Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ground movements induced by installation of twin large diameter deeply-buried caissons: 3D numerical modeling

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Acta Geotechnica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The assessment and control of ground movements during the installation of large diameter deeply-buried (LDDB) caissons are critically important to maintain the stability of surrounding infrastructures. However, for twin LDDB caissons which have been installed worldwide, no well-documented guidelines for assessing the induced ground movements are available due to the complexities of caisson–soil interaction. To this end, considering the mechanical boundaries of caissons and mechanized installation process, this paper presents a simple kinematic mechanical model balancing both computational cost and accuracy, which can be easily incorporated in commercial finite-element (FE) programs. Based on a project of twin LDDB caissons alternately installed employing a newly developed installation technology in wet ground with stiff clays in Zhenjiang, China, a three-dimensional (3D) numerical model is developed to capture the ground movements in terms of surface settlements and radial displacements induced by the installation of twin LDDB caissons. Moreover, hardening soil model with small-strain stiffness (HSSmall model) conceptually capable of capturing the nonlinear soil stiffness from very small to large strain levels is used to simulate undrained ground. The validations against field observations, empirical predictions and centrifuge test data are carried out to demonstrate the accuracy and validity of the developed FE model. Subsequently, the comparisons of ground movements numerically obtained in three frequently used installation schemes (i.e., synchronous, asynchronous and alternating installation) are conducted for installation sequence optimization of twin caissons. It is found that synchronous installation is the optimal scheme for limiting ground movements. Parametric studies considering the effects of horizontal spacing between twin caissons, staged penetration depth, inner diameter, controllable soil-plugging height, frictional coefficient between caisson–soil interface, as well as cutting edge gradient are thus performed in synchronous installation scheme. Based on an artificial data set generated through FE calculation, the multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS) model capable of accurately capturing the nonlinear relationships between a set of input variables and output variables in multi-dimensions is used to analyze the sensitivity of caisson design parameters. Finally, the MARS mathematical equations for predicting the maximum surface settlement and radial displacement used in preliminary caisson design are proposed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

\(A_{1}\) :

Contact area of leading edge and base soils

\(A_{2}\) :

Contact area of shaft lining and surrounding soils

\(D_{{{\text{in}}}}\) :

Inner and external diameter of open caisson

H :

Shaft depth (total penetration depth)

\(h_{{\mathrm{p}}}\) :

Staged penetration depth

\(h_{{\mathrm{s}}}\) :

Controllable soil-plugging height

\(n\) :

Cutting edge gradient

\(S\) :

Horizontal spacing between twin caissons

γ :

Unit weight

ω :

Water content

\(\omega_{{\text{L}}}\) :

Liquid limit

\(\omega_{{\text{P}}}\) :

Plastic limit

\(c_{{\text{u}}}\) :

Cohesion

\(S_{{\text{u}}}\) :

Undrained shear strength

\(\phi_{{\text{u}}}\) :

Friction angle

e :

Void ratio

\(E_{0.1{-}0.2}\) :

Constrained modulus

\(K_{{\text{h}}} ,K_{{\text{v}}}\) :

Horizontal and vertical permeability coefficients

\(N_{63.5}\) :

SPT below counts

\(q_{{\text{c}}}\) :

Cone resistance of CPT

\(f_{{\text{s}}}\) :

Sleeve resistance of CPT

\(W\) :

Self-weight of caisson shaft

\(Q\) :

End bearing on cutting edge

\(q_{{\text{u}}}\) :

Unit end bearing on cutting edge

\(F\) :

Total penetration resistance

\(f_{{\text{s}}}\) :

Unit skin friction

\(J\) :

Total jacking force

\(j\) :

Jacking force provided by a jack

\(U\) :

Total buoyancy

\(N_{\gamma } ,N_{q} ,\,{\text{and}}\,N_{{\text{c}}}\) :

Bearing capacity factors related to unit weight, surcharge and cohesion

\(G\) :

