5-1

Chapter 5 Walls for Excavations

Introduction
Excavation is necessary when constructing shallow footing, mat foundation, or subbasements. It
is a legal necessity to assure no loss of bearing capacity, excessive settlements, or excessive
lateral movements to adjacent properties. Thus, this retaining structure during excavation stage
is one of the important issues.

Failure in Excavations
The earth-retaining structures in excavations can be failed by structural collapse, excessive
deformation, basal instability, and inadequate groundwater exclusion.

Control of groundwater
There are four main methods used to exclude groundwater from excavations:
1. Stopping surface water from entering the excavation by using cut-off ditches
2. Allowing water to flow into the excavation and subsequently pumping it from drainage
systems
3. Pre-draining the soil by lowing the groundwater level ahead of the excavation
4. Stopping the groundwater from entering the excavation by a cut-off wall within the soil

This chapter will address the design issue of earth-retaining structures and the estimation of
deformation.

Wall Construction
The types of retaining walls used in excavation are:
1. Sheet piling
2. Soldier pile walls (Soldier beams with or without lagging)
3. Drilled-in-place concrete piles (or piers) walls
4. Caisson wall
5. Diaphragm (Slurry) walls
6. Soil cement mixed walls
7. Soil nail walls

Systems to hold the retaining wall in place include:
1. Cantilevered or unbraced wall (it is less economic except for shallow excavation)
2. Wales and struts or rakers (braced walls)
3. Compression rings
4. Tie-back (anchored walls) or soil nails

Sheet piling
Sheet piling is commonly used for retaining excavations because the highest strength/weight
ratio, reusable, easily installed and removed. It is not usable, however, when the subsoil contains
many boulders or is dense and the excavation is deep. Noise and vibration may be an issue when
existing buildings, especially medical facilities, are sensitive to disturbance by vibration.
5-2
Seepage may be expected to pass through interlocking steel sheet piling which supports a
difference in hydraulic head.

Sheet Pile Drivability
Little is known about the necessary sections to allow sheet piles to be driven without damage.
However, Williams and Waite (1993) suggested that in granular soils the minimum section could
be judged on the basis of SPT resistance (N value), as shown in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Sheet Pile Drivability (CIRIA, 1993)
Dominant
SPT
Minimum wall modulus (cm
3
/m)
Remarks A570 Gr 40
(265 MPa)
A572 Gr 50
(345 MPa)
0 - 10 450 A572 Gr 50 for length > 10 m
11-20 450
21-25 850
26-30 850 Length > 15 m is not advisable
31-35 1300 Penetration > 5 m not advisable
36-40 1300 Penetration > 8 m not advisable
41-45 2300
46-50 2300
51-60 3000
61-70 3000 Some declutching may occur
71-80 4200 Some declutching may occur for L > 15m
81-140 4200 Increase risk of declutching

Soldier Pile Walls
Soldier pile walls have two basic components, soldier piles (vertical component) and lagging
(horizontal component). It is essential that the soldier piles be maintained in full contact with
the soil. For this reason, they are either driven or placed in pre-drilled holes, which are
backfilled to the ground surface with lean concrete. Drilled-in-place piles may be used if
problems of driving exist (noise and vibration).

H piles are driving on a convenient spacing of 2 to 3 m for using standard-length timber. As
excavation proceeds, 50 to 100 mm thick boards are inserted behind the front flanges. The
boards can be placed against the H-pile and clipped to the front flange using patented fasteners.
The method is suitable for overconsolidated clays, all soils above the water table if they have at
least some cohesion, and free-draining soils that can be dewatered effectively.

When water is not a problem, lagging for soldier piles or drilled-in-place piles is not required, as
“arching” or bridging action of the soil from the lateral pressure developed by the pile will retain
the soil across the open space. A spacing of 2 to 3 m is commonly used in strong soils, where
no sensitive structures are present. The spacing is reduced to 1 to 2 m in weaker soils or near
sensitive buildings. The pile will, of course, have to be adequately braced to provide necessary
lateral soil resistance. In addition, the embedment depth has to be sufficient.

5-3
Drilled-in-place concrete (bored) piles (or piers) walls
The use of low-cost augers and, more particularly, continuous flight auger rigs to drill successive
unconnected piles provides an economical wall for both temporary and permanent use for
excavations to medium depth where soil conditions are favorable. Grouting or jet grouting can
be used to remedy leakage between piles.

When soil and water must be retained, the system will have to be reasonably watertight below
the water table and be capable of resisting both soil and hydrostatic pressures. The secant wall,
consisting of interlocking piles, is most suited. Primary (female) piles, piles at centers slightly
less than twice the nominal pile diameter, are drilled with a concrete guide wall. Before fully
hardening, the secant (male) piles (same or smaller diameter) are drilled: during the process the
drilling removes segments of the primary piles so interlock is obtained. The secant wall
provides a waterproof wall which can be built to a depth ranging 30 to 40 m. In some instances
reinforcement may be bunched at opposite sides of the pile diameter to ensure maximum
effectiveness.

Caisson wall
Hand-dug caisson retaining walls, often referred to as caisson walls, have been widely used in
Hong Kong. The caissons are usually dug in stages of about one meter depth, by husband
miners with their wives serving as winch operators at the ground surface. Each stage of
excavation is lined with a minimum of 75 mm thickness of in-situ concrete using a tapered steel
shutter suitab1y supported and designed for ease of striking. The shutter remains in place to
provide support for the fresh concrete and surrounding ground while the next stage of excavation
proceeds. Submersible electric pumps are commonly used for dewatering at the base of the
caissons. Excavation through core stones and other obstructions is carried cut by pneumatic
drilling. The main advantages of a caisson wall over a conventional retaining wall are
(a) It can be constructed without temporary soil cuts or shoring.
(b) It requires a small plan area and can be used close to site boundaries and existing
structures.
(c) It can act as both temporary and permanent retaining structures.
(d) Obstructions e.g. core stones and boulders, can be overcome without too much
difficulty.

Diaphragm (Slurry) walls
Diaphragm (slurry) walls are more expensive than other wall systems. However, frequently they
provide the best solution to many underground construction problems, and the technique can
usually be adjusted to cope with most conditions of difficult ground and adjacent surcharge by
adjustment of the panel length, properties of the slurry, level of slurry in the trench and
groundwater lowering. It can be used as a permanent part of the structural system (basement
walls). Concrete poured in a cavity retained with slurry (a dense liquid) producing a slurry wall.
This method will be discussed in later chapter.

Support Systems
The lateral loads due to earth pressures, surcharge loads, hydrostatic pressures, and seismic loads
are constantly trying to push the wall and must be restrained. The restraint can be developed
5-4
from the inside the excavation (strut and/or rake systems) or outside (tieback systems). A strut
or raker system creates obstructions in the excavation area (working space). For narrow
excavation (less than 20 m wide), it is more economical than tiebacks. In addition, you don’t
need to bring in drilling machines, to solve the problem of encountering existing obstructions
such as tunnels, basement wall, or public utilities, and to obtain permission to trespass into the
adjacent property owner’s subsoil. However, for most excavation involving large area, tiebacks
are preferable than strutted system.

Rakers, sloping compression units, are attached to the wall and braced against either the structure
being constructed, or a footing specifically cast for the purpose of resisting the raker forces.
They impart both a lateral force and uplift force.

Struts, horizontal compression units, are braced against either an existing structure or another
portion of the shoring system.

Tiebacks, tension units, restrain the applied load from outside the excavation. Since tiebacks are
installed at a downward dipping angle, they impart a downward force to the wall as well as a
lateral force.

To insure very little lateral movement, it is essential that
1. The wall fit securely, snugly, and closely against the sides of the excavation.
2. Some elastic movement always occurs but the amount should be limited.
3. Use sufficient rigid wales so that very little movement between supported points.
4. Use vertical bracing to ensure little amount of bulging between brace points.


Analytical Methods for Support Systems
Three methods have been used for analyzing earth-retaining structures in excavation. They are:
(a) limit analysis, (b) beam on elastic foundation, and (c) finite element method (full soil-
structure interaction)

(a) Limit Analysis

To design braced excavations using limit analysis, one must estimate the lateral earth pressure to
which the braced cuts wall will be subjected. The braced system subjected to the same earth
pressure forces as other retaining structures that may be calculated by Rankine or Coulomb
methods. However, the design pressures are different from those because of the manner in
which the pressures are developed.

Peck (1969), from measurements, proposed empirical pressure diagrams for wall and strut
design, as shown in Figure 5.1 and Table 5.2. The pressure envelope for soft to medium clay is
applicable for the condition when ¸H/c > 4. For stiff clay, ¸H/c s 4. Based on the observation
of Tschebotarioff (1973), slightly different apparent design pressure envelops are suggested.
5-5

Figure 5.1 Apparent Pressure Distribution for Braced Cut

Table 5.2 Parameters for Apparent Pressure Distribution
Soil Type Author Z
1
Z
2
Z
3
|
Sand
Peck

0 1 0 0.65¸K
a

Soft/Medium Clay 0.25 0.75 0 0.3¸*
Stiff Clay 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.2~0.4¸
Sand
Tsch.
+


0.1 0.7 0.2 0.25¸
Short Term (Medium Clay) 0.6 0 0.4 0.3¸
Long Term (Medium Clay) 0.75 0 0.25 0.375¸
*or
4
[1 ( )]
c
H
| ¸
¸
= ÷ whichever is larger;
+
Tschebotarioff (1973)

Note that these diagrams are not intended to represent actual earth pressure or its distribution
with depth but load envelopes from which strut loads can be evaluated. Clay is assumed to be
undrained and only total stresses are considered. Sands are assumed to be drained (through the
sheeting) with zero pore pressure. Where drainage is precluded behind a non-permeable wall,
hydrostatically distributed water pressure should be added to strut load.

If you design a strut force based on the apparent pressure diagram and uses simple supported
beams for the sheeting as proposed by Terzaghi and Peck, the sheeting may be somewhat over
designed, this over design was part of the intent of using these apparent pressure diagrams.

Tschebotarioff (1973) proposed another apparent pressure diagrams as shown in Figure 5.1 and
Table 5.2. It may be more nearly correct comparing with some case studies when the excavation
depth exceeds 16 m. It is found that when tieback is used, the loads developed resemble those of
5-6
a conventional triangular earth pressure distribution, instead of those usually developed in a strut
wall.

Layered Soils
A major shortcoming of these apparent pressure diagrams is how to apply when the retained soil
is stratified.

