SATURATED C L A Y R E S P O N S E DURING BRACED

C U T CONSTRUCTION

By Richard J. Finno,1 Member, ASCE, and Steven M. Nerby, 2

Member, ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: Strain fields that arose at various times during construction of a braced
excavation through soft to medium-stiff saturated clays in Chicago are presented.
Pile driving induced largely horizontal compressive strains and positive excess pore-
water pressures within the adjacent clay. These effects tend to reduce the passive
resistance provided by the soil between the sheet-pile walls and promote move-
ments below the excavated grade at any early stage of excavation. The strains
computed from data taken, during excavation indicated that strains localized in dis-
tinct zones twice during construction. This phenomenon was associated with move-
ments below the base of the excavation and with large increases in measured strut
loads. The in situ response at the test section implies that strain-softening phe-
nomena occurred within the lightly overconsolidated, saturated clay during exca-
vation and bracing.

INTRODUCTION

In 1987, The Department of Public Works of the city of Chicago con-

structed a connection between two existing transit lines. Part of the work,
known as the HDR-4 contract, included constructing a subway tunnel using
cut-and-cover techniques. The project was located one mile south of down-
town Chicago. Northwestern University, in conjunction with the Department
of Public Works, established a test section adjacent to the 40-ft-deep ex-
cavation in saturated clays to record surface and subsurface three-dimen-
sional ground movements, pore-water pressures, sheet-pile deformations and
strut loads. Soil responses were measured daily while excavating the cut at
the test section. Subsurface conditions and instrumentation at the test sec-
tion, pertinent construction activities, and results of field observations made
before, during and after excavation at the test section, have been presented
by Finno et al. in a companion paper.
This paper evaluates the measured ground response by presenting com-
puted contours of strains that developed in the soil mass adjacent to the cut
at various times throughout construction. The observed strain fields provide
insights to in situ stress-strain behavior of lightly overconsolidated, saturated
clays. Because the stability of a braced excavation and the ground move-
ments associated with its construction depend on both the stiffness of the
bracing system and the stress-strain-strength characteristics of the soil, im-
plications concerning control of ground movements can be drawn from the
data.
'Asst. Prof. Civ. Engrg., Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
2
Constr. Engr., Kiewit Western, Elk Grove, IL 60005; formerly, Grad. Stud.,
Northwestern Univ., Evanston.
Note. Discussion open until January 1, 1990. Separate discussions should be sub-
mitted for the individual papers in this symposium. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on Au-
gust 22, 1988. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.
115, No. 8, August, 1989. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9410/89/0008-1065/$1.00 + $.15
per page. Paper No. 23728.

1065

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:1065-1084.

 BACKGROUND
The behavior of braced excavations through clay has been studied exten-
sively. Based on a review of case histories, Peck (1969) updated procedures
to compute apparent earth pressures, which provide loadings for use in strut
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

design. He also characterized the magnitude and extent of ground-surface

settlement that can be expected to develop as a result of typical excavation
procedures through various soil conditions. Peck proposed that the behavior
of braced excavations in clay could be characterized solely by the undrained
shear strength and unit weight of the clay and the depth Of the excavation.
Bjerrum et al. (1972) proposed that the loads carried by struts in a braced
excavation result from the magnitude of the total active earth pressure (com-
puted to a depth where soil movements are insignificant) and the distribution
of the earth pressure. The earth-pressure distribution depends on the amount
of arching and is controlled by the magnitude of deformations in the soil
below the excavation relative to those of the struts. Bjerrum postulated that
these deformations are a function of the stress-strain characteristics and unit
weight of the soil, the geometry of the excavation, and the depth to a firm
stratum.
The works of Peck (1969) and Bjerrum et al. (1972) considered relatively
flexible walls consisting of either soldier pile and lagging or sheet pile. As
structural slurry walls were incorporated into braced systems, designers were
able to select a wall with much larger bending stiffness than the previous
wall types. Goldberg et al. (1976) discussed the effects of wall stiffness on
resulting soil movements. With comparable wall spacing, concrete walls
generally are stiffer than soldier-pile or sheet-pile walls. However, soldier-
pile and sheet-pile walls with closely spaced levels may be stiffer than con-
crete walls with widely spaced support levels. By studying case histories,
Goldberg et al. (1976) showed that deformations are a function of both soil
strength and wall stiffness.
Based on results of case studies and finite element parametric studies,
Mana and Clough (1981) proposed that movements associated with exca-
vation primarily depend on factor of safety against basal heave, and are thus
a function of soil strength and excavation geometry. They also proposed that
the movements depend upon wall and strut stiffness, amount of preload ap-
plied to struts and soil stiffness as reflected by the undrained Young's mod-
ulus. Clough and Hansen (1981) showed that the importance of including
clay anisotropy effects when estimating deformations for cases in which the
factor of safety against basal heave is less than 1.5.
Our understanding of the excavation process thus includes the effects of
structural and construction details, as well as soil behavior. Our ability to
make a priori predictions of behavior of braced excavations in clay is thus
limited by our ability to predict a contractor's behavior that affects the loads
applied to the soil (e.g., excavation scheme, amount of preload, workman-
ship, etc.), as well as our ability to faithfully represent the in situ constitutive
response of the soil. The effects of a given set of construction procedures
on soil response can be evaluated by looking at strain fields that develop
within a soil mass adjacent to an excavation at various stages of construction.
The following sections present such data for the HDR-4 test section. These
results can be used to enhance and suggest modifications in existing gen-
1066

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:1065-1084.

 eralizations, as well as to point in new directions for understanding in situ
response of soils.