Shear modulus

\(G_{0}\) :

Maximum shear modulus at a very small strain

\(\varepsilon\) :

Shear strain

\(\varepsilon_{0}\) :

Maximum shear strain

\(\tau_{\max }\) :

Maximum shear stress at failure

\(G_{0}^{{{\text{ref}}}}\) :

Reference shear modulus at very small strains

\(\gamma_{0.7}\) :

Shear strain at which \(G/G_{0} = 0.7\)

\(c^{\prime}\) :

Effective cohesion

\(\phi^{\prime}\) :

Effective frictional angle

\(E_{0}\) :

Young's modulus

\(E_{50}^{\prime{\text{ref}}}\) :

Reference secant stiffness in standard drained triaxial test

\(E_{{\text{oed}}}^{\prime{\text{ref}}}\) :

Reference tangent stiffness for primary oedometer loading

\(E_{{\text{ur}}}^{\prime{\text{ref}}}\) :

Reference unloading/reloading stiffness at engineering strains

\(\nu_{{\text{ur}}}\) :

Poisson ratio

\(m\) :

Power for the stress-level dependency of stiffness

\(p^{{\text{ref}}}\) :

Reference stress for stiffness

\(R_{{\text{f}}}\) :

Failure ratio

\(\gamma^{\prime}\) :

Effective unit weight

\(K_{0}^{{\text{nc}}}\) :

\(K_{0}\) value for normal consolidation

\(u\) :

Frictional coefficient of caisson–soil interfaces

\(\delta_{{\text{r}}}\) :

Radial displacements of surrounding soils

\(\delta_{{\text{v}}}\) :

Ground surface settlement

\(z\) :

Buried depth of soils

\(x\) :

Radial distance to caisson shaft

\(\delta_{r,\max } ,\delta_{v,\max }\) :

Maximum radial displacement and surface settlement

\(f(x)\) :

Optimal equation in MARS model

\(\beta_{0}\) :

Constant in MARS mathematical equation

\(M\) :

Number of basic functions

\(\lambda_{m}\) :

mth basic function

\(\beta_{m}\) :

Coefficient of \(\lambda_{m}\)

References

  1. Abaqus (2017) Abaqus 2017 documentation, SIMULA, Dassault Systemès

  2. Abdrabbo F, Gaaver K (2012) Challenges and uncertainties relating to open caissons. DFI J J Deep Found Inst 6(1):21–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Abdrabbo FM, Gaaver KE (2012) Applications of the observational method in deep foundations. Alex Eng J 51(4):269–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Allenby D, Kilburn D (2015) Overview of underpinning and caisson shaft-sinking techniques. Proc ICE Geotech Eng 168(1):3–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Allenby D, Waley G, Kilburn D (2009) Examples of open caisson sinking in Scotland. Proc ICE Geotech Eng 162(1):59–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Belous NP (1968) Deformation of soils and settlement of reference points at the zone where a caisson is sunk. Soil Mech Found Eng 5(5):359–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Benz T (2006) Small-strain stiffness of soils and its numerical consequences. University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brinkgreve RBJ, Broere W, Waterman D (2017) PLAXIS version 2017 Manual. The Netherlands

  9. Burland JB (1989) Ninth Laurits Bjerrum memorial lecture: “small is beautiful”—the stiffness of soils at small strains. Can Geotech J 26(4):499–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Calvello M, Finno RJ (2004) Selecting parameters to optimize in model calibration by inverse analysis. Comput Geotech 31(5):410–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen F, Miao G, Lai F (2020) Base instability triggered by hydraulic uplift of pit-in-pit braced excavations in soft clay overlying a confined aquifer. KSCE J Civ Eng 24(6):1717–1730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fargnoli V, Boldini D, Amorosi A (2015) Twin tunnel excavation in coarse grained soils: observations and numerical back-predictions under free field conditions and in presence of a surface structure. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 49:454–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Faustin NE, Elshafie MZEB, Mair RJ (2018) Case studies of circular shaft construction in London. Proc ICE Geotech Eng 171(5):391–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fischer GR, Gerszewski WL, Barchok FJ, Yavarow MK (2004) Deep caisson sinking in soft soils, grand forks, north dakota. In: 5th international conference on case histories in geotechnical engineering. Missouri University of Science and Technology, New York

