Deep Excavation

Related terms:

Culverts, Excavation, Sewers, Struts, Groundwaters, Inclination Angle, Marine Clay

View all Topics

Objectives and Approaches to Hy-

draulic Modification
Peter G. Nicholson, in Soil Improvement and Ground Modification Methods, 2015

7.1.2.1 Construction Dewatering

For projects where deep excavations are planned and/or the water table is known
to be relatively shallow, dewatering of the project area may play a significant role
in the planning and design of the construction process. Construction dewatering,
sometimes referred to as “unwatering,” may also be included as part of the per-
manent design plan to prevent future infiltration and/or flooding of subsurface
components of a project. For many projects, construction dewatering primarily
provides a temporary dry working area where the project site is initially saturated,
flooded, or submerged. Good examples are drainage of swampy areas for equipment
accessibility, excavations for construction below the water table, cofferdams for
“underwater” construction (e.g., bridge foundations in rivers), and redirection of
flow (e.g., river bypass for dam construction/repair).

The elimination or reduction of groundwater around and below open deep excava-
tions has a number of positive attributes in addition to providing a dry workspace.
The pressures exerted by water in the ground add significant load to the lateral earth
pressures along the sides of the excavation. In addition, the water pressure at the
base of an excavation can provide an upward force that may be enough to surpass the
weight (and/or strength) of the soil in the bottom, resulting in heave, or worst case, a
failure mode called “blowout,” which would potentially result in a catastrophic failure
and flooding of the excavation. Contractors should consider these loads and possible
failure mechanisms, and design accordingly. Some structures with components
below the normal water table will require dewatering during construction as well
as long-term control after the project is completed and put into operation. For
cases where analyses show that there would be a continual large inflow of water
that needs to be evacuated, a cutoff wall may be appropriate and economical. There
are many varieties of cutoff walls for both temporary and permanent applications
that utilize different structural and nonstructural components, including slurries,
grouts, soil admixtures, sheet piles, and steel beams. Cutoff walls are essentially
hydraulic barriers (discussed below), but also may be designed to perform one or
more structural functions, like serving as foundations or walls.

Construction dewatering is typically implemented prior to excavations or any actual

construction where interception of a water table is expected. For some deep exca-
vations, dewatering and excavating proceed in alternating steps, allowing the use
of shallow well pumps or multistage well point systems rather than more expensive
deep wells (Figure 7.1).

Figure 7.1. Multistage well system for excavation dewatering: (a) first stage and (b)
second stage.

> Read full chapter

A Case History of Jet Grouting in Ma-

rine Clay
Ing Hieng Wong, Teoh Yaw Poh, in Ground Improvement Case Histories, 2015
5.1 Introduction
In Singapore, for deep excavations next to sensitive structures such as Mass Rapid
Transit (MRT) structures and old buildings associated with thick soft soil deposits,
the use of diaphragm walls alone often will result in movements that exceed the
design movement criteria specified by the authorities or clients. Consequently,
soil improvement methods such as jet grouting are usually required to improve
the strength and deformation characteristics of the soft soils before the start of
excavation to reduce these ground movements.

Examples of deep excavations in Singapore associated with soft soils improved by

jet grouting include the Newton MRT station (Gaba, 1990), Singapore Arts Center,
Bugis Junction (Sugawara et al., 1996), Grandlink Square, and United Engineers
Square (Khoo et al., 1997). All these case histories involved jet grouting in marine
clay except for the last one, which involved both organic and marine clays.

The process of jet grouting involves the cutting of soil by a mixture of water and
air under high pressure and the placement of grout, also under high pressure.
Hence, the process of jet grouting may tend to displace the adjacent soil away from
the grouted zone. Thus, the process of jet grouting may have some effects on the
retaining structures, adjacent soils, and nearby structures.

The performance of a field jet grout trial and the production grouting carried out
during the basement construction for the Singapore Post Centre is presented and
evaluated herein. Emphasis is given to the effects of jet grouting on movements
of diaphragm walls, adjacent soils, and structures and on changes in lateral earth
pressure and water and piezometric levels in adjacent soils.

> Read full chapter

Dewatering in Construction
Ruwan Rajapakse, in Construction Engineering Design Calculations and Rules of
Thumb, 2017

17.1.2 Dewatering of a Column Footing

Medium scale dewatering for basements or deep excavations: Pump water from
trenches or wells. For medium scale dewatering projects, trenches or well points can
be used (Fig. 17.4).
Fig. 17.4. Groundwater lowering using well points.