STRAIN FIELD COMPUTATIONS

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The subsurface conditions and instrumentation, pertinent construction ac-

tivities, and results of field observations at the HDR-4 test section have been
summarized in a companion paper (Finno et al. 1988b). The soil strains
presented herein have been computed from the results of inclinometer, mul-
tiple-point extensometer, and ground-surface settlement point measurements.
The strain components were computed assuming that plane-strain conditions
existed throughout construction. Based on the horizontal displacement vec-
tors determined from inclinometer results, the soil generally responded as in
a plane-strain mode of deformation (see companion paper). The horizontal
displacement vectors were not perpendicularly oriented to the sheet-pile wall,
but were oriented 15° off the perpendicular, toward the area of the exca-
vation that was first excavated. Assuming plane-strain conditions in the di-
rection of movement, the strain fields are described by the components of
horizontal strain, eh, the vertical strain, e„, and the shear strain, elw.
In general, the strain components have been computed as shown in Fig.
1. In a manner similar to O'Rourke (1981), the e,, components were com-
puted from inclinometer measurements by dividing the differential horizontal
resultant displacement between two points at a given elevation by the initial
horizontal distance between them. Contours were developed after plotting
the strain magnitudes at 2-ft vertical intervals at the midpoint between the
location of the two inclinometers.
The e„ components were computed from multiple-point extensometer and
surface-settlement points by dividing the differential vertical movements be-
tween adjacent anchors, or the top anchor and surface-settlement point at
each extensometer location, by the initial vertical distance (approximately
10 ft) between them. Contours were developed after plotting the strain mag-
nitudes at the midpoint between the elevation of the two anchors.
The e,,„ components have been computed by summing the horizontal, du/
dy, and vertical, dv/dx, angular distortions and dividing by 2. The du/dy
components of shear strain have been computed from inclinometer data by
dividing the differential horizontal resultant displacement between two con-
secutive inclinometer data points by the 2-ft vertical distance between the
points. Contours were developed after plotting these components at the mid-
point between the elevations of each data point at each inclinometer location.
The dv/dx components of shear strain have been computed using data from
extensometer and surface-settlement points, the differential vertical move-
ments between two points at a given elevation by the initial horizontal dis-
tance between them. Contours were developed after plotting the strain com-
ponents at the midpoint between the location of the two extensometers. The
two strain-component contours were then averaged to obtain the resulting
strain component, e,w.
The vertical-strain contours were checked by integrating the vertical strains
over the depth of the strain field and comparing these computed settlements
with those measured at the surface-settlement points by standard leveling
techniques. The horizontal-strain contours were checked by integrating the
horizontal-strain components between the most distant inclinometer (SI-3)
1067

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:1065-1084.

 Limits of pilot trench ^ ' j
4
HI

A
A •JN
SI
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

"—PZ-40
E-2 E-l sheeting
E_3
O 9 d
* O
S5
S3 o » O
?A
SI-I
® o SI-2 0 °1 ?
SI-3 1
SI-4Sk

KEY IB A
© Inclinometer 0 8
1 . . . .1
ffl Multiple point extensometer SCALE
0 Piezometer (ft)
A Settlement point
® Used In stra n computations (typ.)

SI-3 SI-2 E-2 E-l STRAIN COMPONENTS

FIG. 1. Definitions of Strains

and the sheeting, and comparing these computed differential movements with
those measured by the difference between the sheet-pile inclinometer and
inclinometer SI-3. These procedures assured that a consistent, although not
necessarily unique, strain field was developed. On the basis of the accuracy
of the inclinometer and extensometer data and the lengths between the var-
ious measuring points, it is believed that strains greater than 0.1% could be
consistently detected.

SOIL STRAINS DURING CONSTRUCTION

Contours of soil strain were computed for five key periods during con-
struction, as shown in Table 1. Period 2 was not included herein because
excavation occurred to the south of the main line of instruments during this
time with no appreciable impact on saturated-clay response measured at the
mainline of instrumentation. Period 7 represents both strut removal and long-
term response; it was not included because movements in the clay are small
compared to those that occurred during bracing and excavation.
1068

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:1065-1084.