  15. Georgiannou VN, Serafis A, Pavlopoulou E-M (2017) Analysis of a vertical segmental shaft using 2D & 3D finite element codes. Int J Geomate 13(36):138–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Grabe J, Heins E (2016) Coupled deformation–seepage analysis of dynamic capacity tests on open-ended piles in saturated sand. Acta Geotech 12(1):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hamann T, Gang Q, Grabe J (2015) Application of a coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian approach on pile installation problems under partially drained conditions. Comput Geotech 63:279–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hardin BO, Drnevich VP (1972) Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations and curves. Geotech Spec Publ 98(118):667–692

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ho CE (2002) Settlement performance of large diameter friction caissons in bouldery clay. In: Deep found 2002: int perspect theory, des, constr perform., pp 525–541

  20. Hoffman J, Roboski J, Finno RJ (2004) Ground movements caused by caisson installation at the Lurie Excavation project. In: Geotech Eng Transport Proj, California, United States. ASCE, pp 1280–1289

  21. Irini D-M, Daniel D, Ngoc-Anh Do, Pierpaolo O (2014) Three-dimensional numerical simulation of a mechanized twin tunnels in soft ground. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 42:40–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jamsawang P, Jamnam S, Jongpradist P, Tanseng P, Horpibulsuk S (2017) Numerical analysis of lateral movements and strut forces in deep cement mixing walls with top-down construction in soft clay. Comput Geotech 88:174–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jardine RJ (1986) Studies of the influence of non linear stress–strain characteristics in soil–structure interaction. Géotechnique 36(3):377–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jiang B-N, Ma J-L, Chu J-L (2019) The Influence of soil surrounding the caisson cutting edge to excavation and sinking. In: IACGE 2018: geotech seism research pract sustainability, Chongqing, China, vol 435–448. ASCE, New York

  25. Jiang B-N, Wang M-T, Chen T, Zhang L-L, Ma J-L (2019) Experimental study on the migration regularity of sand outside a large, deep-water, open caisson during sinking. Ocean Eng 193:106601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ko J, Jeong S, Lee JK (2016) Large deformation FE analysis of driven steel pipe piles with soil plugging. Comput Geotech 71:82–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kung GT-C, Ou C-Y, Juang CH (2009) Modeling small-strain behavior of Taipei clays for finite element analysis of braced excavations. Comput Geotech 36(1–2):304–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lai F, Liu S, Deng Y, Sun Y (2020) Mechanical behaviors and geo-environmental effects due to the installation of giant deep-buried open caissons: state of the art. J Basic Sci Eng 28(3):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lai F, Liu S, Deng Y, Sun Y, Wu K, Liu H (2020) Numerical investigations of the installation process of giant deep-buried circular open caissons in undrained clay. Comput Geotech 118:103322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Le BT, Goodey RJ, Divall S (2019) Subsurface ground movements due to circular shaft construction. Soils Found 59(5):1160–1171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Likitlersuang S, Surarak C, Wanatowski D, Oh E, Balasubramaniam A (2013) Finite element analysis of a deep excavation: a case study from the Bangkok MRT. Soils Found 53(5):756–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lim A, Hsieh PG, Ou CY (2016) Evaluation of buttress wall shapes to limit movements induced by deep excavation. Comput Geotech 78:155–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lim A, Ou C-Y, Hsieh P-G (2018) Investigation of the integrated retaining system to limit deformations induced by deep excavation. Acta Geotech 13(4):973–999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lim YX, Tan SA, Phoon K-K (2018) Application of press-replace method to simulate undrained cone penetration. Int J Geomech 18(7):04018066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mohurd (2011) Code for design of building foundation. China Architecture & Building Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  36. Morrison P, McNamara A, Roberts T (2004) Design and construction of a deep shaft for Crossrail. Proc ICE Geotech Eng 157(4):173–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Muramatsu M, Abe Y (1996) Considerations in shaft excavation and peripheral ground deformation. In: Geotech aspects undergr constr soft ground, pp 173–178