For sand-clay layer using o = 0 concept, the average unit weight and cohesion of an equivalent
clay layer can be calculated as (Peck, 1943):

( ) | |
clay sand sand sand
H H H
H
¸ ¸ ¸ ÷ + =
1
a
(5.1)

| |
u sand sand sand sand a
q n H H H K
H
C ' ) ( tan
2
1
2
÷ + = o ¸ (5.2)

where H = total height of the sand-clay layer
H
sand
= height of the sand layer
¸
sand
= unit weight of sand
¸
clay
= unit weight of clay
o = friction angle of sand
K
sand
= a lateral earth pressure coefficient of sand ( ~1)
n' = a coefficient of progressive failure ( 0.5 ~ 1; average value 0.75)
q
u
= unconfined compressive strength of clay

There is another available method by Bowles (1996) after Liao and Neff (1990).
1. Compute two Rankine-type pressure diagrams using the Rankine K
a
and K
o
and using
effective unit weights. Make a second pressure diagram for the GWT if applicable.
2. Plot the two pressure diagrams (use 0 for any tensile zones) on the same plot.
3. Compute the resultant R
a
and R
o
for the two pressure plots.
4. Average the two R-values.
5. Pick the shape of the apparent pressure envelope (a rectangle or a trapezoid) and calculate
the ordinate so that the area of the pressure envelope equals average R value (e.g. for
rectangle, ordinate = R/H).
6. Include the water pressure as a separate profile that is added to the preceding soil
pressures below the ground water table depending on the inside water level.

Conventional Design of Braced Excavation Walls
The conventional method, as shown in Figure 5.2, was for any multi-braced walls originally,
however, it is not for pile walls that may be due to the rigidity of piles.

The basic procedure is:
1. Sketch given conditions and indicate all known soil data stratification, water level, etc.
2. Compute the lateral pressure diagram by Tschebotarioff or Terzaghi and Peck method.
5-7
3. Calculate the strut loads based on simple beams (see Figure 5.2) by assuming hinges at
the strut support locations.
4. Design struts or tiebacks

You can also calculate the strut loads at each successive construction stage. The highest value at
each strut level is used for strut and waling design purposes. Similar calculation is also applied
to maximum moment and shear.

The struts are actually horizontal columns subject to bending. The load-carrying capacity of
columns will depend on the slenderness ratio, l/r. The l/r can be reduced by providing vertical
and horizontal supports at intermediate points.

Figure 5.2 Simplified Method of Analyzing the Sheeting and Strut Forces


Location of the First Support
The location of the first wale can be estimated numerically by making a cantilever wall analysis.
For cohesive soils, the depth should not exceed the depth of the potential tension crack. Where
lateral movement and resulting ground subsidence can be tolerated, the depth to the first strut in
sandy soils may be where the allowable bending stress in the sheeting is reached from a
cantilever wall analysis

Effect of Wall Embedment
The apparent pressure diagrams do not include the effects of the toe of the sheeting or walling
extending below the final formation level. There is an empirical design method that allows this
penetration of walling to be taken into account in strut load calculation. It has been used since
the mid-1950s and has been adequately confirmed. The procedure is shown in Figure 5.3.

5-8
1. Construct gross earth pressure diagram using Rankine theory.
2. Calculate value of total active P
a
and passive forces P
p
.
3. Calculate trapezoidal apparent pressure envelope with an ordinate 1.6 P
a
/H.
4. Calculate strut forces (F
1
, F
2
, F
3
, and F
4
) from the apparent pressure envelope by
splitting the distance between supports.
5. Check moment balance by taking moments about the F
1
. Rebalance support loads to
achieve moment equilibrium.
6. Calculate the factor of safety, mobilized passive resistance =
4
F P
p
(> 1.4)
7. Calculate the simply supported moment (M = wl
2
/8) between each support where w is
the apparent pressure envelope.


Figure 5.3 Empirical Method for Wall Embedment
Beam on elastic foundation and finite element method
Numerical analyses based on beam on elastic foundation are popular due to the advent of
powerful personal computers. They are efficient means to obtain the strut force and moment in
the sheeting. The soil is represented by springs attached to the piling. With the easy access of
finite element program, finite element method has been commonly used to analyze walls in
excavation. For linear FEM, the soil is characterized with an elastic modulus and a Poisson’s
ratio. Nonlinear soil models have been used. Although they cannot produce accurate results,
good designs are achieved constantly with good experience and engineering judgment.
5-9
Instability Due to Heave of Bottom of Excavation
Braced cuts in clays may become unstable as a result of the clay flows beneath the sheeting into
the excavation. The failure is analogous to a bearing capacity failure of foundation, only in
reverse; the failure is a shear failure in the soil below formation level, but caused by relief of
load and not by the application of load as occurs in a conventional foundation bearing failure.

For deep excavations with H/B > 1, Bjerrum and Eide (1956) can be applied to calculate the
factor of safety against base failure. For shallow or wide excavation with H/B < 1, the method
by Terzaghi (1943) can be used. These methods are shown in the Figure 5.4.

If the factor of safety against base heave is less than about 1.5, substantial soil deformation is
likely. Therefore, the embedment depth should be deeper. Many designers believe the FS
cannot be achieved by the use of a flexible retaining system, and that it may require a more rigid
wall (slurry walls or secant walls). Usually the embedment depth is kept less than or equal to
B/2. If lesser soil movement is necessary, a minimum factor of safety of 2 is required.



Figure 5.4 Instability of Braced Cuts
(a) Bjerrum and Eide (1956)
(b) Terzaghi (1943)
5-10
Stability of the Bottom of the Cut in Sand
Although it is unlikely, instability cohesionless soils can also be analyzed using NAVFAC (DM-
7, 1986). The stability is independent of the depth and the width of the excavation. The factor of
safety against base instability can be estimated.

1
1
2
tan 2 o
¸
¸
¸ a
k N FS
|
|
.
|

\
|
= (5.3)

where N
¸
is the bearing capacity factor of soil beneath the excavation level
¸
1
is the unit weight of soil above the excavation level
o
1
is the friction angle of soil above the excavation level
k
a
is the active earth pressure coefficient of soil above the excavation level
¸
2
is the unit weight of soil below the excavation level


Stability of Braced Cut in Sand Due to Piping
Instability of cut in sand mostly will be due to piping (hydraulic failure). When the ground water
table is encountered and the water level inside the cut is lowered below the ground water level by
pumping, instability may be created as a result of the upward seepage of water into the cut. The
designer must ensure that basal instability will not occur because of the flow of water.

As shown in Figure 5.5, design charts (DM-7, 1986) for penetration of cut-off walls to prevent
piping in sand can be used to estimate the stability.

Factor of safety against piping can be calculated as:

w w
w sub
h
d H
FS
¸
¸ ) 2 ( +
= (5.4)

Where
H
w
= the height of water in the wall above the dredge line
d = the embedment depth
¸
sub
= submerge unit weight of the soil beneath the base (formation level)
h
w
= the total hydraulic head loss

For stratified soils, the method of flow net and numerical analysis (e.g. program SEEP) are more
appropriate to estimate the FS against piping.
5-11



Figure 5.5 Instability Due to Piping
5-12
Ground Movements of In-situ Walls
In earlier portion of this chapter the analysis focuses on the adequacy of the strut loads,
anchoring, and sheeting or walling. The risk of excessive deformation of the walls is higher
when the excavation is deeper and the site has a greater plan area. This section will address
those factors which cause ground movement around an excavation and the amount of ground
movement. An excellent review on this topic was given by Clough & Schmidt (1981). Ground
movements caused by pile driving and dewatering were discussed in the report by D'Appolonia
(1971).

Movements of in-situ walls are a function of many factors:
- soil and groundwater conditions
- groundwater level
- initial horizontal Stress
- depth and shape of excavation
- preloading of the support system
- type and stiffness of the wall and its support
- methods of construction of the wall and adjacent facilities

Soil and Groundwater Conditions
In clays, the maximum lateral wall movement could be correlated with the factor of safety
against basal heave (Clough et al, 1979; Mana & Clough, 1981), which in turn depends on the
shear strength of the soil. The rate and magnitude of movement increase rapidly as the factor of
safety approaches one. If a clay is anisotropic instead of the presumed isotropic, the basal heave
factor of safety may be much lower and lateral wall movements as well as ground surface
settlements may be larger than expected (Clough & Hansen, 1981).

Wall movements and ground settlements are smaller in stiff soils, such as granular soils and stiff
clays, than in soft soils, such as soft and medium clays and compressible silts (Peck, 1969).

Initial Horizontal Stress
For excavated walls in soils with a high initial k
0
value, large soil and wall movements are
experienced even at shallow depths of excavation. The wall behavior is dominated by vertical
unloading caused by the excavation process

and large movements still occur even if the wall is
fully restrained from horizontal movement. For walls in soils with a low k
0
value

the
displacements are much smaller in magnitude (Potts and Fourie, 1984).

Groundwater Conditions
In practice, a perfectly watertight wall penetrating an impermeable soil layer at the bottom of the
excavation does not exist. Where water flows into the excavation, a decrease in groundwater
pressure will occur. This will cause an increase in effective stress and settlement of the soil
surrounding the excavation. Where groundwater has not been brought under complete control,
large, erratic and damaging settlement due to the flow or the migration of fines into the
excavation is not uncommon.

Depth and shape of the excavation
The deeper the excavation, the greater is the decrease in total stress, and thus the larger are the
5-13
movements of the surrounding soil. The shape of the excavation affects the basal stability in
clays. Thus, it affects the movement of surrounding soils.

Preloading of the support system
Preloading removes slack from the support system, and thus eliminates this potential source of
movement. Each application of preload reduces the shear stresses set up in the soil due to
previous excavation activities. This means that the soil is partially unloaded, and its stress-strain
response is stiffened until the next excavation step generates shear stresses that reload the soil
beyond its maximum previous level of shear stress. This temporary stiffening of the soil also
leads to reduce movements. Use of preloads in the struts or tiebacks reduces movement,
although there are diminishing returns at higher preloads. Very high preloads may, in fact, be
counter-productive, since local outward movements at support levels can damage adjacent
utilities.

Prestress loads calculated using the apparent trapezoidal pressure diagrams (Terzaghi and Peck,
1967) is more effective in reducing movements than the prestress loads in tiebacks calculated in
accordance with a triangular at-rest pressure diagram (Clough and Tsui, 1974). Using levels
slightly greater than those recommended by Terzaghi and Peck (1967) reduced the movements
Clough (1975). Hanna & Kurdi (1974) supported this finding in their model tests. Clough &
Tsui (1974) showed that movements of the tied-back wall, and the soil settlements behind the
wall, could be substantially reduced by a judicious choice of prestress load and support system
stiffness. In most cases, cross-lot struts prestressed to 50% of their design load will be
sufficiently rigid to restrict further movement at the level of the supports, and sufficiently low in
load to avoid being overstressed as additional excavation occurs (O’Rourke, 1981).


Type and Stiffness of the Wall and Its Support

The support system stiffness depends on the stiffness of the wall and its supports, the spacing
between supports, and the length of wall embedded below the excavation bottom. Goldberg et al
(1976) produced a valuable study into the effect of wall stiffness and support spacing and the
results are presented in Figure 5.6. The instability number of the base (¸H/C
u
) is plotted versus
the stiffness parameter (E
w
I
w
/h
4
), where E
w
I
w
is the flexural stiffness of the wall per unit length,
'h' is the vertical spacing between supports, ¸H is the effective overburden pressure, and C
u
is the
undrained shear strength of the soil. A non-dimensional effective stiffness parameter was also
proposed (Koutsoftas et al. 2000, Clough at el. 1989):

4
EI
S
H ¸
= (5.5)

where ¸ is either the unit weight of soil or unit weight of water.