 TABLE 1. Construction Activities at Test-Section Location
Construction
day number Period Activity
(D (2) (3)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1 1 Begin excavating pilot trench through fill on Dec. 15, 1986

52 Drive sheeting to e l . - 2 8 ft CCD at test section
64 Vibrate sheeting to e l . - 5 0 ft CCD at test section
101 Start excavation
141 3 Excavate to el.O ft CCD at test section
143 Excavate to e l . - 2 . 5 ft CCD at test section; maximum
cantilever conditions at test section
144 4 Install and preload W14X109 sections at first strut level
148 Excavate to e l . - 7 ft CCD at test section; crack observed at
ground surface through main line of instruments
152 Excavate to e l . - 1 3 ft CCD at test section
156,157 5 Install and preload 24-in. diamXl/2 in. pipes at third strut
level
163 Install with no preload 22-in. diamx3/8 in. pipe at second
strut level
164 6 Excavate to e l . - 2 4 ft CCD at test section
165 Install and preload 24-in. diamXl/2 in. pipes at fourth strut
level
166 Excavate to e l . - 2 7 ft CCD at test section
Note: Elevations shown are average elevations within test section area.

Period 1
The strains generated during pile driving can be seen in Fig. 2 for days
61, 66, and 99 during period 1. Extension strains are indicated as negative
values. In general, the soil moved laterally away from the sheeting and the
ground surface heaved as a result of sheet-pile installation (Finno et al. 1988a).
Data for days 61 and 66 indicate that strains develop in the soil consistent
with the observed deformations. The sheet-pile tips were at an elevation of
—28 ft CCD on day 61 after their initial driving. Larger strains developed
as a result of final seating to an elevation of - 5 0 ft CCD. The soil had been
primarily subjected to horizontal compression and smaller magnitudes of ver-
tical and shear strains. The region of maximum horizontal strain appears to
be concentrated in the Blodgett till, perhaps as a result of the confining effect
of the stiff, dessicated crust and rubble fill. Some lateral extension is evident
in the fill near the pilot trench. These strains are thought to have resulted
from the rabble fill losing stiffness and strength as the ground thawed during
the spring warm-up. The maximum vertical- and shear-strain magnitudes are
relatively small and near the limit of accurate definition of these strains.
Therefore, the strain field associated with pile driving is dominated by hor-
izontal strains.
In the quiescent period between days 66 and 99, the ground surface settled
as the pore pressures generated by pile driving dissipated (Finno et al. 1988a).
The increases in compressive and decreases in extension vertical strains dur-
ing this time reflect these observations. Horizontal- and shear-strain contours
changed very little.
1069

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:1065-1084.

 ELEV.
(ft CCD) 6H'%' 6y(%» 6tv(%)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 2. Strain Contours During and After Sheet-Pile Driving

Period 3
Period 3 represents the time when the sheet-pile wall acted as a cantilever.
The maximum wall height was approximately 15.5 ft when the excavation
reached an elevation of - 2 . 5 ft CCD on day 143. Fig. 3 shows the strain
contours computed for day 143. Note that these strains, and all subsequent
strains, represent incremental strains from day 99. This is done so that de-
formations associated with the sheet pile could be used to compute strains.
The inclinometer on the sheet pile was initialized on day 99, and excavation
at the test section began on 101. Also shown are the ground-surface settle-
ments and sheet-pile movements at the end of period 3. The horizontal strains
shown are typical of cantilever conditions, with maximum lateral extension
equal to approximately - 1 . 5 % near the top of the wall. Vertical-strain con-
tours indicate zones of small levels of compression. The shear strains com-
puted for this day are less than could be accurately measured. At this point,
the overall soil-strain response is still dominated by horizontal strains.
Period 4
Period 4 represents the time between day 144, when the first strut level
was installed and preloaded, and day 152, when the excavation reached an
1070

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:1065-1084.

 gH(%) 6 V (%) f HV (%)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 3. Strain Contours as a Result of Cantilever Wall Loading (Period 3)

elevation of —13 ft CCD. During this period, the maximum unsupported

wall height was 19.5 ft on day 152. Displacement data showed that the soil
moved in a block-type fashion and a surface crack appeared at the test-sec-
tion location on day 148. The ground-surface settlements, sheet-pile move-
ments, and strains observed during period 4 on day 152 are shown in Fig.
4. This figure shows the development of large strains along a concentrated
zone. This is particularly evident in the horizontal-strain contours. Fig. 4
also shows these contours on days 148 and 150 to illustrate the progressive
nature of the localization process. The localization apparently began near the
sheet pile, 6 ft below the excavated surface, as shown by the horizontal-
strain contours for day 148. By day 152, the strains had localized along a
thin zone, as indicated by the dashed lines. The contours also show the
effects of strut installation, in terms of net horizontal compression strains in
the soil adjacent to the upper part of the wall. Recall that prior to strut
installation on day 143, the soil in this area was subjected to horizontal
extension strains.
The vertical-strain contours show that the entire soil mass behind the wall
is vertically compressed. By day 152, these strains had centered around the
concentrated shear zone.
The shear-strain contours for both days are concentrated below the ex-
cavation level along the failure plane, as noted by the dashed lines. Note
that the maximum magnitudes of eA„ are near the sheet-pile wall. The pres-
ence of these strains indicates the principal strains are rotating at depth near
the sheeting.
The increment during period 4 of maximum engineering shear strain, 7max,
is shown in Fig. 5. These contours show the unmistakable formation of a
zone of concentrated strains. The maximum incremental shear-strain mag-
nitude in this zone is approximately +5.6%.
1071

