BEHAVIOR OF BRACED AND ANCHORED WALLS IN

SOILS OVERLYING ROCK

By Chungsik Yoo,1 Associate Member, ASCE

ABSTRACT: This paper presents the results of analyses on the behavior of in situ walls, using the measured
data collected from various deep excavation sites with multilayered ground conditions of soils overlying rock
in Korea. A variety of in situ wall systems from >60 excavation sites were considered, covering a wide range
of wall types, including H-pile, soil cement, cast-in-place pile, and diaphragm. The measured data were thor-
oughly analyzed to investigate the effects of wall and support types on lateral wall movements as well as apparent
earth pressures. A series of 2D finite-element analyses were also performed to provide insights regarding the in
situ wall behavior. Based on the results, lateral wall movements and apparent earth pressures are related to
primary influencing factors affecting the wall behavior and information is presented in forms to provide tools
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

that can be used for design and analysis.

INTRODUCTION and laboratory observations [for example, Tschebotarioff

Because of rapid growth in urban development, numerous
deep excavation projects for high-rise buildings and subway
lines are being executed and more projects are scheduled in
the future. During excavation, an in situ wall system is con-
structed to provide stability and to minimize movements of the
adjacent ground. Obviously, improper design of an in situ wall
system constructed in an urban area may not only impose se-
rious structural damage to adjacent structures but may also
lead to loss of life in extreme cases. Therefore, consideration
must be given to wall and adjacent ground movements for a
given wall system during the design phase in order to ensure
a successful excavation work. There have been many studies
on this subject, for example Peck (1969), Mana and Clough
(1981), O’Rourke (1981), Wong and Broms (1989), Clough
and O’Rourke (1990), Ou et al. (1993), Fernie and Sucking
(1996), and Hashash and Whittle (1996), which are based on
empirical, semiempirical, and analytical methods. The major-
ity of these studies, however, are focused on excavations in
either purely sand deposits or purely clay deposits, and studies
carried out on excavations in multilayered soil deposits over-
lying rock stratum are limited. Therefore, whether the results
of previous studies are applicable to in situ walls in multilay-
ered ground conditions of soils overlying rock stratum is still
in question.
Design of an in situ wall system requires a lateral earth
pressure distribution behind the wall for final wall height to
estimate support loads and wall bending moments. For in situ
wall systems constructed from the ‘‘top down,’’ the deforma-
tion pattern is complex and not consistent with the develop-
ment of a theoretical Rankine or Coulomb earth pressure dis-
tribution. Of the methods for evaluating earth pressures for in
situ walls, the apparent earth pressure envelopes are more fre-
quently used than other methods primarily because of expe-
diency in practical application. These apparent earth pressure
envelopes were originally developed by Terzaghi and Peck
(1967) and Peck (1969) to provide loadings for conservative
design of struts in internally braced excavations, based on field
measurements of strut loads from various excavation sites.
Since 1969, several modifications to the original envelopes
have been proposed to accommodate the findings from field
1
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Sungkyunkwan Univ.,
Suwon 440-746, Korea. E-mail: csyoo@yurim.skku.ac.kr
Note. Discussion open until August 1, 2001. 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 March 14, 2000; revised October 24, 2000. This
paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 3, March, 2001. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/
01/0003-0225–0233/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 22326.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 2001 / 225
(1973), Goldberg et al. (1976), and Weatherby (1998)]. These
envelopes were also developed exclusively for either purely
sand deposits or purely clay deposits; therefore, many ques-
tions have been raised as to the applicability of these envelopes
to multilayered ground conditions, where fill/residual soils are
underlain by rock stratum (Lee and Chun 1993; Chae and
Moon 1994; Hong and Yoon 1995).
This study has been undertaken with the aim of understand-
ing the behavior of in situ walls constructed in multilayered
ground conditions of residual soils overlying rock stratum,
which are frequently encountered in the urban areas of Korea,
and of forming a database for use in developing a more ra-
tional design/analysis method. To meet this goal, measured
data from a number of excavation sites were thoroughly ana-
lyzed. Particular emphasis has been placed on the effects of
wall and support types on lateral wall movements and apparent
earth pressure distributions. A series of 2D finite-element anal-
yses were additionally performed on a hypothetical braced ex-
cavation in a multilayered ground of fill and a residual soil
deposit overlying a rock stratum in order to provide insights
concerning the effects on wall performance of the various
components of an in situ wall system. This paper is in-
tended to be a logical extension of the previous work done by
other researchers (Peck 1969; O’Rourke 1981; Clough and
O’Rourke 1990).
SITE CONDITIONS
In the present study, the measured data from 62 different
deep excavation sites in Korea, covering a wide range of ex-
cavation conditions, were collected and analyzed to investigate
the characteristic behavior of lateral wall movements and ap-
parent earth pressure distributions associated with urban deep
excavations in Korea. For analysis of excavation-induced lat-
eral wall movements, inclinometer readings from >240 sec-
tions were used, and load cell and strain gauge readings from
69 sections were used for analysis of apparent earth pressure
distributions.
Excavation depths of the sites considered a range approxi-
mately 7–38 m with multilayered ground conditions com-
posed of successive layers of fill, sedimentary or weathered
soil or both, and soft to hard rock. Average percent thickness
of weak soil deposit, in general, is approximately 48% of ex-
cavation depth, with 20 and 32% for weathered rock and soft
to hard rock, respectively. Table 1 summarizes the details of
the excavation sites considered in this study.
FINITE-ELEMENT ANALYSIS
A series of 2D finite-element analyses were performed on a
hypothetical braced excavation site using the finite-element