Secant and tangent pile walls and structural slurry walls (diaphragm walls) are considered stiff on the
basis of the rigidity of the wall element. Walls that are considered flexible include steel sheet pile
walls and soldier pile and lagging walls
5-14



Figure 5.6 Effect of Basal Stability and Wall’s Stiffness on Lateral Wall Movement
Various boundary lines are drawn to establish zones of expected lateral wall movements. These
data suggested that an increase in E
w
I
w
/h
4
has a significant effect in reducing movements. The
movement is also a function of the factor of safety against basal heave, being more significant at
lower factors of safety than at higher ones. Increasing the stiffness of the strut or the tieback
decreases movements, but this effect shows diminishing returns at very high values of strut or
tieback stiffness.

Movements are also reduced as the depth to an underlying firm layer decreases and when the
wall toe is embedded into the underlying firm layer.

Methods of Construction of Walls and Adjacent Facilities

Associated Site Preparation Works
Site preparation may include the following activities
(a) Relocation and underpinning of utilities,
(b) Dewatering of aquifers above and below the base of the excavation,
(c) Construction of the excavation support system, and
(d) The installation of deep foundations

In some cases, the movements associated with the site preparation works will exceed those that
occur as a result of the excavation and support process. The relocation of utilities, for example,
5-15
may have a locally severe impact on an adjacent property, especially when trenching is carried
out close to pipelines and communication conduits.

Dewatering may consolidate the soil over an area, which substantially exceeds the area affected
by excavation-induced movements. Also, it often causes settlements well in excess of
excavation settlements. However, in areas that have been subjected to earlier dewatering
activities, settlements due to further dewatering are smaller than those in virgin ground due to the
stiffer response of the preconsolidated soil.

Wall construction may require predrilling for soldier piles, the use of vibratory hammers to
install sheet piles, or the excavation of slurry panels for concrete diaphragm walls. Each of
these can cause permanent movements, the magnitude and distribution of which will vary
according to the soil conditions, site history and details of the construction procedures.

Influence of Construction Factors
Additional movements of excavations, and even local failure, have been produced by late
installation of supports, over-excavation, pile driving, caisson construction, loss of water through
holes for tie-backs and joints or interlocks of slurry or sheet pile walls, remolding and
undercutting of clay berms, and surcharge loads from spoil heaps and construction equipment. A
review of the influence of construction factors on excavation movements was made by Clough &
Davidson (1977), and useful specific case history accounts can be found in Broms & Stille
(1976), Hansbo et al (1973), Lambe et al (1970), O'Rourke et al (1976), White (1976) and
Zeevart (1972).

Lambe (1970, 1972) demonstrated that variations in wedging techniques between the walings
and struts, and differences in excavation procedure, can result in doubling of the wall and soil
movements. Clough & Tsui (1974) used a finite element analysis to show that over-excavation
could lead to a 100% increase in movement.

Because these factors cannot always be quantified, it is difficult to make accurate prediction of
movements. However, many of the undesirable effects of these factors have been identified, and
they can therefore be anticipated and controlled through good specifications, well-planned
construction procedures and close supervision and monitoring. The designer must consider how
the excavation and subsequent construction should be carried out, identify critical construction
factors and, where possible, allow for them in performance estimates and specifications.


5-16
Prediction of Soil Movements
Prediction of soil movements behind a supported excavation can be made by the following
methods:
(a) Empirical methods
(b) Semi-empirical methods
(c) Numerical methods

Empirical Methods
Figure 5.7 is the first practical approach for estimating movements for in-situ wall systems
proposed by Peck (1969). The data used to derive the three zones shown in this figure were
taken from excavations supported by soldier piles or sheet piles with cross-lot struts or tiebacks.
(1) Zone I – Sand and stiff to hard clay, average workmanship
(2) Zone II –
(a) Very soft to soft clay
- Limited depth of clay below bottom of excavation.
- Significant depth of clay below bottom of excavation but ¸H/C
u
< 5.14
(b) Settlement affected by construction difficulties.
(3) Zone III – Very soft to soft clay to a significant depth below bottom of excavation and
with ¸H/C
u
> 5.14.

Generally, where workmanship is average or above average and soil conditions are not especially
difficult, settlements should not exceed one percent of the excavation depth. In cases where
seepage can occur and soil consolidation results, the one percent figure can be exceeded (Lambe
et a1.,

1970). It should also be noted that construction technique could have a strong influence
on movements of strutted systems.


Figure 5.7 Observed Settlements behind Excavations (Peck, 1969)
Peck’s recommendation has been found to be very conservative for stiff clays. Clough and
O’Rourke (1990) found that the average horizontal and vertical movements of support systems in
stiff clays were roughly 0.2 percent and 0.15 percent of the total excavated depth, respectively. Their
findings agree with guidance established in Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (1985), which
5-17
states that lateral movements of temporary support systems in stiff clay are less than 0.2 percent of
the excavation depth. This compares to guidance established in NAVFAC DM-7.2 (1982) that
suggests in stiff fissured clays lateral movements may reach 0.5 percent of the total excavated depth
or higher depending on quality of construction.

Semi-empirical methods
Semi-empirical methods have been developed based on the estimated lateral wall deflection
profile obtained from simple numerical programs. The volume of the soil (V
s
) in the lateral
displacement zone is obtained by integrate from the wall deflection profile. Then V
s
is related to
the amount of soil movement vertically near the excavation area. Two methods are presented
here. The Caspe’s method is for excavation in clays, and the Bauer’s method is for excavation in
sands.

Caspe’s method
The lateral distance of the settlement influence is calculated as follow (Caspe, 1966) for the case
of the base soil being clay:
1. Compute a distance H
p
below the excavation level as (B = width of excavation area):
0
1
tan(45 ) ; 0
2 2
p
B when
H
B
o
o
o
= ¦
¦
=
´
+ >
¦
¹
(5.6)
2. Compute H' = H + H
p
, where H is the excavation depth.
3. Compute the approximate distance D [= H' tan (45 - o/2)] from the edge of the wall over
which ground loss occurs
4. Compute the surface settlement at the edge of the excavation wall as S
o
= 2 V
s
/D
5. Compute remaining ground loss settlements assuming a parabolic variation of S
i
from the
edge of the wall as S
i
= S
o
(1 - x/D)
2
, where x is the horizontal distance from the edge of
the wall.

Bauer’s method
A semi-empirical method for excavation in sands was proposed by Bauer (1984) as shown in
Figure 5.8. The settlement is related to the friction angle of the sand. The influence distance is a
function of the friction angle of sand, workmanship, and construction difficulty. The effects of
workmanship and construction difficulty on the influence distance are described by factors f
1
and
f
2
as listed in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 Factors of workmanship and construction difficulty
Factor Workmanship Factor Construction Difficulty
Excellent Good Average Poor None Average Severe
f
1
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 f
2
1.0 1.02 1.05


Numerical methods
Finite element method has been used to study and calculate both the horizontal and vertical soil
movements adjacent to the excavation. Due to the complexity of the soil behavior, the
unpredicted construction factors, quantitative predication of soil movements is very difficult.
5-18
However, it has provided valuable qualitative studies. With the appropriate engineering
judgment, reasonable predication can be obtained.


Figure 5.8 Semi-empirical Method to Estimated Settlement (Bauer, 1984)

Base Movement Trends
Maximum movement - Stiff Clays, Residual Soils and Sands
As shown in Figure 5.7, Peck’s data suggested that the movements of excavation support
systems in these soils were limited to 1% H. Goldberg et al (1976) showed that the maximum
horizontal movements for in-situ walls and settlements of the retained soil masses in such
materials were usually less than 0.5% H. O’Rourke (1990) found that the average horizontal and
vertical movements of support systems in stiff clays were roughly 0.2 percent of the total
excavated depth.

Excluding those special points, Figures 5.9 and 5.10 show that:
- The horizontal movements tend to average about 0.2% H
- The vertical movements tend to average about 0.15% H
- There is ample scatter in the data, with the horizontal movements showing more than the
vertical movements.
- There is no significant difference between trends of the maximum movements of
different types of walls, and this includes even the new soil nail and soil cement walls.
These two figures are useful to understand movement patterns and also can be used as design
tools to estimate maximum wall and soil movements. Although we don’t know the maximum
movement for a particular soil, the linear trend between movement and excavation depth is
obvious.

A finite element study also predicted maximum lateral wall movements versus H also follow an
approximately linear response with excavation depth, centered around a trend line of 0.2% H.
5-19
This is consistent with the average behavior observed in Figure 5.9. The parameters wall
stiffness and strut spacing were found to have only a small influence on predicted movement
because the soil in these circumstances is stiff enough to minimize the need for the structure.
However, soil modulus and K
o
had a more significant impact (Clough and O’Rourke, 1990).


Figure 5.9 Observed Maximum Lateral Movements for Insitu Walls in Stiff Clays, Residual
Soils and Sands (Clough and O’Rouke, 1990)

Figure 5.10 Observed Maximum Soil Settlements by In-situ Walls (Clough and O’Rouke, 1990)

5-20

It is suggested here that variations in soil stiffness have a more profound effect on wall behavior
than system stiffness.

Maximum Movements - Soft and Medium Clays
As opposed to stiffer soils, basal stability in soft and medium clays may be at issue, and as a
result, movement patterns in these conditions can be dominated by deflections beneath the
excavation. Figure 5.11, a plot of maximum lateral movement of the wall versus FS of basal
heave, shows that as FS falls below 1.5, movements increase rapidly. It also illustrates the
influence that wall stiffness and support spacing. Caution is needed when using this chart for
design.


Figure 5.11 Design Curves to Obtain Maximum Lateral Wall Movement for Soft to Medium
Clays (Clough et al., 1989)

Clough et al (1979) and Mana & Clough (1981) reviewed case histories of sheet pile and soldier
pile walls in clays supported primarily by cross-lot struts. They found that the ratio of maximum
settlement movements ranges from 0.5 to 1.0 times the lateral wall movements.

Figure 5.12 shows that the maximum lateral movement can be correlated with the factor of safety
against basal heave defined by Terzaghi (1943, see Figure 5.4b). The movements increase
rapidly below a factor of safety of 1.4 to 1.5, while at higher factors of safety the non-
dimensional movements lie within a narrow range of 0.2% to 0.8%. Moreover, there do not
appear to be any significant differences in lateral movements between sheet pile walls whose tips
are embedded in an underlying stiff layer and those whose tips remain in the moving clay mass.

5-21

Figure 5.12 Soil Movements versus Basal Stability for Soft to Medium Clays

Displacement Profile

General patterns of ground movement are illustrated in Figure 5.13. They are obtained from
inclinometer and settlement measurements for braced and tied-back excavations (Milligan, 1984,
Clough and O’Rouke, 1990, Finno et al., 1989).