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:1065-1084.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 4. Strain Contours After Upper Shear-Zone Formation (Period 4)

Period 5
Period 5 spans the time when the third-level struts were installed and pre-
loaded to 50% of their design load, the second-level struts were placed with
no preload, and the excavation was deepened 3 ft to an elevation of - 1 8 ft
CCD. Sheet-pile movements, ground-surface settlements and strain contours
computed at the end of period 5, day 163, are shown in Fig. 6. The hori-
zontal-strain contours show that the overall patterns of strain did not signif-
icantly change during this quiescent period. However, two basic observa-
tions can be made. First, a second zone of concentrated horizontal extension
strains has begun to form below the upper zone; the maximum magnitude
of these strains is —1.4%. Also, the zone of compressive strains near the
struts extends from below the third strut level up to the ground surface as
a result of the preloading operations.
The vertical-strain contours show that the zone of compression along the
upper failure plane has enlarged, although the magnitudes of the strains re-
main approximately the same. These contours imply that the extent of ground
settlement has grown, consistent with observed settlements.
The shear-strain contours also reveal the beginning of the formation of a
lower zone of concentrated strains near the sheet-pile wall.
Period 6
Period 6 represents the time when the fourth-level struts were installed
1072

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:1065-1084.

 INCREMENTAL
(fTcTD) W%>
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

^""*—Day 144

A»wwv Day 143

-'/,
-10
WWUMV Day 152

-20

-30

-40

10
-50

L
-60 (ft)

FIG. 5. Incremental Maximum Engineering Shear-Strain Contours (Period 4)

ELEV
(ftCCD) £H<%) gy (%) £HV(%»

SHEET PILE
DISPLACEMENTS
(IN)

FIG. 6. Strain Contours After Preloading of Third Bracing Level (Period 5)

1073

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:1065-1084.

 (ftCCD) C
H'/O)
<=y(%) _§SAL
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

SHEET PfLE
DISPLACEMENT
(IN)

FIG. 7. Strain Contours After Lower Shear-Zone Formation (Period 6)

and preloaded until the time the excavation reached its full depth of 40 ft,
in front of the test section. On day 165, the maximum unsupported wall
height was 18 ft. Displacement data showed that the soil moved in a block-
like fashion during this period (Finno et al. 1988c). Fig. 7 shows the sheet-
pile movements, ground-surface settlements and strain contours computed
for day 169, when the excavation was at its deepest point. By this time, a
localized zone of concentrated strains had formed below the existing region
of localized strains, as noted by the contours of all strain components. The
horizontal-strain components also show that the compression region near the
wall extended below the fourth-level strut in response to preloading at that
location.
The vertical-strain contours show a localization of compressive strains co-
inciding with the lower concentrated shear zone. The maximum magnitude
of vertical compression in the lower failure plane is approximately +3.0%.
The shear-strain contours are concentrated below excavation level along
a lower failure plane, as noted by the dashed lines. The maximum values
of e,,„ occur near the sheet-pile wall. The presence of these strains indicates
that the principal strain directions are rotating at depth near the sheeting.
The increment of maximum engineering shear strains for period 6 is shown
in Fig. 8. These contours show the unmistakable formation of a zone of
concentrated strains in a distinct zone. The maximum incremental shear-
strain magnitude is approximately 4.0%.

Volumetric Strains
Strain paths computed from the start of excavation at day 101 for several
locations within the soil mass are shown on Fig. 9. With the exception of
point A, volumetric strains within the soil mass are slightly less than zero
throughout the excavation and bracing process. These data indicate some
1074

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:1065-1084.

 ELEV INCREMENTAL X,. y (%)
(ft CCD)

=! '
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

«•

t
>-/,
=t Day 165
*'. W#VVW Day 163
-20 - -//
^ ;<yX!WV Day 169
,-j/
-30
H
U

D
• / /
-40
//
DGE
ARK

(ft)

FIG. 8. Incremental Maximum Engineering Shear-Strain Contours (Period 6)

minor volumetric expansion within the clay mass during the two months of
excavation. While the volumetric expansion is consistent with excavation
unloading, the excavation essentially occurred under undrained loading con-
ditions. Note that points B and D, within the two zones of concentrated

LOCATION SHEAR
KEY: STRAIN (%)

\B °
A

_"TJL, V ww

169 <
Construction /
day no. (typ.)
<V°69
143 9 -
\ 152 -OI63

% 143
- 2 - 1 0 1 -I 0 I
NORMAL STRAIN (%) NORMAL STRAIN (%)

Note: AM strain paths start at origin on day 99.

