RECENT ADVANCES IN LARGE DIAMETER DIAPHRAGM WALL SHAFTS

Benoit Virollet and Christian Gilbert, Soletanche-Bachy, Nantarre, France, and

Rick Deschamps, Nicholson Construction, Pittsburgh, PA
Over the last 10 years the diameter of unbraced, unlined and unanchored circular
shafts has grown dramatically in many parts of the world. This progress has
taken place through improvements in: construction methods; concrete rheology;
and design capabilities. Excavation equipment has become more precise in
terms of operator control and ability to correct alignment of digging elements
leading to better alignment tolerances. Also contributing to the increases in shaft
diameters is the evolution of design models. A better understanding of soil
structure interaction is being incorporated into the analyses in terms of radial soil
stresses and imposed loads on the shaft. This paper provides an overview of the
recent progress made in circular shaft construction, the primary design
considerations, and some innovative uses of efficient arc elements to develop
unsupported structures of other shapes. In addition, a summary of recent
circular shafts constructed worldwide is provided.
Introduction
Circular diaphragm walls are constructed with
the same techniques that are used to construct
plane walls. They are built in situ under a drilling
fluid which stabilizes the excavation. The
surrounding soil acts as the formwork for
constructing the concrete elements. A deep
panel trench is first excavated and stabilised by
bentonite slurry. When excavated to the desired
depth, the reinforcement cage is installed and
concrete is tremie poured from the bottom
displacing the lighter bentonite. The stability of
the trench is ensured by both the slurry and the
arching of the soil on each side of the excavated
panel. Accordingly, the trench length is limited in
order take advantage of the arching such that
the diaphragm wall is built through a series of
independent panels. "Water stops" and
interlocking joints are installed between panels
to ensure the water tightness of the wall and
shear transfer between panels. Excavation
begins after the panels have achieved design
strength.
The tools used to excavate the panels have a
rectangular shape, the length of which is on the
order of three meters (Figure 1). In practice, the
panels are generally made of three "bites," two
independent bites with a connecting smaller bite
to control clamshell alignment. Therefore, the
typical panel lengths are approximately seven
meters.

The primary objective of this paper is to

introduce a cost effective construction approach
for support of excavation for circular shafts to a
broader audience in the United States. The
techniques described are used on a routine
basis and on a much greater scale in other parts
of the world than are currently employed in
North America. The technology is available in
terms of equipment and methods of analysis,
and there are several contractors with the
capacity to competitively bid and build this work.
Accordingly, it is hoped that designers will
become familiar with the cost savings and
improved certainty of execution with this
approach relative to alternative systems such as
sunken caissons. These systems are especially
attractive solutions to the EPA mandated CSO
structures
being
constructed
in
many
communities.
Basic Mechanical Behaviour of a Circular
Shape
Circular walls are unique in that they cannot
converge freely when loaded externally.
Consider a thin circular wall with a radius "R"
that is subjected to an axisymmetrical pressure
"p". The force equilibrium diagram shows that

R
R-u
u

Nh

d
d

2Nhd

2pRd
p

Nh

Figure 2 : Free body diagram of a circular

segment.
Figure 1. Clamshell bucket.

Advantages of Circular Diaphragm Walls

the reaction to the external pressure produces a

compressive "hoop" force in the wall which
resists the tendency to converge.
This is
expressed in Figure 2 where a free body
diagram of a segment of wall is shown. The
hoop force , Nh , is related to the
applied external pressure by the relationship :

Based on the previous remarks, circular

diaphragm walls provide a lot of advantages
compared to plane walls. They do not need
supports such as struts or tie-back anchors.
Excavation works can be achieved quickly
without complicated construction sequence or
coordination between the excavator and anchor
installer.

Nh = p R

(1)

No extra support is required to balance the

external forces. This is the reason why circular
walls are inherently stable provided the hoop
force does not exceed the limits of the material
properties.
A circumferential stiffness that relates the
applied pressure to the radial displacement, R,
can be defined as follows :
P = E t R / R2

(2)

"E" is Youngs modulus of ring material and t is

the wall thickness. This relationship obtained for
a ring is used for the three dimensional circular
wall under axisymmetrical pressure diagrams.

Another benefit of the inherently stable circular

diaphragm walls lies in the much lessened need
for embedment to provide wall stability.
Obviously other criteria for embedment must be
considered, such as hydraulic stability (i.e.
piping) and basal stability, but embedment for
mechanical stability of toe is unnecessary.
It should also be recognized that as the hoop
force provides a stiff continuous support to the
wall, the bending moment and shear force in the
wall remain generally small leading to "light"
reinforcement ratios.
Design of Circular Diaphragm Walls
Wall Alignment. The design of circular
diaphragm walls can require some unusual
considerations which leads to a need for

but 0.5% can be commonly achieved in practice.

detailed analyses. Tied to the analysis is a

rigorous control of construction tolerances. The
stabilizing hoop force produces a normal
compressive stress in the structure which is
limited by the strength of the concrete. This
compressive stress is a function not only of the
hoop force but also of the thickness of the ring.