Figure 2.13 Typical Lateral Movement Profiles

Initial excavation before strutting
The excavation was deepened before supports were installed. Thus, deformation of the wall
occurred primarily as a cantilever-type movement. The horizontal strains produced in this mode
of deformation form a triangular pattern of contours that decrease in magnitude with depth and
5-22
distance away from the wall. Settlements during this stage of construction may be bounded
within the triangular distribution of displacement as shown in Figure 5.13a.

When the excavation advances to deeper elevations, upper wall movement is restrained by
installation of new support or stiffening of existing support members. In the deeper portion of
the excavation, inward bulging of' the wall caused tensile strains, the contours for which were
inclined at approximately 45
o
to the vertical. Deep inward movement of the wall occurs, which
is shown as an incremental component of the total displacement in Figure 5.13b.

The cumulative wall and ground surface displacement profiles are shown in Figure 5.13c.
Therefore, the displacement profile depends on the predominant movement pattern.
- In sand, stiff to very hard clay, cantilever movements predominate and the settlements
tend to follow a triangular pattern.
- In soft to medium clay, the deep inward movement is predominant and the settlements
tend to be bounded by a trapezoidal displacement.

Field measurements of horizontal strains at excavations in different types of soil showed similar
patterns, with triangular contours of strain caused by cantilever wall deformation and deep
concentric contours of strain bounding zones of maximum settlement caused by walls subject to
deep inward displacement.

Excavations in Sand
Figure 5.14 summarized the settlements adjacent to the excavations in predominantly sand and
granular soil profiles. The excavations were in granular soils above the water table by
dewatering. The settlement profiles are very consistent for different kind of supporting systems
(cross-lot struts, soldier pile and lagging with tiebacks, sheet piles with tiebacks, and slurry wall
with cross-lot struts).


Figure 5.14 Observed Settlement Adjacent to Excavations in Sands (Clough and O’Rourke,
1990)
5-23

Maximum settlements were typically less than 0.3% H. It is a triangular profile and distributes
over 2 times the excavation depth from the edge of the cut.

Excavations in Stiff to Very Hard Clays
Figure 5.15 summarized settlements for excavation sites in stiff to very hard clays for different
retaining systems. The displacements caused by ancillary construction activities were removed.
The settlements are only 0.3% H but are distributed over three times the excavation depth from
the edge of the cut.

Figure 5.15 Observed Soil Movements Adjacent to Excavations in Stiff and Very Hard Clays

In the horizontal movement, the majority falls within a triangular boundary with the same
dimensions as those pertaining to the observed settlements. A second zone was drawn which
contains highway excavations of London clay. They were affected by the low horizontal
stiffness of the support systems.


Excavations in Soft to Medium Clays

Figure 5.16 summarizes settlements for excavations in soft to medium clay, involving cross-lot
struts supporting sheet pile, soldier pile and lagging, and concrete diaphragm walls. Due to the
scatter of the data, it is difficult to identify the maximum settlement. However, if the settlements
5-24
were plotted as fractions of maximum settlement, a relative well-defined grouping of the data is
evident. The settlement distribution is bounded by a trapezoidal envelope in which two zones of
movement can be identified. At 0 s d/H s 0.75, there is a zone in which the maximum
settlement occurs. At 0.75 < d/H s 2, there is a transition zone in which settlements decrease
from maximum to negligible values.


Figure 5.16 Observed Soil Movements Adjacent to Excavation in Soft and Medium Clays

The largest differential soil movements occur near or within the transition zone. In almost all
cases, the maximum angular distortion was located between 0.5 H and 1.25 H from the edge of
cut. There is a linear relationship between the maximum settlement and the logarithmic of
angular distortion. Angular distortion appears to be relatively small when maximum settlement
is less than 50 mm. It increases exponentially with maximum settlement.

Figure 5.17 presents dimensionless settlement profiles recommended as a basis for estimating
vertical movement patterns adjacent to excavations in three different kinds of soils.

5-25



Figure 5.17 Dimensionless Design Settlement Profiles for Excavations in Different Soil Types

Be careful that these diagrams pertain to settlements caused during the excavation and bracing
stages of construction. Movements associated with other activities, such as dewatering, deep
foundation removal or construction, and wall installation, should be estimated separately.

Vertical settlements have been observed during the installation of the diaphragm wall at different
soils (granular soil, soft to medium clay, stiff to very hard clay). The maximum settlement ratio
is less than 0.15% H. The influence distance from the edge of the wall is about 2.5 H.

Driving of sheet-pile in a loose sand layer will also cause the layer to settle. Thus, the
geotechnical engineer should know how in-situ walls are constructed since otherwise he cannot
properly predict how the soil will behave.

General comments
- In stiff clays, in-situ walls will exhibit creep, a prompt installation of supports if movements
are to be minimized.
- Minimize struts spacing (strut stiffness is less important within normal range).
5-26
- Try to enforce the excavation limit such that no over excavation without the installation of
supports.
- It is advisable to penetrate the wall to a bearing layer where possible. Using sheet-pile, every
fifth sheet-pile can be penetrated to the bearing layer.

Summary
System stiffness and basal stiffness affect excavation in soft to medium clays but not in stiff
clays and sands.

Additional movements can also be generated by
(a) poor construction technique
(b) slow installation of supports after the excavation level is reached
(c) construction and removal of foundations within the excavation and,
(d) removal of soil below the design level of a support.

Increasing wall stiffness tends to reduce system movements, but this is most effective in soft to
medium clays. Support spacing is more important than wall stiffness in defining system stiffness
and helping control movements.


References
Bauer, G.E. (1984), “Movements Associated with the Construction of A Deep Excavation,”
Proc. of the 3
rd
Int. Conf. on Ground Movements and Structures, Cardiff, 694-706.
Boscardin M.D. and Cording, E.J. (1989) “Building Response to Excavation-Induced Settlement,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.115, No. 1, 1-21.
Broms, B. and Stille, H. (1976), “Failure of Anchored Sheet Pile Walls,” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 102, 235-251.
Canadian Geotechnical Society (1985), Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual The Canadian
Geotechnical Society, BiTech Publishers Ltd., 902-1030 West Georgia Street,
Vancouver, B.C., 456p.
CIRIA, (1993) Design and construction of sheet piled cofferdams, Special Publication, Thomas
Telford, 95.
Clough, G. W. (1975), “Deep Excavations and Retaining Structure,” Proc. Of the Short Course –
Seminar on Analysis and Design of Building Foundations, Bethlehem, PA, 417-465.
Clough, G. W. and Davidson, R.R. (1977), “Effect of Construction on Geotechnical
Performance,” Proc. Of Specialty Session 3 on Relationship Between Design and
Construction in Soil Engineering, 9
th
International Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 15-53.
Clough, G. W. and Denby, G.M. (1977), “Stabilizing Berm Design for Temporary Walls in
Clay,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 103, 75-90.
Clough, G.W. and Hensen, L.A. (1981), “Clay Anisotropy and Braced Wall Behavior, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 107, 893-913.
Clough, G.W., Hensen, L.A., and Mana, A.I. (1979), “Prediction of Support Excavation
Movements under Marginal Stability Conditions in Clay,” Proc. Of the 3
rd
International
Conf. On Numerical Methods in Goemechanics, Aachen, Vol. 4, 1485-1502.
Clough, G.W. and O’Rourke, T.D. (1990) “Construction Induced Movements of Insitu Walls,”
5-27
Proc. Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE Special
Geotechnical Publication No. 25, ed. Lambe and Hansen, 439-470.
Clough, G.W. and Schmidt, B. (1981), “Design and Performance of Excavations and Tunnels in
Soft Clay,” Soft Clay Engineering, Ed. Brand and Brenner, Elsevier Scientific Co., 567-
634.
Clough, G.W., Smith, E.M. and Sweeney, B.P. (1989) “Movement Control of Excavation
Support Systems by Iterative Design,” Proc. ASCE Foundation Engineering: Current
Principles and Practices, Vol. 2, 869-884.
Clough, G.W. and Tsui, Y. (1974), “Performance of Tieback Walls in Clay,” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 100, 1259-1273.
Cowland, J.W. and Thorley, C.B.B. (1984), “ Ground and Building Settlement Associated with
Adjacent Slurry Trench Excavation,” Proc. of the 3
rd
International Conf. on Ground
Movements and Structures, Cardiff, 723-738.
Davies, R.V. and Henkel, D.J. (1980), “Geotechnical Problems Associated with the Construction
of Chater Station, Hong Kong,” Proc. of the Conf. on Diaphragm Walling Techniques,
Singapore, paper RDS, 12 pp.
D’Appolonia, D. J. (1971), “Effects of Foundation Construction on Nearby Structures,” Proc. Of
4
th
PanAmerican Conf. On Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,” San Juan,
Puerto Rico, Vol. 1, 189-236.
Goldberg, D.T. Jaworski, W.E. and Gordon, M.D. (1976), Lateral Support Systems and
Underpinning, Vol. 1: Design and Construction, Vol. 2: Design Fundamentals, Vol. 3:
Construction Methods, FHWA Reports, FHWA RD-75-128~130.
Hanna, T.H. and Kurdi, I. I. (1974), “Studies on Anchored Flexible Retaining Walls in Sand,”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 100, 1107-1122.
Hansbo, S., Hofmann, E. and Mosseson, J. (1973), “Ostra Nordstaden, Gothenburg, Experiences
Concerning a Difficult Foundation Problem and its Unorthodox Solution,” Proc., the 8
th

International Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Moscow, Vol. 2.2
105-110.
Hsieh, P-G. and Ou, C-Y. (1998). “Shape of Ground Surface Settlement Profiles Caused by
Excavation,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 1004-1017
Koutsoftas, D. C., Frobenius, P., Wu, C. L., Meyersohn, D. and Kulesza, R. (2000).
“Deformations During Cut-and-Cover Construction of MUNI Metro Turnback Project,”
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 126, No. 4,
pp. 344-359
Lamb, T.W. (1970), “Braced Excavations,” Proc. of the ASCE Specialty Conf. on Lateral Stress
in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures, Ithica, New York, 149-218.
Lamb, T.W. (1972), “Predicted Performance of Braced Excavations,” Proc. ASCE Specialty
Conf. on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures, Lafayette, Indiana, Vol.
3, 255-256.
Lamb, T.W., Wolfskill, L.A. and Wong, I.H. (1970), “Measured Performance of Braced
Excavation, “Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 96, 817-836.
Mana, A.I. and Clough, G.W. (1981), “Prediction of Movements for Braced Cuts in Clay,”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 107, 759-777.
Milligan, G.W.E. (1984), “Soil Deformations Behind Retaining Walls,” Proc. of the 3
rd