  38. New BM (2017) Settlements due to shaft construction. In: Tunn Tunn Int, pp 16–17

  39. New BM, Bowers KH (1994) Ground movement model validation at the Heathrow Express trial tunnel. Springer, US

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. Newman T, Wong H-Y (2011) Sinking a jacked caisson within the London Basin geological sequence for the Thames Water Ring Main extension. Q J Eng Geol Hydroge 44(2):221–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Nonveiller E (1987) Open caissons for deep foundations. J Geotech Eng 113(5):424–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Osman AS, Bolton MD (2006) Ground movement predictions for braced excavations in undrained clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(4):465–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Peng F-L, Wang H-L, Tan Y, Xu Z-L, Li Y-L (2011) Field measurements and finite-element method simulation of a tunnel shaft constructed by pneumatic caisson method in Shanghai soft ground. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137(5):516–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Phutthananon C, Jongpradist P, Yensri P, Jamsawang P (2018) Dependence of ultimate bearing capacity and failure behavior of T-shaped deep cement mixing piles on enlarged cap shape and pile strength. Comput Geotech 97:27–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Plaxis (2017) Plaxis 3D user’s manual. Plaxis bv, Delft

  46. Royston R (2018) Investigation of soil–structure interaction for large diameter caissons. University of Oxford, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  47. Royston R, Sheil B, Byrne W (2020) Monitoring the construction of a large-diameter caisson in sand. Proc ICE Geotech Eng 2020:1–17

  48. Schwamb T (2014) Performance monitoring and numerical modelling of a deep circular excavation. University of Cambridge, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  49. Schwamb T, Elshafie MZEB, Soga K, Mair RJ (2016) Considerations for monitoring of deep circular excavations. Proc ICE Geotech Eng 169(GE6):1–17

    Google Scholar 

  50. Schwamb T, Soga K (2015) Numerical modelling of a deep circular excavation at Abbey Mills in London. Géotechnique 65(7):604–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Soomro M, Ng C, Liu K, Memon N (2017) Pile responses to side-by-side twin tunnelling in stiff clay: effects of different tunnel depths relative to pile. Comput Geotech 84:101–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Sun Y, Shen S, Xu Z, Xia X (2014) Prediction of lateral displacement of soil behind the reaction wall caused by pipe jacking operation. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 40:210–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sun Y, Su J, Xia X, Xu Z (2015) Numerical analysis of soil deformation behind the reaction wall of an open caisson induced by horizontal parallel pipe-jacking construction. Can Geotech J 52(12):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sun Y, Su J-b, Xia X-h, Xu Z-l (2015) Numerical analysis of soil deformation behind the reaction wall of an open caisson induced by horizontal parallel pipe-jacking construction. Can Geotech J 52(12):2008–2016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Terzaghi K (1943) Theoretical soil mechanics. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  56. Terzaghi K, Peck RB (1967) Soil mechanics in engineering practice. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  57. Tho KK, Leung CF, Chow YK, Swaddiwudhipong S (2013) Eulerian finite element simulation of spudcan–pile interaction. Can Geotech J 50(6):595–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Voottipruex P, Jamsawang P, Sukontasukkul P, Jongpradist P, Chindaprasirt P (2019) Performances of SDCM and DCM walls under deep excavation in soft clay: field tests and 3D simulations. Soils Found 59:1728–1739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Wang D, Bienen B, Nazem M, Tian Y, Zheng J, Pucker T, Randolph MF (2015) Large deformation finite element analyses in geotechnical engineering. Comput Geotech 65:104–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Wang HL, Peng FL, Tan Y (2011) Site monitoring and development of real-time monitoring program for new pneumatic caisson construction. In: Geo-Front Congr 2011: Adv Geotech Eng, pp 182–191