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:225-233.

 TABLE 1. Summary of Site Conditions

Excavation Average sup-

Case depth Support port spacing System ␦h,m ␦h,m /H
number Location (m) Wall type system (m) stiffness (mm) (%)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1 Seoul 7–10 SCW (␾ = 55 cm) Strut 2.2 377 7–13 0.07–0.17
2 Seoul 8 H-pile Strut 2.2 66 8–12 0.1–0.15
3 Seoul 21–29 H-pile Strut 2.0 71 64–139 0.22–0.49
4 Seoul 17 H-pile Strut 3.0 17 14–80 0.08–0.47
5A Seoul 19–22 H-pile Anchor 2.5 40 16–26 0.08–0.14
5B Seoul 22 CIP (␾ = 40 cm) Anchor 2.5 362 11–53 0.05–0.25
6 Seoul 16 H-pile Strut 2.5 40 13–74 0.08–0.46
7 Taegu 20–26 H-pile Strut 2.2 67 9–67 0.04–0.27
8A Taejon 17–18 H-pile Anchor 1.5 368–564 5–28 0.03–0.16
8B Taejon 18 CIP (␾ = 40 cm) Anchor 1.5 2,475 15 0.08
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

9 Seoul 9–12 SCW (␾ = 55 cm) Strut 3.0 116 9–33 0.11–0.29

10 Seoul 13–17 SCW (␾ = 55 cm) Strut 3.0 116 45 0.47
11 Seoul 6–16 H-pile Strut 2.5 40 11–30 0.08–0.20
12 Pusan 27–28 H-pile Strut 2.5 40 21–35 0.08–0.13
13 Pusan 14 Diaphragm (␾ = 100 cm) Strut 3.3 1,506 10–13 0.07–0.09
14 Seoul 18–21 H-pile Anchor 2.0 116 43–85 0.24–0.42
15A Pundang 12 H-pile Strut 2.0 97 10–46 0.09–0.40
15B Pundang 12 H-pile Anchor 2.0 97 17–18 0.15
16 Pundang 12 H-pile Strut 2.0–3.0 19–97 12–42 0.1–0.36
17 Pundang 10–22 H-pile Anchor 2.5 40 17–88 0.15–0.41
18 Pundang 15–18 H-pile Anchor 2.0–2.5 40–97 16–46 0.11–0.25
19 Pundang 16 H-pile Anchor 2.5 40 32 0.20
20 Seoul 13 CIP (␾ = 60 cm) Strut 2.7 704 27–38 0.22–0.30
21 Seoul 12 H-pile Strut 2.5 40 3–53 0.03–0.46
22 Seoul 17 Diaphragm (␾ = 100 cm) Strut 3.3 1,476 3–7 0.02–0.04
23 Seoul 31–35 H-pile Anchor 3.0 38 14–88 0.04–0.25
24 Seoul 25–28 H-pile Strut 3.0 19 11–45 0.08–0.31
25 Seoul 13–23 H-pile Strut 3.0 19 7–53 0.07–0.36
26 Seoul 15–25 H-pile Anchor 2.5 40 16–21 0.06–0.14
27 Suwon 11–13 H-pile Anchor 2.5 38–92 25–28 0.21–0.23
28 Suwon 24 H-pile Anchor 2.5 40 40–60 0.17–0.25
29 Seoul 7–29 H-pile Strut 3.0 19 2–63 0.02–0.22