FIG. 9. Strain Paths During Excavation

1075

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:1065-1084.

 strains, were subjected to more shear strains than point C, located between
the two zones. The strain path of point A reflects the horizontal compression
that occurred within the soil as a result of the soil mass moving toward the
braced portions of the wall.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ANALYSIS

Analyses of the deformations, pore-water pressures, and computed strain

fields within the soil mass adjacent to the excavation provide insights to the
behavior of the HDR-4 test section. By comparing HDR-4 behavior with
that typical of other braced excavations in clay, some inferences may be
drawn concerning control of ground movements during construction. Both
the effects of sheet-pile installation on stress conditions prior to excavation
and bracing, and the process of localization of strains within the soil mass,
cause conditions that are different than commonly assumed in methods of
analyses of braced systems.

Effects of Sheet Pile Installation

As the contractor installed the sheet-pile walls at the site, excess pore
pressures and (primarily) lateral strains (Fig. 2) were induced in the soil mass
near the walls. Pore-pressure response during pile driving has been described
by Finno et al. (1988a). Normalized excess pore-pressure responses during
and after driving are shown on Fig. 10. Days 54 and 64 were the days the

ELEV AFTER PILE PRIOR TO

(ftCCD) DRIVING EXCAVATION
0 . W W
10 !_i *
\
—1 i
U- '

-10 mi* .08

o-i .29 .06
o-l4 .13
a . 18
ay; Sheet pile
-20 .24
/// .09
a .60 tip on: .16
• .21
»~Day 52
-30 - ii. _i .08
a .40
a .12
• .25 a
cy/j
.17 .30
-40
vZ .58
ARK
DG

Q - K

- 5 0 L- / ,/ l*-Day 64

Day 54
10
Day 64 o Day 99 _J
SCALE
(ft)
a Piezometer tip location
Numbers shown are excess pore pressure/
initial vertical effective stress

FIG. 10. Normalized Excess Pore Pressures during and after Sheet-Pile Driving

1076

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:1065-1084.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

NORMALIZED MEAN NORMAL STRESS (CT'*°i \

\ 2C7-; /

NOTE: A Initial conditions, all points

B Effective stress on day 54 for piezometer •
C Effective stress on day 6 4 for piezometer e
D Effective stress on day 99 for piezometer •
All other points represent conditions on day 99

FIG. 11. Postulated Stress Paths during Sheet-Pile Driving

sheet piles were driven to elevations of —28 and —50 ft CCD, respectively,
at the test section. Day 99 is the day just before excavation began at the test
section. Differences in excess pore pressures between days 64 and 99 rep-
resent the consolidation that occurred after driving and prior to excavation.
These observed responses imply that stress conditions just before exca-
vation at a braced cut can be substantially different from K„ conditions. A
postulated stress path during and after driving is shown on Fig. 11. Also
shown are the postulated stress conditions based on measured pore pressures
adjacent to the excavation. In addition to using measured values of pore
pressure, several assumptions were necessary to draw this path. A concep-
tual soil model, similar to one proposed by Crooks and Graham (1976), is
used to estimate effective stress paths (ESP). In essence, the model defines
failure with a large strain, Mohr-Coulomb envelope for both compression
and extension. The yield envelope is approximated by a combination of two
ESPs determined by ^-consolidated, undrained triaxial compression (CKJJ
TXC) tests on normally consolidated soils and determined by CK„U triaxial
extension (TXE) tests. Using these results, the yield envelope is approxi-
mated by a surface centered on the normally consolidated K0 line. Effective
stress response is assumed to be elastic beneath the yield surface. Because
of the predominance of lateral strains during pile driving, the total stress is
assumed to be one of increased horizontal stress and constant vertical stress

1077

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:1065-1084.

 NO SHEET P I L E EFFECTS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

NORMALIZED NORMAL STRESS

ATA = Mobilized shear stress on active side of wall

A T P = Mobilized shear stress on passive side of wall

FIG. 12. Postulated Effects of Sheet-Pile Driving on Available Shear Resistance

as a result of pile driving under undrained conditions. When the stress equals
that on the yield surface during undrained loading, the ESP is assumed to
follow the yield surface. Therefore, for example, point C in Fig. 11 is de-
termined by scaling a distance equal to the measured normalized excess pore
pressure between the yield surface and TSP. While this approach is approx-
imate, it is accurate enough for the conceptual purposes used herein.
The implications of these changes on subsequent response during exca-
vation and bracing are schematically shown in Fig. 12 for the soil on both
the active and passive sides of the sheet-pile walls. An average point among
the stress conditions at a distance 14 ft from the sheeting is used to illustrate
this concept. It is assumed that the pore-water response is symmetrical about
the axes of the sheet pile, such that soil on both sides has been subjected
to the same increases in total horizontal stress and excess pore pressure as
a result of the pile driving. For undrained conditions during excavation and
bracing, a condition approximately reflected in the HDR-4 data, idealized
ESPs for both loading conditions are shown in the figure. Note that the
effects of rotation of principal stresses near the sheet-pile wall, as implied
by the strain data, are not considered. The mobilized shear resistance on the
active side is greater than if no sheet-pile effects occurred. Conversely, the
mobilized shear resistance on the passive side is considerably smaller than
that if no sheet pile effects occurred.
In addition to the differences in available shear strength caused by the
1078

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:1065-1084.