Regardless of the vertical tolerance achieved,

the actual geometry will not be a perfect ring.
The common approach used to take into
account the "real" geometry is to inscribe an
annulus into the actual shape and calculate the
wall loads neglecting the concrete outside this
annulus. This method is very conservative
because an inscribed annulus is not a
necessary condition for stability because the
wall is capable of resisting bending and shear
stresses. This is easily demonstrated by
considering self stable elliptical shafts wherein
an inscribed circle is not possible. An example
is shown in Figure 4 of the Mricourt CSO shaft.

As described previously, diaphragm walls are

constructed by individual panels. These panels
are excavated with a rectangular shape shovel
(Figure 1) such that it isn't possible to construct
a perfect ring (Figure 3).
Moreover, the
excavation of the panels is done with a specified
vertical tolerance, which makes the shape of the
wall deviate further from the ideal geometry with
depth (Figure 3b). It is therefore essential to be
able to control as much as possible the
verticality of the excavating tool. This tolerance
essentially depends on the experience of the
operator but also on the type of tool (mechanic
grab, hydraulic grab or hydrofraise), the type of
soil (presence of boulders or not, stiffness of the
soil, etc.) and the quality control during
excavation. This control is done through on
board instrumentation that allows for real time
measurement of, and the ability to correct,
deviation.
Typical specified tolerance in
deviation is in the order of 1% of the wall height,

P3

P2

Wall Shape. With elliptical shafts the external

soil provides the required extra reaction to
maintain stability. The wall sections experience
varying bending moments with location in
addition to the compressive stresses because
the radial strains/displacements are no longer
uniform. The stresses resulting from the actual
geometry are evaluated by modelling the wall as
a horizontal beam in interaction with an elastic
plastic soil on one side only. This model gives
the normal forces, N, and the bending moments,
M, at each node. This model allows for the

e = 0.5m
L = 2.8m

P1

P4

int = 16m

P5

P8

P6

P7

(a)

Figure 3 : Shape of a circular diaphragm wall including (la) grab geometry without deviation and
(b) grab geometry and deviation.

(b)

assessment of specific concrete sections under

the varying state of stress. However, this
approach is still conservative as it assumes the
soil pressure is constant. In reality, the soil
pressure decreases with radial strain thus
reducing the bending moment. Other more
sophisticated methods exist such as finite
elements models, which are capable of coming
closer to the real system, but in practice are
difficult to carry out.

pressure. The Hain solution takes account of

the surrounding soil but not the three
dimensional effects. The factors of safety given
by these two cases generally lead to a lower
bound of the overall factor of safety.
Wall Openings. Circular walls are relatively
easy to calculate as long as the outside
loading
is
symmetrical.
However,
the
assessment of their behaviour becomes more
difficult when asymmetry occurs. For example,
the case of a circular wall with an opening is a
three dimensional problem. The presence of
opening affects the internal forces in the wall.
Because the hoop stresses can no longer be
generated at the opening level, force equilibrium
is balanced by higher stresses being generated
on both sides of the opening as shown
schematically in Figure 5. This concentration in
compressive stress also produces a zone of
vertical tension due to the distortional strains.
Additionally, the panels adjacent to the opening
tend to be "softer" producing larger bending
moments in the ring at opening level.

(3) Displacement =>

Bending moment

Figure 4. Elliptical unsupported CSO shaft at

Mricourt, France.
Wall Buckling. The high compressive hoop
stresses that are generated must also be
evaluated in terms of buckling. This check is
difficult to carry out as the problem is three
dimensional and non-linear. Three dimensional
because the surrounding soil pressure varies
with depth and there is restraint from the passive
soil stress below the base and from the cap
beam. It is non-linear because loads on the wall
vary with strain/displacement of the wall.
Fortunately,
closed-form
solutions
were
developed for some simple but related cases
and these allow the factor of safety against
buckling to be estimated. Timoshenko and Gere
(1961) solved the case of a cylinder fixed at its
ends under a uniform pressure. Hain (1968)
solved the case of a ring in interaction with an
elastic soil on the exterior. The Timoshenko
solution takes into account some of the three
dimensional effects but not the varying soil

(1) Compression

(2) Tension

Figure 5.
Changes in stresses around
openings in wall.
The stress conditions can be evaluated with a
two dimensional approach. The increased
bending moment can be estimated by reducing
the hoop stiffness at the opening level. The
reduction factor is a function of the diameter of

the wall, the diameter of the opening and the

curvilinear abscissa. The tension stress and the
concentration of hoop stress is estimated with a
plane plate calculation
Producing Other Shaped Walls with Circular
Arcs

walls, lighter reinforcement, and a large open

excavation area without the need for anchorage.
Conversely,
construction
requires
good
tolerance and attention to detail. Two examples
of basins comprising circular arcs are shown in
Figure 6.
Example Project of Large Diameter Shaft

