for
the Taipei Basin was based on this database.
1.2. Literature Review on Finite Element Method

The PLAXIS software, developed by PLAXIS BV in the Netherlands in 1999, is capable of
handling various types of geotechnical analysis problems involving plane strain and axisymmetric
conditions in two-dimensional space. Analyzing deep excavation projects using the finite element
method involves dividing the retaining wall and surrounding soil within the influence range of the
excavation depth into multiple meshes. Each mesh is assigned appropriate element types (such as
beam elements or bi-linear elements) and stress-strain models (such as elastic models, hyperbolic
models, or yield surface models) based on their material characteristics and differences. The stress
changes and deformations of each element induced by the excavation are then solved using the finite
element method [4].
By accurately controlling the construction sequence during deep excavation analysis using the
finite element method, it is possible to calculate the displacements of each mesh point within and
outside the excavation area. Many domestic researchers have applied the finite element method to
successfully obtain lateral displacements of retaining structures [5–10].
Similarly, some foreign scholars have also applied the finite element method to analyze lateral
displacements of retaining structures, yielding satisfactory results [11–14].
1.3. Introduction to Soil Elastic Modulus

In numerical analysis, the engineering characteristics of soil parameters, such as soil cohesion,
internal friction angle, and unit weight, can be directly obtained through testing and are commonly
used without dispute. However, the elastic modulus of soil cannot be directly determined from tests
due to the disturbance caused by soil sampling. Therefore, empirical formulas are often used to
estimate the elastic modulus in practical applications.
For clay soils, Bjerrum [15] studied normally consolidated Norwegian clays and proposed the
following equation to estimate the elastic modulus of clay:
E s / S u = ( 250 ~ 500 ) (1)
where Es is the elastic modulus, Su is the undrained shear strength.

For sandy soils, D'Appolonia, Simond and Bowles proposed methods to estimate the elastic
modulus based on the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values obtained in the field [16–18].
Bowles [18] provided empirical relationships in Tables A1 and A2 (Appendix) for estimating the
elastic modulus of clay. Li et al. compiled relevant literature and presented empirical equations for
estimating the soil elastic modulus in units of kPa, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 [19].
Table 1. Input form of soil layer strength parameters in Case 1.
Soil Φ’ γunsat γsat Es

Depth (m)
classification
Use N value C ' (kN/m2) (o) (kN/m3) (kN/m3) (kN/m2)
υ
0.0~4.0 SF, ML, SM 5 0 30 19.3 19.5 15,000 0.33

4.0~15.7 GW 40 4.9 38 21.6 22.0 7,840N–9,800N 0.28
15.7~20.3 GW, SW 35 0 38 21.1 21.4 7,840N–9,800N 0.28
20.3~24.4 ML 16 0 32 19.4 19.7 100,000 0.32
24.4~33.0 GW 100 9.8 40 22.1 22.3 7,840N–9,800N 0.26
Table 2. Input form of soil layer strength parameters in Case 2.
Depth (m)
Soil
Use N value
C' Φ’ γunsat γsat Es
υ
classification (kN/m2) (o) (kN/m3) (kN/m3) (kN/m2)
0.0~3.7 SF, ML 7 0 30 19.4 19.5 24,000 0.33
3.7~16.1 GW 40 4.9 38 21.9 22.0 7,840N–9,800N 0.28
16.1~19.5 GM, SM 23 0 34 21.1 21.4 7,840N–9,800N 0.31
19.5~24.4 ML 13 0 31 19.5 19.7 100,000 0.33
24.4~35.5 GP, GM 100 9.8 40 22.1 22.3 7,840N–9,800N 0.26
1.4. Literature Review on Sensitivity Analysis of Parameters

In numerical analysis of foundation excavations, different analysis programs have different
theoretical foundations and vary in terms of input parameters. Although different programs may use
different input parameters due to their specific characteristics, the analysis results should exhibit
similar trends in retaining wall deformation.
Hsieh et al. conducted a sensitivity analysis of deep excavation parameters using the RIDO
program for representative cases involving sandy and clayey layers [20]. The results showed that the
Φ (friction angle) value had a less significant impact on the analysis results, while the Su (undrained
shear strength) value was more sensitive. The variation of the horizontal ground reaction coefficient
had a lower sensitivity to the maximum bending moment of the retaining wall. When the horizontal
ground reaction coefficient was reduced to 1/4 of the reference value, the deformation increased by
60% to 100%, indicating that the Kh value was more sensitive to wall displacement.
Zhang et al. conducted a sensitivity analysis using the RIDO program for a construction site in
Taipei [21]. They found that varying the soil friction angle within 0.8 to 1.2 times the original analysis
value resulted in an approximately ±4% effect on the retaining wall displacement. Varying the
horizontal ground reaction coefficient within 0.5 to 2.0 times the original analysis value resulted in a
variation of -25% to 13% in wall displacement, which was consistent with the findings of Hsieh et al.
Chiu performed sensitivity analysis using the PLAXIS program, specifically focusing on the
effective friction angle and soil elastic modulus [22]. The results showed that a smaller Φ value had
a greater impact on continuous wall bending moment, displacement, and average axial force.
Undrained cohesive soil exhibited relatively lower sensitivity to the friction angle. The sensitivity of
average axial force was lower compared to continuous wall bending moment and displacement.
Regarding the sensitivity of soil elastic modulus, a smaller Es value had a greater impact on
continuous wall displacement.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Method and Procedure

The behavior of retaining structure deformation and its impact on the surrounding ground
resulting from foundation excavation has been extensively studied both domestically and
internationally. The most commonly used 1D retaining wall analysis programs in the engineering
industry are the RIDO program developed by Robert Fages Logiciels and the TORSA program
developed by the Foundation of Geotechnical Engineering and Technology Research. Additionally,
2D or even 3D numerical analysis software is used for simulation and review, with PLAXIS and FLAC
being the most common numerical analysis programs domestically and internationally. In this study,
the 2D PLAXIS and SoilWorks programs are selected as research tools. Firstly, sensitivity analysis is
conducted using the basic case model and variations of soil parameters adopted in previous studies
with SoilWorks, and the results are compared with those from PLAXIS analysis. Furthermore, using
the case of gravel layer excavation in the Xindian area, suitable ranges of soil elastic modulus for
analysis using PLAXIS and SoilWorks programs are derived.
Based on the above explanations, the proposed workflow for this study is illustrated in Figure
1.
Figure 1. Flowchart of the Research Process.
2.2. Research Materials

 PLAXIS Numerical Simulation
The background and characteristics of the PLAXIS program, along with an explanation of the
numerical analysis model used. Case studies of gravel layer excavations in the Xindian area of New
Taipei City are collected, and feedback analysis is performed using the existing monitoring data to
derive suitable soil parameters for analysis using the PLAXIS program in gravel layers.
 SoilWorks Numerical Simulation
The background and characteristics of the SoilWorks program. Sensitivity analysis is conducted
using the basic case model and variations of soil parameters adopted in previous studies, comparing
the results with the previous PLAXIS outcomes. The case study of gravel layer excava-tion in the
Xindian area mentioned in the previous section is utilized to derive suitable soil parameters for
analysis using the SoilWorks program. An additional case study, Case 3, is included for parameter
verification.
3. PLAXIS Numerical Simulation

Most of the research literature on deep excavation focuses on soft soil and sandy soil, and there
are relatively fewer results available regarding engineering characteristics of gravel layers. Deep
excavation engineering involves complex soil-structure interactions and can benefit from the
application of relevant knowledge and experience from both the geotechnical and structural domains
for design analysis. This study aims to investigate the behavior of deep excavation in gravel layers in
the Xindian area and provide reference parameters for deep excavation analysis and design in similar
geological conditions by using collected monitoring data for feedback analysis.
The geological characteristics of gravel layers are mainly related to the size, shape, density,
content, and properties of the gravel particles and the fine-grained material filling the voids.
According to the findings of Hong et al., when the coarse material content (larger than sieve No. 4)
in a gravel layer exceeds 75%, the engineering properties of the gravel layer are often determined by
the characteristics of the coarse particles [23]. Conversely, if the content is less than 70%, the
engineering properties are dominated by the fine-grained material. Das also pointed out that if
coarse-grained soil contains more than 35% fine-grained material, it behaves more like a fine-grained
material due to the sufficient filling of fine particles between the coarse particles, causing separation
[24].
In this study, the case site is the upper part of the Jingmei gravel layer in the Xindian area. Due
to its location in an urban area and limited investigation funds, it is difficult to find suitable sites for
field testing. As a result, relevant test data are scarce. When conducting geotechnical engineering
assessments, parameter values are usually estimated through empirical formulas based on field tests
or assumed based on engineering experience. In this study, the parameters of the gravel layer will be
determined through actual monitoring data from case studies and referenced literature information.
The feedback analysis will help determine reasonable parameters for the gravel layer in practical
cases, aiming to provide recommendations for the applicable range of soil elastic modulus (Es)
parameters in numerical analysis of deep excavation in the region.
3.1. Analysis Methods and Models