Add more pumps as necessary to keep the excavation dry. A combination of sub-
mersible pumps and vacuum pumps can be used. Large scale dewatering for base-
ments or deep excavations:

Alternative 1: Well points or trenches are constructed. The main artery pipe is
connected to each pump as shown. A strong, high-capacity pump will suck the water
out of all the wells as shown (Fig. 17.5).

Fig. 17.5. Well points.

> Read full chapter

Design of Underground Structures

Bai Yun, in Underground Engineering, 2019

3.1.2.4 Analytical Solution for Soil Displacement Around Deep

Excavation in Soft Clay
Terzaghi and Peck (1967) defined “deep excavation” as those excavations that exceed
a depth of 6 or 7 m. According to following formula from limit analysis theory, it is
obvious that vertical sides of excavation in soft clay must be supported.

(3.8)

where , critical unsupported height of vertical sides (m); , bulk unit weight of soils,
kN/m5; , soil cohesion, kN/m2; , soil inner friction angel.
In the case of urban areas, where buildings are congested, diaphragm walling is used
in most cases. Thus, the calculation of soil displacement around deep excavation
supported by a propped diaphragm wall in soft clay formation will be introduced.
The coefficients and factors that need to be strictly considered and controlled are
as follows:

1. Safety coefficient of base heave (Fb)The following Terzaghi formula is still

widely used in the condition of soft clay:(3.9)where Cu, shear strength, kPa;
Nc, coefficient data from Fig. 3.17; H, depth of excavation, m; y, bulk unit
weight of soil, kN/m3; B, width of trench, m; Q, surcharge, kPa.Figure 3.17.
Coefficient Nc and depth–width ratio.Modified from Mana and Clough
(1981). Prediction of movements for braced cuts in clay. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, 107, 759–777.The application
scope of the above formula is H/B < 1. If H/B > 1, and the following Bjerrum
and Eide formula can be used:(3.10)
2. Maximum lateral movement of diaphragm wall (ΔHmax)In 1981 Mana and Clough
verified the relationship between the maximum lateral movement (ΔHmax) and
the basal heave factor of safety (Fb) from field data by using the finite element
method (FEM).
3. Influence factors related to wall stiffness (EwIw/ h4), strut support stiffness (Sk/ h),
hard layer depth (Dw), excavation width (B), and soil stiffness (E/CuA)When the
maximum lateral wall movement is calculated, several factors are not suf-
ficiently considered such as wall stiffness (EwIw/ h4), strut support stiffness
(Sk/ h), hard layer depth (Dw), excavation width (B), and soil stiffness (H/Cu).
Thus, Mana and Clough further introduced the values of these influence
factors, which take into account such effects based on finite element studies.
The values of these influence factors are shown in Figs. 3.18–3.20.Figure 3.18.
Relation between influence coefficient w and wall stiffness factor EwIw-
/ h4.Modified from Mana and Clough (1981). Prediction of movements for
braced cuts in clay. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 107, 759–777.Figure 3.19. Relation between influence coefficient
D and depth to firm Dw.Modified from Mana and Clough (1981). Prediction
of movements for braced cuts in clay. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
American Society of Civil Engineers, 107, 759–777.Figure 3.20. Relation between
influence coefficient B and excavation width B.Modified from Mana and
Clough (1981). Prediction of movements for braced cuts in clay. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, 107, 759–777.
4. Influence factors related to strut delay time (ati)

Based on experience in Shanghai, it is known that strut delay time will have a
major influence on wall movement (ΔHmax). We use influence factor ati to reflect
this influence. Table 3.3 shows the value of this influence factor (ati). The additional
movement due to the delay of strut support time is

Table 3.3. Strut delay time values on lateral wall movement

Layer number of strut (mm/day)

Second layer of strut (i=2) 2.3

Third layer of strut (i=3) 2.4

Fourth layer of strut (i=4) 3.4

Fifth layer of strut (i=5) 4.1

Bottom slab (i=B) 1

where ti is the delay (in days) of different layer of strut.

5. Influence factors of strut prestress ( p)Mana and Clough also studied the relation
between strut prestress () and design stress using the FEM as shown in
Fig. 3.21. In practice, strut prestress should be 80%, because stress loss will
always happen to some degree. This conclusion is based on experience in
Shanghai practice.Figure 3.21. Effect on strut prestress on maximum lateral
wall movement/design stress.
6. Modified maximum lateral movement of diaphragm wall (ΔH*max)ΔH*max can be
calculated using the following formula:(3.11)
7. Maximum ground surface settlement (ΔV*max)The relationship between ΔV*max
and ΔH*max is shown in Fig. 3.22. As Fig. 3.22 shows, the following formula
is reasonable:(3.12)Figure 3.22. Case history data of the relationship between
maximum ground settlements and maximum lateral wall movement.Modified
from Mana and Clough (1981). Prediction of movements for braced cuts in
clay. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, 107,
759–777.
8. Ground surface settlement curve of cross section of diaphragm wallThe ground
surface settlement scope, X0, can be calculated as follows:(3.13)where H, depth
of excavation, m; D, penetration of diaphragm wall, m; , soil inner friction
angle, degrees.Based on Peck’s assumption of the exponential function curve,
the ground surface settlement curve of cross section of diaphragm wall is
as follows:(3.14)where X0 can be found using Formula (3.13); Z, X, axes (Fig.
3.23); a, factor, based on Shanghai experience, as follows:(3.15)Figure 3.23.
Diaphragm wall diagram.
9. Longitudinal ground surface settlement curve along diaphragm wall
Liou Jianhang studied the following formula, which can be used to calculate the
scope (L) of longitudinal ground surface settlement based on Shanghai MRT station
construction experience:

(3.16)

where H, excavation depth, m; h, max. depth of excavation where no settlement

induced, usually 3–4 m; S, slope for one excavation section; L1, length of one
excavation section.

The shape of the longitudinal ground surface settlement curve is shown in Fig. 3.24.
“a” is the length of circular arc with radius of “R,” and “b” is the length of tangent
line between two circular arc. “R” can be calculated based on the following formula:

Figure 3.24. Longitudinal ground surface settlement.

(3.17)

Formula (3.17) can be used to predict the differential settlement of adjacent utilities,
which are parallel to the diaphragm wall.

To better understand how the coefficients affect design a case study on a Shanghai
stadium metro station, which was built by the cut-and-cover method, is described
later.

Propped diaphragm walling was used as an excavation support system. The exca-
vation has length (L) 232 m, depth (H) 14 m, and standard width (B) 22 m. The
penetration depth of diaphragm wall (D) is 12 m.

The wall is supported by four strut layers. The elastic module of the wall (Ew) is
2.6×107 kPa. The thickness of the wall is 0.8 m. The stiffness of the wall (Ew·Iw)
is 1.109×106 kN-m2/m. The outside diameter of the steel strut is 580 mm. The
thickness of the cylindrical steel strut is 10 mm.

The horizontal spacing between two struts (d) is 3 m. The vertical spacing between
two struts (h) is 3.5 m. The elastic module of the strut (Eg) is 2.1×108 kPa. The
net cross-area is Ag=1.791×10−2 m2. The stiffness of the strut (Sk) is Eg·Ag/(d·h-
)=3.582×105 kN/m2. The prestress value of the strut is 70% of the designed stress.
The ground is gray muddy clay. The main parameters of the soil are =17.7 kN/m3,
C=8.28 kPa, =14.76 degrees, E=4343 kPa, and Cu= ·H tg +C=73.6 KPa.

• Calculation procedure1.Base heave safety coefficient (Fb) calculation:Sup-

pose: q=10 kPa.From Formula (3.1),2.Calculation ΔH*max and ΔV*max:As Fb-
=2.9, from Fig. 3.2 we can get:As Ew·Iw ( ·h4)=418, Sk/( ·h)=992,

From Fig. 3.17 to Fig. 3.22, we can calculate:

The results are shown in Fig. 3.25.

Figure 3.25. Practical and estimated ground surface settlement.

> Read full chapter

Station design and layout

British Electricity International, in Station Planning and Design (Third Edition), 1991

18.2.2 Tower cooled stations

The lack of tidal variation in tower cooled, or indirect cooled, systems allows the
pumphouse design to be achieved without such deep excavation as on coastal sites
and this usually allows the pumps to be placed fairly close to ground level. Pump
suction conditions are still determined by the approach flow but this is now totally
within the control of the designer. Velocities are in the order of 2 m/s in the channels
approaching the forebay (often called the suction dock). Levels are set by the locations
out of the cooling towers. These will normally be designed so that the maximum still
water level in the tower pond is at or about site level. Theoretically the water in the
tower pond only needs to be deep enough to provide the necessary gradient to make
it flow towards the pumps, but in this case the system is quite highly tuned. With
continuous loss of water through purge and evaporation a failure in the make-up
system would rapidly lead to loss of pump suction. For this reason, most modern
stations have a substantial reserve capacity in the cooling tower ponds (up to 2 m
working range) and this reflects on the lowest operating level in the pump forebay,
which also has to account for the hydraulic gradient losses in the tower flumes.
Figure 2.65(b) shows the hydraulic gradient for Drax power station.
The requirements for screening are much reduced on the tower cooled design but
coarse-raked screens are now being considered to deal with the substantial problem
of wind blown debris, such as plastic bags, which otherwise may end up on the
condenser tube plates.

