Numerical Investigation of Seismic Soil–Structure–Excavation Interaction in Sand

  1. Tarek N. Salem
  2. Mahmoud S. Elmahdy
  3. Dušan Katunský
  4. Erika Dolníková
  5. Ahmed Abu El Ela

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The dynamic loads affecting earth-retaining structures may increase in seismically active regions. Therefore, studying the soil–structure interaction among the soil, shoring systems, and adjacent structures is crucial. However, there is limited research on this important topic. This study investigates the seismic performance of a deep braced excavation and a nearby 10-story building in sandy soil formation. The main focus of this study is the consideration of the influence of varying foundation depths of adjacent structures on the seismic response of the shoring system and the performance of the shoring system and adjacent structure under different earthquake records. PLAXIS 2D software (Version 22.02) was used to carry out the numerical analysis. Sandy soil was modeled using the Hardening Soil with small-strain stiffness model (HS-small). Back analysis of observation data extracted from a real case study of a deep braced excavation in the central district of Kaohsiung City, adjacent to the O7 Station on the Orange Line of the Kaohsiung MRT system in Taiwan, was used to validate the numerical analysis. Beyond model validation, a parametric study was conducted to address the effect of the foundation level of the building adjacent to the excavation on both the seismic behavior of the shoring system and the structure itself, using the Loma-Prieta (1989) earthquake record. The parametric study was further extended to assess the responses of the shoring system and the adjacent structure under the influence of the earthquake records of Loma-Prieta (1989), Northridge (1994), and El-Centro (1940). The results show that the maximum lateral displacement of the diaphragm wall occurred at the top of the wall in all studied cases. The maximum dynamic bending moment in the retaining structure was more than three times the static one on average. In contrast, the dynamic shear force was more than 2.85 times the static one on average. In addition, the dynamic axial force of the first and second struts was 1.38 and 3.17 times the static forces, respectively. The results also reveal large differences in the behavior of the shoring system and the adjacent structure between the different earthquake records.

Article activity feed

  1. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/21784663.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Yes The introduction explains the objective in its final paragraph by stating that the study investigates the seismic behavior of a deep-braced excavation in sand while considering its interaction with a nearby building. It also explains that the effects of the building foundation level and different earthquake records are examined through changes in wall displacement, ground settlement, wall forces, strut forces, and building displacement.
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Somewhat appropriate The methods are generally appropriate, but inconsistent damping values, limited dynamic validation, and unscaled earthquake records reduce confidence in some results.
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Somewhat supported Most conclusions reflect the trends and numerical results presented in the figures and tables. However, some averaged values appear inconsistent with the reported results, and a few explanations, such as possible resonance, are suggested without enough supporting analysis. For example, Conclusion 2 states that the dynamic bending moment increased by an average of 3.32 times, but Figure 15 reports ratios of 4.29, 2.74, and 3.34, whose average is approximately 3.46. Similarly, the reported shear-force ratios average about 2.91, not 2.85. The averaging method should therefore be checked or explained.
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Somewhat inappropriate or unclear The figures generally show the main trends, but several presentation issues make them harder to interpret. For example, many figure references appear as "Error! Reference source not found," some figure numbers are repeated or inconsistent, and several plots have small labels, crowded legends, or unclear captions. The results can still be understood, but the visual presentation needs careful revision.
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Somewhat clearly The authors explain the main trends and compare the effects of foundation depth and different earthquake records. However, some interpretations, such as possible resonance, are not fully supported, and the paper does not clearly discuss limitations or future research steps.
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Moderately likely The study adds useful numerical evidence on seismic interaction between a deep excavation, its bracing system, and a nearby building, especially regarding foundation depth and earthquake-record effects. However, the contribution is limited by the narrow parametric range, lack of dynamic validation, and several modeling and reporting uncertainties.
    Would it benefit from language editing? Yes The paper contains frequent grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, spelling mistakes, and inconsistent terminology that sometimes make the meaning unclear.
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, but it needs to be improved
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? No, it needs a major revision The study has potential, but the inconsistent damping values, limited dynamic validation, unclear methodological details, broken figure references, numerical inconsistencies, and frequent language problems should be addressed before it is suitable for publication or a broader audience.

    Competing interests

    The author declares that they have no competing interests.

    Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

    The author declares that they used generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.

  2. Version published to 10.3390/buildings15203732
  3. Version published to 10.20944/preprints202509.1162.v1