 0.50

^bs 0.40
(KQ conditions)
f 0.30
Extension / Compression
w 0.20
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

I 0.10
UJ
t o.oo « 'pt. B
Q
(conditions after
u) -0.10 pile driving)
UJ
cc
U -0.20
Q
N "0.30
_i
Ettf
" -0.40
Ql

-0.50

-10.0 0.0 10.0

AXIAL STRAIN (%)

FIG. 13. Typical Results of CKaU Triaxial Compression and Extension Tests

sheet-pile effects, the stiffnesses of the responses have also been altered.
This can be seen by examining typical stress-strain curves from CK0U TXC
and CKJJ TXE tests on fixed-piston samples taken at the test-section lo-
cation (Fig. 13). The preloading effect of the sheet-pile installation would
reduce the tangent modulus of the clay for passive loading. Recall that hor-
izontal-compression strains as high as 0.75% were recorded during pile driv-
ing. Thus, the very stiff initial response in extension loading (point A on
Fig. 13) would be mobilized during pile driving, not as a result of passive
loading during excavation. A softer response, as schematically indicated at
point B, would be operative during excavation. Its effect on the movements
below the base of the excavation is first seen prior to installing the first level
of struts (Fig. 3), when movements extend as much as 30 ft below the bot-
tom of the excavated level at that time. On the active side, an initially stiffer
response would be expected; however, the magnitude of strain to reach the
peak shear-stress level is relatively small. After this level of strain is mo-
bilized in the soil, softening of the soil response would occur, again pro-
moting large displacements in the soil.

Localization of Strains
Localization phenomena have been noted in the strain contours at two
separate periods of construction. It can best be seen in Fig. 4, where strain
1079

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:1065-1084.

 contours for days 148 and 152 have been computed. Recall that on day 148
a crack was observed on the ground surface indicating that a zone of con-
centrated strains had developed in the soil. A value of 7max equal to 1.1%
was observed below the excavation near the sheet-pile wall. At this time,
the maximum horizontal wall movement was 2.0 in. and maximum ground-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

surface settlement was 2.2 in. By day 152, large incremental block move-
ments had occurred after excavating 6 ft of soil; a maximum value for "ymax
of 6.7% was observed along the shear surface. On this day, the maximum
horizontal wall movement was 5.5 in. and maximum ground-surface settle-
ment was 6.1 in. Note that the maximum wall movement occurred below
the bottom of the excavation. As postulated by Bjerrum et al. (1972), these
deep-seated movements tend to create larger strut loads compared to cases
when large movements do not occur below the base of the excavation. This
postulate was observed in the HDR-4 data. During this period, the first-level
strut loads increased from 170 kips (day 148) to 300 kips (day 155) after
just 6 ft of excavation, as detailed in the companion paper. Similar behavior
was observed during period 6.
The computed strains at this point of loss of control agree qualitatively
with those from laboratory test data. The peak shear stresses in the CK„U
TXC tests occur between 0.5 and 1.6% 7max. Thus, control of ground move-
ments was lost when strains associated with peak shear stresses were ex-
ceeded; strain-softening and localization resulted, which further promoted
ground movements and caused large increases in strut loads.
Note that the postulated response on the passive side of the excavation
cannot be checked because of a lack of field data.
The process of strain localization as observed in the field indicates that
the in situ response of natural clays includes apparent strain-softening after
a relatively small strain level has been exceeded. This observed response has
not been included in constitutive models that are commonly used in analysis
of field-loading situations. In fact, the process itself is not well understood.
Two quite separate approaches have been proposed to explain the phenom-
ena. The first approach considers softening as a constitutive response of the
soil. Work using this approach has been done, for example, by Prevost and
Hoeg (1975), who use plasticity theory in a phenomenological approach.
The second approach considers softening as a bifurcation problem, wherein
the material response is a strain-hardening type and the apparent softening
results because of a discontinuity in the continuum. Work in this approach
has been done, for example, by Read and Hegemier (1984) and Vardoulakis
et al. (1978). However, neither of these approaches have been used for mod-
eling the field response of saturated, soft clays. Clearly, more work needs
to be done to better understand the response of these materials when sub-
jected to strains higher than those that correspond to peak shear strengths.