Isolation arrangements are required to allow removal of a pumpset without draining

down the forebay, which is always common to all units.

The pumphouse may also house auxiliary pumps for duties such as compressor
cooling, hydrant systems and auxiliary cooling water. Figures 2.71 and 2.72 show
one of the two similar pumphouses at Drax power station.

Fig. 2.71. CW pumphouse layout — Drax

Fig. 2.72. CW pumphouse section — Drax

> Read full chapter

Ground Modification by Grouting

Peter G. Nicholson, in Soil Improvement and Ground Modification Methods, 2015

12.4.1.2 Horizontal Seepage Barriers

Installation of interconnected, short jet grout columns at depth can provide a
suitable hydraulic barrier and excavation base support in the form of a horizontal
panel (Figure 12.12). When deep excavations or shafts are constructed well below
the water table, a large hydrostatic pressure is exerted on the base as well as the
sides of these openings. Compressive forces on the sidewalls of deep shafts may
be easily handled by the arched shape of the shafts. Deep rectangular excavations
may require additional reinforcement (i.e., tiebacks described in Chapter 15). The
high fluid pressure on the bases of these excavations promotes seepage as well as
stress. A notable case of a large, deep-shaft water cutoff by jet grouting was a 42 m
(137 ft) diameter, 50 m (163 ft) deep excavated shaft for a sewer pump station in
Portland, OR, where a jet grouted cutoff plug was installed to a 100 m (335 ft) depth
(www.layne.com; Figure 12.13).
Figure 12.12. Illustration of jet grout horizontal barrier (plug) at the base of a jet
grout supported excavation.

Figure 12.13. Deep shaft with jet grouted cut-off plug for sewer pump station in
Portland, OR.

Courtesy Layne Christensen.

> Read full chapter

The Problems of Sewerage Dereliction

Geoffrey F. Read MSc, CEng, FICE, FIStructE, FCIWEM, FIHT, MILE, FIMgt, MAE,
MUKSTT, in Sewers: Rehabilitation and New Construction Repair and Renovation,
1997

3.6.3 CONSTRUCTION METHODS

U-shaped sewers are recorded at depths ranging from 2 to 10 m. The flag top
section is suggestive of open trench construction and this is undoubtedly how the
more shallow sewers were built. However, deep excavations particularly in confined
streets would be avoided by early nineteenth-century builders, who generally would
be more familiar with tunnelling and heading techniques derived from the mining
industries. It is probable that these methods were adopted at much shallower
depths comparatively than would be typical today. The majority of U-shaped sewers
therefore are likely to have been constructed in tunnel or heading.

Field evidence in sewer reconstruction projects confirms that these methods were
used. Voids or loosely packed material are encountered above the stone flag (Fig. 3.9-
). Even so, it is still uncertain exactly in detail how the sewers were constructed. No
recorded accounts of construction have survived (if indeed they were ever made) and
therefore it is possible only to speculate from the evidence of excavations.

Figure 3.9. Original construction not properly backffiled.

It is just conceivable that the larger sections were constructed in tunnel, i.e. the face
being advanced and the brickwork lining following closely behind. This procedure
requires that all the materials and spoil be carried through the completed section of
tunnel. Considering the size and weight of the flagstones used for a 900 mm × 600-
 mm size of sewer – 800 mm minimum width × 100 mm thick × 500 mm running
length (average) with a weight of 90–100 kg – the difficulties presented by this
method of construction are immense.

The alternative method, that of heading, i.e. excavation of an oversized void to the
furthest point from the working shaft and then construction of the sewer structure
in the reverse direction, is more plausible. Indeed, because of size restrictions alone,
some form of heading method must have been used for the smaller section sewers.

However, for heading methods to be used, the distance between working shafts
would necessarily be limited and ground conditions would need to be moderate
or good. Blind eye shafts (referred to in detail later) which may have been used as
working shafts occur at intervals of around 30 m on U-shaped sewers. Evidence of
temporary (timber) support used for headings is only very rarely seen and although
ground conditions throughout much of the older parts of the city could generally
be described as good to fair for heading purposes, presumably only minimum
temporary support was provided during construction and this was subsequently
removed as the heading void was backfilled.