30 Seoul 16–23 Diaphragm (␾ = 82 cm) Strut 3.0 1,418 2–22 0.01–0.13
31 Seoul 10–15 CIP (␾ = 40 cm) Anchor 2.7 227 17–43 0.14–0.30
32 Seoul 22 SCW (␾ = 55 cm) Anchor 2.5 285 7–14 0.03–0.06
33 Seoul 10–14 CIP (␾ = 55 cm) Anchor 2.2 1,210 8–20 0.08–0.12
34 Seoul 12 Diaphragm (␾ = 100 cm) Strut 4.2 562 5–11 0.04–0.09
35 Seoul 12–23 Diaphragm (␾ = 100 cm) Strut 4.2 562 1–3 0.04–0.02
36 Seoul 13–20 H-pile Anchor 3.0 19 12–53 0.06–0.26
37 Seoul 16–25 H-pile Anchor 2.2–2.5 40–66 16–33 0.10–0.14
38 Seoul 11–16 SCW (␾ = 55 cm) Strut 2.5–3.0 116–240 5–50 0.03–0.34
39 Euijeongbu 12–14 H-pile Anchor 2.5 40 10–52 0.02–0.03
40 Inchon 10 SCW (␾ = 55 cm) Strut 2.5 220 4–30 0.04–0.32
41 Ilsan 10 H-pile Anchor 2.5 40 4–8 0.04–0.08
42 Seoul 22–26 H-pile Anchor 2.5–2.8 25–40 31–98 0.15–0.38
43 Chungju 9 H-pile Anchor 2.3 55 43–83 0.18–0.52
44A Seoul 7–13 SCW (␾ = 55 cm) Strut 2.3 335 6–11 0.09
44B Seoul 7–11 SCW (␾ = 55 cm) Anchor 2.3 335 4–24 0.06–0.21
45 Seoul 11 H-pile Strut 3.0 19 4–9 0.04–0.09
46 Seoul 14–15 SCW (␾ = 50 cm) Anchor 1.9 662 26–45 0.17–0.30
47 Seoul 28–38 CIP (␾ = 40 cm) Anchor 2.5 318 4–19 0.03–0.20
48 Seoul 12–18 H-pile Anchor 3.0 19 6–27 0.05–0.15
49 Seoul 22 SCW (␾ = 50 cm) Strut 2.2–3.0 113–390 6–59 0.03–0.28
50 Seoul 24 CIP (␾ = 40 cm) Strut 2.5 318 15 0.06
51 Seoul 29 CIP (␾ = 40 cm) Strut 2.0 834 58 0.20
52 Seoul 27–28 CIP (␾ = 40 cm) Strut 2.5 318 59–66 0.22–0.23
53 Seoul 13 CIP (␾ = 40 cm) Anchor 2.5 331 6–17 0.05–0.14
54 Seoul 10–11 H-pile Strut 3.0 19 9–12 0.09–0.14
55 Seoul 17 H-pile Strut 3.0 19 10–25 0.06–0.18
56 Seoul 9–12 SCW (␾ = 50 cm) Strut 1.5–3.0 69–143 12–21 0.10–0.17
57 Seoul 15 SCW (␾ = 50 cm) Strut 3.0 143 10–25 0.07–0.36
58 Seoul 14–24 Diaphragm (␾ = 80 cm) Anchor 4.0 385 6–99 0.04–0.47
59 Seoul 9–10 CIP (␾ = 40 cm) Anchor 2.5 293 2–4 0.02–0.05
60A Seoul 22 Diaphragm (␾ = 80 cm) Anchor 4.0 333 12–13 0.05
60B Seoul 27–30 Diaphragm (␾ = 80 cm) Top down 5.0 135 13–17 0.04–0.05
61 Seoul 20 Diaphragm (␾ = 80 cm) Top down 6.5 50 2–10 0.01–0.05
62 Seoul 21 Diaphragm (␾ = 80 cm) Strut 3.5 569 3–10 0.01–0.05