International Conf. on Ground Movements and Structures, Cardiff, 707-722.
5-28
Morton, K., Cater, R.W. and Linney, L. (1980a), “Observed Settlements of Buildings Adjacent
to Stations Constructed for the Modified Initial System of the Mass Transit Railway,
Hong Kong,” Proc. of the 6
th
SE. Asian Conf. on Soil Engg, Taipei, Vol. 1, 415-429.
Morton, K., Leonard, M.S.M. and Cater, R.W. (1980b), Building Settlements and Ground
Movements Associated with Construction of Two Stations of the Modified Initial
System of the Mass Transit Railway, Hong Kong,” Proc. of the 2
nd
International Conf.
on Ground Movements and Structures, Cardiff, 788-802.
NAVFAC (1982), Design Manual 7.2 – Foundation and Earth Structure, Department of the
Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering command, Washington, D.C., 244 p.
O’Rourke, T.D. (1981), “Ground Movements Caused by Braced Excavations,” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 107, 1159-1178.
O’Rourke, T.D., Cording, E.J. and Boscardin, M. (1976), “The Ground Movements Related to
Braced Excavation and Their Influence on Adjacent Buildings,” U.S. Department of
Transportation, Report, DOT-TST 76, T-23.
Peck, R.B. (1969), “Deep Excavations and Tunneling in Soft Ground,” Proc. Of 7
th
International
Conf. On Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,” Mexico City, State-of-the-art
Volume, 225-290.
Potts, D.M. and Fourie, A.B. (1985), “The Effect of Wall Stiffness on the Behavior of A Propped
Retaining Wall,” Geotechnique, Vol. 35, 347-352.
Stroud, M.A. and Sweeney, D.J. (1977), “Discussion (Description of a diaphragm wall test
panel). A Review of Diaphragm Walls, Inst. of Civil Engineers, London, 142-148.
Terzaghi, K. (1943), Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1967), Soil Mechanic in Engineering Practice, 2
nd
Edition, John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
White, E.E. (1976), “Foundation Difficulties, Methods of Control and Prevention, “ Proc. Of the
Short Course – Seminar on Analysis and Design of Building Foundations, Bethlehem,
PA, 671-700.
Zeevart, L. (1972), Foundation Engineering for Difficult Subsoil Conditions,” Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.

Seepage may be expected to pass through interlocking steel sheet piling which supports a difference in hydraulic head. Sheet Pile Drivability Little is known about the necessary sections to allow sheet piles to be driven without damage. However, Williams and Waite (1993) suggested that in granular soils the minimum section could be judged on the basis of SPT resistance (N value), as shown in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 Sheet Pile Drivability (CIRIA, 1993) Minimum wall modulus (cm3/m) Remarks A570 Gr 40 A572 Gr 50 (265 MPa) (345 MPa) 450 A572 Gr 50 for length > 10 m 450 850 850 Length > 15 m is not advisable 1300 Penetration > 5 m not advisable 1300 Penetration > 8 m not advisable 2300 2300 3000 3000 Some declutching may occur 4200 Some declutching may occur for L > 15m 4200 Increase risk of declutching

Dominant SPT 0 - 10 11-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-140

Soldier Pile Walls Soldier pile walls have two basic components, soldier piles (vertical component) and lagging (horizontal component). It is essential that the soldier piles be maintained in full contact with the soil. For this reason, they are either driven or placed in pre-drilled holes, which are backfilled to the ground surface with lean concrete. Drilled-in-place piles may be used if problems of driving exist (noise and vibration). H piles are driving on a convenient spacing of 2 to 3 m for using standard-length timber. As excavation proceeds, 50 to 100 mm thick boards are inserted behind the front flanges. The boards can be placed against the H-pile and clipped to the front flange using patented fasteners. The method is suitable for overconsolidated clays, all soils above the water table if they have at least some cohesion, and free-draining soils that can be dewatered effectively. When water is not a problem, lagging for soldier piles or drilled-in-place piles is not required, as “arching” or bridging action of the soil from the lateral pressure developed by the pile will retain the soil across the open space. A spacing of 2 to 3 m is commonly used in strong soils, where no sensitive structures are present. The spacing is reduced to 1 to 2 m in weaker soils or near sensitive buildings. The pile will, of course, have to be adequately braced to provide necessary lateral soil resistance. In addition, the embedment depth has to be sufficient. 5-2

often referred to as caisson walls. level of slurry in the trench and groundwater lowering. In some instances reinforcement may be bunched at opposite sides of the pile diameter to ensure maximum effectiveness. are drilled with a concrete guide wall.g. However. Before fully hardening. and the technique can usually be adjusted to cope with most conditions of difficult ground and adjacent surcharge by adjustment of the panel length. The restraint can be developed 5-3 . This method will be discussed in later chapter. core stones and boulders. When soil and water must be retained. Grouting or jet grouting can be used to remedy leakage between piles. properties of the slurry. the system will have to be reasonably watertight below the water table and be capable of resisting both soil and hydrostatic pressures. It can be used as a permanent part of the structural system (basement walls). by husband miners with their wives serving as winch operators at the ground surface. Caisson wall Hand-dug caisson retaining walls. Primary (female) piles. is most suited. frequently they provide the best solution to many underground construction problems. (b) It requires a small plan area and can be used close to site boundaries and existing structures. more particularly. piles at centers slightly less than twice the nominal pile diameter. and seismic loads are constantly trying to push the wall and must be restrained. Diaphragm (Slurry) walls Diaphragm (slurry) walls are more expensive than other wall systems. Excavation through core stones and other obstructions is carried cut by pneumatic drilling. can be overcome without too much difficulty. surcharge loads. The main advantages of a caisson wall over a conventional retaining wall are (a) It can be constructed without temporary soil cuts or shoring. hydrostatic pressures. The shutter remains in place to provide support for the fresh concrete and surrounding ground while the next stage of excavation proceeds. The secant wall provides a waterproof wall which can be built to a depth ranging 30 to 40 m. Submersible electric pumps are commonly used for dewatering at the base of the caissons.Drilled-in-place concrete (bored) piles (or piers) walls The use of low-cost augers and. Support Systems The lateral loads due to earth pressures. Concrete poured in a cavity retained with slurry (a dense liquid) producing a slurry wall. (c) It can act as both temporary and permanent retaining structures. (d) Obstructions e. continuous flight auger rigs to drill successive unconnected piles provides an economical wall for both temporary and permanent use for excavations to medium depth where soil conditions are favorable. the secant (male) piles (same or smaller diameter) are drilled: during the process the drilling removes segments of the primary piles so interlock is obtained. have been widely used in Hong Kong. consisting of interlocking piles. Each stage of excavation is lined with a minimum of 75 mm thickness of in-situ concrete using a tapered steel shutter suitab1y supported and designed for ease of striking. The caissons are usually dug in stages of about one meter depth. The secant wall.

tension units. In addition. and to obtain permission to trespass into the adjacent property owner’s subsoil. the design pressures are different from those because of the manner in which the pressures are developed. it is essential that 1. they impart a downward force to the wall as well as a lateral force. To insure very little lateral movement. it is more economical than tiebacks. 2. one must estimate the lateral earth pressure to which the braced cuts wall will be subjected. snugly. However. you don’t need to bring in drilling machines.2. Rakers. tiebacks are preferable than strutted system. as shown in Figure 5. They impart both a lateral force and uplift force. The pressure envelope for soft to medium clay is applicable for the condition when H/c > 4. For narrow excavation (less than 20 m wide). restrain the applied load from outside the excavation.H/c  4. and (c) finite element method (full soilstructure interaction) (a) Limit Analysis To design braced excavations using limit analysis. 3. (b) beam on elastic foundation. However. Peck (1969). proposed empirical pressure diagrams for wall and strut design. and closely against the sides of the excavation. Tiebacks. for most excavation involving large area. are braced against either an existing structure or another portion of the shoring system. from measurements. The wall fit securely. or public utilities. Since tiebacks are installed at a downward dipping angle. Struts. They are: (a) limit analysis. to solve the problem of encountering existing obstructions such as tunnels. For stiff clay. slightly different apparent design pressure envelops are suggested. Use vertical bracing to ensure little amount of bulging between brace points. 5-4 . basement wall. horizontal compression units.1 and Table 5. Analytical Methods for Support Systems Three methods have been used for analyzing earth-retaining structures in excavation. The braced system subjected to the same earth pressure forces as other retaining structures that may be calculated by Rankine or Coulomb methods. sloping compression units. Use sufficient rigid wales so that very little movement between supported points. A strut or raker system creates obstructions in the excavation area (working space). 4. or a footing specifically cast for the purpose of resisting the raker forces.from the inside the excavation (strut and/or rake systems) or outside (tieback systems). Some elastic movement always occurs but the amount should be limited. Based on the observation of Tschebotarioff (1973). are attached to the wall and braced against either the structure being constructed.

375 4c *or    [1  ( )] whichever is larger.+ 0. +Tschebotarioff (1973) H Note that these diagrams are not intended to represent actual earth pressure or its distribution with depth but load envelopes from which strut loads can be evaluated.2.7 0.75 0 0.1 Apparent Pressure Distribution for Braced Cut Table 5.25 Tsch.75 0 0.4 0.1 0.2 Parameters for Apparent Pressure Distribution Author Z1 Soil Type Z2 Z3  Sand 0 1 0 0.3* Stiff Clay 0.1 and Table 5.Figure 5.2 0.25 0.65Ka Peck Soft/Medium Clay 0.25 0. If you design a strut force based on the apparent pressure diagram and uses simple supported beams for the sheeting as proposed by Terzaghi and Peck. Where drainage is precluded behind a non-permeable wall.2~0. Tschebotarioff (1973) proposed another apparent pressure diagrams as shown in Figure 5. It may be more nearly correct comparing with some case studies when the excavation depth exceeds 16 m. Sands are assumed to be drained (through the sheeting) with zero pore pressure.25 0.3 Long Term (Medium Clay) 0. this over design was part of the intent of using these apparent pressure diagrams. the sheeting may be somewhat over designed.4 Sand 0.6 Short Term (Medium Clay) 0 0.5 0. hydrostatically distributed water pressure should be added to strut load. the loads developed resemble those of 5-5 . Clay is assumed to be undrained and only total stresses are considered.25 0. It is found that when tieback is used.

as shown in Figure 5. however. Layered Soils A major shortcoming of these apparent pressure diagrams is how to apply when the retained soil is stratified. Plot the two pressure diagrams (use 0 for any tensile zones) on the same plot. The basic procedure is: 1. 2. 1943): a  Ca  1  sand H sand  H  H sand  clay H    (5. Conventional Design of Braced Excavation Walls The conventional method. 4.1) 1 2  sand K sand H sand tan   ( H  H sand )n' qu 2H  (5. water level. 5.2. 1. the average unit weight and cohesion of an equivalent clay layer can be calculated as (Peck.2) where H = total height of the sand-clay layer Hsand = height of the sand layer sand = unit weight of sand  clay = unit weight of clay  = friction angle of sand Ksand = a lateral earth pressure coefficient of sand (  1) n' = a coefficient of progressive failure ( 0. For sand-clay layer using  = 0 concept. Average the two R-values. 6.5 ~ 1. 3. 2. Make a second pressure diagram for the GWT if applicable. Sketch given conditions and indicate all known soil data stratification. was for any multi-braced walls originally. it is not for pile walls that may be due to the rigidity of piles. average value 0. Include the water pressure as a separate profile that is added to the preceding soil pressures below the ground water table depending on the inside water level. 5-6 . Pick the shape of the apparent pressure envelope (a rectangle or a trapezoid) and calculate the ordinate so that the area of the pressure envelope equals average R value (e. for rectangle. etc. Compute the lateral pressure diagram by Tschebotarioff or Terzaghi and Peck method.g. Compute two Rankine-type pressure diagrams using the Rankine Ka and Ko and using effective unit weights. ordinate = R/H). instead of those usually developed in a strut wall. Compute the resultant Ra and Ro for the two pressure plots.75) qu = unconfined compressive strength of clay There is another available method by Bowles (1996) after Liao and Neff (1990).a conventional triangular earth pressure distribution.

4. The load-carrying capacity of columns will depend on the slenderness ratio. l/r. the depth to the first strut in sandy soils may be where the allowable bending stress in the sheeting is reached from a cantilever wall analysis Effect of Wall Embedment The apparent pressure diagrams do not include the effects of the toe of the sheeting or walling extending below the final formation level. Similar calculation is also applied to maximum moment and shear.3.2) by assuming hinges at the strut support locations. The highest value at each strut level is used for strut and waling design purposes.2 Simplified Method of Analyzing the Sheeting and Strut Forces Location of the First Support The location of the first wale can be estimated numerically by making a cantilever wall analysis. the depth should not exceed the depth of the potential tension crack. Figure 5. Design struts or tiebacks You can also calculate the strut loads at each successive construction stage. There is an empirical design method that allows this penetration of walling to be taken into account in strut load calculation. Calculate the strut loads based on simple beams (see Figure 5. The struts are actually horizontal columns subject to bending. It has been used since the mid-1950s and has been adequately confirmed. Where lateral movement and resulting ground subsidence can be tolerated. The l/r can be reduced by providing vertical and horizontal supports at intermediate points.3. 5-7 . The procedure is shown in Figure 5. For cohesive soils.

4) 7. Calculate strut forces (F1. Figure 5. Calculate the simply supported moment (M = wl2/8) between each support where w is the apparent pressure envelope. 4. Calculate the factor of safety. 3. F3. F2. finite element method has been commonly used to analyze walls in excavation. Although they cannot produce accurate results. The soil is represented by springs attached to the piling. and F4) from the apparent pressure envelope by splitting the distance between supports. With the easy access of finite element program. They are efficient means to obtain the strut force and moment in the sheeting.1. Nonlinear soil models have been used. Rebalance support loads to achieve moment equilibrium.3 Empirical Method for Wall Embedment Beam on elastic foundation and finite element method Numerical analyses based on beam on elastic foundation are popular due to the advent of powerful personal computers. Calculate trapezoidal apparent pressure envelope with an ordinate 1. 2. mobilized passive resistance = Pp F4 ( 1. the soil is characterized with an elastic modulus and a Poisson’s ratio. 5-8 . Construct gross earth pressure diagram using Rankine theory. good designs are achieved constantly with good experience and engineering judgment. 6. 5. For linear FEM. Check moment balance by taking moments about the F1.6 Pa/H. Calculate value of total active Pa and passive forces Pp.

For shallow or wide excavation with H/B < 1. For deep excavations with H/B > 1. Bjerrum and Eide (1956) can be applied to calculate the factor of safety against base failure. The failure is analogous to a bearing capacity failure of foundation. These methods are shown in the Figure 5. and that it may require a more rigid wall (slurry walls or secant walls). If the factor of safety against base heave is less than about 1.4 Instability of Braced Cuts 5-9 .5. only in reverse.4. Usually the embedment depth is kept less than or equal to B/2.Instability Due to Heave of Bottom of Excavation Braced cuts in clays may become unstable as a result of the clay flows beneath the sheeting into the excavation. but caused by relief of load and not by the application of load as occurs in a conventional foundation bearing failure. substantial soil deformation is likely. Many designers believe the FS cannot be achieved by the use of a flexible retaining system. the embedment depth should be deeper. (a) Bjerrum and Eide (1956) (b) Terzaghi (1943) Figure 5. the method by Terzaghi (1943) can be used. If lesser soil movement is necessary. Therefore. a minimum factor of safety of 2 is required. the failure is a shear failure in the soil below formation level.

4) Hw = the height of water in the wall above the dredge line d = the embedment depth sub = submerge unit weight of the soil beneath the base (formation level) hw = the total hydraulic head loss For stratified soils.5. The factor of safety against base instability can be estimated.   FS  2 N   2 k a tan 1    1 (5.3) where N is the bearing capacity factor of soil beneath the excavation level 1 is the unit weight of soil above the excavation level 1 is the friction angle of soil above the excavation level ka is the active earth pressure coefficient of soil above the excavation level 2 is the unit weight of soil below the excavation level Stability of Braced Cut in Sand Due to Piping Instability of cut in sand mostly will be due to piping (hydraulic failure). When the ground water table is encountered and the water level inside the cut is lowered below the ground water level by pumping. 1986) for penetration of cut-off walls to prevent piping in sand can be used to estimate the stability.g. The stability is independent of the depth and the width of the excavation.Stability of the Bottom of the Cut in Sand Although it is unlikely. Factor of safety against piping can be calculated as: FS  Where  sub ( H w  2d )  w hw (5. the method of flow net and numerical analysis (e. As shown in Figure 5. design charts (DM-7. instability cohesionless soils can also be analyzed using NAVFAC (DM7. 5-10 . 1986). The designer must ensure that basal instability will not occur because of the flow of water. instability may be created as a result of the upward seepage of water into the cut. program SEEP) are more appropriate to estimate the FS against piping.

Figure 5.5 Instability Due to Piping 5-11 .

1981). the greater is the decrease in total stress. a decrease in groundwater pressure will occur. The wall behavior is dominated by vertical unloading caused by the excavation process and large movements still occur even if the wall is fully restrained from horizontal movement. Where groundwater has not been brought under complete control. large soil and wall movements are experienced even at shallow depths of excavation. the maximum lateral wall movement could be correlated with the factor of safety against basal heave (Clough et al. a perfectly watertight wall penetrating an impermeable soil layer at the bottom of the excavation does not exist. 1969). which in turn depends on the shear strength of the soil. and thus the larger are the 5-12 . For walls in soils with a low k0 value the displacements are much smaller in magnitude (Potts and Fourie. Ground movements caused by pile driving and dewatering were discussed in the report by D'Appolonia (1971). Initial Horizontal Stress For excavated walls in soils with a high initial k0 value. than in soft soils. and sheeting or walling. If a clay is anisotropic instead of the presumed isotropic. Groundwater Conditions In practice. 1979. Depth and shape of the excavation The deeper the excavation. Wall movements and ground settlements are smaller in stiff soils. The risk of excessive deformation of the walls is higher when the excavation is deeper and the site has a greater plan area. An excellent review on this topic was given by Clough & Schmidt (1981). 1984). This will cause an increase in effective stress and settlement of the soil surrounding the excavation.Ground Movements of In-situ Walls In earlier portion of this chapter the analysis focuses on the adequacy of the strut loads. Where water flows into the excavation. This section will address those factors which cause ground movement around an excavation and the amount of ground movement. large. 1981). The rate and magnitude of movement increase rapidly as the factor of safety approaches one. Movements of in-situ walls are a function of many factors:  soil and groundwater conditions  groundwater level  initial horizontal Stress  depth and shape of excavation  preloading of the support system  type and stiffness of the wall and its support  methods of construction of the wall and adjacent facilities Soil and Groundwater Conditions In clays. anchoring. erratic and damaging settlement due to the flow or the migration of fines into the excavation is not uncommon. Mana & Clough. such as soft and medium clays and compressible silts (Peck. the basal heave factor of safety may be much lower and lateral wall movements as well as ground surface settlements may be larger than expected (Clough & Hansen. such as granular soils and stiff clays.

and Cu is the undrained shear strength of the soil. H is the effective overburden pressure. in fact. Hanna & Kurdi (1974) supported this finding in their model tests. 1974). Prestress loads calculated using the apparent trapezoidal pressure diagrams (Terzaghi and Peck. Preloading of the support system Preloading removes slack from the support system. and its stress-strain response is stiffened until the next excavation step generates shear stresses that reload the soil beyond its maximum previous level of shear stress. and the soil settlements behind the wall. Clough & Tsui (1974) showed that movements of the tied-back wall. be counter-productive. the spacing between supports. it affects the movement of surrounding soils. although there are diminishing returns at higher preloads. 1967) is more effective in reducing movements than the prestress loads in tiebacks calculated in accordance with a triangular at-rest pressure diagram (Clough and Tsui. Very high preloads may. The instability number of the base (H/Cu) is plotted versus the stiffness parameter (EwIw/h4). and thus eliminates this potential source of movement.movements of the surrounding soil. 2000. 1981). Secant and tangent pile walls and structural slurry walls (diaphragm walls) are considered stiff on the basis of the rigidity of the wall element. and sufficiently low in load to avoid being overstressed as additional excavation occurs (O’Rourke. Each application of preload reduces the shear stresses set up in the soil due to previous excavation activities. cross-lot struts prestressed to 50% of their design load will be sufficiently rigid to restrict further movement at the level of the supports. Type and Stiffness of the Wall and Its Support The support system stiffness depends on the stiffness of the wall and its supports. Clough at el. Goldberg et al (1976) produced a valuable study into the effect of wall stiffness and support spacing and the results are presented in Figure 5. Walls that are considered flexible include steel sheet pile walls and soldier pile and lagging walls 5-13 . This temporary stiffening of the soil also leads to reduce movements. 'h' is the vertical spacing between supports. 1989): S EI H4 (5. In most cases.5) where  is either the unit weight of soil or unit weight of water. This means that the soil is partially unloaded. A non-dimensional effective stiffness parameter was also proposed (Koutsoftas et al. could be substantially reduced by a judicious choice of prestress load and support system stiffness. where EwIw is the flexural stiffness of the wall per unit length. since local outward movements at support levels can damage adjacent utilities. Thus. The shape of the excavation affects the basal stability in clays. Using levels slightly greater than those recommended by Terzaghi and Peck (1967) reduced the movements Clough (1975). and the length of wall embedded below the excavation bottom.6. Use of preloads in the struts or tiebacks reduces movement.