The PLAXIS 2D software is used to address soil-structure interaction problems encountered in
various geotechnical engineering applications. It can analyze behaviors such as deep excavation,
slope stability, reinforced retaining walls, soil nails, ground anchors, internal bracing, raft
foundations, pile foundations, seepage, tunnels, and other related issues, making it a powerful tool
for geotechnical engineering analysis. PLAXIS provides multiple constitutive models for users to
choose from to simulate the stress-strain behavior of soils.
In this study, the Mohr-Coulomb model, which is a built-in model within the PLAXIS software,
was selected to simulate soil behavior. The Mohr-Coulomb model is an elastic-perfectly plastic failure
model based on elastoplastic theory. It considers factors such as the satisfaction of Hook's Law during
the elastic stage, yielding criteria, and the flow rule. The soil parameters required for this model are
explained as follows:
 Elastic modulus (Es): In general, the soil can be assigned an elastic modulus of 50% of the
ultimate strength, known as the secant modulus (E50).
 Poisson's ratio (ν): In most cases, the value of ν for soils ranges between 0.3 and 0.4.
 Cohesion (c): According to the PLAXIS user manual, a value of c greater than 0.2 kPa can be
input for computational convenience [25].
 Internal friction angle (Φ): The internal friction angle of the soil can be determined based on the
soil type and shear strength tests conducted in the field or laboratory.
 Dilation angle (ψ): For cohesive soils, the dilation angle can be assumed to be 0. In the case of
sandy soils, the angle is very small and sometimes even close to zero or negative (ψ ≒ 0° or ψ ＜
0°), so it can be assumed as ψ = 0° during the analysis.
By utilizing the Mohr-Coulomb model with the specified soil parameters, the PLAXIS software
facilitates the simulation of soil behavior in this study.
3.2. Case Analysis
3.2.1. Case Study 1

 Site Description
The site is located on the south side of Minquan Road, Xindian District, New Taipei City, with
an area of approximately 8,522 m2. The site has an irregular shape, and the terrain varies within 1
meter (Geotechnical Engineering Co., Ltd. [26]).
 Subsurface Strata
The subsurface strata at the site can be simplified into five layers from top to bottom, as described
by Lin [27] and Geotechnical Engineering Co., Ltd. [28]. The simplified engineering parameters of the
strata are shown in Table A1. The groundwater level at the site is approximately 10.7 to 11.3 meters
below the ground surface, and the groundwater pressure in the fifth layer of gravel is around 11.4 to
11.6 meters below the ground surface, which is close to the free water level. For analysis purposes,
the initial groundwater level is set at 11 meters below the ground surface.
 Foundation Excavation Planning
(1) Geotechnical Facilities: The foundation excavation has a depth of 17.30 meters and utilizes
a raft foundation. The retaining structure consists of a continuous wall with a thickness of
70 centimeters, and the wall depth is 27 meters.
(2) Internal Bracing System: The excavation follows a top-down sequence with staged
excavation and horizontal bracing. The bracing system consists of five levels, using H-
beams as support structures. The excavation profile is shown in Figure A1(a).
(3) Excavation Steps: The first stage involves excavation to GL.-2.7 meters, followed by the
installation of the first-level bracing. The second stage involves excavation to GL.-4.7 meters
and the installation of the second-level bracing. The third stage involves excavation to GL.-
7.1 meters and the installation of the third-level bracing. The fourth stage involves
excavation to GL.-10.4 meters and the installation of the fourth-level bracing. The fifth stage
involves excavation to GL.-13.7 meters and the installation of the fifth-level bracing. Finally,
the sixth stage involves excavation to the final excavation bottom at GL.-17.3 meters.
3.2.2. Case Study 2

 Description of the Current Situation
The site is located on the east side of Zhongzheng Road, Xindian District, New Taipei City,
adjacent to Minquan Road, with an area of approximately 4,560 m2. It has an irregular shape, and the
terrain varies within a range of 1 meter (Geotechnical Engineering Co., Ltd. [29]).
The subsurface strata at the site can be divided into five layers from top to bottom, as described
by Lin [30] and Geotechnical Engineering Co., Ltd. [31]. The simplified engineering parameters of the
strata are shown in Table A2. The groundwater investigation data at the site indicates that the
groundwater level is typically around GL-11 meters. For analysis purposes, the initial groundwater
level is set at 11 meters below the ground surface.
 Foundation Excavation Planning
(1) Geotechnical Facilities: The foundation excavation has a depth of 13 meters and utilizes a
raft foundation. The retaining structure consists of a continuous wall with a thickness of 60
centimeters, and the wall depth is 20 meters.
(2) Internal Bracing System: The excavation follows a top-down sequence with staged
excavation and horizontal bracing. The bracing system consists of three levels, using H-
beams as support structures. The excavation profile is shown in Figure A1(b).
(3) Excavation Steps: The first stage involves excavation to GL.-2.6 meters and the installation
of the first-level bracing. The second stage involves excavation to GL.-6.0 meters and the
installation of the second-level bracing. The third stage involves excavation to GL.-9.3
meters and the installation of the third-level bracing. The fourth stage involves excavation
to the final excavation bottom at GL.-13.0 meters. Due to the lower groundwater level in
the research case area, the excavation depth mainly consists of the gravel layer, resulting in
lower lateral pressures on the retaining wall compared to typical cases.
3.2.3. Assumptions for Analysis

 The excavation process is assumed to exhibit plane strain behavior.
 Referring to the analysis model proposed by Fan, the influence range of the backside of the
retaining wall is considered [31]. For the analysis, the range (B) extends at least four times the
excavation depth beyond the retaining wall. The vertical range (D) is determined by adding
twice the penetration depth (3H1+H2) to the length of the continuous wall, assuming a uniform
distributed load of 1.5 t/m2 acting on the ground surface.
 Based on the site conditions, considering the excavation depth, plan shape, support system
configuration, and soil layer boundaries, an analysis mesh is established. The boundary
elements of the mesh are assumed to have no horizontal or lateral displacements outside the
influence range.
 The stiffness of the retaining wall is reduced by 70% based on general empirical values.
 The continuous wall and support elements are simulated using beam elements.
 Analysis is performed using 15-node triangular elements.
 At the bottom of the wall, if there is penetration into rock or gravel layers beyond a certain depth
(more than 1.5 meters), based on reference monitoring data from relevant cases, no significant
horizontal displacements are observed. Therefore, in the analysis, horizontal displacements are
constrained at the bottom of the wall.
3.2.4. Determination of Strata and Structural Parameters

In this study, the elastic modulus (Es) of the gravel layer is considered as a variable, ranging from
7,840 N/m2 to 9,800 N/m2. The remaining soil parameters and set values are presented in Table A1
and Table 1 for Case Study 1, and Table A2 and Table 2 for Case Study 2. The structural elements
such as the continuous wall and supports are simulated using beam elements, and the main input
data include cross-sectional area (A), Young's modulus (E), moment of inertia (I), etc. The stiffness of
the retaining wall is generally reduced by 70%. The basic parameters of the structural elements for
Case Study 1 can be found in Table 3 and Table 4, while for Case Study 2, they are presented in Table
5 and Table 6.
Table 3. Diaphragm Wall Strength Parameter Input Form of Case 1.
Thickness (m) E (kN/m2) I (m4/m) Reduction factor 0.7EA (kN/m) 0.7EI (kNm2/m)
0.7 2.35E+07 0.028583 0.7 1.13E+07 4.60E+05
Table 4. Support parameter input form of Case 1.
Preload
Number of supporting layersSupporting position Model A (cm2) 0.7EA (kN)
(kN/m)
1ST GL. - 1.9m 1 x H 350 173.9 2.51E+06 65
2ST GL. - 3.9m 1 x H 400 218.7 3.15E+06 131
3ST GL. - 6.3m 1 x H 400 218.7 3.15E+06 196
4ST GL. - 9.6m 2 x H 400 437.4 6.30E+06 245
5ST GL. - 12.9m 2 x H 400 437.4 6.30E+06 245
Table 5. Diaphragm wall strength parameter input table for Case 2.
Thickness (m) E (kN/m2) I (m4/m) Reduction factor 0.7EA (kN/m) 0.7EI (kNm2/m)
0.6 2.35E+07 0.018 0.7 9.66E+06 2.90E+05
Table 6. Support parameter input form of Case 2.
Supporting
Number of supporting layers Model A(cm2) 0.7EA(kN) Preload (kN/m)
position
1ST GL. - 1.8m 1 x H 350 173.9 2.51E+06 82
2ST GL. - 3.9m 1 x H 400 218.7 3.15E+06 131
3ST GL. - 8.5m 1 x H 428 360.65 5.20E+06 163
3.2.5. Analysis Procedure

Due to the complexity of the actual excavation process on-site, numerical simulations often
simplify the actual excavation steps by considering influencing factors such as monitoring data and
construction conditions. Prior to excavation simulation, it is commonly assumed that the continuous
wall has been constructed, and the effects of the wall construction on the strata are not considered.
The groundwater level within the site is lowered to 1.0 meter below the excavation surface during
excavation operations. The construction processes for each case study are described as follows:
1. Case Study 1
(1) First-stage excavation to GL.-2.7 meters.
(2) Installation of ST1 at GL.-1.9 meters.
(3) Second-stage excavation to GL.-4.7 meters.
(5) Third-stage excavation to GL.-7.1 meters.
(7) Fourth-stage excavation to GL.-10.4 meters.
(9) Fifth-stage excavation to GL.-13.7 meters.
(11) Sixth-stage excavation to the final excavation bottom at GL.-17.3 meters (analysis mode
ends at this point).
2. Case Study 2
(1) First-stage excavation to GL.-2.6 meters.
(3) Second-stage excavation to GL.-6.0 meters.
(5) Third-stage excavation to GL.-9.3 meters.
(7) Fourth-stage excavation to the final excavation bottom at GL.-13.0 meters (analysis and
simulation end at this point).
3.2.6. Feedback Analysis

Feedback analysis can generally be categorized into two approaches: inverse approach and
direct approach. The inverse approach involves assuming a reasonable soil material composition
model and using mathematical methods to express displacements as functions of in-situ stresses and
deformations. It then calculates the in-situ stresses and modulus of deformation based on the
displacement values. The direct approach involves continuously adjusting input parameters for
analysis and comparing the analysis results with measured values until an acceptable range of error
is achieved. While the inverse approach is faster in execution, it often requires simplification of
materials into homogeneous and elastic conditions, resulting in poor performance for nonlinear
materials. On the other hand, the direct approach allows for nonlinear analysis and considers material
nonlinearity and elasto-plastic behavior. Therefore, this study adopts the direct approach and utilizes
PLAXIS software as the analysis tool to simulate the stress-strain behavior of foundation excavation.
The analysis focuses only on the final excavation stage for simulation and comparison. In both
case studies, the second layer of the gravel layer has an N-value greater than 50, so an N-value of 100
is assumed. The analysis is conducted by gradually increasing or decreasing the elastic modulus (Es)
of the soil. The analysis results for the final excavation stage using PLAXIS are shown in Figure 2(a)
and 2(b) for Case Study 1, and Figure 3(a) and 3(b) for Case Study 2.
(a) (b)
Figure 2. During the final excavation stage of Case 1- (a) Numerical mesh deformation during the
final excavation stage, (b) Overall displacement vector.
(a) (b)
Figure 3. During the final excavation stage of Case 2- (a) Numerical mesh deformation during the
final excavation stage, (b) Overall displacement vector.
3.2.7. Results and Discussion of the Case Studies

Based on the PLAXIS analysis results for the final excavation stage, the actual deformation curve
data of the wall is compared to determine if the wall deformation is within a reasonable range of
estimation. In this study, a maximum deformation tolerance of ±10% based on actual monitoring data
is considered reasonable. The obtained results are shown in Figure 4(a) and 4(b). The following
discussion is based on the analysis results:
 Referring to the case studies in this research and numerous monitoring data, it is observed that
when the bottom of the wall penetrates into a rock layer or gravel layer at a certain depth (greater
than 1.5 meters), there is no horizontal displacement at the bottom of the wall. Therefore, in the
analysis, the horizontal displacement at the bottom of the wall is restrained. The analysis results
show consistency with the actual monitoring data in terms of the maximum deformation
location and the trend of the wall displacement curve, indicating that this basic assumption of
the analysis is reasonable.
 The feedback results from both case studies indicate that assuming an N-value of 100 for the
second layer of the gravel layer, within a range of soil elastic modulus between 7,840 kN/m2 and
9,800 kN/m2, it is possible to reasonably estimate the maximum deformation and its occurrence
location during the final excavation stage, with a tolerance of ±10% based on actual monitoring
data.
10
Displacement (cm) Displacement (cm)

-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
0.00 0.00
-1.00 SF
1ST H350 40T
、 GL-1.9m -1.00
ML 1ST H350
-2.00 SF GL.-1.8m 50T
、
SM -2.00 、
-3.00 2ST H400 80T
GL-3.9m
ML
-4.00
-3.00
-5.00
3ST H400 120T -4.00
-6.00 GL-6.3m
2ST H400
GL.-5.2m 80T
-7.00 -5.00
-8.00
-6.00
-9.00 4ST H428 150T
GL-9.6m
GW -7.00
-10.00
-8.00 3ST H428

-11.00 GL.-8.5m 100T
Completion of
-12.00 5ST 2H400 150T
excavation to the sixth GL-12.9m -9.00 Completion of
layer excavation to the
-13.00
GL. m
GL. m
Observation value -10.00 fourth layer
-14.00 -10% Observation value GW
-10%
-15.00 -11.00
Observation value
+10% Observation value
-16.00
-12.00 +10%
-17.00 E S = 7840N
GW E S =7840N
-13.00
-18.00 、
Excavation Excavation surface
SW surface of the
E S = 8820N of the fourth layer
-19.00 sixth layer (final -14.00 E S =8820N (final excavation
excavation surface)
GL-13.0m
-20.00 surface)
E S = 9800N GL-17.3m -15.00
E S =9800N
-21.00
-16.00
-22.00
ML
-23.00 -17.00
-24.00 GW
-18.00 、
-25.00 SM
-26.00 GW -19.00
-27.00 ML
-20.00
(a) (b)
Figure 4. Comparison diagram of lateral displacement in the final excavation stage of (a) Case 1; (b)
Case 2.
3.3. Discussion of the Findings

In this study, the PLAXIS 2D analysis program was used for deep excavation parameter
feedback analysis, and the results were compared with the actual monitoring data of wall
displacement. The analysis results showed a good agreement in terms of the trend of wall
displacement and the location of maximum wall displacement, indicating the reasonability of this
simulation approach. Based on the research findings, the following conclusions can be drawn:
 According to the feedback analysis results from actual case studies, it is reasonable to estimate
the maximum deformation during the final excavation stage by assuming an elastic modulus for
the gravel layer in the range of 7,840 kN/m2 to 9,800 kN/m2 in the Xindian area. These findings
are generally consistent with the empirical formulas derived from the research results of Kuo et
al. and Hou et al. on the gravel layer in Baguashan, where the elastic modulus ranges from 88200
kN/m2 to 833,000 kN/m2 [32,33].
 This study conducted parameter feedback analysis based on actual case studies in the Xindian
area. In the future, this research approach can be applied to different regions with gravel layers,
providing a broader range of research results for reference in engineering design.
4. SoilWorks Numerical Simulation

The SoilWorks program is a two-dimensional geotechnical engineering analysis and design
software developed by MIDAS Corporation in collaboration with scholars and industry professionals
in the field of soil and rock. It incorporates MIDAS IT's unique graphical processing, meshing, and
numerical analysis techniques, along with the latest analysis and design technologies in areas such
as tunnels, slopes, weak ground treatment, foundations, seepage, and dynamic analysis. It has
become an essential tool for the academic and professional engineering community. The program
consists of seven major analysis modules, including finite element stress-strain, excavation
deformation, slope stability, seepage, consolidation, pile, and dynamic modules.
11
4.1. Analysis Methods and Models

The selection of material constitutive models has a significant impact on the analysis results,
such as material behavior, stress, and strain. SoilWorks provides various geotechnical constitutive
models for users to choose from in order to simulate the stress-strain behavior of soils.
The Mohr-Coulomb model is commonly used to simulate geotechnical materials. Figure 5(a)
shows the idealized elastic-plastic characteristics. Under this assumption, reliable results can be
obtained in general geotechnical nonlinear analyses. Therefore, this study also uses the Mohr-
Coulomb model for relevant numerical analysis work.
(a) (b)
Figure 5. (a) Material Properties ; (b) Yield Function of the Mohr-Coulomb Model.
The Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion has two limitations in simulating soil material behavior. The
first limitation is the assumption that the second principal stress has no effect on yield, which does
not match experimental results. The second limitation is that the meridians of the Mohr circle and the
yield envelope are straight lines, and the strength parameters do not vary with confining pressure or
pore water pressure (see Figure 5(b)). Therefore, this constitutive model is more accurate when there
is minimal variation in confining pressure but loses accuracy when there is significant variation.
Additionally, the yield surface has corners, leading to errors in numerical analysis. However, this
criterion provides good accuracy under commonly encountered confining pressures and has become
the most commonly adopted failure criterion, effectively solving most numerical analysis problems
in geotechnical engineering.
The soil material parameters required for the Mohr-Coulomb model include elastic modulus,
Poisson's ratio, cohesion, friction angle, dilation angle, bulk modulus, and elastic shear modulus,
totaling seven parameters.
4.2. Sensitivity Analysis
4.2.1. Analysis Description

From relevant academic and engineering research literature or analysis reports, it is known that
certain key parameters must be appropriately adjusted to obtain reasonable results. The values of the
geotechnical parameters and data such as groundwater level and pore pressure used in the analysis
can mostly be obtained through field drilling and general physical and mechanical experiments, with
relatively small variations. Among the required input values, the effective friction angle and soil
elastic modulus are the most crucial parameters in the finite element program. The effective friction
angle needs to consider the influence of field sampling operations and excavation disturbance, while
the soil elastic modulus has numerous empirical formulas developed over the years, resulting in a
larger range of variation.
In this study, sensitivity analyses will be conducted on the effective friction angle of soil strength
parameters and the soil elastic modulus of ground reaction parameters. The aim is to qualitatively
discuss the results quantitatively and compare them with the analysis results from the PLAXIS
program in the previous chapter.
12
4.2.2. Assumed Cases

To understand the sensitivity of the geological parameters on the displacement, stress, or axial
force of the retaining wall in the SoilWorks program, reference will be made to the cases studied by
Hsieh et al. [20] and Qiu et al. [22] using the RIDO and PLAXIS programs, respectively. Hypothetical
cases representing sand and clay soils will be established for subsequent sensitivity analysis.
 Basic Case Description for Sandy Soil Layer
(1) Analysis Assumptions
A. The length and width of the excavation area are both 40 meters, with a depth of
excavation of 12 meters (H1) and a depth of wall penetration of 10 meters (H2). The
total length of the continuous wall is 22 meters.
B. The analysis model adopts a symmetric single-side mode, with a horizontal analysis
length (B) of half the original excavation length, which is 20 meters. Considering the
influence range of the backside of the retaining wall, a distance of at least 4 times the
excavation depth (R = 12 × 4 = 48 meters) is considered. The vertical range (D) is taken
as the length of the continuous wall (H1 + H2) plus twice the penetration depth (H2),
assuming a uniformly distributed load of 10 kN/m2 acting on the ground surface. The
detailed model diagram for the simulated case analysis is shown in Figure 6.
C. Considering the excavation depth, support system configuration, and soil layer
boundaries, a complete analysis mesh is established. The boundary elements of the
mesh are assumed to have no horizontal or lateral displacements outside the influence
range.
D. The retaining wall is simulated using beam elements, with a stiffness reduced by 70%
based on general empirical values. The input parameters used in the analysis are
detailed in Table A3.
E. The support system is simulated using truss elements, with a stiffness reduced by 50%
based on general empirical values. The input parameters used in the analysis are
detailed in Table A4.
F. Analysis is conducted using 15-node triangular elements.
(2) Geology and Groundwater
The sandy soil layer is divided into layers with a thickness of 10 meters each. There are a total of
5 layers, and the soil parameters for each layer are detailed in Table A5. The initial groundwater level
is assumed to be 1 meter below the ground surface.
Figure 6. Case analysis model for Sandy soil layer simulation.
 Basic Case Description for Clay Soil Layer

(1) Analysis Assumptions
A. The length and width of the excavation area are both 40 meters, with a depth of
excavation of 12 meters (H1) and a depth of wall penetration of 12 meters (H2). The
total length of the continuous wall is 24 meters.
13
B. The analysis model adopts a symmetric single-side mode, with a horizontal analysis
length (B) of half the original excavation length, which is 20 meters. Considering the
influence range of the backside of the retaining wall, a distance of at least 4 times the
excavation depth (R = 12 × 4 = 48 meters) is considered. The vertical range (D) is taken
as the length of the continuous wall (H1 + H2) plus twice the penetration depth (H2),
assuming a uniformly distributed load of 10 kN/m2 acting on the ground surface. The
detailed model diagram for the simulated case analysis is shown in Figure 7.
C. Considering the excavation depth, support system configuration, and soil layer
boundaries, a complete analysis mesh is established. The boundary elements of the
mesh are assumed to have no horizontal or lateral displacements outside the influence
range.
D. The retaining wall is simulated using beam elements, and the input parameters used
in the analysis are detailed in Table A3.
E. The support system is simulated using truss elements, and the input parameters used
in the analysis are detailed in Table A4.
F. Analysis is conducted using 15-node triangular elements.
(2) Geology and Groundwater
The clay soil layer is divided into layers with a thickness of 10 meters each. There are a total of 5
layers, and the soil parameters for each layer are detailed in Table A6. The initial groundwater level
is assumed to be 1 meter below the ground surface. For the analysis of the clay soil layer, drainage
and undrained conditions will be considered based on the cases presented by Qiu et al. [22].
Figure 7. Case analysis model for clay layer simulation.
4.2.3. Parameter Range

Based on previous studies, the ranges of the effective friction angle and soil elastic modulus are
as follows:
 Friction Angle (Φ)
For the analysis of sandy soils, the effective stress analysis (C = 0) is commonly used. In this
study, the simulated analysis will consider the variation of the friction angle by 80%, 90%, 100%, 110%,
and 120% of the original assumed friction angle. These values are based on the research methods of
Zhang et al. [21] and Qiu et al. [22].
 Soil Elastic Modulus (Es)
From the literature in the previous section, it is known that there are numerous empirical
formulas for soil elastic modulus, and the difference between the maximum and minimum values
can be several times. In this simulation, the analysis will consider the variation of the soil elastic
modulus by 50%, 75%, 100%, 150%, and 200% of the original assumed soil elastic modulus. These
values are based on the research methods of Zhang et al. [21] and Qiu et al. [22].
4.2.4. Analysis Results

14
 Sensitivity Analysis of Friction Angle

Integrate the results for different assumed geological conditions, including sandy soil and clay
(drained and undrained) soil, and conduct an integrated analysis. The maximum bending moment
(Mmax), maximum displacement (Dmax), and average axial force (Favg) corresponding to the
assumed friction angles of 80%, 90%, 100%, 110%, and 120% will be compared with the maximum
bending moment, maximum displacement, and average axial force at the original friction angle
(100%). The percentage change in the maximum bending moment, maximum displacement, and
average axial force due to the variation in friction angle will be calculated. The sensitivity of the
friction angle (Φ) on these three parameters (Mmax, Dmax, Favg) will be discussed. The analysis
results from Qiu et al.'s [22] PLAXIS program will also be considered.
(1) Sandy Soil Layer
From the summarized analysis results in Table 7, it can be observed that when the friction angle
varies from 80% to 120% of the baseline value (100%), the range of variation in the maximum wall
moment (Mmax) is 282.78 to 392.24 kN-m, with a percentage change of 88% to 121%. The range of
variation in the maximum displacement (Dmax) is 29.664 to 40.840 mm, with a percentage change of
90% to 124%. The range of variation in the average axial force (Favg) is 223.3 to 278.8 kN/m, with a
percentage change of 91% to 114%.
Table 7. Sensitivity Analysis Results of Friction Angle for Sandy Layers.
percentage percentage percentage

Mmax Dmax Favg
SM change change change
(kN-m) (%) (mm) (%) (kN/m) (%)
0.8Φ 392.24 121% 40.840 124% 278.8 114%
0.9Φ 353.90 110% 36.116 110% 260.4 106%
1.0Φ 323.07 100% 32.872 100% 245.4 100%
1.1Φ 300.21 93% 30.852 94% 233.4 95%
1.2Φ 282.78 88% 29.664 90% 223.3 91%
Line graphs depicting the percentage change in the three parameters (Mmax, Dmax, Favg) with
respect to different friction angles (Φ) will be plotted. From Figure 8(a), it can be observed that the
friction angle has a significant sensitivity to Dmax, with an increase of 24% when Φ is decreased by
20%. When Φ is increased by 20%, Mmax, Dmax, and Favg decrease by approximately 10%. The
results indicate that a smaller friction angle has a more significant effect on Dmax, while higher
friction angles have similar influences on Mmax, Dmax, and Favg.
(a) (b)
Figure 8. Comparison of the sensitivity diagram to sandy Soil-drained (a) SoilWorks programs to
friction angle (Mmax, Dmax and Favg) ;(b) PLAXIS and SoilWorks programs to friction angle (Mmax).
Additionally, the sensitivity analysis results for the friction angle in sandy soils from Qiu et al.'s
[22] PLAXIS program will be compared and discussed with the SoilWorks program. From Table 8
15
and Figure 8(b) to Figure 9(a) and 9(b), it can be observed that when the friction angle is smaller, the
variation in PLAXIS results is more significant compared to the SoilWorks program. This indicates
that PLAXIS is more sensitive to the friction angle than the SoilWorks program.
(a) (b)
Figure 9. Comparison of the sensitivity of PLAXIS and SoilWorks programs to sandy Soil-drained (a)
friction angle (Dmax); (b) friction angle (Favg).
Table 8. Sensitivity of Friction Angle for Sandy Layers in PLAXIS and SoilWorks.
Mmax Dmax Favg

SM percentage change percentage change percentage change
Siolworks PLAXIS Siolworks PLAXIS Siolworks PLAXIS
0.8Φ 121% 139% 124% 157% 114% 122%
0.9Φ 110% 117% 110% 119% 106% 108%
1.0Φ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1.1Φ 93% 89% 94% 91% 95% 96%
1.2Φ 88% 81% 90% 86% 91% 93%
(2) Clay Layer (Undrained Condition)
From the summarized analysis results in Table 9, it can be observed that when the friction angle
varies from 80% to 120% of the baseline value (100%) in the undrained condition, the range of
variation in the maximum wall moment (Mmax) is 243.96 to 267.27 kN-m, with a percentage change
of 97% to 106%. The range of variation in the maximum displacement (Dmax) is 46.110 to 48.232 mm,
with a percentage change of 98% to 103%. The range of variation in the average axial force (Favg) is
232.5 to 252.5 kN/m, with a percentage change of 96% to 105%.
Table 9. Sensitivity Analysis Results of Friction Angle for Clay Layers (Undrained).

