# A Comprehensive Review of Open Caisson Modeling Technology: Current Practices and Future Prospects
## 4 Advances in Computational Modeling Method
### Sph
The modified Calm Clay (MCC) model was commonly utilized in geotechnical engineering and offered a conceptual framework for engineering applications and numerical analysis [120]. The MCC model was especially effective in clays due to accurate depiction of the anisotropic nature and critical state behavior of clays. However, a drawback in practice can be its complexity and the need for accurate parameter calibration [121]. Despite its widespread application, the Modified Cam Clay model had several other drawbacks, including the assumption of isotropic hardening [122], an inherent tendency for overestimating dilatancy [123], and a failure to account for small-strain stiffness [124]. The constitutive models had unique advantages and drawbacks, making their selection crucial for accurate soil behavior forecasts in deep excavations. The Hardening Soil model, due to its capability to capture dynamic stress-strain behavior and small-strain stiffness, was suitable for deep excavations in sands and clays. The Cam Clay model was preferable for clays that exhibit considerable critical state behavior and anisotropy. However, the Mohr-Coulomb model was ineffective for complicated soil conditions and should only be used for preliminary studies. While selecting a model, the project's specific needs, soil conditions, and required level of accuracy should all be considered. Comparative summary of the numerical modeling methods including their strength shortcomings and applications are provided in Table 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Method** & **Mathematical Basis** & **Strengths** & **Shortcomings** & **Applications** & **Key Studies** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{FEM (Finite Element Method)} & \multirow{6}{*}{Partial differential equations solved over discretized domains.} & Handles complex & \multirow{6}{*}{Mesh distortion issues in large deformations.} & \multirow{6}{*}{Retaining wall deformation.} & [75; 76; 77; 78; 79; 80; 81; 82; 83; 84] \\  & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Handles complex & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & geometries and material & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & non-linearity & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & validated with field & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & monitoring data. & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparative summary of the numerical modeling methods including their strength, shortcomings, and applications. The numerical models described in the paper, while advantageous, offer certain drawbacks. Particularly, unexpected shifts in soil characteristics and the thixotropic behavior of soft clay at geological contacts were not properly recorded, resulting in differences between simulated and actual data, especially at depths of 15-20 m. Furthermore, the lack of important constructing activities, such as bentonite grouting, reduces the model's ability to correctly mimic field circumstances, limiting its applicability to real-world situations. The study also concentrated on certain depth ranges (15-40 m) and distances (within 30 m of the shaft center), which limited its relevance to other geotechnical scenarios. Changes in lateral earth pressure were simplified, with local disparities along with construction dynamics understudied. These limitations emphasized the necessity for more thorough and precise modeling in order to increase accuracy and applicability under a variety of scenarios. A summary of the advanced modeling approaches, physical and numerical modeling, including their advantages and shortcomings, is provided in Table 3.