IMPLICATIONS CONCERNING BEHAVIOR OF DIFFERENT W A L L SYSTEMS

Because an earth structure, like a braced excavation, depends on both soil

and structural support for its stability, it is instructive to relate our under-
standing of braced excavation response to the observed strain behavior of
the soil mass.
Peck (1969) observed that the response of flexible, braced excavations in
saturated, soft clays is solely related to the shear strength of the clay. In
1080

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:1065-1084.

 essence, the HDR-4 test section response provides another verification of
this observation. In terms of the soil strains at HDR-4, the peak shear stress
on the active side of the wall was reached at a very small strain level. As
movements needed to reach these levels occur for an excavation with flexible
walls, or for one that has been subjected to a significant amount of over-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

excavation (conditions that were representative of HDR-4), the wall contri-

bution to system stiffness will be very small and, therefore, the total re-
sponse of the system must essentially be governed by the soil. Energy
associated with the softening response must be dissipated by adjacent soil;
this dissipation essentially mobilizes additional shear stress and contributes
to further deformations. At HDR-4, positive excess pore pressures induced
by pile driving diminished the available passive resistance and stiffness of
the soil inside the walls and promoted the large displacements below the
floor of the excavation to fully mobilize the passive resistance. On both sides
of a wall, the available shear resistance of the soil is mobilized, and large
deformations result. Thus, undrained shear strength of the clay is the key
parameter.
When considering concrete slurry wall excavations that have large wall
stiffnesses compared to that of sheet-pile walls, the interaction between the
wall and the soil must be considered. An estimate of the benefits of the
higher wall stiffnesses has been made by comparing field performance data
(Goldberg et al. 1976) and by results of finite element parametric studies
(Mana and Clough 1981). These studies verify the intuitive observation that
a stiffer wall is associated with small deformations for similar soil condi-
tions. Results of parametric studies by Mana and Clough (1981) indicated
that the maximum reduction in wall movement that could be obtained by
replacing a sheet-pile wall with a slurry wall is 100%. This reduction is
expected to be smaller when the factor of safety against basal heave is greater
than 1.0. Note that these studies did not consider effects of wall installation
on in situ stresses prior to excavation.
In the case of sheet-pile walls at the HDR-4 test section, high excess pore
pressures were generated during driving. In the few cases when pore-pres-
sure data have been measured during sheet-pile driving, positive pore pres-
sures were always recorded (Table 2). Thus, it appears that sheet-pile-in-
duced excess pore pressures are the rule rather than the exception when driving
through soft to medium saturated clays. Their impact on subsequent response
has been hypothesized for behavior at HDR-4, i.e., stress changes associated
with pile driving reduced the available shear resistance and stiffness of the
passive side of the excavation. When slurry walls are used, the excavation
process reduces the lateral stresses and pore-water pressures. After the con-
crete is tremied, horizontal stress increases in the soil adjacent to the wall.
DiBiagio and Myrvoll (1972) presented data concerning pore pressures in
soil during slurry wall construction: pore pressures 6 ft from the wall de-
crease as much as 400 psf as a result of excavation, and increase as much
as 600 psf as a result of concreting operations. These changes apparently
have a much smaller effect on the initial soil conditions than the sheet-pile
wall. Thus, the available resistance and stiffness on the passive side would
be greater for the slurry wall than for the sheet-pile wall (i.e., start exca-
vation nearer to the K0 conditions, as indicated on Fig. 12). This additional
strength and stiffness from the soil complements the greater bending stiffness
of the wall to minimize movements associated with excavation.

1081

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:1065-1084.

 TABLE 2. Excess Pore Pressures Caused by Sheet-Pile Driving

Distance Maximum Normalized Excess

from Pore Pressure (ue/a'„)
Reference Soil type sheeting (ft) After driving Start of excavation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

NGI, Technical soft to medium 1.6 2.55 0.68
Report No. 1 clay 9.5 0.56 0.31
(1962)
NGI, Technical medium clay at sheeting 1.25 0.46
Report No. 3 10 0.99 0.07
(1962)
NGI, Technical
Report No. 6
(1962) medium clay 5 0.51" 0.51"
Karlsrud (1986) quick clay 3 0.66" See0
11.5 0.53"
25 0.22"
'Excavation began near section on the same day that sheet piles were driven.
"Piezometer data obtained one week after pile driving.
'Writer reported very little pore pressure dissipation prior to excavation.

This hypothesis emphasizes the importance of proper evaluation of the

initial ground conditions. All aspects of construction and their impact on soil
response must be considered when evaluating deformations. Note that the
detrimental effects of installation will diminish as the time increases between
wall installation and start of excavation. In the case of a long excavation for
a subway, the most critical section, relative to the sheet-pile effect, would
be at the start of excavation, when pore pressures had the least time to dis-
sipate. The HDR-4 test section was approximately 70 ft from the location
where excavation for the sheet-pile section began and was thus felt near its
maximum effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the analysis of the observed response at the HDR-4 braced-ex-

cavation test section, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Installing the sheet-pile wall caused in situ stresses to be different than K0
conditions prior to the start of excavation. Because the field data that exist con-
cerning sheet-pile-induced pore pressures in saturated, soft to medium clays al-
ways indicate positive pore-pressure development, it is believed that these pore
pressures are the rule rather than the exception. The magnitude of these effects
on subsequent response would be a function of the time between installation and
beginning of excavation.
2. The sheet-pile effects alter subsequent response mainly by reducing avail-
able shear resistance for passive loadings, compared to the case of no sheet-pile
effects. This effect, coupled with the reduction in stiffness on the passive side
of the excavation associated with the sheet-pile installation, contributes to large
movements below the base of the excavation at an early stage of construction
at the HDR-4 site.