Mmax Dmax Favg
CL (Undrained) change change change
(kN-m) (%) (mm) (%) (kN/m) (%)
0.8Φ 267.27 106% 48.232 103% 252.5 105%
0.9Φ 256.45 102% 47.333 101% 246.1 102%
1.0Φ 251.72 100% 46.867 100% 241.4 100%
1.1Φ 246.78 98% 46.424 99% 236.8 98%
1.2Φ 243.96 97% 46.110 98% 232.5 96%
respect to different friction angles (Φ) will be plotted. From Figure 10(a), it can be observed that the
sensitivity of the friction angle (Φ) on the clay layer (undrained condition) is relatively small, with
changes of approximately 6% in Mmax, Dmax, and Favg when Φ is decreased or increased. The
results indicate that the clay layer (undrained condition) is not particularly sensitive to the variation
in friction angle.
16
(a) (b)
Figure 10. Comparison of the sensitivity diagram to clay-undrained (a) SoilWorks programs to
friction angle (Mmax, Dmax and Favg) ;(b) PLAXIS and SoilWorks programs to friction angle (Mmax).
Additionally, the sensitivity analysis results for the friction angle in the clay layer (undrained
condition) from Qiu et al.'s [22] PLAXIS program will be compared and discussed with the SoilWorks
program. From Table 10 and Figure 10(b) to Figure 11(a) and (b), it can be observed that when the
friction angle is increased, both programs show only a slight variation. When the friction angle is
smaller, especially in terms of Mmax or Dmax, the variation in the PLAXIS program is more
significant compared to the SoilWorks program, indicating that PLAXIS is more sensitive to the
friction angle in the clay layer (undrained condition) when the friction angle is smaller.
(a) (b)
Figure 11. Comparison of the sensitivity of PLAXIS and SoilWorks programs to clay-undrained (a)
friction angle (Dmax); (b) friction angle (Favg).
Table 10. Sensitivity of Friction Angle for Clay Layers (Undrained) in PLAXIS and SoilWorks.
Mmax Dmax Favg

CL (Undrained) percentage change percentage change percentage change
0.8Φ 106% 133% 103% 129% 105% 118%
0.9Φ 102% 112% 101% 110% 102% 107%
1.0Φ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1.1Φ 98% 93% 99% 95% 98% 97%
1.2Φ 97% 90% 98% 93% 96% 96%
 Sensitivity Analysis of Soil Elastic Modulus
Integrate the results for different assumed geological conditions, including sandy soil and clay
(drained and undrained) soil, and conduct an integrated analysis. The maximum bending moment
(Mmax), maximum displacement (Dmax), and average axial force (Favg) corresponding to the
assumed soil elastic moduli of 50%, 75%, 100%, 150%, and 200% will be compared with the maximum
17
bending moment, maximum displacement, and average axial force at the original soil elastic modulus
(100%). The percentage change in the maximum bending moment, maximum displacement, and
average axial force due to the variation in soil elastic modulus will be calculated. The sensitivity of
the soil elastic modulus (E) on these three parameters (Mmax, Dmax, Favg) will be discussed. The
analysis results from Qiu et al.'s [22] PLAXIS program will also be considered.
(1) Sandy Soil
From the summarized analysis results in Table A7, it can be observed that when the soil elastic
modulus varies from 50% to 200% of the baseline value (100%) in sandy soil, the range of variation
in the maximum bending moment (Mmax) is 280.69 to 371.32 kN-m, with a percentage change of 87%
to 115%. The range of variation in the maximum displacement (Dmax) is 23.941 to 48.483 mm, with a
percentage change of 73% to 147%. The range of variation in the average axial force (Favg) is 246.1 to
251.7 kN/m, with a percentage change of 100% to 103%.
respect to different soil elastic moduli will be plotted. From Figure 12(a), it can be observed that the
sensitivity of the soil elastic modulus (Es) in sandy soil is more significant for Mmax and Dmax, with
Dmax showing the maximum increase of 47% when E is decreased by 50% and the maximum
decrease of approximately 27% when E is increased by 200%. The results indicate that the variation
in Mmax and Dmax is more pronounced when the soil elastic modulus is higher or lower, while the
effect on Favg is relatively small.
(a) (b)
Figure 12. Comparison of the sensitivity diagram to sandy soil-drained (a) SoilWorks programs to
elastic modulus (Mmax, Dmax and Favg) ;(b) PLAXIS and SoilWorks programs to elastic modulus
(Mmax).
Additionally, the sensitivity analysis results for the soil elastic modulus in sandy soil from Qiu
et al.'s [22] PLAXIS program will be compared and discussed with the SoilWorks program. From
Table A8 and Figure 12(b) to Figure 13(a) and 13(b), it can be observed that PLAXIS is more sensitive
to variations in Dmax than the SoilWorks program when the soil elastic modulus in sandy soil is
smaller.
18
(a) (b)
Figure 13. Comparison of the sensitivity of PLAXIS and SoilWorks programs to sandy soil-drained
(a) elastic modulus (Dmax); (b) elastic modulus (Favg).
(2) Clay Layer (Undrained Condition)

modulus varies from 50% to 200% of the baseline value (100%) in the undrained condition of the clay
layer, the range of variation in the maximum bending moment (Mmax) is 205.65 to 327.72 kN-m, with
a percentage change of 82% to 130%. The range of variation in the maximum displacement (Dmax) is
28.341 to 81.231 mm, with a percentage change of 60% to 173%. The range of variation in the average
axial force (Favg) is 231.2 to 257.0 kN/m, with a percentage change of 96% to 106%.
sensitivity of the soil elastic modulus (Es) in the undrained condition of the clay layer is more
significant for Dmax, with Dmax showing the maximum increase of 73% when Es is decreased by
50% and the maximum decrease of approximately 40% when Es is increased by 200%. The results
indicate that the variation in Dmax is more pronounced when the soil elastic modulus is higher or
lower, while the effect on Favg is relatively small.
(a) (b)
Figure 14. Comparison of the sensitivity diagram to clay-undrained (a) SoilWorks programs to elastic
modulus (Mmax, Dmax and Favg) ;(b) PLAXIS and SoilWorks programs to elastic modulus (Mmax).
Additionally, the sensitivity analysis results for the soil elastic modulus in the undrained
condition of the clay layer from Qiu et al.'s [22] PLAXIS program will be compared and discussed
with the SoilWorks program. From Table A10 and Figure 14(b) to Figure 15(a) and (b), it can be
observed that both programs show similar sensitivity to variations in Mmax, Dmax, and Favg when
the soil elastic modulus in the undrained condition of the clay layer is considered, with Dmax
exhibiting the most significant sensitivity.
(a) (b)
19
Figure 15. Comparison of the sensitivity of PLAXIS and SoilWorks programs to clay-undrained (a)
elastic modulus (Dmax); (b) elastic modulus (Favg).
(3) Clay Layer (Drained Condition)

modulus varies from 50% to 200% of the baseline value (100%) in the drained condition of the clay
layer, the range of variation in the maximum bending moment (Mmax) is 327.66 to 439.21 kN-m, with
a percentage change of 87% to 116%. The range of variation in the maximum displacement (Dmax) is
32.639 to 71.259 mm, with a percentage change of 70% to 152%. The range of variation in the average
axial force (Favg) is 253.6 to 260.5 kN/m, with a percentage change of 99% to 102%.
sensitivity of the soil elastic modulus (Es) in the drained condition of the clay layer is more significant
for Dmax, with Dmax showing the maximum increase of 52% when Es is decreased by 50% and the
maximum decrease of approximately 30% when Es is increased by 200%. The results indicate that the
variation in Dmax is more pronounced when the soil elastic modulus is higher or lower, while the
effect on Favg is relatively small.
(a) (b)
Figure 16. Comparison of the sensitivity diagram to clay-drained (a) SoilWorks programs to elastic
modulus (Mmax, Dmax and Favg) ;(b) PLAXIS and SoilWorks programs to elastic modulus (Mmax).
Additionally, the sensitivity analysis results for the soil elastic modulus in the drained condition
of the clay layer from Qiu et al.'s [22] PLAXIS program will be compared and discussed with the
SoilWorks program. From Table A12 and Figure 16(b) to Figure 17(a) and (b), it can be observed that
both programs show similar sensitivity to variations in Mmax, Dmax, and Favg when the soil elastic
modulus in the drained condition of the clay layer is considered, with Dmax exhibiting the most
significant sensitivity.
(a) (b)
20
Figure 17. Comparison of the sensitivity of PLAXIS and SoilWorks programs to clay-drained (a)
elastic modulus (Dmax); (b) elastic modulus (Favg).
4.3. Case Study

In this study, a feedback analysis will be conducted using one case, which follows the excavation
and support method of six excavations with five-layer supports. The case is based on the PLAXIS
analysis case one presented in Chapter 4. The geological input parameters used in the SoilWorks
program for this case are shown in Table 11. The input parameters for the retaining wall and support
system can be found in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively. The analysis process is described in section
4.3.1. The analysis model is illustrated in Figure 18.
Table 11. Soil Strength Parameter Input Table for Case Study 1 in SoilWorks.
c' Φ’  unsat  sat ES

Depth (m) Soil classificationUse N Value 
(kN/m2) ( o) (kN/m3) (kN/m3) (kN/m2)
0.0~4.0 SF, ML, SM 5 0 30 19.3 19.5 12250 0.33
4.0~15.7 GW 40 4.9 38 21.8 22.0 2450N–3430N 0.28
15.7~20.3 GW, SW 35 0 38 21.1 21.4 2450N–3430N 0.28
20.3~24.4 ML 16 0 32 19.4 19.7 39200 0.32
24.4~33.0 GW 100 9.8 40 22.1 22.3 2450N–3430N 0.26
Figure 18. SoilWorks simulation analysis model of Case 1.
To verify the suitability of the range of elastic modulus values used for the gravel layer in the
program based on the feedback from case one, an additional case (case three) is introduced for
validation.
4.3.1. Description and Input Parameter Selection for Case Three