226 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 2001

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:225-233.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 1. Excavation Geometry

FIG. 2. Simplified Excavation Sequence

program GEOFE2D (Yoo 1998), which is capable of handling

a wide range of geotechnical problems such as deep excava-
tions, tunnels, and earth structures (i.e., retaining walls and
slopes). For simplicity, an idealized (symmetric) plane-strain
excavation geometry with an excavation depth H and a width
B of 20 and 30 m was considered (Fig. 1). The excavation site
was assumed to be composed of layers of fill and a residual
soil deposit overlying a rock stratum located at the final ex-
cavation platform.
As illustrated in Fig. 2, a simplified excavation sequence
was adopted in the analyses. The soil is initially excavated to
a depth of 1 m. A second excavation step proceeds to a depth
hoe with a first strut installed at 1 m below the ground surface,
and excavation is then continued over a further interval with
a second level of strut installed at a spacing h. Step 2 is re-
FIG. 3. Finite-Element Mesh
peated until the excavation reaches the final depth of 20 m.
Within the framework of the analyses, several parameters im-
portant to in situ wall behavior were varied, as shown in Fig. A refined mesh, which consists of approximately 980 nodes
1, including soil stiffness Es , wall flexural stiffness EI, support and 944 elements, was adopted to minimize the effect of mesh
spacing h, and excavation depth below a given support level dependency on the finite-element modeling, as shown in Fig.
hoe . Note that the strut stiffness is maintained at a constant 3. Because of the symmetry about the excavation centerline,
value of kst = 53,000 kN/(m ⭈ m) in the analyses, where kst is only one-half of the excavation was considered in the finite-
an effective strut stiffness per horizontal unit of length. element model. The finite-element mesh extends to a depth of
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 2001 / 227

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:225-233.