1082

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:1065-1084.

 3. Strain patterns in the soil mass adjacent to the HDR-4 excavation were
complex and directly related to construction activities at the site. Other than at
the cantilever stage of excavation, they bore no resemblance to the patterns as-
sociated with simplified earth-pressure theories.
4. Localization of strains within the soil mass adjacent to the HDR-4 exca-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

vation occurred twice during construction. These observations imply that strain
softening occurred in situ. The localizations were associated with movements
below the base of excavation and with large increases in strut loads. Thus, if
soil behavior is to be predicted during excavation through soft clays with low
factors of safety against basal heave, then strain-softening response must be con-
sidered in the analysis.
5. Response of flexible,.braced excavations in clay are essentially a function
of the clay's undrained shear strength, because the stiffnesses of these types of
walls are so low. Large movements resulted at HDR-4 when the strains asso-
ciated with the peak shear strength were exceeded and strain localization oc-
curred. In the case of stiffer walls, soil-structure interaction must be evaluated
to predict performance. All aspects of construction, including the effects of wall
installation, must be considered in the analyses.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foun-

dation under Grant No. MSM-8796169. The support of the National Science
Foundation for this research is gratefully acknowledged.

APPENDIX I. Units

To convert To Multiply by

in. mm 25.4
ft m 0.305
kips kN 4.450
kips/sq ft kPa 47.9

APPENDIX II. REFERENCES

Bjerrum, L., Clausen, C. J., and Duncan, J. M. (1972). "Earth pressures on flexible
structures." State-of-the-art report, Proc, 5 th European Conf. on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, 2, Madrid, Spain.
Clough, G. W., and Hansen, L. A. (1981). "Clay anisotropy and braced wall be-
havior." J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 107(7), 893-914.
Crooks, J. H. A. (1981). "A qualitative stress-strain (time) model for soft clays."
Laboratory shear strength of soil, R. N. Yong and F. C. Townsend, eds. ASTM
STP 740, American Society for Testing of Materials, 685-699.
Dibiagio, E., and Myrvoll, F. (1972). "Full scale field tests of a subway trench
excavation in soft clay." Proc. 5th European Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foun-
dation Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 1, 461-471.
Finno, R. J., Atmatzidis, D. K., and Nerby, S. M. (1988a). "Ground response to
sheet pile installation in clay." 2nd Int. Conf on Case Histories in Geotechnical
Engineering, St. Louis, Mo.
Finno, R. J., Nerby, S. M., and Perkins, S. B. (1988b). "Soil parameters implied
by braced cut observations." Proc, Symp. on Soil Properties Evaluation from
Centrifugal Models and Field Performance, ASCE, Nashville, Tenn., 71-87.

1083

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:1065-1084.

 Goldberg, D. T., Jaworski, W. E., and Gordon, M. D. (1976). "Lateral support
systems and underpinning." Report No. FHWA-RD-75-129, II. Design Funda-
mentals, Federal Highway Administration.
Karlsrad, K. (1986). "Performance monitoring of deep supported excavations in soft
clay." 4th Int. Geotechnical Seminar on Field Instrumentation and In Situ Mea-
surements, Nanyang Technological Institute, Singapore, 187-202.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Mana, A. I., and Clough, G. W. (1981). "Prediction of movements for braced cuts
in clay." J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 107(6), 759-778.
"Measurements at a strutted excavation, Oslo subway, Enerhaugen South, km 1.982."
Tech. Report No. 3, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway.
"Measurements at a strutted excavation, Oslo subway, Gronland 1, km 1.559." Tech-
Report No. 1, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway.
"Measurements at a strutted excavation, Oslo subway, Vaterland 1, km 1.373," Tech.
Report No. 6, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway.
O'Rourke, T. D. (1981). "Ground movements caused by braced excavations." J.
Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 107(9), 1159-1178.
Peck, R. B. (1969). "Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground." State-of-the-
art report, 7th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico
City, Mexico, 225-281.
Prevost, J. H., and Hoeg, K. (1975). "Soil mechanics and plasticity analysis of strain
softening." Geotechnique, 25(2), 279-297.
Read, H. E., and Hegemier, G. A. (1984). "Strain softening of rock, soil and con-
crete—a review article." Mech. Mater., 3, 271-294.
Vardoulakis, I., Goldscheider, M., and Gudehus, G. (1978). "Formation of shear
bands in sand bodies as a bifurcation problem." Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods
Geomech., 2, 99-128.

1084

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:1065-1084.