Hybrid methods for tunnel/heading construction might also have been feasible. For
example, the brickwork part of the sewer could perhaps be built during the initial
excavation behind the face, with the roof being temporarily propped and then the
flag stones could have been inserted from the far end working backwards towards
the working shaft.

It is probable that working space requirements more than hydraulic considerations

dictated the section size of the sewer. Certainly, for all but a small number of principal
carrier sewers, spare hydraulic capacity exists.

Further investigations of documents and field evidence are obviously needed be-
fore conclusive answers can be given to the questions raised. Probably a variety
of techniques were used dependent on ground conditions, or the experience of
different contractors. However, whatever the method adopted, it is apparent that
very considerable problems must have been experienced in handling materials in
very confined spaces, particularly in manoeuvring the stone flags into position.

These problems may account, in part, for the relative crudeness of the construction.
Brickwork coursing and jointing are irregular, variations in section size and shape
occur. Open joints exist between the stone flags, and the space above has often
been imperfectly backfilled. The sewers exhibit wandering alignment and sometimes
abrupt changes in level as illustrated previously.

> Read full chapter

Underground location of nuclear pow-

er plants
Gianni Petrangeli, in Nuclear Safety, 2006
Publisher Summary
This chapter focuses on underground location of nuclear power plants. Plants can
be built at ground level with external surfaces of the vital parts. These vital parts are
covered with soil or special material. Plants can also be located in deep excavation.
The location of the turbine–generator system at depth is close to the reactor cavern.
Various feasibility studies have been made in recent times in Sweden, Germany,
and Switzerland. The consequences of possible severe accidents can provide better
mitigation. The underground location has been the most effective solution, even
against extreme attacks. A sub-surface location can be implemented in a unique
way to resist any conventional weapon and nuclear bombs. The increase in cost is
also significant and many evaluations have been made. The increase in cost is also
because of the increase in the construction time. High cost and long construction
times can be weighed against the potential benefit objective of improving the
resistance against severe accidents.

> Read full chapter

Civil engineering and building works

British Electricity International, in Station Planning and Design (Third Edition), 1991

9.3 Pumphouse and screen chamber intake

In order to draw adequate supplies of water at all states of tide or river flow from
an intake situated some considerable depth below site level, the CW pumps are
installed in a deep basement (Fig 3.33). This results in very deep excavations for large
underground structures and causes problems in construction due to their proximity
to water. Techniques for building these structures are discussed in Section 8.2 of this
chapter.
Fig. 3.33. Section through CW pumphouse sirueturt

The location of the pumphouse, screen chamber and intake varies with the topog-
raphy, bathymetry and the geotechnical problems associated with construction and
operation of the system. The structures may be combined with a jetty, the intake may
also be separated from the fine screens and pumps by tunnel or tube. Each site has
a series of variations on possible types of structure and the final system is developed
from total lifetime cost comparisons.
 Construction needs can also affect the design; for example, dewatering is easier
from the pumphouse than the intake, and tunnels, are more readily driven uphill
than level or down. Soft ground tunnelling carries non-technical risks and may be
impossible to drive with adequate safety. Submerged tubes offer an alternative but
must not be buoyant if dewatered, and must not represent a permanent hazard by
being insufficiently buried in the river or sea bed.

The option of putting the pumps close to individual condensers to save costs on
pressure culverts leads to complications with layout and foundations, which often
lead to its rejection in favour of a combined screen and pump chamber.

> Read full chapter

Use of Jet Grouting in Deep Excavations

Dazhi Wen, in Ground Improvement Case Histories, 2015

Abstract
Jet grouting is an increasingly used technique for in situ soil improvement in many
types of soils, especially in soft clays such as the Singapore marine clay. Among
many of its applications, one of the common uses is to improve the ground for deep
excavations. In this chapter, quality assurance and quality control for jet grouting
works, properties of jet grouted piles, and design and construction issues associated
with the use of jet grouted slabs at the base of excavations are presented. These
topics are discussed with reference to jet grouting applications in the construction
of the cut and cover tunnels at Race Course Road and in the station construction by
cut-and-cover method at Clarke Quay station during the construction of the North
East Mass Rapid Transit Line in Singapore.

> Read full chapter

ScienceDirect is Elsevier’s leading information solution for researchers.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. Terms and conditions apply.