You are on page 1of 93

Push In

Basal Heave
Overall Shear Failure
Overall shear failure modes
Stability Analysis
Overall Shear Failure Mode: PUSH-IN
failure surface
{
strut
wall
settlement
wall bottom "kick out"
It is mainly due to the unbalance between passive earth
pressure (inside) and active earth pressure (outside)
Strut
settlement
failure surface
bottom heave
Overall Shear Failure Mode: BASAL HEAVE
It is mainly due to
bearing capacity of the
soil beneath the
excavation bottom
p
p
a
L
p
L
s
M
p
P
strut
a
p
a
P
ANALYSIS OF PUSH-IN
The factor of safety against push-in:
a a
s p p
d
r
p
L P
M L P
M
M
F
+
= =
Distribution of earth pressures for cohesive soil
(4.16)
(4.17)
(4.18)
(4.19)
ac a v a
cK K 2
= o o
) 1 (
c
c
K K
w
a ac
+ =
pc p v p
cK K 2
+ = o o
) 1 (
c
c
K K
w
p pc
+ =
(5.6)
Cast-in-place pile
API
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
o
v u
/ s o
'
FIGURE 4.12 Relation between adhesion and undrained shear
strength of clay
u
w
s
c
o =
Factor of safety
Diaphragm walls
Steel sheet piles
=1.2~1.3
Cohesionless soilsandy, gravel
Distribution of water pressures
Gross water pressure distribution
Net water pressure distribution
u w
s c 67 . 0
=
u w
s c 5 . 0
=
p
F
(a) (b)
f
u
f
u
Strut
Strut
i
d
j
d
FIGURE 5.7 Distribution of water pressure due to seepage (a)
distribution of water pressure (b) net water pressure
(note: = water pressure due to seepage)
f
u
Cohesionless soilsandy, gravel
Distribution of earth pressures
Caquot-Kerisel's or Coulomb's active earth pressure should be adopted
for the active earth pressure.
Caquot-Kerisel's passive earth pressure should be adopted for the
passive earth pressure. When , Coulomb's passive earth
pressure coefficient is quite close.
Caquot-Kerisel's earth pressure theory's , and have
some relationship. Section 4.5.3 has summarized some findings on
values of .
Clough's researchconcluded that between concrete (cast in steel
mold) and sand, is about .
2 /
| o ' <
a
K
p
K
o
o
o
|
'
0.8
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
p
F
e
H
(
%
)
/
e
H
FIGURE 5.8 Factors of safety against push-in for excavations in
sand (all cases are safe cases; is assumed)
h
m
o
hm
o
hm
o
| o
'
=
Conclusion
Assumption that seems to be reasonable.
For conservative reason, we usually assume
=0.5
=1.2~1.3
= o
p
F
o
|
'
|
'
(a)
Strut
(b)
an
L
pn
L
pn
P
an
P
s
M
FIGURE 5. 9 Analysis of- push in by the net pressure method
( a ) distribution of net earth pressure
( b ) force equilibrium of the retaining wall as a free body
The analyses of the basal heave failure are only applicable to clayey
soils.
Like Terzaghi, Bjerrum and Eide,
Tschebotarioff, Terzaghi and Peck,
Clough and O'Rourke, etc.
But the most commonly applied of which are Terzaghi's method,
Bjerrum and Eide, and the slip circle method.
ANALYSIS OF BASAL HEAVE
(1) Bearing capacity method (modified Terzaghis method)
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
d
a
b c
a b c a b c
a b c
d
d
d
2 /
1
B B
=
2
/
1
B B =
1
B
B
1
B
1
B
1
B
o
45
e H
o
45
FIGURE 5.10 Analysis of push-in by bearing capacity method
(a) a wide trial failure surface
(b) a second wide trial failure surface
(c) a third wide trial failure surface
(d) both sides of the excavation produce failure surfaces
1
B
1
B
1
B
FIGURE 5.11 Excavation profile of the assumed excavation case
X
2.5m
e
H
62 . 19
=
sat

3
m / kN
Bearing capacity method
Negative bearing capacity method
Slip circle method (side strength neglected)
Slip circle method
(side strength considered)
0 1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
e
H X
F
b
) / 25 (
2
m KN S
u
=
FIGURE 5.12 Relations between failure circle sizes and factors of safety against basal
heave obtained by the bearing capacity method, negative bearing capacity
method, and the slip circle method
0 1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
e
H X
b
F
Bearing capacity method
Negative bearing capacity method
Slip circle method
(side strength neglected)
Slip circle method (side strength considered)
) 3 . 0 / (
= '
v u
S
o
FIGURE 5. 13 Relations between failure circle sizes and factors of safety
against basal heave obtained by the bearing capacity method ,
negative bearing capacity method , and the slip circle method
Terzaghi's method
Stiff soil
B
a b
c
d
1 u
s
2 u
s
2
/ B
2 / B
2
/ B
s
q
s
q
o
45
e
H
D
FIGURE 5.14 Analysis of basal heave using Terzaghi's method
2 / ) ( B D a >
When , the formation of a failure surface is not
restrained by the stiff soil.
Vertical plane bc can offer shear resistance and the
factor of safety against basal heave will be
(5.7)
(5.8)
(5.9)
2 / B D
>
2
) ( ) 1 )( (
1
B
q H B q H W
s e s e
+ =

+ =
2
) 7 . 5 ( ) 1 ( 7 . 5
2 1 2
B
s B s Q
u u u
=

=
e u
H s
1
e u s e
u
e u
u
b
H s B q H
B s
H s W
Q
F
1
2
1
2 / ) (
2 / 7 . 5
+
=

D
D
B
D
1 u
s
2 u
s
s
q
s
q
D
e
H
2
/ ) ( B D b
<
Stiff soil
FIGURE 5.14 Analysis of basal heave using Terzaghi's method
2 / ) ( B D b
<
When , the failure surface will be restrained by the stiff soil.
(5.10)
Clough suggested that, Terzaghi's factor of safety should be
greater than or equal to 1.5.
2 / B D
<
) (
b
F
e u s e
u
e u
u
b
H s D q H
D s
H s W
Q
F
1
2
1
) (
7 . 5
+
=

B
1
B
(a)
B
d
a b c
(b)
FIGURE 5.15 Relation between the embedded part of the retaining wall
and the failure surface
(a) large penetration depth (b) small penetration depth
d
a
b
90

90

e
H
e
e
H
(2) Negative bearing capacity method (modified Bjerrem and Eides method)
1
B
1
B
B
Assumed failure surface
(a) (b)
(c)
s
q s
q
s
q
s
q
e
H
e
H
1
2B
1
2 B
s
q
e
H
s
q
FIGURE 5.16 Analysis of basal heave by negative bearing capacity method (a) a wide failure
surface (b) another wide failure surface (c) Failure surface covers the whole
excavation bottom
1
2B
1
2B
FIGURE 5.11 Excavation profile of the assumed excavation case
X
2.5m
e
H
62 . 19
=
sat

3
m / kN
Bearing capacity method
Negative bearing capacity method
Slip circle method (side strength neglected)
Slip circle method
(side strength considered)
0 1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
e
H X
F
b
FIGURE 5.12 Relations between failure circle sizes and factors of safety against basal
heave obtained by the bearing capacity method, negative bearing capacity
method, and the slip circle method
) / 25 (
2
m KN S
u
=
0 1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
e
H X
b
F
Bearing capacity method
Negative bearing capacity method
Slip circle method
(side strength neglected)
Slip circle method (side strength considered)
) 3 . 0 / (
= '
v u
S
o
FIGURE 5. 13 Relations between failure circle sizes and factors of safety
against basal heave obtained by the bearing capacity method ,
negative bearing capacity method , and the slip circle method
s
q
e H
s
q
FIGURE 5.16c
Bjerrum and Eide's method
(5.12)
s e
u c
b
q H
s N
F
+

0 1 2 3 4 5
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
=
B L
2
3
B H
e
c
N

FIGURE 5.17 Skempton's bearing capacity factor
(rectangular)
(square) =
(5.11)
c
N
c
N
) 16 . 0 84 . 0 (
L
B
+
Modified Bjerrum and Eide's method
(5.13)
(5.14)
e
s d s c u
b
H
f f N s
F

, 1
=
L
B
f
s
2 . 0 1
+ =
D
10
9
8
7
6
5.53
2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2
1.0
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
5.53
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
N
c
,
s
1 2 u u
s s
1 2 u u
s s
B D /
B D /
N
c
,
s
1
1 2
<
u u
s s
1
1 2
>
u u
s s
undrained shear strength profile
e
H
u1
s
u2
s
B
1
2
(a)
for failure circles passing two soil layers Nc,s
If / exceeds the values in the figure, the failure circle
will be tangent to the top of the lower soil layer.
Nc,s
5
10
20
30
40
50
0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.45
1.25
1.2
B D
N
c,s
1 2 u u
s s
(b) for failure circles tangent to the top of the lower soil layer
DM7.2 suggested that Bjerrum and Eide's factor of safety
should be greater than or equal to 1.5.
FIGURE 5.18 Extended Bjerrum and Eide's method
(a) for failure circles passing two soil layers
(b) for failure circles tangent to the top of the lower soil layer
(c) width modification factor
Nc,s
d
f
d
f
(c)
0
1
2 3 4
5
6
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
B H
e
/
Nc,s
b
F
(3) Slip circle method
O
W
r
u
s
Lowest level of struts
A
B
FIGURE 5.19 Location of the center of a failure circle for the slip circle method
(5.15)
X
O
a
b
d
f
e c
(a)
W
O
s
M
(b)
Lowest level of struts
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
u
s
u
s
X
s
g
s
u
u d
o
FIGURE 5.20 Analysis of basal heave by the slip circle method
(a) the failure surface (b) balance of the a free body
2
) (
2
0
X
W
M d X s X
M
M
F
s u
d
r
b

+
= =
}
+o
t
u
Bearing capacity method
Negative bearing capacity method
Slip circle method (side strength neglected)
Slip circle method
(side strength considered)
0 1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
e
H X
b
F
FIGURE 5.12 Relations between failure circle sizes and factors of safety against basal
heave obtained by the bearing capacity method, negative bearing capacity
method, and the slip circle method
) / 25 (
2
m KN S
u
=
FIGURE 5.13 Relations between failure circle sizes and factors of safety
against basal heave obtained by the bearing capacity method,
negative bearing capacity method, and the slip circle method
) 3 . 0 / ( = '
v u
S o
0 1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
e
H X
b
F
Bearing capacity method
Negative bearing capacity method
Slip circle method
(side strength neglected)
Slip circle method (side strength considered)
Lowest level
of struts
FIGURE 5.21 Factor of safety increasing due to the failure circle exceeding
the excavation width
Lowest level of struts
u1
s
u2
s
u2 u1 S
S
>
FIGURE 5.22 Analysis of basal heave in layered soft soils
Bearing capacity method
Negative bearing capacity method
Slip circle method (side strength neglected)
Slip circle method
(side strength considered)
0 1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
e
H X
b
F
FIGURE 5.12 Relations between failure circle sizes and factors of safety against basal
heave obtained by the bearing capacity method, negative bearing capacity
method, and the slip circle method
) / 25 (
2
m KN S
u
=
0 1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
e
H X
b
F
Bearing capacity method
Negative bearing capacity method
Slip circle method
(side strength neglected)
Slip circle method (side strength considered)
) 3 . 0 / (
= '
v u
S
o
FIGURE 5. 13 Relations between failure circle sizes and factors of safety
against basal heave obtained by the bearing capacity method ,
negative bearing capacity method , and the slip circle method
(5) Applicability to sandy soils
B
a b
c
d
1 u
s
2 u
s
2 / B
2 / B
2
/ B
s
q s
q
o
45
e
H
D
Stiff soil
2 / ) ( B D a
>
D
D
B
D
Stiff soil
1 u
s
2 u
s
s
q
s
q
D
e
H
FIGURE 5.14 Analysis of basal heave using Terzaghi's method
2 / ) ( B D b
<
X
O
a
b
d
f
e c
(a)
W
O
s
M
(b)
Lowest level of struts
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
u
s
u
s
X
s
g
s
u
u d
o
FIGURE 5.20 Analysis of basal heave by the slip circle method
(a) the failure surface (b) balance of the a free body
excavation failure case
5.5.3 Case Study of Overall Shear Failure
The excavation case was located in Taipei. The width of the
excavation was 17.6mthe length was 100.1m the depth was
13.45m. The excavation adopted a 70cm thick , 34, deep
diaphragm wall as the retaining wall. There four levels of struts
and the excavation was carried out in 5 stages.

excavation failure
excavation failure case
SM
OL - ML
SP - SM
CL
E
GL-4.5 m
GL-8.7 m
GL-10.7 m
GL-13.45 m
GL-2.8 m
GL-10.15 m
GL-24.0 m
14.7
2
m / kN
FIGURE 5.23 Stability analysis of an excavation case history
(a) excavation and geological profiles
o
18
=
u
|
2
/ 7 . 16 m kN c
u
=
3
/ 8 . 18 m kN
t
=
0
= '
c
3
/ 7 . 19 m kN
t
=
o
10
=
u
|
2
/ 98 . 0 m kN c
u
=
3
/ 6 . 15 m kN
t
=
o
33
= ' |
0
= '
c
3
/ 3 . 20 m kN
t
=
o
32
= ' |
u
and
will be 1.5
will be 2.3
were the total stress strength parameters of the clay soils,
obtained from the triaxial CU test
adopt by the original designer
We assume the soil below the lowest level of struts (GL-10.15 m)
to be a clayey layer, the adhesion between the retraining wall and
the soil
and the normalized undrained shear strength
(4.16)
(4.18)
p
F
b
F
3 / 2
u w
s c
=
22 . 0 /
=
'
v u
s
o
ac a v a
cK K 2
= o o
pc p v p
cK K 2
+ = o o
u
c
u
|
At the depth of GL-10.15 m
2
/ 5 . 185 45 . 1 7 . 19 2 . 4 6 . 15 5 . 4 3 . 20 m kN
v
=

= o
2
/ 1 . 72 81 . 9 ) 8 . 2 15 . 10 ( m kN u
= =
2
/ 3 . 113 m kN u
v v
= =
'
o o
'
2
/ 9 . 24 3 . 113 22 . 0 22 . 0 m kN s
v u
=

= = o
2
,
/ 2 . 121
3
2
1 ) 9 . 24 ( 2 5 . 185 ) 1 ( 2 m kN
s
c
K s K
u
w
a u a v a h
= + = + = o o
At the depth of GL-13.45 m
Before excavation
after excavation was started, on the passive side, but
value stayed unchanged.
Thus,
2
/ 0 . 248 75 . 2 8 . 18 55 . 0 7 . 19 5 . 185 m kN
v
= + + = o
2
/ 5 . 104 81 . 9 ) 8 . 2 45 . 13 ( m kN u
=

=
2
/ 5 . 143 m kN u
v v
= =
'
o o
2
/ 6 . 31 5 . 143 22 . 0 22 . 0 m kN s
v u
=

=
'
= o
0
=
v
o
u
s
2
,
/ 5 . 81
3
2
1 ) 6 . 31 ( 2 0 ) 1 ( 2 m kN
s
c
K s K
u
w
p u p v p h
= + + = + + = o o
At the depth of GL-24.0 m
The active side
2
/ 3 . 446 55 . 10 8 . 18 0 . 248 m kN
v
=

+ = o
2
/ 0 . 208 81 . 9 ) 8 . 2 24 ( m kN u
=

=
2
/ 3 . 238 m kN u
v v
= =
'
o o
2
/ 4 . 52 3 . 238 22 . 0 22 . 0 m kN s
v u
= =
'
= o
2
,
/ 0 . 311
3
2
1 ) 4 . 52 ( 2 3 . 446 ) 1 ( 2 m kN
s
c
K s K
u
w
a u a v a h
= + = + =o o
At the depth of GL-24.0 m
The passive side
After excavation was start stayed constant,
u
s
2
/ 3 . 198 ) 45 . 13 0 . 24 ( 8 . 18 m kN
v
=

= o
2
,
/ 6 . 333
3
2
1 ) 4 . 52 ( 2 3 . 198 ) 1 ( 2 m kN
s
c
K s K
u
w
p u p v p h
= + + = + + = o o
The factor of safety against push-in as
(b)
81.5
121.2
311.0 333.6
2
m kN
2
m kN
2
m kN
2
m kN
GL-10.15 m
GL-13.45 m
GL-24.0 m
FIGURE 5.23 Stability analysis of an excavation case history
(b) distribution of earth pressure for the push-in analysis
89 . 0
3 / 2 85 . 13 5 . 0 85 . 13 ) 2 . 121 0 . 311 ( 2 / 85 . 13 85 . 13 2 . 121
) 3 . 3 3 / 2 55 . 10 ( 5 . 0 55 . 10 ) 5 . 81 6 . 333 ( ) 3 . 3 2 / 55 . 10 ( 55 . 10 5 . 81
=
+
+ + +
=
p
F
Compute the factor of safety against basal heave
according to Slip circle method
Similarly, assuming the soil below the lowest level of
struts is clay, the average value of the undrained shear
strengths (the active side) of the soil between GL-10.15 m
and GL-24.0 m would be
The average value of the undrained shear strengths of
the soil between GL-13.45 m and GL-24.0 m would be
2
,
/ 7 . 38
2
4 . 52 9 . 24
m kN s
a u
=
+
=
2
,
/ 0 . 42
2
4 . 52 6 . 31
m kN s
p u
=
+
=
The radius of the failure circular arc would be
The central angle of the failure circular arc on the active side
would be
The central angle of the failure circular arc on the passive
side would be
The factor of safety against circular arc failure would be
m 85 . 13 15 . 10 24
=
57 . 1
2
= =
t
u
33 . 1 )
85 . 13
3 . 3
( cos
1
= =

u
94 . 0
23786
22370
2 / 85 . 13 85 . 13
85 . 13 7 . 38 57 . 1 85 . 13 85 . 13 0 . 42 33 . 1 85 . 13
) 45 . 13 (
= =
+

GL v
b
F
o


Computing the factor of safety against basal heave
following Terzaghi's method
The width of the excavation , was larger than the
penetration depth (10.55 m). Assumed failure surface will pass below the
bottom of the retaining wall.
B
d
a
b
c
(b)
90

e
H
FIGURE 5.15 Relation between the embedded part of the retaining wall and the failure surface
(b) small penetration depth
m B 6 . 17
= 2 / B
The average undrained shear strength of soil within the range of
the failure circle can be calculated as follows
of soil deep below the ground surface-- m B 9 . 25 2 / 45 . 13
= +
2
/ 1 . 482 ) 45 . 13 90 . 25 ( 8 . 18 0 . 248 m kN
v
= + = o
2
/ 5 . 255 81 . 9 ) 8 . 2 90 . 25 ( 1 . 482 m kN u
v v
= = =
'
o o
2
/ 2 . 56 5 . 255 22 . 0 22 . 0 m kN s
v u
= =
'
= o

The average undrained shear strength within the range of the


failure circle would be
As computed earlier, the total stress outside the excavation zone
at the depth equaling the excavation surface would be
2
/ 9 . 43 2 / ) 2 . 56 6 . 31 ( m kN s
u
= + =
2
/ 0 . 248 m kN
v
= o
To simplify the analysis and be conservative, we assume the
soil above the excavation surface is clay and has soil shear
strength expressed as . The average undrained shear
strength of the soil outside the excavation zone and the excavation
surface would be
The factor of safety according to Terzaghi's method would be
22 . 0 /
= '
v u
s
o
2
) 45 . 13 (
/ 8 . 15
2
6 . 31
2
22 . 0
m kN s
GL v
u
= =
'
=

o
08 . 1
2874
3118
45 . 13 8 . 15 2 / 6 . 17 0 . 248
2 / 6 . 17 9 . 43 7 . 5
1
= =

=
e u
u
b
H s W
Q
F

The factor of safety following Bjerrum and Eide's method would be


10 . 1
0 . 248
2 . 6 9 . 43
= =
+
=
s e
c u
b
q H
N s
F

Undrained shear strength and the depth


) (
2
m kN
Active side ) , (
u u
c
|
0.22 /
= '
v u
s
o
Passive side
) , (
u
u
c
|
(c)
FIGURE 5.23 Stability analysis of an excavation case history
(c) the undrained shear strength used in the analysis
25
2
0
15
10
5
0
0 50
100 150 200
d
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
u
s
Example 5.1Assume a 9.0 m deep excavation in a sandy
ground and the lowest level of struts is 2.5m above the
excavation surface. The level of groundwater outside the
excavation zone is ground surface high while that within the
excavation zone is as high as the excavation surface. The
unit weight of saturated sandy soils , the
effective cohesion and the effective angle of friction
. Because of the difference between the levels of
groundwater , seepage will occur. Assume that the friction
angles ( ) between the retaining wall and soil on both the
active and passive sides are and the factor of safety
against push-in, . Compute the required penetration
depth( ).
20
=
sat

3
m / kN
o
30
=
'
|
0
=
'
c
o
|
'
5 . 0
5 . 1
=
p
F
p
H
j
d
i
d
x
x
a
b
c
c
u
w j e p
d H H ) ( +
(a)
b
u
(b)
FIGURE 4.22 Simplified analysis method for seepage
(a) distribution of water pressure (b) net water pressure
z
z
w i p
d H ) (
e
H
p
H
1.determine the coefficient of the earth presure
Compute both the active and passive earth pressures following
Caquot-Kerisel's earth pressure theory. When , the
coefficients of active and passive earth pressure can be found from
Figure 4.9 and Figure 4.10 to be 0.3 and 4.6 separately. Thus, the
coefficients of the horizontal active and passive earth pressure
would be
Solution
|
'
= o
5 . 0
29 . 0 5 . 0 cos 3 . 0 cos 3 . 0
,
=
'
= = | o
h a
K
4 . 4 5 . 0 cos 6 . 4 cos 6 . 4
,
=
'
= = | o
h p
K
2. Compute the effective active active earth pressure on the wall
According to Eq. 4.51the porewater pressure at x away from upstream
water level would be
At the lowest level of strut (z=6.5m, x=6.5m) --
h a v h a
K
, ,
o o ' = '
2
kN/m 130 5 . 6 20
= =
v
o

5 . 4
77 . 63
9 2
81 . 9 5 . 6 2
2
) ( 2
+
=
+
=
+

=
p
p
p
p
j i e p
w i p
H
H
H
H
d d H H
d H x
u


5 . 4
49 . 18
7 . 37 29 . 0 )
5 . 4
77 . 63
130 ( ) (
, ,
+
=
+
= = '
p
p
P
p
h a h a
H
H
H
H
K u
o o
At the bottom of the retaining wall( , )
p
H z
+ =
9
p
H x
+ =
9
)
5 . 4
60 . 25 84 . 2
8 . 5 2 . 52 (
29 . 0 )
5 . 4
29 . 88 81 . 9
20 180 (
2
2
,
+
+
+ =

+
+
+ = '
p
p p
p
p
p p
p h a
H
H H
H
H
H H
H
o
p p v
H H 20 180 ) 9 ( 20
+ = + = o

5 . 4
29 . 88 81 . 9
9 2
81 . 9 ) 9 ( 2
2
) ( 2
2
+
+
=
+
+
=
+

=
p
p p
p
p p
j i e p
w i p
H
H H
H
H H
d d H H
d H x
u

3. Compute the lateral effective passive earth pressure on the wall
At the bottom of the retaining wall
p
H z
=
p p v
H H 20 20
=

= o
5 . 4
29 . 88 81 . 9
2
+
+
=
p
p p
H
H H
u
5 . 4
48 . 388 16 . 43
88
4 . 4 )
5 . 4
29 . 88 81 . 9
20 (
2
2
,
+
+
=

+
+
=
'
p
p p
p
p
p p
p h p
H
H H
H
H
H H
H
o
4. Compute the maximum net water pressure (at the
excavation surface)
According to Eq. 4.53, the maximum net water pressure
would be
5 . 4
29 . 88
9 2
81 . 9 9 2
2
) )( ( 2
+
=
+

=
+
+
=
p
p
p
p
j i e p
w i p j i e
b
H
H
H
H
d d H H
d H d d H
u

5. The effective earth pressure on both sides of the wall and the
distribution of the net water pressure are as shown in Figure
5.24
Lowest level
of struts
FIGURE 5.24 Distribution of lateral earth pressure
o
b
2.5
9
p
H
b
u
9
5 . 6
b
u
net
u
h p,
o '
h a,
o'
5 . 4
48 . 388 16 . 43
88
2
+
+

p
p p
p
H
H H
H
5 . 4
60 . 25 84 . 2
8 . 5 2 . 52
2
+
+
+
p
p p
p
H
H H
H
5 . 4
49 . 18
7 . 37
+

p
p
H
H
6. Compute the driving moment ( ) and the resistant moment
( ) for the free body below the lowest level of struts
r
M
d
M
b p p p
p
p p
p
b b
p p b
p
p
p p
p
p
p
p
a h a d
u H H H
H
H H
H
u u
H H u
H
H
H H
H
H
H
H
L P M
] 84 . 2 25 . 1 17 . 0 [ ) 5 . 2 )(
5 . 4
62 . 11 95 . 0
93 . 1 68 . 23 (
3 2
5 . 2 2
9
5 . 2
2
5 . 2
9
5 . 6
)
3
5 . 2 (
2
3 2
) 5 . 2 ( 2
)
5 . 4
11 . 7 84 . 2
8 . 5 5 . 14 (
2
) 5 . 2 (
)
5 . 4
49 . 18
7 . 37 (
2
2
2
2 2
2
2
2
,
+ + + +
+
+
+ =

+ +

+
+
+ +
+

+
=
=
b p p p
p
p p
p
b b
p p b
p
p
p p
p
p
p
p
a h a d
u H H H
H
H H
H
u u
H H u
H
H
H H
H
H
H
H
L P M
] 84 . 2 25 . 1 17 . 0 [ ) 5 . 2 )(
5 . 4
62 . 11 95 . 0
93 . 1 68 . 23 (
3 2
5 . 2 2
9
5 . 2
2
5 . 2
9
5 . 6
)
3
5 . 2 (
2
3 2
) 5 . 2 ( 2
)
5 . 4
11 . 7 84 . 2
8 . 5 5 . 14 (
2
) 5 . 2 (
)
5 . 4
49 . 18
7 . 37 (
2
2
2
2 2
2
2
2
,
+ + + +
+
+
+ =

+ +

+
+
+ +
+

+
=
=
)
3
2
5 . 2 )(
5 . 4
24 . 194 58 . 21
44 (
)
3
2
5 . 2 (
2
)
5 . 4
48 . 388 16 . 43
88 (
2 3
2
2
,
p
p
p p
p
p p
p
p p
p
p h p r
H
H
H H
H
H H
H
H H
H
L P M
+
+
+
=
+
+
+
=
=
7. determine the penetration depth
Then we have m
p
H
5 . 1
= =
d
r
p
M
M
F
25 . 7
=
p
H
Example 5.2An excavation in clay goes 9.0m in to the
ground . The groundwater outside the
excavation zone is at the ground surface level while
that within the excavation zone is at the level of the
excavation surface. . The
undrained shear strength .
Suppose the excavation width B =10m and the
excavation length L =30m. Compute the factor of
safety against basal heave according to Terzaghi's
method and Bjerrum and Eide's method,
respectively.
=17.0
=45
9.0m) (
=
e
H
sat

