Indian Geotechnical Journal, 41(1), 2011, 48-53

Excavation Induced Building Response by

Laminate Beam Method
Kingshuk Dan1 and Ramendu Bikas Sahu2

Key words Abstract: Prediction of building damage or cracking due to ground settlement during braced
Cracking of building, Differential excavation is important in urban areas. Reasonably good amount of work on numerical analysis
settlement, Strain energy of and empirical methods on the prediction of building damage potential have been reported in the
shear, Laminate beam, literature. However, theoretical studies or mathematical modeling have not been well addressed in
Permissible deflection ratio, the literature. Here laminate beam method, as available in the literature for estimating building
response induced by excavation, is modified using strain energy concept. Building is considered as
Angular distortion, Case study
simply supported beam with load concentrated at centre of the beam. A deformation profile of the
ground surface near excavation is generated which is hogging type in nature. Two equations
relating bending and shear stiffness of a building to critical deflection ratio are derived. Deflection
of beam due to shear is calculated by using the strain energy of shear. Conventionally deflection
due to shear is calculated considering deflection curve of beam where it is assumed that the beam
is free to warp everywhere. This may not be valid for neighbourhood of plane middle section. But in
strain energy approach such assumptions are not required. The proposed method is used to
estimate the response of three multi-storied buildings adjacent to northern stretches of Kolkata
Metro Construction.

and related limiting deflection ratio with bending strain

at the top and bottom of the beam. Voss (2003) and
Introduction Finno et. al. (2005) used a complimentary virtual work
approach to determine the strain deflection relationship
Building damage adjacent to any kind of of a laminate beam in terms of bending strain to
excavation (Figure 1) is a major design consideration in deflection ratio (/L) and shear strain to deflection ratio
urban areas. In spite of support system, excavation (/L). In this method deflection due to shear stress is
leads to some ground movements and any building derived considering general deflection curve assuming
within the zone of influence is likely to be affected. It is that all cross sections are free to warp. But from the
hence necessary to predict building damage for condition of symmetry, middle section must remain
preventing any adverse effect due to excavation induced plane while adjacent sections carrying a shear force
ground movement. A number of methods are used for P/2. From continuity of deformation the abrupt change
calculating building damage potential associated with from plain middle section to warped adjacent section is
ground movement. Most of these methods consist of unlikely (Timoshenko and Young, 1968). From this
estimating critical differential settlement of a structure consideration neighbourhoods of the plane middle
due to self weight (Skempton and McDonald, 1956; section cannot be free to warp and so the normal stress
Polshin and Tolkar, 1957). Burland and Wroth (1975) distribution at plane middle section cannot be predicted
proposed deep beam method and modeled a building as by elementary beam theory.
a deep isotropic beam to relate strains in the building to
imposed deformations. Boscardin and Cording (1989)
extended the deep beam model and considered
horizontal extension strains (εh) for buildings with load-
bearing brick walls caused by lateral ground movements Ground surface
Excavation side
due to adjacent excavation and tunnelling. Boone sediment profile
(1996) presented another approach to evaluate building Building resting on
damage due to differential ground movement caused by zone of influence
adjacent excavation considering structure geometry & Wall deflection pattern
design, strain superposition and the critical strains of
building materials. Voss (2002) extended Burland and
Wroth (1975) equation assuming building as a simply Fig. 1 Building Resting on Deformed Profile
supported beam with load concentrated at mid point Adjacent to the Excavation

1 Research Scholar, Civil Engineering Department, Jadavpur University, Kolkata – 700032

2 Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Jadavpur University, Kolkata – 700032, Email: [email protected]
 49
Excavation Induced Building Response by Laminate Beam Method
Kingshuk Dan and Ramendu Bikas Sahu