  61. Wharmby N, Kiernan B, Duffy L, Puller D (2011) Stormwater tank construction at Blackpool. In: Proceedings of the conference on underground construction, pp 1–12

  62. Wong R, Kaiser P (1988) Behaviour of vertical shafts: reevaluation of model test results and evaluation of field measurements. Can Geotech J 25(2):338–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Yao Q, Yang X, Li H (2014) Construction technology of open caisson for oversize surge shaft in drift gravel stratum. Electr J Geotech Eng 19:5725–5738

    Google Scholar 

  64. Zakhem A-M, Naggar HE (2019) Effect of the constitutive material model employed on predictions of the behaviour of earth pressure balance (EPB) shield-driven tunnels. Transp Geotech 21:100264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Zhang W (2019) MARS applications in geotechnical engineering systems. Springer, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  66. Zhang N, Arroyo M, Ciantia MO, Gens A, Butlanska J (2019) Standard penetration testing in a virtual calibration chamber. Comput Geotech 111(3):277–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Zhang WG, Goh ATC (2013) Multivariate adaptive regression splines for analysis of geotechnical engineering systems. Comput Geotech 48:82–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Zhang W, Goh ATC (2015) Nonlinear structural modeling using multivariate adaptive regression splines. Comput Concr 16(4):569–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Zhang W, Goh ATC, Xuan F (2015) A simple prediction model for wall deflection caused by braced excavation in clays. Comput Geotech 63:67–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Zhang W, Zhang Y, Goh ATC (2017) Multivariate adaptive regression splines for inverse analysis of soil and wall properties in braced excavation. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 64:24–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Zhang W, Zhang R, Goh ATC (2018) MARS inverse analysis of soil and wall properties for braced excavations in clays. Geomech Eng 16(6):577–588

    Google Scholar 

  72. Zhao G, Meng S, Guan C, Yang Y (2019) Test study on the stress and deformation behaviors of a shaft supported by a prefabricated prestressed structure. Appl Sci 9(4):629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Zheng G, Yang X, Zhou H, Du Y, Sun J (2018) A simplified prediction method for evaluating tunnel displacement induced by laterally adjacent excavations. Comput Geotech 95:119–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Zheng G, Yang P, Zhou H, Zeng C, Yanf X, He X, Yu X (2019) Evaluation of the earthquake induced uplift displacement of tunnels using multivariate adaptive regression splines. Comput Geotech 113:103099

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is supported from the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2016YFC0800201), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41972269), Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (Grant No. 2242019), Postgraduate Research and Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province (Grant No. KYCX20_0118) and Scientific Research Foundation of Graduate School of Southeast University (Grant No. YBPY2041). The authors are grateful to Mr. Yingwu Xu (Engineer of Shanghai Foundation Engineering Group Co., Ltd.) for his help in providing the construction information regarding Dagang waterworks project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Southeast University, SEU Avenue No. 2, Jiangning District, Nanjing, 211189, China

    Fengwen Lai, Songyu Liu & Yanxiao Sun

  2. Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Mies-van-der-Rohe-Str. 1, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    Ningning Zhang

  3. Shanghai Foundation Engineering Group Co., Ltd., Shanghai, 200002, China

    Yaoliang Li

Authors
  1. Fengwen Lai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ningning Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Songyu Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yanxiao Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yaoliang Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Songyu Liu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lai, F., Zhang, N., Liu, S. et al. Ground movements induced by installation of twin large diameter deeply-buried caissons: 3D numerical modeling. Acta Geotech. 16, 2933–2961 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-021-01165-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-021-01165-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation