10 Braced Cuts Introduction Sometimes construction work requires ground excavations with vertical or near-vertical faces—for example, basements of buildings in developed areas or underground trans portation facilities at shallow deplhs below the ground surface (a cut-and-cover type of onstruction). The vertical faces of the cuts need to be protected by temporary bracing sys- lems (o avoid failure that may be accompanied by considerable settlement or by bearing capacity failure of nearby foundations Figure 10.1 shows two types of braced cut commonly sed in construction work One type uses the soldier beam (Figure 10.la), which is driven into the ground before excavation and is a vertical steel or timber beam, Laggings, which are horizontal tim- ber planks, are placed between soldier beams as the excavation proceeds. When the excavation reaches the desired depth, wales and struts (horizontal steel beams) are installed. The struts are compression members. Figure 10.1b shows another type of braced excavation, In this case, interlocking sheet piles are driven into the soil before excavation. Wales and struts are inserted immediately after excavation reaches the appropriate depth, Figure 10.2 shows the braced-cut construction used for the Chicago subway in 1940. Timber lagging, timber struts, and steel wales were used. Figure 10.3 shows a braced cut made during the construction of the Washington, DC, metro in 1974. In this cut, timber lagging, stee! H-soldier piles, steel wales, and pipe struts were used. To design braced excavations (Le., to select wales, struts, sheet piles, and soldier >eams), an engineer must estimate the lateral earth pressure (o which the braced cuts will be subjected. The theoretical aspects of the lateral earth pressure on a braced cut were dis- ceussed in Section 7.8, The total active force per unit length of the wall (P,) was calculated using the general wedge theory, However, that analysis does not provide the relationships required for estimating the variation of lateral pressure with depth, which is a function of several factors, such as the type of soil, the experience of the construction crew, the type of construction equipment used, and so forth, For that reason, empirical pressure envelopes developed from field observations are used for the design of braced cuts. This procedure is discussed in the next section. 501502 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts FA ‘Figure 10.1 Types of braced cut: (a) use of soldier beams; (b) use of sheet piles Pressure Envelope for Braced-Cut Design ‘As mentioned in Section 10.1, the lateral earth pressure in a braced cut is dependent on the type of soil, construction method, and type of equipment used. The lateral earth pressure changes from place to place, Bach strut should also be designed for the maximum load to10.2 Pressure Envelope for Braced-Cut Design 508 Figure 10.2 Braved eut in Chicago Subway construction, January 1940 (Courtesy of Ralph B. Peck) Which it may be subjected. Therefore, the braced cuts should be designed using apparent- pressure diagrams that ate envelopes of all the pressure diagrams determined from mea- sured strut loads in the field. Figure 10.4 shows the method for obtaining the apparent-pressure diagram at a section from strut loads. In this figure, let P,P, Ps, Pa, be the measured strut loads. The apparent horizontal pressure can then be calculated as504 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts Image not available due to copyright restrictions Figure 10.4 Procedure for calculating apparent pressure diagram from measured strat loads10.2 Pressure Envelope for Braced-Cut Design 505 where 0.03, 03, 04 = apparent pressures = center-to-center spacing of the struts Using the procedure just described for strut loads observed from the Berlin subway ccut, Munich subway cut, and New York subway cut, Peck (1969) provided the envelope of apparent lateral-pressute diagrams for design of cuts in sand. This envelope is illustrated in Figure 10.5, in which 0, = 0.65yHK, a0.) where ‘y = unit weight I = height of the cut K,, = Rankine active pressure coefficient = tan*(45 ¢" = effective fiction angle of sand Cuts in Clay Ina similar manner, Peck (1969) also provided the envelopes of apparent-latera-pressure diagrams for cus in soft 10 medium clay and in stif elay. The pressure envelope for soft to medium clay is shown in Figure 10.6 and is applicable to the condition where ¢ = undrained cohesion (# = 0) ‘The pressure. 0, isthe larger of --] and 02) o, = 03yH where = unit weight of clay ‘The pressure envelope for cuts in stiff clay is shown in Figure 10.7, in which 0, = 02yH to04yH (with an average of 0.3yH) 203) is applicable to the condition yH/c = 4.506 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts 10.3 Ba x By = osu ons 025 Figure 10.5 Peck’s (1969) Figure 10.6 Peck's(1968) Figure 10.7 Peck’s (1969) apparentpressure envelope apparent-pressure envelope for __apparentpressure envelope cuts in sand cuts im soft to medium clay for cats in ail clay ‘When using the pressure envelopes just described, keep the following points in mind: ‘They apply to excavations having depths greater than about 6 m, “They are based on the assumption that the water table is below the bottom of the cut. Sand is assumed to be drained with zero pore water pressut. Clay is assumed to be undrained and pore water pressure is not considered, 1 3 4 Pressure Envelope for Cuts in Layered Soil Sometimes, layers of both sand and clay are encountered when a braced cut is being con- structed. In this ease, Peck (1943) proposed that an equivalent value of cohesion (g = 0) should be determined according to the formula (see Figure 10.82) 1 Fly KH tan 65 + (H = H)n'g] on) where (lal height of the cut ‘y, = unit weight of sand ‘eight of the sand layer a lateral earth pressure coefficient for the sand layer fective angle of friction of sand unconfined compression strength of clay a coeflicient of progressive failure (ranging from 0.5 to 1.0; average value 0.75)10.4 Design of Various Components of a Braced Cut 507 Figure 10.8 Layered soils in braced cuts ‘The average unit weight of the layers may be expressed as 1 qt. + (H - Hi). «a05) where 7. = saturated unit weight of clay layer, ‘Once the average values of cohesion and unit weight are determined, the pressure ceavelopes in clay can be used to design the cuts. Similarly, when several clay layers are encountered in the cut (Figure 10,8b), the average undrained cohesion becomes L ew = UG + eal, Hy (106) ow = Gpleth + ell H,) 10.6) where iy « vy = undrained cohesion in layers 1, 2, ... Hh, Hy... H,, = thickness of layers 1,2... ‘The average unit weight is now 1 a Hy + yall + yybhy +++ + yplly) 0.7) Design of Various Components of a Braced Cut Struts In construction work, struts should have a minimum vertical spacing of about 2.75 m ‘of more, Struts are horizontal columns subject to bending, The load-carrying capacity of columns depends on their slenderness ratio, which can be reduced by providing508 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts vertical and horizontal supports at intermediate points. For wide cuts, splicing the struts may be necessary. For braced cuts in clayey soils, the depth of the first strut below the ground surface should be less than the depth of tensile crack, z,. From Bq. (7.8), o> yeK,~2°VK, where K, = coefficient of Rankine active pressure For determining the depth of tensile crack, eK, — VK, A simplified conservative procedure may be used to determine the strut loads. Although this procedure will vary, depending on the engineers involved in the project, the following is a step-by-step outline of the general methodology (sce Figure 10.9) Step I. Draw the pressure envelope for the braced cut. (See Figures 10.5, 10.6, and 10.7.) Also, show the proposed strut levels. Figure 10.9a shows a pressure envelope for a sandy soil; however, it could also be for a clay. ‘The strut levels are marked A, B, C, and D. The sheet piles (or soldier beams) are assumed to be hinged at the strut levels, except for the top and bottom ones. In Figure 10.9a, the hinges are at the level of struts B and C. (Many designers also assume the sheet piles or soldier beams to be hinged at all strut levels except for the top.) Step 2. Determine the reactions for the (wo simple cantilever beams (top and bot ‘om) and all the simple beams between. In Figure 10.9b, these reactions are A, By, By, Cy, Cy, and D. Step 3. The strut loads inthe figure may be calculated via the formulas Py = (A)() Py = (B, + B,)(s) 10.8) Pe=(C,+C)(5) D)(s)10.4 Design of Various Components of a Braced Cut 508 Section Figure 10.9 Determination of strut loads: (a) section and plan ofthe cut; (b) method {or determining strat loads where P4, Pg, Pe, Po = loads to be taken by the individual struts at levels A.B, C, and D. respectively A, By, Bs, Cy, Cy, D = reactions calculated in Step 2 (note the unit force/unit length of the braced cut) s=horizontal spacing of the struts (see plan in Figure 10.98) Step 4. Knowing the strut loads at each level and the intermediate bracing con- ditions allows selection of the proper sections from the steel construction manual510 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts Sheet Piles The following steps are involved in designing the sheet piles: Step I. For each of the sections shown in Figure 10.9b, determine the maximum bending moment. Step 2. Determine the maximum value of the maximum bending moments (Moux) ‘obtained in Step 1, Note that the unit of this moment will be, for example, KN-m/m length of the wall Step 3. Obtain the required section modulus of the sheet piles, namely, Mane sas 09) where oy = allowable flexural stress of the sheet pile material Step 4. Choose a sheet pile having a section modulus greater than or equal to the requited section modulus from a table such as Table 9.1 Wales Wales may be ueated as continuous horizontal members iff they are spliced properly Conservatively, they may also be treated as though they are pinned atthe struts, For the section shown in Figure 10.9, the maximum moments for the wales (assuming that they are pinned atthe struts) ae, (Ae) Atlevel A, Mase Atlevel BM, Atlevel C Maus and Atlevel D, Manx where A, By, Bs, Cy, C:,and D are the reactions under the struts per unit length of the wall, (ce Step 2 of strut design) Now determine the section modulus of the wales se ‘The wales are sometimes fastened to the sheet piles at points that satisfy the Iateral support requirements511 Example 10.1 “The cross section of a long braced cutis shown in Figure 10.10a. ‘a, Draw the earth-pressure envelope. , Determine the strut loads at levels A, B, and C. «. Determine the section modulus of the sheet pile section required. 4. Determine a design section modulus for the wales at level B. (Note: The struts are placed at 3 m, center to center inthe plan.) Use ory = 170 X 10" N/m? Parte We are given that y = 18 KN/m?, ¢ = 5 kN/m?, and H = 7m. So, yA _ (18)(7) ©. 3 6<4 ‘Thus, the pressure envelope will be like the one in Figure 10.7. The envelope is plotied in Figure 10.10a with maximum pressure intensity, a, equal to 0.3yH = 0.3(18) (7) = 37.8 kN/mv Partb To calculate the strut loads, examine Figure 10.10b, Taking the moment about B,, we have ¥ Mg, = 0, and AGS) — (sora asy(195 + ws) = (1.75) (31 »(4) or A= 5402 kN/m Algo, vertical forees = 0, Thus, 4(1.75) (378) + (378) (1.5) = A+ B, 33.08 + 66.15 - A= B, So, B, = 4521N/m Due to symmetry, 45.2. kN/m and C= 54.02 kN/m513 Hence, the strut Ioads atthe levels indicated by the subscripts are Pq = $4.02 X horizontal spacing, s = 54,02 % 3 = 162.06 KN Py = (By + B,)3 = (45.2 + 45.2)3 = 27.2 KN and = 54.02 X 3 = 162,06 kN Parte At the left side of Figure 10.10b, for the maximum moment, the shear force should be zero, The nature of the variation of the shear force is shown in Figure 10,10c, The loca- tion of point £ can be given as a Magi tne = (4218) ~ (8 1195(24) = 54,06 — 27.03 = 27.03 KN-m/meter of wall Because the loading on the left and right sections of Figure 10.10b are the same, the magnitudes of the moments at F and C (see Figure 10.10c) will be the same as those at E and A, respectively. Hence, the maximum moment is 27.03 kN-m/meter of wall. ‘The section modulus of the sheet piles is thus Max _2703KN-m eee a THO 10 N/m x 10~'m'/m of the wall Partd ‘The reaction at level B has been calculated in part b. Hence, +B)s 2)3? May, = Git Boe _ (452+ 452)¥ yo gym 8 5 and 101.7 101.7 a — (170 X 1000) = 0598 x 107 m* Section modulus, $514 Example 10.2 Refer tothe braced cut shown in Figure 10.11, for which y= 17 kNim?, f= 35° and c’ = 0, The struts are located 4 m on center in the plan. Draw the earth-pressure ‘envelope and determine the strut loads at levels A, B, and C. FFor this case, the earth-pressure envelope shown in Figure 10.5 is applicable, Hence, nom(s-$)- From Equation (10.1) 4, = 065 yl K, = (0.65)(17)(9) (0.271) = 26.95 kN/m? Figure 10,12a shows the pressure envelope, Refer to Figure 10,12 and calclate By DM, =o cass c9(§) A= = 112.29 kfm B, = (26.95)(5) — 112.29 = 22.46 kN/m Now, refer to Figure 10,12c and calculate By DM, =010.5 Case Studies of Braced Cuts 816 am | sm LG | ne = 069K, : ae 90 Nat Trl ® 72695 3695 Nin? bX? a Oo) © Figure 10.12 Load diagrams (26.95) (4)| ¢=-— = 187 /m By = (2695) (4) ~ 71.87 = 35.93 KN/m ‘The strut loads are ACA, (112.29)(spacing) = (112.29)(4) = 449.16 KN ACB, (B, + B,)(spacing) = (22.46 + 35.93)(4) = 233.56 kN ACC, (71.87) (spacing) = (71.87)(4) = 287.48 KN . EGE Case Studies of Braced Cuts ‘The procedure for determining strut loads and the design of sheet piles and wales pre- sented in the preceding sections appears to be fairly straightforward. Its, however, only possible if a proper pressure envelope is chosen for the design, which is difficult This see tion describes some case studies of braced culs and highlights the difficulties and degree of judgment needed for successful completion of vatious projects Subway Extension of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation ‘Authority (MBTA) Lambe (1970) provided data on the performance of three excavations for the subway extension of the MBTA in Boston (fest sections A, B, and D), all of which were well instru ‘mented. Figure 10.13 gives the details of test section B, where the cut was 17.68 m, includ ing subsoil conditions. The subsoil consisted of gravel, sand, sll, and clay (Lill) to a depth ‘of about 7.93 m, followed by a light gray, slightly organic silt to « depth of 14.02 m. A. layer of coarse sand and gravel with some clay was present from 14,02 m to 16.46 m below the ground surface, Rock was encountered below 16.46 m, The horizontal spacing of the siruis was 3,66 m center-to-center,516 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts J} 1125 mn $+} 4 scat ma Tr Figure 10.13 Schematic diagram of test section B for subway extension, MTBA, Because the apparent pressure envelopes available (Section 10.2) are for sand and clay only, questions may arise about how to teat the fll silt, and tll. Figure 10.14 shows. the apparent pressure envelopes proposed by Peck (1969), considering the soil as sand and also as clay, to overcome that problem. For the average soil parameters of the profil, the following values of o, were used to develop the pressure envelopes shown in Figure 10.14 vam 3.52 kina re = 14623 kN (oamaning WAwoningclay Figure 10.14 Pressure envelopes ‘od (a) assuming sand: (b) assuming clay105 Case Studies of Braced Cuts 817 Sand 0, = 0.65 yHK, (20.10) For y = 17.92 kN/m’, Hf = 17.68 m, and K, = 0.26, , = (0.65) (17.92) (17.68) (0.26) = 53.52 kN/m? wii-(45)] io o L a a 1) For ¢ = 42.65 N/m’, cess) a, = (1792) (17.88) 1 ~ Tr S3scr7 68) 146.23 KN/m? ‘Table 10.1 shows the variations of the strut load, based on the assumed pressure ceavelopes shown in Figure 10.14. Also shown in Table 10.1 are the measured strut loads in the field and the design strut loads. This comparison indicates that |, In most cases the measured strut loads differed widely from those predicted. This result is due primarily to the uncertainties involved in the assumption of the soil parameters. 2, ‘The actual design strut loads were substantially higher than those measured, B. Construction of National Plaza (South Half) in Chicago The construction of the south half of the National Plaza in Chicago required « braced cut 21.43 m deep, Swatek et al. (1972) reported the case history for this construction, Figure 10.15 shows a schematic diagram for the braced cut and the subsoil profile. There were six levels of struts. Table 10.2 gives the actual maximum wale and strut loads ‘Table 10.1 Computed and Measured Strut Loade at Test Section B Measured sed strut load (kip) 810 1023, 33 956 2580) 956 68s 1868 352, 480 1299 1023 334 om 219518 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts = Figure 10.15 Schematic ane Curb wall Sand it = 30" 308m _y = 1729 Nim? Ce 5 Sot ty tay on0 © = 19.17 Nit ( y= 1997 kN! 95.88 kNim?, y 21.22 kN? MZ 38 Very tough silty clay ‘Sheet piling ono © = 191,57 Nim? 18.90m 951m _¥= 222KNim? Hada ic diagram of braced cut—National Plaza of Chicago ational Plaza Wale and Stut Loads Load measured ‘uNien) 235.49 Table 10.2 Strut Elevation level ) A 0915 B 183 c -457 D 147 E 1037 F -1357 Figure 10.16 pre loads measured. To com ing an approximate cal +0.305 m ft to —17.07 m to a single equivalent layer in Table 10.3 by using Eq. (10.6) (10.4), we can convert the sand layer located between elevations 'm and the equivalent clay layer of 17.375 m to one equivalent clay Now, using Eq +4.36 m and +0.305 layer with a thickness 1 2H” ‘loa = 34.99 kN, 386.71 42320 423.20 423.20 448.0 323378 sents @ lateral eath-pressure envelope based on the maximum wale npare the theoretical prediction to the actual observation requires mak- lculation. To do so, we convert the clayey soil layers ftom Elevation of 21.43 m: ‘w= apply Kill} tan 6; + (H ~ H,)n'qa] ) mat 2729) 09 64055)! an 30 + (17395) (0.95) (2 x 51.28)105 Case Studies of Braced Cuts 819 r som 436m 1607 m | Peck’ pressure | ewvelepe i | Actal pressure envelope ottom of cut Figure 10.16 Comparison af sctual and Peck's pressure envelopes ‘Table 10.3 Conversion of Seil Layers using Bq, (10.5) Coen Ths, Evie va win” cumin ER fonsvr asta eg= cE I@ar aay + 04n085) + (1.83) (95.83) (2.13) (191.67) ee BNI Vie Bjerrum and Bide (1956) compiled a number of case records for the bottom heave ‘of cuts in clay, Chang (2000) used those records ta calculate FS by means of Eq, (10.16); his findings are summarized in Table 10.4. It can be seen from this table that the actual field observations agree well with the calculated factors of salety522 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts Table 10.4 Calculated Factors of Saety for Selected Case Records Compiled by Bjerrum and Eide (1956) and Calculated by Chang (2000) 8 4 y . 4 Fs oo) BL tem) HIB kN) UkNom®) Nf’) Eg. (10-16)) —falture Pamping station, Fornebu, Oslo Storehouse, Dratnmen Seowerage tank Drammen Bxeavation, Grey Wedels Plass, Oslo Pumping station, Jernbanctoret, Oslo Storshouse, Fie Oslo Subway. Chicago 50 10 30 06 175 15 o 1.05 Total failure 0 24 0s ok 1s 10S Towa luce 55 069 35 068 180 10 10 092 Toul failure 58 072 45 078 180 14 10 107 Tota faiure 85 070 63 074 1902 o 1.26 —Paal failure 50 0 50 100 19016 o 110 Paral failure 16 0 113 07 19035 o 100 Near failure Equation (10.16) is recommended for use in this test. In most cases, a factor of safety of about 1.5 is recommended, In homogeneous clay, if FS becomes less than 1.5, the sheet pile is driven deeper: (See Figure 10.18.) Usually, the depth is kept less than or equal to B/2, in which case the force P per unit length of the buried sheet pile (aa’ and bb’) may be expressed as (US. Department of the Navy, 1971) P=07(yHB —14cH — eB) ford > 0.478 (10.17) Figure 10.18 Force on the buried length of sheet pile523 and del B Example 10.3 In Figure 10,19. fora braced cut in clay, B= 3m, L. = 20m, H = 5.5m, T = 15m, y = 17KN/m’, ¢ = 30kKN/m’, and q = 0. Calculate the factor of safety against heave, Use Eg, (10.16) From Eq, (10.16), sa + oe) eit FS = an u Wa with 7 = 1.5m, Het -am Vi Vi So B Ts Vi Hence, B” = T = 1.5m, andit follows that (V3) (1.5) = 212m Factor of safety against heav- Hard sata ing fora braced ext (02212) ] , G0)(55) “0 |* as (17) (5.5), ineo[t 2.86 FS =524 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts Stability of the Bottom of a Cut in Sand “The bottom of a cut in sand is generally stable. When the water table is encountered, the bottom of the eur is stable as long as the water level inside the excavation is higher than the groundwater level. In case dewatering is needed (see Figure 10.20), the factor of safety against piping should be checked. [Piping is another term for failure by heave, as defined in Section 1.12; see Hg, (1.45).] Piping may occur when a high hydraulic gradient is created by water flowing into the excavation. To check the factor of safety, draw flow nets and determine the maximum exit gradient [ipa(ep) that will ‘occur at points A and B. Figure 10.21 shows such a flow net, for which the maximum, exit gradient is A ™ fay) = (10.19) where 44 = Tength ofthe flow element at A (or B) [Ny = number of drops (Note: in Figure 10.21, Ny = 8; see also Section 1.11) Te factor of safety against piping may be expressed as i (10.20) jase) where i,, = critical hydraulic gradient Figure 10.20 Stability ofthe bottom of aeut in sand10.7 Stability of the Bottom of a Cut in Sand 525 Figure 10.27 Determining the factor of safety against piping by drawing a low net “The relationship for i,, was given in Chapter 1 as Gat etl ‘The magnitude of j,, varies between 0.9 and 1.1 in most soils, with an average of about 1 ‘A factor of safety of about 1.5 is desirable. ‘The maximum exit gradient for sheeted excavations in sands with Ly = » ean also be evaluated theoretically (Harr, 1962). (Only the results of these mathematical derivations will be presented here. For further details, see the original work.) To cal- culate the maximum exit gradient, examine Figures 10.22 and 10.23 and perform the following steps: 1, Determine the modulus, m, from Figure 10.22 by obtaining 2L,/B (or B/2L;) and 2L5/B. 2. With the known modulus and 2/2, examine Figure 10.23 and determine Lejesiouny/h Because L; and h will be known, uoun) 640 be calculated. 3. The factor of safety against piping can be evaluated by using Eq, (10.20), ‘Marsland (1958) presented the results of model tests conducted to study the influ- cence of seepage on the stability of sheeted excavations in sand, The results were sum- marized by the U.S. Department of the Navy (1971) in NAVEAC DM-7 and are given in Figute 10.24a, b, and c. Note that Figure 10.24b is for the case of determining the sheet pile penewation L. needed for the required factor of safety against piping when the sand layer extends to a great depth below the excavation. By contrast, Figure 10.24c repre- sents the case in which an impervious layer lies a a limited depth below the bottom of the excavationan) Lien 08s 0.80 10.7 Stability of the Bottom of a Cut in Sand S27 — fl —) 04s sr [S20 40 ‘oor 00s 005 O0F 170.12 Mods, m a 06 os o4 \ 03 02 ag 1 O13 Sh 16 O42 040608 1012 ‘Modul, m © Figure 10.23 Variation of maximum exit gradient with modulus (From Groundwater and Seepage, by M. E. Hatt, Copyright 1962 by McGraw-Hill Used with permission)528 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts boa a 29 Tanta % 3515-153 o 20 Danse aad af limited dep isl vie safety ais, 10 15 20 anh © Figure 10.24 Influence of seepage on the stability of sheeted excavation (US Department of Navy, 1971.)528 Example 10.4 In Figure 10.20, let h = 4.5m, L, = Sm, L; = 4m, B= Sm, and Ly the factor of safety against piping. Use Figures 10.22 and 10.23, Determine Solution Wehave and B 5 2b ~ ay ~ OS According to Figure 10.22b, for 21,/B and B/2L, = 0.625,m = 0.033, From Figure 10.2%, for m = 0.033 and 214/B = 2, Laisinn/h = 0°54. Hence, 54 and Lateral Yielding of Sheet Piles and Ground Settlement In braced cuts, some lateral movement of sheet pile walls may be expected, (See Figure 10.25.) The amount of lateral yield (8) depends on several factors the most important of whichis the lapsed time between excavation and the placement of wales fand struts. As discussed before, in several instances the shect piles (or the soldier piles as the case may be) are driven toa certain depth below the bottom of the excavation. The zeason isto reduce the lateral yielding of the walls during the last stages of excavation Lateral yielding ofthe walls will cause the ground surface surrounding the cut to sete. The degree of lateral yielding, however, depends mostly on the type of scil below the bottom ofthe cut If clay below the cut extends toa great depth and yH1/c is less than about 6, extension ofthe sheet piles or soldier piles below the bottom ofthe cut wall help considerably in reducing the lateral yield of the walls530 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts Original ground surface Detected shape 4 of sheet ple H Figure 10.25 Lateral yielding of shet pile and ground setlement However, under similar citcumstances, if yH7/c is about 8, the extension of sheet piles into the clay below the cut does not help greatly. In such circumstances, we may expect a great degree of wall yielding that could result in the total collapse of the bracing systems. Ifa hard layer of soil lies below a clay layer at the bottom of the cut, the piles should be embedded in the stiffer layer. This action will greatly reduce lat- eral yield. The lateral yielding of walls will generally induce ground settlement, 6y, around a braced eut, Such settlement is generally referred to as ground loss. On the basis of sev- cral field observations, Peck (1969) provided curves for predicting ground settlement in various types of soil. (See Figure 10.26.) The magnitude of ground loss varies exten- sively; however, the figure may be used as a general guide. Moormann (2004) analyzed about 153 case histories dealing mainly with the exca- vation in soft clay (that is, undrained shear strength, ¢ = 75 KN/r), Following is a sum- mary of his analysis relating t0 Sy(au) X's Sijaus and 2’ (see Figure 10.25) + Maximum Vertical Movement [8y ou] By(aun)/H ~ 0.1 to 10.1% with an average of 1.07% (soft lay) Byianny/H ~ 0 to 0.9% with an average of 0.18% (stiff elay) 8 ymn/H ~ 010 2.43% with an average of 0.33% (non-cohesive soils) sure 10.25) + Location of By au that is x" For 70% of all case histories considered, x" = 0.5H. However, in soft clays, x' may be as much as 24.Problems 581 Figure 10.26 Variation of ground settlement with distance (From Peck, R. B. (1968). “Deep Excavation and Tunneling in Soft Ground,” Proceedings Seventh Intemational Conference on Soil ‘Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, Stale-of-the-Art Volume, pp. 225-290. With permission from ASCE.) + Maximum Horizontal Deflection of Sheet Piles, yy) For 40% of excavation in soft clay, 0.5% = Bygqun/ HT = 1%. ‘The average Value of 8;1jau)/H is about 0.87%. In stiff clays, the average valve of 8jyjau)/T1 is about 0.25% In non-cohesve soils, 3jcquo/H is about 0.27% of the average © Location of 8; that is 2" (Figure 10.25) For deep excavation of soft and stiff cohesive soils, z'/H is about 0.5 to 1.0, 10.1 Refer to the braced cut shown in Figure P10.1. Given: y = 16 kN/m’ $! = 38°, and c' = 0. The struts are located at 3.5 m center-to-center in the plan. Draw the earth-pressure envelope and determine the strut loads at levels A, B, and C.532 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts Figure P10.1 10.2. For the braced cut described in Problem 10.1, determine the following: 8. The sheet-pile section modulus bs, The section modulus of the wales at level B Assume that 4) = 170.MN/m*. 10.3 Refer to Fig. P10.3, Redo Problem 10.1 with y = 18 kN/m’, 6" = 40°, c' = 0, and the center-to-center strut spacing inthe plan = 4 m, 10.4 Determine the sheet-pile section modulus forthe braced cut described in Problem 10.3. Given: oq = 170 MN/m* 10.5. Refer to Figure 10.8a, For the braced cut, given 11 = 6m; H, = 2.5 m: y, 16.5 N/m; angle of ftiction of sand, ) = 35°; H, = 3.5m y, = 17.5 N/m and unconfined compression strength of clay layer, q, = 62 N/m’. 8. Estimate the average cohesion (c,) and average unit weight (y,,) for the con- struction of the earth-pressure envelope. Plot the earth-pressure envelope Figure P10.3References 883 Figure P10.7 10.6 Refer to Figure 10.8b, which shows a braced cut in lay. Given: IT = 7.6 m, Hy = 152m, ¢, = 1018KN/m', yy = 17.45 KN/m’, Hy = 304m, 6 3.04 m, cy = 80.02 N/m, and Y= ITISEN/m a Determine the average cohesion (c..) and average unit weight (y,.) for the construction of the earth-pressure envelope. Plot the earthepressure envelope. 10.7 Refer to Figure P10.7. Given: y = 17.5 KN/m', = 30 KN/m, and centerto- center spacing of struts in the plan = 5 m, Draw the earthopressure envelope and determine the strat Toads a levels A, B, and C 10.8 Determine the sheet-ple section modulus forthe braced cut described in Problem 10.7. Use oy, = 170 MN/m.* 10.9 Redo Problem 10.7 assuming that ¢ = 60 kN/m 10.10 Determine the factor of safety against bottom heave for the braced cut described in Problem 10.7. Use Bg, (10.16) and assume the length of the cut, L = 18 m 10.11 Determine the factor of safety against bottom heave forthe braced cut described in Problem 10.9, Use Bg, (10.15). The length of the cut is 125. Buunaxs, L, and Bins, O. (1956). “Stability of Strutted Excavation in Clay.” Georechnigue, Vol. 6, No.1, pp. 32 (Cuana, M.F (2000) "Basal Stability Analysis of Braced Cuts in Cay.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 126, No.3, pp. 275-279. Hang, M.E. (1962), Groundieater and Seepage, McGraw-Ihll, New York. Lavine, T. W. (1970). “Braced Excavations” Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on Lateral Siresses inthe Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures, Ametican Society of Csi Engineers, pp. 149-218,534 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts MooRMANn, C. (2004). “Analysis of Wall and Ground Movements Due to Deep Excavations {in Soft Sil Bated on New Worldwide Data Base," Soils and Foundations, Vol. 44, No.1 pp. 87-98, Puex, RB. (1943). "Barth Pressure Measurements in Open Cuts, Chicago (H1.) Subway,” Transac tions, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 108, pp. 1008-1058. Peck. R.B. (1968). "Deep Excavation and Tunneling in Soft Ground” Proceedings Seventh Interna tional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, State-of-he- ‘Ant Volume, pp. 225-290, Swamnk, BP, In, Asnow, §.P, and Surz, A. (1972) “Performance of Bracing for Deep Chicago Excavation” Proceeding ofthe Specalty Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth Sup- ported Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 1, Pat 2, pp. 1303-1322, ‘Tuzacit, K. (1943). Theoretical Soil Mechanics, Wiley, New York US. Dinxgmsant ov rut Navy (1971). “Design Manual—Soil Mechanics. Foundations, and Barth Structures” NAVFAC DM-7, Washington, D.C.