In this paper, permissible deflection ratio of a In laminate beam method, building is considered
building lying within the influence zone of a braced as a beam with unit thickness. EI/GAV is considered as
excavation is estimated using laminate beam method parameter to account for the variation in bending and
considering ground movement profile suggested by Peck shear stiffness of structure. Here, deformation due to
(1969) for large wall movements. Deflection due to bending is proportional to the bending stiffness EI,
shear is calculated by the strain energy of shear which where ‘I’ is the moment of inertia of the beam while that
does not require the above mentioned assumptions. The due to shear is proportional to the shear modulus times
calculated deflection ratio is compared with the reported the area contributing to shear resistance GAV.
case studies for three buildings (Som, 2000) subjected
to angular distortion due to excavation during Kolkata In the buildings with large area of floors or slabs
Metro Construction. provides resistance against in plane deformation or
bending deformation and load bearing wall or column
provide shear transfer from floor to wall.
General Considerations
Any structure or building located on the ground Derivation of Deflection Ratio
surface adjacent to an excavation is tilted following the
deformed profile of the ground. But this tilt of building Deflection Ratio in terms of Bending Strain
has two components. These are rigid body rotation and
differential settlement. Rigid body rotation of the Considering building as a simply supported beam
structure causes no stress or strain in the building. So, with concentrated load at mid section (Figure 3), then
the cracks in the building may develop only due to PL3
differential settlement. For single mode of deformation maximum deflection (at centre) is 1 
(Figure 2(a)) slope of the deformed profile is same as 48EI
the rigid body rotation. But if a settlement profile is such
that a building experiences multiple mode of
deformation (Figure 2(b)), then slope of each mode is P
not equal to rigid body rotation and additional shearing
strain may arise.

The permissible deflection ratio is expressed in L/2 C L/2

terms of critical bending and shear strain. This critical
bending strain or shear strain varies from one material P/2 P/2
to another. It mainly depends on the material properties.
Boone (1996) summarized the critical strain that causes P
failure in common building materials.

P/2
P/2
S= 

+ve
-ve P/2
Fig. 2(a) Settlement Profile of Ground Surface
with Single Mode of Deformation
Shear Force Diagram
Sag Hog

PL/4

 add(hog) 
S(hog)
 add(sag)

S(sag)
Bending Moment Diagram

Fig. 3 Deflection, Shear Force & Bending Moment

Fig. 2(b) Settlement Profile of Ground Surface Diagram of a Simply Supported Beam
with Two Mode of Deformation with Concentrated Load at Middle
50
Indian Geotechnical Journal 41(2), 2011

2
From elementary theory of bending for the cross contributing the shear resistance = A . So, total
section at mid span bending stress () will be 3
deflection ratio,
PL h
  (For rectangular beam neutral axis is at mid
4 2I  1 2 L 0.8EI
section)    b  b (6)
L L L 12 h GAV L h
1 L
 b (1) Deflection Ratio in Terms of Shear Strain
L 12 h

where, λh = Distance of neutral axis from bottom and From the pure bending consideration, deflection
equal to h/2 for beam with rectangular cross section  PL2
at centre 1  . Now at the centre shear force is
Now, additional deflection occurs due to shear L 48EI
stress where there is non- uniform bending. These shear V= P/2 or,
stresses are not uniformly distributed for a beam with
rectangular cross-section. Slope of the deflection curve 1 VL2 L2GAV
   (7)
due to shear at any cross section is equal to shear strain L 24EI 24EI
 at neutral axis. If 2 is deflection due to shear then,
For the multi-storied building if i is the shear
d 2  max kV x strain at each storey and  is the total shear strain of
  (2) building then, for each storey
dx G G

But, here shear deformation is calculated by 1 L2GAV L2 (G A v ) i

   i (8)
using the strain energy of shear as mentioned earlier. L 24EI 2 4 E I (V i / V )
The shear force at any section of beam is P/2,
where, P is the concentrated load at the centre of the Additional deflection due to shear force
beam (Figure 3). Shear stress at any element situated at
VQ 2 PL2 1.2h2E V
the distance ‘y’ from neutral surface is   , where Q   2  (9)
Ib L 48EI LG 2.5GAV
is the static moment at that section. Now,
For multi-storied building additional deflection
V  h2  (G A v ) i
     y2  (3) ratio for shear of each storey is  i
2I  4  2 .5 ( V i / V ) G A v

Total strain energy in the entire beam is obtained So, total deflection ratio due to combined
by integrating strain energy of any element, bending and shear for each storey

P 2Lh2  1 2 L2 (G Av ) i ( G Av ) i
U (For beam of unit thickness, b=1)    i   i (10)
80GI L L L 2 4 E I (Vi / V ) 2 .5(Vi / V )G Av

Equating the total strain energy to the work done,

P2/2, Parameters Estimation

PLh2 In laminate beam method parameters are

2  (4) estimated using the procedure given by Finno et al
40GI
(2005) and Voss (2003). First, the distance of the
neutral axis (Figure 4) from the bottom of the building
PL3 1.2h2E
Now, it can be written as  2   2 (h) is estimated and then moment of inertia of whole
48EI LG laminate beam is calculated. The moment of inertia of
0.2 AE each floor slab about its centroidal axis is ignored
   b and as the thickness of the beam is unit
G because thickness of each floor is small compared to
so h = A, overall height of building. If the building is considered as
beam the equivalent shear stiffness,
0.2EI 0.8EI
2   b  b (5) V VH 1
Gr 2 GAV  h G AV    n
(11)
 n
Vi y i 1
where, I= Ar2 and r = radius of gyration, Av= Area   iyi 
i0 V h (G A v ) i
i1
 51
Excavation Induced Building Response by Laminate Beam Method
Kingshuk Dan and Ramendu Bikas Sahu

An Hogging
GAvn yn
An-1

An-2 C D
A B
y n-2 
An-3
Neutral Axis hn SAD
Location h n-1
A2
GAv2 y2 h n-2
h LAD
A1 h2
GAv1 y 1 h 1
Fig. 5 Deflection Quantities for a
A0
Hogging Type Deflection Curve
Fig. 4 Neutral Axis Location for a
Multi- Storied Building
Comparison with Case Study
Now these parameters are used to calculate the
critical deflection ratio of a building. The minimum value Deflection ratio is calculated for three buildings
of /L as obtained from the equations (1) and (2) is the of the northern stretches of Kolkata Metro Excavation.
permissible deflection ratio and if the actual deflection These buildings are 161, C. R. Avenue, 164, C.R. Avenue
ratio of the building is more than the permissible value, and 180A, C.R. Avenue. Details of the buildings are
then cracks may develop in the building. given in Table 1. Cross-sectional views of three buildings
modeled as laminate beam are shown in Figure 6.
Here ground surface deflection profile (Figure 5)
is hogging type in nature as given by Peck (1969) for Taking a section of building the permissible
large wall movements of the braced excavation. Any deflection ratio for combined bending and shear are
structure which is situated on this surface is deformed calculated considering the critical strain given below.
following the ground surface. The actual deflection ratio
of a building is calculated by dividing the maximum Critical bending strain is taken as 0.067%
deviation of the deformed profile from the straight line (Burland and Wroth, 1975) and Critical shear strain is
joining two extreme points of the building by its length. taken as 0.15% (Boone, 1996).

Table 1 Deflection Ratio in terms of Bending and Shear Strain

Building 161, C.R. Avenue 164, C.R. Avenue 180A, C.R. Avenue
Ai (m²) 0.90 0.90 0.75
hi (m) 3.5 3.5 3.5
h (m) 10.50 10.50 8.75
n 6 5 5
 0.5 0.5 0.5
Ibuilding (m4) 308.7 192.9 160.8
Iwall (m4) 1.786 1.786 1.786
(GAV)wall (kN) 0.93×106 0.586×106 7.382×106
(GAV)I (kN) 0.65×106 0.41×106 5.167×106
GAV (kN) 3.9×106 2.064×106 25.796×106
EI/GAV (m2) 1963.0 2318.2 154.6
/L(in terms of bending) 6×10–3 2.26×10–3 1.608×10–3
/L(in terms of shear) 3.994×10–3 3.2454×10–3 3.2975×10–3
/L(permissible) 3.994×10–3 2.26×10–3 1.608×10–3
/L(observed) 3.69 × 10–4 1.174 × 10–3 6 × 10–5
52
Indian Geotechnical Journal 41(2), 2011

 
6.0m
6m
0.15m
0.15m
 
3.5m
3.5m 5.0m
5m 6.0m
6m
0.15m
0.15m
0.15m
0.15m

3.5m
3.5m 3.5m
3.5m 3.5m
3.5m

0.5m 0.5m 3.5m

3.5m
3.5m 0.50m 3.5m
3.5m 0.50m 3.5m

3.5m
3.5m 3.5m
3.5m 3.5m
3.5m

3.5m
3.5m 3.5m
3.5m 3.5m
3.5m

3.5m
3.5m 3.5m
3.5m 3.5m
3.5m

GFG.F G.F
GF GFG.F
ction of 161,C.R.Avenue
Section of 161 Section of 180A,C.R.Avenue
Section of 180 Section of
Section 164,C.R.Avenue
of 164
C.R. Avenue C.R. Avenue C.R. Avenue

Fig. 6 Cross Sectional View of three Buildings Modeled as Laminate Beam

14
12
10
8
The permissible deflection ratio is nearly 1/300
/(Lb)

6 Strain energy
which is the well accepted permissible value for a approach
concrete building (McDonald and Skempton (1955)). 4
Conventional
2 approach
Discussion 0
0 0.5 1 1.5
The permissible values of deflection ratio given in L/H
Table 1 for three buildings at Northern Stretches of (a) Deflection Ratio in terms of Bending Strain
Kolkata Metro Construction are compared with the
actual deflection ratio obtained from deformation profile
of observed data. Now, comparing the actual values with 3.5
the permissible deflection ratio given in Table 1 it can be
said that the buildings were safe in both bending and 3
shear during excavation. Further, it may be noted that
2.5
the observed values of deflection ratio for those three
buildings are well within the permissible limits. 2
/(L)

1.5
Relationship between Critical Deflection Ratio Strain energy
and L/H of the Building 1 approach
Conventional
0.5 approach
From the Figure 7 (a) and 7(b) it is clear that
when deflection ratio is expressed in terms of bending 0
strain, the limiting value of /L is initially directly 0 0.5 1 1.5
proportional to L/H which matches with Burland’s L/H
approach of deep beam method. Both the curves give (b) Deflection Ratio in terms of Shear Strain
critical condition for lesser L/H. But when deflection
ratio is expressed in terms of shear strain then such
relationship is not observed. Fig. 7 Relation between Deflection Ratio & L/H
 53
Excavation Induced Building Response by Laminate Beam Method
Kingshuk Dan and Ramendu Bikas Sahu

Conclusions Vi/V Percentage shear in storey by laminate beam

model
1. Calculation of permissible deflection ratio from yi and Vi Height and shear force of ‘i’ th storey of
strain energy approach is more accurate as it building
does not require any assumption. i and  Shear strain in ‘i’th storey and total shear
strain of building
2. The assumption of building as a simply
supported beam is adequate for building of small /L Permissible Deflection ratio of building
length because it experiences single mode of
deformation.
References
3. Permissible deflection ratio for three buildings of
Kolkata Metro Construction is nearly equal to the Boone, S.J.(1996): ‘Ground-Movement-Related Building
conventional permissible value for a concrete Damage,’ Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
building. Vol. 122, No. 11, pp. 886-896.
4. A building will be more critical if L/H ratio is
Boscardin, M.D. and Cording, E.J. (1989): ‘Building
lesser.
Response to Excavation-Induced-Settlement,’ Journal of
5. The deflection ratio of the three buildings in Geotechnical Engineering ASCE, Vol. 115 (1), pp. 1-21.
Kolkata Metro Construction is within the
permissible deflection ratio. So, proper prediction Burland, J.B., and Wroth, C.P. (1975): ‘Settlement of
of building damage near any deep excavation Buildings and Associated Damage’, Proceeding of a
conference on settlement of structures, Cambridge pp.
may be done.
611-654.

Symbols and Notations Finno, R.J., Voss, F.T., Rossow, E., and Blackburn,
J.T.(2005): ‘Evaluating Damage Potential in Buildings
s Ground slope in each mode of deformation Affected by Excavations ’Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol.131, No.10.
 Rigid body rotation of the building near
excavation McDonald, D.H. and Skempton, A.W. (1955): ‘A Survey of
E Young modulus of building component Comparisons between Calculated and Observed
G Shear modulus of building component Settlements of Structures on Clay’, Institution of Civil
Engineers, London.
1 Maximum deflection of the beam due to pure
bending Peck, R.B. (1969): ‘Deep Excavation and Tunneling’-State
2 Maximum deflection of the beam due to shear of the Art Report. Proc. 7th ICSMFE, Mexico, Vol.3
h Distance of neutral axis from the bottom of Som N. N. (1991): ‘Performance study of Braced Cuts for
laminate beam Calcutta Metro Construction’. Proc. 9th Asian Regional
U Strain energy of beam due to shear Conf. on SMFE, Bangkok, Vol.2, 387-394.
Av Area of the building contributing to shear
resistance Timoshenko, S.P. and Young, D.H. (1968): ‘Elements of
strength of materials’
EI Equivalent bending stiffness when building
modeled as laminate beam Voss, F.T.(2003): ‘Evaluating Damage Potential in Buildings
GAV Equivalent shear stiffness when building Affected by Excavations’ MS thesis, North Western
modeled as laminate beam University, Evanston, IL. 166 p