 Site Description
The site is located at the intersection of Beixin Road Section 3 and Fuxing Road in Xindian
District, New Taipei City. It has an irregular shape with an area of approximately 9,533 m2 and a
height difference of less than 1 m (Chung-Lien Engineering Consultant Corporation [34]).
The subsurface conditions at the site can be divided into four layers from top to bottom (Chung-
Lien Engineering Consultant Corporation [34]). A brief description of the general characteristics of
each layer is provided, and the simplified engineering parameters for the subsurface layers are shown
21
in Table A13. The groundwater investigation data for the site indicates that the groundwater level is
generally around GL-11 m. For the analysis, the initial groundwater level is set at 11 m below the
ground surface.
(1) Fill Layer: Consists of yellow-brown sandy clay, silty clay, and silty clay with mud. The thickness
is approximately 4.3 m, and the N-values range from 1 to 19.
(2) Gravel Layer: Contains egg-sized gravel interbedded with yellow-brown silty clay. The
thickness is approximately 11 m, and the N-values range from 15 to above 50.
(3) Gray Sandy Clay Layer: Consists of gray sandy clay, silty clay, and sandy clay. The thickness is
9.6 m, and the N-values range from 7 to 50 (increasing to 50 when encountering gravel).
(4) Gravel Layer: Contains egg-sized gravel interbedded with yellow-brown silty sand. The
thickness is greater than 8.8 m, and the N-values are all above 50.
 Foundation Excavation Plan
(1) Geotechnical Facilities: The excavation depth is 14.6 m, and the foundation type is raft
foundation. The retaining structure consists of 80 cm thick continuous walls, with a depth of 23.5
m.
(2) Support System: The inverted construction method is adopted for the site, which involves staged
excavation and construction of underground floor slabs. The 1F, B2FL, and B3FL are used as
support structures during the excavation process.
(3) Excavation Steps: The excavation is carried out in four stages. In the first stage, the excavation is
lowered to GL.-2.5 m to construct the 1F floor slab. In the second stage, the excavation is lowered
to GL.-8.0 m to construct the B2F floor slab (GL.-7.025 m). In the third stage, the excavation is
lowered to GL.-11.2 m to construct the B3F floor slab (GL.-10.225 m). Finally, in the fourth stage,
the excavation is lowered to the final excavation bottom at GL.-14.6 m.
 Determination of Soil and Structural Parameters
Based on the recommended engineering parameters listed in Table A13, the soil input
parameters used in the program are shown in Table 12. The retaining walls and floor slabs are
simulated using beam elements. The main input data include cross-sectional area (A), Young's
modulus (E), and moment of inertia (I). The stiffness of the retaining wall is generally reduced by
70% based on empirical experience, while the stiffness of the floor slab is reduced by 25%. The input
parameters for the structural elements are shown in Table 13 and Table 14.
Table 12. Soil Strength Parameter Input Table for Case Study 3 in SoilWorks.
c' Φ’  unsat  sat ES

Depth (m) Soil classificationUse N Value 
(kN/m2) ( o) (kN/m ) (kN/m ) (kN/m2)
3 3
0.0~4.0 SF, ML, CL 18 0 28 20.1 20.0 44100 0.347

4.0~15.7 GW 44 4.9 38 22.1 22.3 2450N–3430N 0.263
15.7~20.3 ML,SM 18 0 31 20.0 19.3 44100 0.327
24.4~33.0 GW 100 9.8 40 22.1 22.3 2450N–3430N 0.263
Table 13. Input Parameters for Diaphragm Wall Strength in Case Study 3.
Thickness Reduction
E (kN/m2 ) I (m4/m) 0.7EA (kN/m) 0.7EI (kNm2/m)
(m) factor
0.8 2.13E+07 0.04267 0.7 1.19E+07 6.36E+05
Table 14. Input Parameters for Floor Structure in Case Study 3.
Number of floors Floor position Thickness (cm) A (m2/m) 0.25A (m2/m) I (m4/m) E ( kN/m2 )
1F GL. + 0.0m 20 0.20 0.05 6.667E-04 2.46E+07
B2F GL. - 3.9m 45 0.45 0.1125 7.594E-03 2.46E+07
B3F GL. - 6.3m 45 0.45 0.1125 7.594E-03 2.46E+07
 Basic Assumptions
22
(1) The excavation process is assumed to exhibit plane strain behavior.

(2) Considering the influence range behind the retaining wall, the analysis range (B) extends at least
4 times the excavation depth beyond the retaining wall. The vertical range (D) is obtained by
adding twice the penetration depth (3H1+H2) to the length of the retaining wall. A uniform
distributed load of 15 kN/m2 is assumed to act on the ground surface.
(3) Based on the site conditions, including the excavation depth, shape, support system
configuration, and soil layer boundaries, a mesh is created for the analysis. The boundary
elements of the mesh are assumed to have no horizontal or lateral displacements outside the
influence range.
(4) The stiffness of the retaining wall is reduced by 70% based on empirical experience, while the
stiffness of the floor slab is reduced by 25%.
(5) The retaining walls and floor slabs are simulated using beam elements.
(6) The analysis is conducted using 15-Node triangular elements.
(7) Based on the observation of previous cases, when the bottom of the retaining wall penetrates the
gravel layer to a certain depth (more than 1.5 m below the bottom), no significant horizontal
displacements are observed. Therefore, in the analysis, horizontal displacements at the bottom
of the retaining wall are restricted.
 Analysis Procedure
Considering the monitoring data and construction conditions at the site, the actual excavation
steps are simplified for the analysis. Since the B1F floor slab is constructed during the third excavation,
its influence on the retaining wall is not considered in the analysis. The groundwater level inside the
site is maintained at a depth of 1.0 m below the excavation surface during the excavation process.
The construction process for case three is described as follows. The analysis model is shown in Figure
19.
(1) Perform the first-stage excavation to GL.-2.5 m.
(2) Construct the 1FL at GL.-0.0 m.
(3) Perform the second-stage excavation to GL.-8.0 m.
(4) Construct the B2FL at GL.-7.025 m.
(5) Perform the third-stage excavation to GL.-11.2 m.
(6) Construct the B3FL at GL.-10.225 m.
(7) Perform the fourth-stage excavation to GL.-14.6 m (reaching the bottom of the excavation,
analysis simulation ends at this point).
Figure 19. SoilWorks Simulation Analysis Model of Case 3.
4.3.2. Feedback Analysis

In this study, a direct method using the SoilWorks software is employed to simulate the stress-
strain behavior of the foundation excavation. The analysis is conducted only for the final excavation
stage and compared with the results of case one. Since the N-values for the second layer (gravel layer)
23
in both cases exceed 50, an N-value of 100 is assumed for the analysis. The analysis is performed by
varying the soil elastic modulus values incrementally. The analysis results for the final excavation
stage in case one and case three using SoilWorks are shown in Figures 20 and 21, respectively.
Figure 20. Displacement Vector Diagram of Final Excavation Stage of Case 1 (SoilWorks).
Figure 21. Displacement Vector Diagram of Final Excavation Stage of Case 3 (SoilWorks).
4.4. Discussion of Results

The analysis of the final excavation stage in SoilWorks, combined with the actual deformation
curve data of the wall, was compared to determine if the wall deformation curve falls within a
reasonable estimated range. In this study, the maximum deformation range of ±10% based on actual
monitoring data was considered reasonable for both case studies. The results obtained are shown in
Figure 22(a) and 22(b) The following discussion is based on the analysis results:
24
(a) (b)
Figure 22. Comparison diagram of lateral displacement in the final excavation stage of (a) Case 1; (b)
Case 3 by SoilWorks.
1. Sensitivity analysis of effective friction angle in SoilWorks was conducted. The results indicate
that Mmax and Dmax are more sensitive to a smaller friction angle in the sandy and clayey
(drained) layers. However, in the clayey (undrained) layer, the sensitivity to the friction angle is
lower. Furthermore, comparing the sensitivity analysis results with PLAXIS, it was found that
SoilWorks generally exhibits lower sensitivity.
2. Sensitivity analysis of soil elastic modulus in SoilWorks was conducted. The results show that
both in the sandy and clayey (drained and undrained) layers, the elastic modulus values of the
soil have a greater influence on Mmax and Dmax. Comparing the sensitivity analysis results
with PLAXIS, it was found that SoilWorks exhibits lower sensitivity than PLAXIS for Dmax,
while the sensitivities of Mmax and Favg are comparable between the two.
3. From the sensitivity analysis, it can be concluded that the friction angle and soil elastic modulus
are two parameters that have a relatively high sensitivity on the displacement of the retaining
wall.
4. Consistent with the previous PLAXIS analysis, when the bottom of the wall reaches a certain
depth into rock or gravel layers (more than 1.5m), there is no horizontal displacement observed
at the bottom of the wall. Therefore, in the analysis, horizontal displacement at the bottom of the
wall was restrained. The analysis results demonstrate consistency with the actual monitoring
data in terms of the maximum deformation location and the trend of the wall displacement curve,
indicating that this basic assumption in the analysis is reasonable.
5. Feedback analysis was conducted using Case 1, followed by validation using Case 3. The results
indicate that under the assumption of N=100 for the second layer of gravel, within the soil elastic
modulus range of 2450N~3430N (kN/m2), reasonable estimation of the maximum deformation
and its occurrence location during the final excavation stage can be achieved under the
conditions of gravel layers in the Xindian area.
25
5. Conclusions
Based on the research process and findings presented above, the conclusions can be summarized
as follows:
 Sensitivity Analysis of Effective Friction Angle in SoilWorks: The results indicate that the
maximum bending moment and maximum displacement are more sensitive to a decrease in the
effective friction angle in both the sand layer and the clay layer (drained conditions) when the
friction angle is relatively small. However, in the clay layer under undrained conditions, the
sensitivity to the effective friction angle is lower. Furthermore, comparing the sensitivity
analysis results with PLAXIS, it is observed that SoilWorks exhibits lower sensitivity overall.
 Sensitivity Analysis of Soil Elastic Modulus in SoilWorks: The results show that the maximum
bending moment and maximum displacement are more sensitive to changes in soil elastic
modulus values, regardless of whether it is in the sand layer or the clay layer (drained and
undrained conditions). Comparing the sensitivity analysis results with PLAXIS, it is observed
that SoilWorks has lower sensitivity to maximum displacement but similar sensitivity to
maximum bending moment and average axial force.
 This study conducted parameter feedback analysis for deep excavation using two-dimensional
PLAXIS and SoilWorks analysis programs. Based on the feedback analysis results from various
practical cases, it is found that for the gravel layer in Xindian area, the soil elastic modulus values
of 7,840 N/m² to 9,800 N/m² in PLAXIS and 2,450 N/m² to 3,430 N/m² in SoilWorks can
reasonably estimate the maximum deformation in the final excavation stage.
In conclusion, it is recommended that engineers refer to the provided ranges when selecting soil
elastic modulus for excavation analysis in gravel layers in the Xindian area of Taiwan. This will help
improve the accuracy of deformation predictions during the final excavation stage. These findings
serve as crucial references for engineers and contribute to the effective prediction and management
of excavation behavior in civil engineering projects.
Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at the website of this
paper posted on Preprints.org.
Author Contributions: methodology, C-Y.W. and C-F.H.; formal analysis, C-Y.W.; investigation, C-Y.W.;
writing-original draft preparation, C-Y.W. and C-F.H.; writing-review and editing, C-F.H. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Not applicable.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data used in this article is not public.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest

26
Appendix A
Table A1. Suggested table of simplified formation engineering parameters in Case 1.
Total stress Total stress

effective effective
Strata description N γt stress stress
C Φ C' Φ’
The average thickness of each layer Value kN/m kN/m 3 2 ˚ kN/m 2 ˚
1. The backfill layer gradually becomes yellow brown 1.5～
with gray clayey silt and silty sand, even with gravel ＊＊
19 19.3 0 30
9.8 21
Average thickness 4.0m (5)
2. Yellowish-brown silty coarse-medium-fine sand mixed 15～
with pebbles and gravel ＊＊
>50 21.6 －－
4.9 38
Average thickness 11.7m (40)
3. Gravel mixed with yellow brown and gray silty coarse,
20～58 ＊＊
medium and fine sand 21.1 －－
(35) 0 38
Average thickness 4.6m
4. Gray sandy, clayey silt interbedded with thin sandy soil
12～26
and clay 19.4 9.8 24 0 32
(16)
5. Yellow-brown silty coarse-medium-fine sand mixed
with pebbles and gravel >50 ＊＊＊
－－
Average thickness 10.0m (100) 22.1 9.8 40
(hole bottom)
Note: 1. "*" indicates estimated values, and "( )" indicates suggested N values. 2. Extracted from the "Geological
Survey and Analysis Report of Land Parcels 34 and 110, Dafeng Section, Xindian City, Taipei County" by
Chunlian Engineering [28].
Table A2. Suggested table of simplified formation engineering parameters in Case 2.

Strata description N γt effective stress effective stress
C Φ C' Φ’
The average thickness
Value kN/m3 kN/m2 ˚ kN/m2 ˚
of each layer
1. Backfill layer and
brownish-yellow clayey silt 5～17 ＊＊
19.4 9.8 22
interbedded with sandy silt (7) 0 30
2. Yellowish-brown silty
coarse-medium-fine sand mixed 22～>50 ＊＊
21.9 －－
with pebbles and gravel (40) 4.9 38
3. Yellow-brown silty soil
with coarse, medium and fine
16～31 ＊＊
sand and even pebbles mixed 21.1 －－
with gravel (23) 0 34
4. Gray clayey silt with silty
11～20
clay and thin layer of fine sand 19.5 9.8 24 0 31
(13)
27
5. Yellow-brown silty coarse-

medium-fine sand mixed with
>50 ＊＊＊
pebbles and gravel －－
(100) 22.1 9.8 40
(hole bottom)
Survey and Analysis Report of Land Parcels 62-1 and Other Seven Parcels, Dafeng Section, Xindian City, Taipei
County" by Kenkul Engineering [30].
Table A3. Input Parameters for Diaphragm Wall Strength.
Thickness(m) E (kN/m2) I (m4/m) Reduction factor 0.7EA (kN/m) 0.7EI (kNm2/m)

0.6 2.17E+07 0.018 0.7 9.13E+06 2.739E+05
Note: E = 1500000 × f c ' ， f c ' = 210kg / cm 2 .
Table A4. Input Parameters for Bracing.
Number of Supporting Preload

Model A (cm2) 0.5EA (kN)
supporting layers position (kN/m)
1ST GL. -1.5m 1x H 350 173.9 1.826E+06 125
2ST GL. -4.5m 2x H 350 347.7 3.651E+06 200
3ST GL. -8.0m 2x H 400 437.4 4.592E+06 300
Table A5. Input Parameters for Soil Parameters of Sandy Layers.
Φ’ γunsat γsat
Depth (m) Soil classification C ' (kN/m2) Es (kN/m2) υ
( o) (kN/m3) (kN/m3)
10 SM 1 30 20 21 12500 0.32
20 SM 1 30 20 21 37500 0.32
30 SM 1 30 20 21 62500 0.32
40 SM 1 30 20 21 87500 0.32
42 SM 1 30 20 21 812500 0.32
Table A6. Input Parameters for Soil Parameters of Clay Layers.
Φ’ γunsat γsat Es
Depth (m) Soil classification C ' (kN/m2) υ
( o) (kN/m3) (kN/m3) (kN/m2)
10 CL 5 20 19 18 10000 0.35
20 CL 5 23 19 18 18750 0.35
30 CL 5 25 19 18 31250 0.35
40 CL 5 28 19 18 43750 0.35
42 CL 5 30 19 18 56250 0.35
Table A7. Sensitivity Analysis Results of Elastic Modulus for Sandy Layers.
Mmax percentage change Dmax percentage change Favg percentage change

SM
(kN-m) (%) (mm) (%) (kN/m) (%)
0.5E 371.32 115% 48.483 147% 246.1 100%
0.75E 342.43 106% 38.368 117% 244.9 100%
1.0E 323.07 100% 32.872 100% 245.4 100%
1.5E 297.63 92% 27.075 82% 248.2 101%
2.0E 280.69 87% 23.941 73% 251.7 103%
28
Table A8. Sensitivity of Elastic Modulus for Sandy Layers in PLAXIS and SoilWorks.
Mmax Dmax Favg

SM percentage change percentage change percentage change
0.5E 115% 123% 147% 176% 100% 103%
0.75E 106% 108% 117% 125% 100% 101%
1.0E 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1.5E 92% 90% 82% 73% 101% 99%
2.0E 87% 83% 73% 59% 103% 98%
Table A9. Sensitivity Analysis Results of Elastic Modulus for Clay Layers (Undrained).

Mmax Dmax Favg
CL (Undrained) change change change
(kN-m) (%) (mm) (%) (kN/m) (%)
0.5E 327.72 130% 81.231 173% 257.0 106%
0.75E 279.50 111% 58.627 125% 247.5 103%
1.0E 251.72 100% 46.867 100% 241.4 100%
1.5E 221.83 88% 34.688 74% 234.4 97%
2.0E 205.65 82% 28.341 60% 231.2 96%
Table A10. Sensitivity of Elastic Modulus for Clay Layers (Undrained) in PLAXIS and SoilWorks.
Mmax Dmax Favg

CL (Undrained) percentage change percentage change percentage change
0.5E 130% 135% 173% 185% 106% 106%
0.75E 111% 113% 125% 129% 103% 102%
1.0E 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1.5E 88% 85% 74% 70% 97% 98%
2.0E 82% 76% 60% 55% 96% 96%
Table A11. Sensitivity Analysis Results of Elastic Modulus for Clay Layers (Drained).

Mmax Dmax Favg
CL (Drained) change change change
(kN-m) (%) (mm) (%) (kN/m) (%)
0.5E 439.21 116% 71.259 152% 260.5 102%
0.75E 403.60 107% 55.556 119% 256.3 100%
1.0E 377.30 100% 46.818 100% 255.4 100%
1.5E 348.20 92% 37.725 81% 253.6 99%
2.0E 327.66 87% 32.639 70% 254.3 100%
Table A12. Sensitivity of Elastic Modulus for Clay Layers (Drained) in PLAXIS and SoilWorks.
Mmax Dmax Favg

CL (Drained) percentage change percentage change percentage change
0.5E 116% 124% 152% 173% 102% 104%
0.75E 107% 108% 119% 125% 100% 101%
1.0E 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1.5E 92% 89% 81% 74% 99% 99%
2.0E 87% 82% 70% 61% 100% 98%
29
Table A13. Recommended Simplified Geotechnical Parameters for Case Study 3.