Alternatives to rectangular walls can often be

constructed with circular arc segments thereby
reducing or eliminating the need for anchorage
or bracing. Unsupported elliptical shafts (Figure
4) require relatively small a / b ratio where a and
b represent the long and the short axis,
respectively. Another restriction is that the
surrounding ground must be stiff. As the water
and active earth pressures are approximately
the same around the shaft, the hoop force must
be greater along the long side than along the
short side. In order to balance all the forces, the
wall has to mobilize a strong soil reaction along
the short side and this reaction is mobilized
through wall displacement. In order to maintain
wall stability these induced displacements must
be small enough so as not to generate
excessive bending moment.
When the shapes of the wall components
deviate from continuous arcs, "flying" beams,
abutment, or counterfort walls can be build to
support the hoop forces. These combined
systems have been successfully built in Europe,
Asia and South America. The advantages of this
kind of approach include the use of thinner

(a)

This example deals with a circular diaphragm

wall built by Soletanche-Bachy in Northern
Europe. The internal diameter of the wall is 90m
(295 ft) with a thickness of 1.20m (4 ft). The
depth of excavation is 28m (92 ft), 24m (79 ft) of
which is below the ground water level. The wall
is permanent and without a secondary lining.
The specified maximum allowable deviation was
+/-0.5% of the wall height.
The primary results summarized in Figure 7
show the heavily loaded wall system. Buckling
was an important issue as the average hoop
stress was equal to 10.8MPa (1565 psi). The
wall was also design to resist seismic loading,
which required that the panel joints stay in
compression.
Seismic loads were computed with a three
dimensions dynamic analysis assuming the soil
remained in an elastic state and seismic
increments were superimposed to the static
case.

(b)

Figure 6. Multi-cell basins: (a) Hallium basin with abutment walls; (b) Lens-Levin basin with "flying"
beams.

Maximum hoop force is at 23m depth and is equal to 12.5MN.

Using Hain model (2D non-linear approach), buckling force is approximately equal to 95EI/R2 =
75MN.
Factor of safety on buckling is larger than 6.
Inscribed annulus thickness without deviation is equal to 1.158m.
Maximum deviation at 23m depth = 10.5cm.
Inscribed annulus thickness with +/-10.5cm deviation is equal to 0.948m.
Hoop stress at 23m depth without deviations is equal to 10.8MPa.
Hoop stress at 23m depth with +/-10.5cm deviations is equal to 13.2MPa.

Figure 7. Example Project Information, Excavated Shaft Photo, and Idealized Cross-Section

List of example large diameter and deep

shafts
A partial list of recent large diameter shafts
constructed worldwide is summarized in Table 1.

Additionally, elliptical and circular arc segments

can also be used to construct efficient systems
with different shapes. The incorporation of the
arc segments allows for thinner walls, lighter
steel reinforcement and minimal internal or
external support.

Summary
References
This paper provided an overview of recent
advances in the design and construction of
circular diaphragm wall systems.
These
systems are especially attractive for the EPA
mandated combined sewer overflow containers
because they can be constructed to retain large
fluid volumes without any internal or external
support.
Moreover, the systems are cost
effective and provide higher certainty of
execution during construction relative to
competing systems such as sunken caissons.

Hain, H. H. (1968). Zur Stabilitat Elastisch

Gebetteter Kreisringe Und Kreiszylinderschalen,
University of Hannover, Mitteilung Nr. 12.
Timoshenko, S. and Gere, J. (1961) Theory of
Elastic Stability, McGraw Hill, New York, 2nd
Edition.

Table 1. Recent Circular Shaft Projects Constructed Worldwide.

Projects name
Diameter
(m)
Huang Pu Bridge, China
73.0
Ville dAvray Carrousel Shaft, France
7.8
Viroflay Socatop Shaft, France
40.8
Duba Palm STEP, EAU
76.2
Beni Haroun STEP, Algeria
28.0
HongKong Package 7 Tower, China
76.0
Blackpool 2 Tanks, UK
36.0
Ivry s/ Seine SIAAP Shaft, France
Bordeaux Pkg Gds Hommes, France

22.5
57.0

Depth
(m)
43.7
63.0
46.9
22.0
55.0
89.0
46.0
44.0
56.5
24.5

Thickness
(m)
1.20
1.02
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.52
0.82

Colombes GCN Interceptor, France

22.5

74.4

1.50

Paris Pkg Harlay, France

31.0

52.0

0.80

HongKong MRTC 501 Lantau, China

50.0

70.0

1.50

Sangatte Shaft, France

58.0

21.0

1.00