3
m / kN
2
m / kN
u
s
Solution
In this example, the surcharge
According to Terzahi's method,
0
=
s
q
7 . 2
10 7 . 0
45
17
45 7 . 5
9
1
7 . 0
7 . 5 1
=

=
B
s
s
H
F
u
u
e
b

According to Bjerrum and Eide's method,


According to Figure 5.17, we have
0 . 3
10
30
= =
B
L
9 . 0
10
9
= =
B
H
e
1 . 7
=
c
N
09 . 2
9 17
1 . 7 45
=

= =
e t
c u
b
H
N s
F

Upheaval
Impermeable layer
Permeable layer
w
H
Water pressure
1
h
2
h
1 t

2 t

The factor of safety against upheaval should be larger than or equal to 1.2
FIGURE 5.31 Analysis of upheaval
(5.17)
w w
i
i ti
up
H
h
F

=

up
F
(CL)
(ML)
(SM)
GL-0.0m
GL-8.0m
GL-25.0m
GL-32.5m
GL-36.0m
GL-40.5m
Grouting
Gravel
2.9m -Stage 1
5.9m -Stage 2
8.8m -Stage 3
11.9m -Stage 4
14.4m -Stage 5
17.5m -Stage 6
20.0m -Stage 7
22.5m -Stage 8
25.1m -Stage 9
27.55m -Stage 10
30.6m -Stage 11
(SF)
GL-58.5m
GL-58.0m
GL-63.0m
33.7m -Stage 12
36.75m -Stage 13
40.5m -Stage 14
GL-10.0m
(CL)
(SP-SM)
GL-15.0m
(CL)
(SM)
GL-43.0m
Case Study
w w
i
i ti
up
H
h
F

=

w w
i
i ti
up
H
h
F

Upheaval failure:
1
H
2
H
z
Upward water flow
u
0
Saturated soil
A
C
B
2
H
hz
h
FIGURE 5.32 Total stresses, effective stresses, and change of porewater pressure in
sandy soils acted on by an upward water flow
w
H

1 w
H

1
sat w
H H

2 1
+
w
h H H

) (
2 1
+ +
w
h H
'
2
o ' o
Sand Boiling --- Factor of safety and failure mechanism
The critical hydraulic gradient is then
Besides, according to the phase relationship of soil, the
submerged unit weight is
(5.24)
(5.25)
| |

w
s
e
G
,
.

\
+
= '
1
1
e
G
i
s
cr
+

=
1
1
) max(exit
cr
s
i
i
F
=
(5.26)
(5.26)
A
w
H
A
p
H
FIGURE 5.33 Seepage in soil below sheetpiles
Impermeable layer
Wall
Sand boiling zone
) max(exit
cr
s
i
i
F
=
Terzaghi's method
=(the volume of the soil column)
The factor of safety is
(5.27)
(5.28)
(5.29)
w avg p w av
i H i

2
2
1
) (
=

'
= =
'
2 2
2
1
) (
2
1
p w sat p
H H W
w avg
s
i U
W
F

'
=
'
=
U
Provided the computed factor of safety is too small, we can
consider placing filters at the exits of seepage. Assuming the
weight of filters is Q, the factor of safety will be
(5.30)
In general, the required for the above equation should
be greater than of equal to 1.5
s
F
U
Q W
F
s
+
'
=
Marsland's method
DM7.1 suggested that the reasonable factor of safety against piping
in an excavation be around 1.5 to 2.0.
Retaining wall
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
s
F
Loose sand
Dense sand
w
H
P
H
B
(a)
) 2 /(
w
H B
w
p
H
H
/
FIGURE 5.34 Relations between wall penetration depths and factors of safety against sand boiling
(a) dense and loose sands with the impermeable layer located at the infinite depth
FIGURE 5.34 Relations between wall penetration depths and factors of safety against sand boiling
(b) dense sand with the impermeable layer located at a finite depth
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
0.5 1.0 1.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.5
w
H
B
D
Impermeable layer
(b)
s
F
P
H
) 2 /(
w
H B
2
=
w
H D
1
=
w
H D
w
p
H
H
/
One dimension seepage method
i
d
FIGURE 5.35 Analysis of sand boiling
w
H
Sandy soil
a
b c
d
p
H
e
H
j
d
A
The total head at the upstream elevation (point a) will be
The difference of the total heads between upstream and
downstream levels will be
If we assume the datum is at the downstream level, the total
head at the elevation of downstream (point d) will be
(5.31)
(5.32)
(5.33)
0 0 0
,
= + = + =
p e d t
h h h
j i e j i e p e a t
d d H d d H h h h
+ = + + = + =
0
,
j i e d t a t w
d d H h h H
+ = =
, ,
A
Suppose the seepage is one dimensional and the hydraulic
gradients for each depth along the flow path abcd are equal. the
hydraulic gradient will be
The factor of safety against boiling will be
The required for the above equation should be greater than
or equal to 1.5.
j i p e
w
i p i j e
w
avg
d d H H
H
d H d d H
H
i
+
=
+ +
=
2 ) ( 2
A A
w w
j i p e
avg
c
s
H
d d H H
i
i
F
A

) 2 (
+ '
= =
s
F
Case Study
FIGURE 5.36 Excavation of Siemen Station of Taipei Rapid Transit System
(a) excavation and geological profiles
SM
CL
SM
CL
SM
EL.+72.5m
EL.+69.4m
EL.+63.4m
EL.+59.6m
EL.+56.4m
Sungshan III formation
Sungshan II formation
. . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . .
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
.
.
..
..
.
.
.

.
EL.+81.8m
EL.+87.2m
EL.+95.0m
EL.+104.5m
Sungshan IV formation
Sungshan VI formation
Groundwater level EL.+98.0m
EL.+98.0m
CL
SM
CL
Chingmei formation
EL.+88.0m
EL.+80.0m
Sand boiling
23.25m
(a)
Sungshan V formation
Sungshan I formation
FIGURE 5.36 Excavation of Siemen Station of Taipei Rapid Transit System
(b) plan view
6.2m
5.0m
23.25m
sump
bore
Diaphragm wall
N
(b)
-
SM
CL
SM
CL
SM
EL.+80.0m
EL.+72.5m
EL.+69.4m
EL.+63.4m
EL.+59.6m
EL.+56.4m
Casing
5m 6m
4m
Sump
8m 9m
. . .
. . .
.
.
. . .
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . .
.
. . .
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
(c)
.
.
.
.
.
.
FIGURE 5.36 Excavation of Siemen Station of Taipei Rapid Transit System
(c) process of sand boiling
Sungshan III
Sungshan I
Sungshan II
Marslands method {Fig. 5.34,
1.5}
(1, 5)
Terzaghis method {Eq. 5.30
assuming M
s
=0}
(1)
Overall shear failure
Push-in
Basal heave
Gross pressure method
{Eq. 5.5,
(1)
Short term behaviors can
be ignored while long
term behaviors may need
consideration. The
analysis methods are the
same as those for sand
and gravel.
Sand boiling Upheaval
S
a
n
d

o
r

g
r
a
v
e

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
d

l
a
y
e
r
s

o
f

s
a
n
d

(
o
r

g
r
a
v
e
l
)

a
n
d

c
l
a
y
C
l
a
y

TABLE 5.2 Stability analysis methods for strutted walls and the required minimum factors of safety
Gross pressure method
{Eq.5.5,
1.2,
Harzas method {Eq. 5.26,
2.0}
(4)
1.5~2.0}
(4)
}
(1, 5)
Simplified 1-D seepage
method {Eq. 5.35,
Terzaghis method
Bjerrum and Eides
Slip circle method {Eq. 5.15,
}
(1)
Gross pressure method
{Eq. 5.5,
(1)
assuming M
s
=0}
(1)
assuming M
s
=0}
(1)
Terzaghis method {Eq. 5.9 or
5.10, }
(1,2,3)
Bjerrum and Eides method{Eq.
5.12 or 5.13, }
(4,3)
Slip circle method {Eq. 5.15,
}
(1,3)
{Eq. 5.17, F
up
1.2}
(1)
>
p
F
>
s
F
>
s
F
>
s
F
0 . 2
>
s
F
2 . 1
>
b
F
2 . 1
>
p
F
2 . 1
>
p
F
5 . 1 >
b
F
2 . 1
>
b
F
2 . 1
>
b
F
NOTE:
(1) The methods and factors of safety are suggested by TGS (2001)
and JSA (1988)
(2) The factor of safety is suggested by Mana and Clough (1981)
(3) It is only when clay is the dominant soil layer that the analysis of
basal heave is required
(4) The factor of safety is suggested by NAVFAC DM 7.1 (1982)
(5) TGS (2001) and JSA (1988) suggest the conservative value
obtained by Terzaghi's method or the simplified 1-D seepage be
adopted for design.