6 Effect of Basal Stability and Wall’s Stiffness on Lateral Wall Movement Various boundary lines are drawn to establish zones of expected lateral wall movements. being more significant at lower factors of safety than at higher ones. Increasing the stiffness of the strut or the tieback decreases movements. the movements associated with the site preparation works will exceed those that occur as a result of the excavation and support process. and (d) The installation of deep foundations In some cases. 5-14 . (b) Dewatering of aquifers above and below the base of the excavation. The relocation of utilities. These data suggested that an increase in EwIw/h4 has a significant effect in reducing movements.Figure 5. for example. but this effect shows diminishing returns at very high values of strut or tieback stiffness. (c) Construction of the excavation support system. The movement is also a function of the factor of safety against basal heave. Methods of Construction of Walls and Adjacent Facilities Associated Site Preparation Works Site preparation may include the following activities (a) Relocation and underpinning of utilities. Movements are also reduced as the depth to an underlying firm layer decreases and when the wall toe is embedded into the underlying firm layer.

and even local failure. O'Rourke et al (1976). in areas that have been subjected to earlier dewatering activities. and they can therefore be anticipated and controlled through good specifications. Because these factors cannot always be quantified. over-excavation. A review of the influence of construction factors on excavation movements was made by Clough & Davidson (1977). Influence of Construction Factors Additional movements of excavations. settlements due to further dewatering are smaller than those in virgin ground due to the stiffer response of the preconsolidated soil. Wall construction may require predrilling for soldier piles. Dewatering may consolidate the soil over an area. it is difficult to make accurate prediction of movements. which substantially exceeds the area affected by excavation-induced movements. caisson construction. or the excavation of slurry panels for concrete diaphragm walls. Lambe (1970. Also. site history and details of the construction procedures. Each of these can cause permanent movements. many of the undesirable effects of these factors have been identified. White (1976) and Zeevart (1972). The designer must consider how the excavation and subsequent construction should be carried out. the use of vibratory hammers to install sheet piles. and differences in excavation procedure. and surcharge loads from spoil heaps and construction equipment. 1972) demonstrated that variations in wedging techniques between the walings and struts. Clough & Tsui (1974) used a finite element analysis to show that over-excavation could lead to a 100% increase in movement. have been produced by late installation of supports. well-planned construction procedures and close supervision and monitoring. can result in doubling of the wall and soil movements. remolding and undercutting of clay berms. pile driving. especially when trenching is carried out close to pipelines and communication conduits. allow for them in performance estimates and specifications. the magnitude and distribution of which will vary according to the soil conditions. Hansbo et al (1973). However. where possible. 5-15 . identify critical construction factors and. and useful specific case history accounts can be found in Broms & Stille (1976). However. Lambe et al (1970).may have a locally severe impact on an adjacent property. loss of water through holes for tie-backs and joints or interlocks of slurry or sheet pile walls. it often causes settlements well in excess of excavation settlements.

14. Their findings agree with guidance established in Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (1985).15 percent of the total excavated depth. where workmanship is average or above average and soil conditions are not especially difficult. settlements should not exceed one percent of the excavation depth. which 5-16 . average workmanship (2) Zone II – (a) Very soft to soft clay  Limited depth of clay below bottom of excavation.7 is the first practical approach for estimating movements for in-situ wall systems proposed by Peck (1969).Prediction of Soil Movements Prediction of soil movements behind a supported excavation can be made by the following methods: (a) Empirical methods (b) Semi-empirical methods (c) Numerical methods Empirical Methods Figure 5. It should also be noted that construction technique could have a strong influence on movements of strutted systems.14 (b) Settlement affected by construction difficulties.2 percent and 0. The data used to derive the three zones shown in this figure were taken from excavations supported by soldier piles or sheet piles with cross-lot struts or tiebacks. 1969) Peck’s recommendation has been found to be very conservative for stiff clays. (3) Zone III – Very soft to soft clay to a significant depth below bottom of excavation and with H/Cu > 5.. Generally. the one percent figure can be exceeded (Lambe et a1.  Significant depth of clay below bottom of excavation but H/Cu < 5.7 Observed Settlements behind Excavations (Peck. 1970). Clough and O’Rourke (1990) found that the average horizontal and vertical movements of support systems in stiff clays were roughly 0. In cases where seepage can occur and soil consolidation results. Figure 5. respectively. (1) Zone I – Sand and stiff to hard clay.

0 1. 3.8 0. 1966) for the case of the base soil being clay: 1. The volume of the soil (Vs) in the lateral displacement zone is obtained by integrate from the wall deflection profile. and the Bauer’s method is for excavation in sands. The influence distance is a function of the friction angle of sand. Caspe’s method The lateral distance of the settlement influence is calculated as follow (Caspe. Two methods are presented here.   0  2  2 2.2 percent of the excavation depth.5 percent of the total excavated depth or higher depending on quality of construction. Compute the surface settlement at the edge of the excavation wall as So = 2 Vs/D 5. Due to the complexity of the soil behavior.02 1. where H is the excavation depth. The settlement is related to the friction angle of the sand. Compute remaining ground loss settlements assuming a parabolic variation of S i from the edge of the wall as Si = So (1 . quantitative predication of soil movements is very difficult. Compute H' = H + Hp. workmanship. Compute the approximate distance D [= H' tan (45 . The Caspe’s method is for excavation in clays.4 Factors of workmanship and construction difficulty Workmanship Factor Construction Difficulty Excellent Good Average Poor None Average Severe 0.9 1. Semi-empirical methods Semi-empirical methods have been developed based on the estimated lateral wall deflection profile obtained from simple numerical programs.8.0 1. This compares to guidance established in NAVFAC DM-7. The effects of workmanship and construction difficulty on the influence distance are described by factors f1 and f2 as listed in Table 5. Table 5.6) Hp  1  B tan(45  ) . Then Vs is related to the amount of soil movement vertically near the excavation area. the unpredicted construction factors.4. Bauer’s method A semi-empirical method for excavation in sands was proposed by Bauer (1984) as shown in Figure 5.2 (1982) that suggests in stiff fissured clays lateral movements may reach 0. Compute a distance Hp below the excavation level as (B = width of excavation area): B when   0   (5.x/D)2.states that lateral movements of temporary support systems in stiff clay are less than 0./2)] from the edge of the wall over which ground loss occurs 4. 5-17 .05 Factor f1 Numerical methods Finite element method has been used to study and calculate both the horizontal and vertical soil movements adjacent to the excavation.1 f2 1. and construction difficulty. where x is the horizontal distance from the edge of the wall.

it has provided valuable qualitative studies.However. A finite element study also predicted maximum lateral wall movements versus H also follow an approximately linear response with excavation depth. Excluding those special points. 5-18 .10 show that:  The horizontal movements tend to average about 0. Figures 5. Although we don’t know the maximum movement for a particular soil. judgment.  There is no significant difference between trends of the maximum movements of different types of walls.2% H. and this includes even the new soil nail and soil cement walls. O’Rourke (1990) found that the average horizontal and vertical movements of support systems in stiff clays were roughly 0. Residual Soils and Sands As shown in Figure 5. With the appropriate engineering Figure 5. reasonable predication can be obtained. centered around a trend line of 0.2% H  The vertical movements tend to average about 0. with the horizontal movements showing more than the vertical movements.Stiff Clays.2 percent of the total excavated depth. These two figures are useful to understand movement patterns and also can be used as design tools to estimate maximum wall and soil movements. Peck’s data suggested that the movements of excavation support systems in these soils were limited to 1% H.7. the linear trend between movement and excavation depth is obvious.8 Semi-empirical Method to Estimated Settlement (Bauer.15% H  There is ample scatter in the data. Goldberg et al (1976) showed that the maximum horizontal movements for in-situ walls and settlements of the retained soil masses in such materials were usually less than 0.9 and 5.5% H. 1984) Base Movement Trends Maximum movement .

Figure 5. 1990).9 Observed Maximum Lateral Movements for Insitu Walls in Stiff Clays. 1990) 5-19 . Residual Soils and Sands (Clough and O’Rouke. 1990) Figure 5.This is consistent with the average behavior observed in Figure 5.9. However.10 Observed Maximum Soil Settlements by In-situ Walls (Clough and O’Rouke. soil modulus and Ko had a more significant impact (Clough and O’Rourke. The parameters wall stiffness and strut spacing were found to have only a small influence on predicted movement because the soil in these circumstances is stiff enough to minimize the need for the structure.

movements increase rapidly.5 to 1.0 times the lateral wall movements. It also illustrates the influence that wall stiffness and support spacing.4 to 1. 1989) Clough et al (1979) and Mana & Clough (1981) reviewed case histories of sheet pile and soldier pile walls in clays supported primarily by cross-lot struts. movement patterns in these conditions can be dominated by deflections beneath the excavation. a plot of maximum lateral movement of the wall versus FS of basal heave. Caution is needed when using this chart for design.12 shows that the maximum lateral movement can be correlated with the factor of safety against basal heave defined by Terzaghi (1943.Soft and Medium Clays As opposed to stiffer soils.2% to 0.5.11 Design Curves to Obtain Maximum Lateral Wall Movement for Soft to Medium Clays (Clough et al. Figure 5..8%. and as a result. while at higher factors of safety the nondimensional movements lie within a narrow range of 0.4b). Figure 5. shows that as FS falls below 1. there do not appear to be any significant differences in lateral movements between sheet pile walls whose tips are embedded in an underlying stiff layer and those whose tips remain in the moving clay mass. They found that the ratio of maximum settlement movements ranges from 0.5. see Figure 5.It is suggested here that variations in soil stiffness have a more profound effect on wall behavior than system stiffness. 5-20 . Figure 5. Maximum Movements . basal stability in soft and medium clays may be at issue. Moreover.11. The movements increase rapidly below a factor of safety of 1.

12 Soil Movements versus Basal Stability for Soft to Medium Clays Displacement Profile General patterns of ground movement are illustrated in Figure 5..13.13 Typical Lateral Movement Profiles Initial excavation before strutting The excavation was deepened before supports were installed. Thus. 1989).Figure 5. Clough and O’Rouke. They are obtained from inclinometer and settlement measurements for braced and tied-back excavations (Milligan. Finno et al. deformation of the wall occurred primarily as a cantilever-type movement. The horizontal strains produced in this mode of deformation form a triangular pattern of contours that decrease in magnitude with depth and 5-21 . 1984. Figure 2. 1990.

Therefore. the deep inward movement is predominant and the settlements tend to be bounded by a trapezoidal displacement. The cumulative wall and ground surface displacement profiles are shown in Figure 5.13a. Deep inward movement of the wall occurs.  In sand.14 Observed Settlement Adjacent to Excavations in Sands (Clough and O’Rourke. 1990) 5-22 .14 summarized the settlements adjacent to the excavations in predominantly sand and granular soil profiles. Excavations in Sand Figure 5. Figure 5. Settlements during this stage of construction may be bounded within the triangular distribution of displacement as shown in Figure 5. cantilever movements predominate and the settlements tend to follow a triangular pattern. When the excavation advances to deeper elevations. The settlement profiles are very consistent for different kind of supporting systems (cross-lot struts.13c.  In soft to medium clay.13b. the contours for which were inclined at approximately 45o to the vertical. In the deeper portion of the excavation. and slurry wall with cross-lot struts). the displacement profile depends on the predominant movement pattern. which is shown as an incremental component of the total displacement in Figure 5. with triangular contours of strain caused by cantilever wall deformation and deep concentric contours of strain bounding zones of maximum settlement caused by walls subject to deep inward displacement. soldier pile and lagging with tiebacks. upper wall movement is restrained by installation of new support or stiffening of existing support members.distance away from the wall. inward bulging of' the wall caused tensile strains. stiff to very hard clay. The excavations were in granular soils above the water table by dewatering. Field measurements of horizontal strains at excavations in different types of soil showed similar patterns. sheet piles with tiebacks.