Strata description N t effective stress effective stress
C Φ C' Φ’
Bottom depth of each layer Value kN/m 3 kN/m 2 ˚ kN/m 2 ˚
1. The backfill layer gradually
becomes yellow-brown sandy,
1～19 20.1 9.8 24 0 28
clayey sediment and muddy clay
Average thicknes 4.3m
2. Pebble gravel with
yellowish-brown argillaceous ＊＊
15～>50 22.1 －－
sand 4.9 38
3. Gray sandy, clayey mud
and muddy sand 7～50 20.0 4.9 26 0 31
4. Pebble gravel, with
yellowish-brown argillaceous
＊＊＊
sand >50 －－
Average thicknes 11.1m 22.1 9.8 40
(hole bottom)
Survey and Analysis Report of Land Parcels 21, 22, 22-1, 24, 24-1, 26, 26-1, 69, and 79, Fuxing Section, Xindian
City, Taipei County" by Chunlian Engineering [34].
Appendix B
(a) (b)
Figure A1. Sectional view of excavation support in (a) Case 1; (b) Case 2.
30
References
1. Hong, R.J. "Comprehensive Investigation and Study of Underground Geology and Engineering
Environment in Taipei Basin: Research on Stratigraphic Distribution." Central Geological Survey Report,
Report No. 83-009, 1994.
2. Liu, Z.L. "Seismic Microzonation Map of Taipei Basin." Master's thesis, National Central University,
Department of Civil Engineering, 1994.
3. Li, X.H. "Engineering Geological Zoning of Taipei City." Geotechnical Technology, 1996, Issue 54, 25-34.
4. Huang, C.Y. "Application of Neural Networks in Predicting Deformation of Deep Excavation Walls."
Master's thesis, National Taiwan Ocean University, Department of Harbor and River Engineering, 2002.
5. Chen, J.Q.; Ji, S.Y. Study on Characteristics and Deep Excavation Behavior of Soft Soil Layers (I): Research
on Analysis Program for Interaction between Deep Excavation Soil and Support. Chunghsing Engineering
Consulting Corporation 1996.
6. Ji, S.Y.; Chen, J.Q. Numerical Simulation of Time-Dependent Deep Excavation Construction. Proceedings
of the 7th Geotechnical Engineering Conference 1997, 609-615.
7. Tang, Y.G. Study on Soil Parameter Identification for Deep Excavation Analysis. Ph.D. dissertation,
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Institute of Construction Engineering Technology,
1998.
8. Xie, B.G.; Ou, Z.Y. Deep Excavation Analysis under Undrained Conditions Using a Pseudo-Plastic Model.
Journal of China Civil Engineering 2000, 12(4), 703-713.
9. He, Z.D. Deep Excavation Analysis in Soft Soil Layers. Master's thesis, National Taipei University of
Technology, Institute of Civil Engineering and Disaster Prevention, 2004.
10. Chen, C.G. Preliminary Study on Simulating the Behavior of Excavation and Support using RIDO and
PLAXIS Programs. Master's thesis, National Ilan University, Department of Civil Engineering, 2011.
11. Wang, K.; Li, W.; Sun, H.; Pan, X.; Diao, H.; Hu, B. Lateral Deformation Characteristics and Control
Methods of Foundation Pits Subjected to Asymmetric Loads. Symmetry 2021, 13, 476.
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13030476
12. Yazici, M.F. and Keskin, S.N. Optimum Design of Multi-anchored Larssen Type Sheet Pile Wall for
Temporary Construction Works. Geomechanics and Engineering 2021, 27 (1) , pp.1-11.
https://DOI10.12989/gae.2021.27.1.001
13. Hong, L.; Chen, L.; Wang, X. Reliability Analysis of Serviceability Limit State for Braced Excavation
Considering Multiple Failure Modes in Spatially Variable Soil. Buildings 2022, 12, 722.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12060722
14. Nguyen, B.P.; Ngo, C.P.; Tran, T.D.; et al. Finite Element Analysis of Deformation Behavior of Deep
Excavation Retained by Diagram Wall in Ho Chi Minh City. Indian Geotechnical Journal 2022, 52, 989-999.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-022-00611-5.
15. Bjerrum, L. "Observed Versus Computed Settlement of Structures on Clay and Sand." In Proceedings of the
Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., Cambridge, MA, USA, March 1964.
16. D'Appolonia, D.J. "Settlement of Spread Footing and Design." J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 1970, 94, SM3.
17. Shimons, N.E.; Menzies, B.K. "A Short Course in Foundation Engineering." Batterworth & Co.Ltd., 1977.
18. Bowles, J.E. Foundation Analysis and Design, 3rd Edition; Mc Graw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1982; pp.
1159-1177.
19. Li, W.F.; Lai, Y.R.; Liao, N.H. Two-Dimensional Numerical Analysis Method for Soil Nailing Reinforced
Slopes. Geotechnical Technology 2003, 98, 39-54.
20. Hsieh, H.S.; Cheng, J.S.; Tsai, Z.H.; Yang, M.C. Practical Considerations for Continuous Wall Design
Analysis. Geotechnical Technology 1996, 53, 35-44.
21. Zhang, J.Z.; Chen, K.Q. Assessment of Sensitivity of Design Parameters on Deep Excavation and Retaining
Wall. Geotechnical Technology 1999, 76, 17-24.
22. Qiu, Z.R. Study on Parameters of Deep Excavation in Sanchong-Luzhou Area. Master's thesis, National
Taipei University of Technology, Institute of Civil and Disaster Prevention, 2007.
23. Hong, R.J. Preliminary Study on Composite Soil Engineering Properties. Journal of Engineering, National
Taiwan University 1978, 23, 1-12.
24. Das, B. Fundamentals of Geotechnical Engineering, 3rd Edition; PWS: Boston, MA, USA, 1994; pp. 81-82.
25. PLAXIS BV. Plaxis version 8 manual, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2006.
31
26. Kenkul Engineering Co., Ltd. Completion Report of Foundation Construction Safety Observation for
Jianglinchun Phase 1 Building Project, 2005a.
27. Lin, C.M. Numerical Simulation of Excavation in Gravel Layers. Master's thesis, National Taiwan Ocean
University, Department of Harbor and River Engineering, 2011.
28. Chunglian Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd. Geological Investigation and Analysis Report for Land
Parcels 34 and 110, Dafeng Section, Xindian City, Taipei County, 2003.
29. Kenkul Engineering Co., Ltd. Completion Report of Foundation Construction Safety Observation for
Jianglinchun Phase 2 Building Project, 2006.
30. Kenkul Engineering Co., Ltd. Geological Investigation and Analysis Report for Land Parcels 62-1 and Seven
Others, Dafeng Section, Xindian City, Taipei County, 2005b.
31. Fan, C.Y. Finite Element Analysis of Mutual Effects of Adjacent Excavation Sites. Master's thesis, Feng Chia
University, 2005.
32. Guo, T.Y. Numerical Analysis Study of Deformation Behavior in Gravel Layer Tunnels. Master's thesis,
National Cheng Kung University, Department of Resources Engineering, 1999.
33. Hou, Z.A. Feedback Analysis of Excavation Procedure and Optimal Support Types in Cobble Gravel Layers.
Master's thesis, National Chung Hsing University, Department of Civil Engineering, 2001.
34. Chunglian Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd. Geological Investigation and Analysis Report for Land Lots
with Nine Parcel Numbers, Section 21, 22, 22-1, 24, 24-1, 26, 26-1, 69, and 79, Xindian District, Taipei
County,2006.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those
of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s)
disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or
products referred to in the content.

Establishment of Localized Utilization Parameters

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Establishment of Localized Utilization Parameters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article Not peer-reviewed version

Utilization Parameters for

Numerical Simulation Analysis

Applied to Deep Excavations

Posted Date: 21 July 2023

Preprints.org is a free multidiscipline platform providing preprint service that

is dedicated to making early versions of research outputs permanently

available and citable. Preprints posted at Preprints.org appear in Web of

Science, Crossref, Google Scholar, Scilit, Europe PMC.

medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1.1. Engineering Properties and Zoning of Taipei Basin Soils

© 2023 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

1.2. Literature Review on Finite Element Method

1.3. Introduction to Soil Elastic Modulus

E s / S u = ( 250 ~ 500 ) (1)

where Es is the elastic modulus, Su is the undrained shear strength.

Table 1. Input form of soil layer strength parameters in Case 1.

Soil Φ’ γunsat γsat Es

0.0~4.0 SF, ML, SM 5 0 30 19.3 19.5 15,000 0.33

Table 2. Input form of soil layer strength parameters in Case 2.

1.4. Literature Review on Sensitivity Analysis of Parameters

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Method and Procedure

Figure 1. Flowchart of the Research Process.

2.2. Research Materials

3. PLAXIS Numerical Simulation

3.1. Analysis Methods and Models

3.2. Case Analysis

3.2.1. Case Study 1

3.2.2. Case Study 2

3.2.3. Assumptions for Analysis

3.2.4. Determination of Strata and Structural Parameters

Table 3. Diaphragm Wall Strength Parameter Input Form of Case 1.

Table 4. Support parameter input form of Case 1.

Table 5. Diaphragm wall strength parameter input table for Case 2.

Table 6. Support parameter input form of Case 2.

3.2.5. Analysis Procedure

3.2.6. Feedback Analysis

3.2.7. Results and Discussion of the Case Studies

Displacement (cm) Displacement (cm)

-8.00 3ST H428

3.3. Discussion of the Findings

4. SoilWorks Numerical Simulation

4.1. Analysis Methods and Models

4.2. Sensitivity Analysis

4.2.1. Analysis Description

4.2.2. Assumed Cases

Figure 6. Case analysis model for Sandy soil layer simulation.

 Basic Case Description for Clay Soil Layer

Figure 7. Case analysis model for clay layer simulation.

4.2.3. Parameter Range

4.2.4. Analysis Results

 Sensitivity Analysis of Friction Angle

Table 7. Sensitivity Analysis Results of Friction Angle for Sandy Layers.

percentage percentage percentage

Mmax Dmax Favg

percentage percentage percentage

Mmax Dmax Favg

(2) Clay Layer (Undrained Condition)

(3) Clay Layer (Drained Condition)

4.3. Case Study

c' Φ’  unsat  sat ES

Figure 18. SoilWorks simulation analysis model of Case 1.