Excavations in Soft to Medium Clays Figure 5. if the settlements 5-23 .15 summarized settlements for excavation sites in stiff to very hard clays for different retaining systems. A second zone was drawn which contains highway excavations of London clay. it is difficult to identify the maximum settlement. They were affected by the low horizontal stiffness of the support systems.16 summarizes settlements for excavations in soft to medium clay. and concrete diaphragm walls. It is a triangular profile and distributes over 2 times the excavation depth from the edge of the cut. Excavations in Stiff to Very Hard Clays Figure 5. the majority falls within a triangular boundary with the same dimensions as those pertaining to the observed settlements. The displacements caused by ancillary construction activities were removed. However.15 Observed Soil Movements Adjacent to Excavations in Stiff and Very Hard Clays In the horizontal movement. soldier pile and lagging. involving cross-lot struts supporting sheet pile. Figure 5.3% H. The settlements are only 0.3% H but are distributed over three times the excavation depth from the edge of the cut.Maximum settlements were typically less than 0. Due to the scatter of the data.

16 Observed Soil Movements Adjacent to Excavation in Soft and Medium Clays The largest differential soil movements occur near or within the transition zone. 5-24 .17 presents dimensionless settlement profiles recommended as a basis for estimating vertical movement patterns adjacent to excavations in three different kinds of soils. the maximum angular distortion was located between 0. In almost all cases. there is a transition zone in which settlements decrease from maximum to negligible values.5 H and 1.25 H from the edge of cut.75 < d/H  2. Angular distortion appears to be relatively small when maximum settlement is less than 50 mm. a relative well-defined grouping of the data is evident. The settlement distribution is bounded by a trapezoidal envelope in which two zones of movement can be identified. There is a linear relationship between the maximum settlement and the logarithmic of angular distortion. At 0  d/H  0.75. At 0. Figure 5. Figure 5.were plotted as fractions of maximum settlement. there is a zone in which the maximum settlement occurs. It increases exponentially with maximum settlement.

deep foundation removal or construction. Movements associated with other activities. stiff to very hard clay). in-situ walls will exhibit creep. soft to medium clay.Figure 5. General comments  In stiff clays. 5-25 . The maximum settlement ratio is less than 0. and wall installation. should be estimated separately. The influence distance from the edge of the wall is about 2. a prompt installation of supports if movements are to be minimized. Driving of sheet-pile in a loose sand layer will also cause the layer to settle.  Minimize struts spacing (strut stiffness is less important within normal range).17 Dimensionless Design Settlement Profiles for Excavations in Different Soil Types Be careful that these diagrams pertain to settlements caused during the excavation and bracing stages of construction. such as dewatering.15% H. Vertical settlements have been observed during the installation of the diaphragm wall at different soils (granular soil. the geotechnical engineer should know how in-situ walls are constructed since otherwise he cannot properly predict how the soil will behave. Thus.5 H.

Broms. It is advisable to penetrate the wall to a bearing layer where possible. Tokyo. Hensen.W. Support spacing is more important than wall stiffness in defining system stiffness and helping control movements. and Denby. Using sheet-pile. (1989) “Building Response to Excavation-Induced Settlement. W. Thomas Telford. Vancouver. G. Of Specialty Session 3 on Relationship Between Design and Construction in Soil Engineering. Vol. Special Publication. Vol.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering.” Proc. 95. Additional movements can also be generated by (a) poor construction technique (b) slow installation of supports after the excavation level is reached (c) construction and removal of foundations within the excavation and. G. R. (1990) “Construction Induced Movements of Insitu Walls. but this is most effective in soft to medium clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. CIRIA. G. On Numerical Methods in Goemechanics.E. PA. (d) removal of soil below the design level of a support. “Deep Excavations and Retaining Structure.  Try to enforce the excavation limit such that no over excavation without the installation of supports. (1976). ASCE. on Ground Movements and Structures. ASCE. of the 3rd Int. 4.M. 1-21. T. BiTech Publishers Ltd. and O’Rourke. 75-90. “Clay Anisotropy and Braced Wall Behavior.115. ASCE. Aachen. E. Cardiff. Boscardin M. and Hensen.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. and Davidson. B. Vol. A.W. Increasing wall stiffness tends to reduce system movements. (1977). (1979). on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Conf.C.A.” 5-26 . and Mana. Clough. (1993) Design and construction of sheet piled cofferdams. H. 107. W. 235-251. 902-1030 West Georgia Street.. G.” Proc. Clough. “Failure of Anchored Sheet Pile Walls. every fifth sheet-pile can be penetrated to the bearing layer. Clough. (1977). W.A.J. References Bauer. “Stabilizing Berm Design for Temporary Walls in Clay. 1. 103. “Prediction of Support Excavation Movements under Marginal Stability Conditions in Clay. ASCE. Vol. No. Clough.R. Clough. Canadian Geotechnical Society (1985). Clough.D..W. Summary System stiffness and basal stiffness affect excavation in soft to medium clays but not in stiff clays and sands. 417-465. “Movements Associated with the Construction of A Deep Excavation. B. L. L. (1975). G.I. (1984).. Of the Short Course – Seminar on Analysis and Design of Building Foundations. Bethlehem. 1485-1502. Of the 3rd International Conf. G. Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual The Canadian Geotechnical Society.D. 15-53. G. and Cording. 456p. 694-706. (1981). 102.” Proc. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering.” Proc. and Stille. G. 893-913. 9th International Conf. Vol.. “Effect of Construction on Geotechnical Performance.

D. FHWA RD-75-128~130. E.I.W. “Shape of Ground Surface Settlement Profiles Caused by Excavation. Jaworski. Vol. D.Proc. On Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. 6. and Clough. Vol. ASCE.W. Experiences Concerning a Difficult Foundation Problem and its Unorthodox Solution. and Henkel. 869-884. and Sweeney. pp. C. of the ASCE Specialty Conf. New York. Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures.A. “Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. G. and Kulesza.” San Juan. and Thorley. T. Vol. 439-470.. (1972). 1004-1017 Koutsoftas.H. “Design and Performance of Excavations and Tunnels in Soft Clay. 12 pp. I. ed. D. ASCE. (1984). “Effects of Foundation Construction on Nearby Structures. No. C-Y. M. W. (1981). 707-722. (1980). ASCE. Goldberg. J. C. Vol. Vol. Lambe and Hansen. L. D. Clough. of the 3rd International Conf. “Prediction of Movements for Braced Cuts in Clay. D’Appolonia. Hofmann.” Soft Clay Engineering. pp.. Lafayette. 3: Construction Methods. ASCE Specialty Conf.” Proc.” Proc. Vol.W.P. Vol. 35. 1: Design and Construction. S. Vol.W. “Soil Deformations Behind Retaining Walls. 2: Design Fundamentals. “Deformations During Cut-and-Cover Construction of MUNI Metro Turnback Project. 4.” Proc. P. (1974). B.E. and Schmidt.W. FHWA Reports. on Diaphragm Walling Techniques. and Mosseson. (1971). 344-359 Lamb.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. and Kurdi. T. Hsieh. Puerto Rico. Smith.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 25.. of the Conf. I. Brand and Brenner. and Tsui. Ithica. Hanna. Vol. 3. 759-777. on Ground Movements and Structures. on Ground Movements and Structures.” Proc. and Ou.W.B. P-G. Hansbo. E.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Wolfskill. 5-27 . of the 3rd International Conf. Meyersohn. 1. Cowland. Davies. 567634. and Gordon. Ed. B. the 8 th International Conf. “ Ground and Building Settlement Associated with Adjacent Slurry Trench Excavation. Lamb. J. R.” Proc.. Wu. Mana.E.W. Vol. Hong Kong. “Predicted Performance of Braced Excavations.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Y. “Performance of Tieback Walls in Clay. ASCE. (1970). (1989) “Movement Control of Excavation Support Systems by Iterative Design. (1981). Indiana. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Clough.. L. D.. G. J. and Wong. (1973). G. Clough. C. (1976). Cardiff. D. Lamb. Vol. 149-218. “Ostra Nordstaden. G. 189-236. 100.. ASCE Foundation Engineering: Current Principles and Practices. Singapore. Gothenburg. paper RDS.2 105-110. 2. Elsevier Scientific Co.B. Milligan. 126. 2. (1998). “Geotechnical Problems Associated with the Construction of Chater Station.T.W. A.” Proc. Vol. I. R. 255-256. 1107-1122. on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures. 723-738.. Frobenius.M. “Studies on Anchored Flexible Retaining Walls in Sand.” Proc.W. “Braced Excavations. 1259-1273.H. (1970). 100. ASCE Special Geotechnical Publication No. Lateral Support Systems and Underpinning. T. No.V. (1984). 817-836. (1974). (2000). Of 4th PanAmerican Conf.J. G. 96. on Lateral Stress in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures. Cardiff. 107. Vol. ASCE. “Measured Performance of Braced Excavation. T.” Proc. Moscow.

R. Foundation Engineering for Difficult Subsoil Conditions. M. Of the Short Course – Seminar on Analysis and Design of Building Foundations. “Foundation Difficulties. T.B. “Discussion (Description of a diaphragm wall test panel). London. D. 244 p. A Review of Diaphragm Walls.W. White. on Soil Engg. Soil Mechanic in Engineering Practice. on Ground Movements and Structures. Hong Kong. (1976). L. 671-700. Taipei. NAVFAC (1982).S. L. M. of Civil Engineers. 2nd Edition. ASCE. “The Effect of Wall Stiffness on the Behavior of A Propped Retaining Wall. New York.Morton. Vol. Washington. K. Hong Kong. Terzaghi. R. (1981). “The Ground Movements Related to Braced Excavation and Their Influence on Adjacent Buildings. Asian Conf. T. 347-352.” Proc. New York. O’Rourke.D. 225-290. Inst.” Proc. O’Rourke. 5-28 . Morton.B.S. New York. Of 7th International Conf. and Fourie. Cater.” Geotechnique.M. and Sweeney. Cardiff. of the 6th SE. (1985). John Wiley and Sons. (1977). 142-148. Design Manual 7. John Wiley and Sons. Building Settlements and Ground Movements Associated with Construction of Two Stations of the Modified Initial System of the Mass Transit Railway. E. and Peck. D. 35.. Peck.J. and Boscardin. Methods of Control and Prevention. Cording. (1980b). State-of-the-art Volume.” Van Nostrand Reinhold.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Department of the Navy. (1972). 415-429.J. T-23. Department of Transportation. Stroud. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. DOT-TST 76.D.” Mexico City.B. R.E. PA.” Proc. (1969). (1967). On Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Naval Facilities Engineering command. K. Terzaghi. 788-802. Potts. and Linney.. K. 1159-1178.. “Ground Movements Caused by Braced Excavations. A. (1980a). (1976).W. Report. 107.C. R.” U.. Zeevart. 1. Leonard. “Observed Settlements of Buildings Adjacent to Stations Constructed for the Modified Initial System of the Mass Transit Railway. D. K. M.2 – Foundation and Earth Structure. Vol. (1943). “Deep Excavations and Tunneling in Soft Ground. Bethlehem.A.M. of the 2 nd International Conf. and Cater. E. Vol. “ Proc.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.