 TABLE 2. Material Properties Examined in Finite-Element Analyses
c ␾
Material (kPa) (degrees) K Kur
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Fill 0 34 300–1,500 350–1,750
Residual soil 5 42 400–2,000 450–2,500
Soft rock — — — —
Note: For all materials, unit weight ␥ = 18 kN/m3 and Poisson’s ratio ␯ = 0.3.
1.0H below the final excavation platform and laterally to a
distance of 3.5H from the excavation centerline. The soil was
discretized using four-noded isoparametric plane-strain ele-
ments, and two-noded beam and one-noded spring elements
were used for the wall and struts, respectively. In addition, the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
interface between the wall and retained soil was modeled using
four-noded Goodman-type interface elements (Goodman et al.
1968).
The nonlinear behavior of the fill and residual soil deposit
was modeled using the modified version of hyperbolic stress-
strain and bulk modulus model proposed by Duncan et al.
(1980), and the rock layer was treated as a linear elastic ma-
terial. The wall, struts, and interface were also treated as a
linear elastic material. In the hyperbolic model, the stress in-
crements d␴ are related to the strain increments dε based on
the tangential Young’s modulus Et or unloading-reloading
modulus Eur or both and bulk modulus B, which are computed
using the Mohr-Coulomb soil strength parameters of cohesion
c and internal friction angle ␾ in conjunction with the hyper-
bolic model parameters, including the stiffness modulus num-
ber for primary loading K, stiffness modulus number for un-
loading-reloading Kur , bulk modulus number Kb , stiffness
modulus exponent n, bulk modulus exponent m, and failure
ratio Rf . Considering the free-draining characteristic of typical
residual soils in Korea, a fully drained condition was assumed.
Table 2 summarizes the range of material parameters examined
in the analyses.
LATERAL WALL MOVEMENTS
When analyzing the measured data, cases were disregarded
where excessive lateral wall movements (␦h,m > 0.3%H ) may
have occurred because of unusual construction effects. The
value of ␦h,m = 0.3%H was chosen as the limit for excessive
wall movement in the present study considering excavation
conditions in the urban environment. The system stiffness ks
of an in situ wall is defined in this study using the wall flexural
stiffness EI and the average vertical spacing of support h as
ks = EI/␥w h4, where ␥w is the unit weight of water.
Effect of Wall Type
Fig. 4 illustrates the relationship between maximum lateral
wall movements ␦h,m and excavation depth H for various wall
types. The data for cases with excessive wall movements are
also plotted in this figure for comparison. As can be seen in
Fig. 4, the maximum lateral wall movements ␦h,m tend to lin-
early increase with increasing excavation depth H, showing an
average of 0.12%H. The average value of ␦h,m would increase
to 0.16%H if the data for cases with excessive wall movements
were to be considered. As expected, the average value
(␦h,m)avg = 0.12%H is smaller than the 0.2 and 0.15%H reported
by Clough and O’Rourke (1990) and Fernie and Sucking
(1996), respectively, for excavation cases in soil deposits of
predominantly stiff clays, residual soils, and sands, which sug-
gests a tendency for smaller lateral wall movements for walls
in soils overlying rock than in purely soils. It should, however,
be emphasized that there exists ample scatter in the data. Such
an ample scatter may be attributed to the fact that the wall
228 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 2001
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:225-233.
Es
n Rf Kb m (MPa)
(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
0.5 0.8 175–875 0.2 —
0.5 0.8 175–875 0.2 —
— — — — 200
FIG. 4. Variation of ␦h , m with Excavation Depth
movements are influenced not only by the stiffnesses of wall
components including ground stiffness but also by the con-
struction effects such as overexcavation, delayed support in-
stallation, and ground-water control. This is supported by the
fact that most of the cases with ␦h,m > 0.3%H adopted H-pile
walls, which are more prone to site conditions. In addition, for
walls in excavation sites composed of rock layers, the wall
movements may be significantly influenced by the presence of
discontinuities in the rock mass, such as joints, weak bedding
and schistosity planes, and weakness zones and faults, de-
pending on their spatial and shear strength characteristics. It
is therefore suggested that any beneficial effect of the presence
of rock stratum be disregarded for conservative estimates of
lateral wall movements for in situ walls in soils overlying rock.
The data were further analyzed based on the wall type in
Fig. 5. Because different wall types represent different wall
stiffnesses to some extent, the trend shown in this figure can
be viewed as the effect of wall stiffness. As expected, the
average maximum wall movement (␦h,m)avg is largest for H-pile
walls of 0.15%H and smallest for diaphragm walls exhibiting
(␦h,m)avg = 0.05%H. The much lower value of 0.05%H for dia-
phragm walls than other types of walls may be attributed to
high wall stiffness as well as subsidiary advantages such as
water tightness and less likelihood of forming a cavity behind
the wall for diaphragm walls. A particular phenomenon to note
in this figure is that no significant difference among the trends
of maximum wall movements of H-pile walls, soil cement
walls (SCWs), and cast-in-place (CIP) walls is observed, ex-
hibiting (␦h,m)avg = 0.13–0.15%H. A similar observation was
reported by Clough and O’Rourke (1990). Although further
investigation is required to draw a general conclusion because
of limited data availability for SCWs and CIP walls, such a
trend may be attributed to the fact that the structural rigidity
of such walls depends greatly on the quality of construction.
SCWs and CIP walls, however, appear to be more effective in
controlling wall movements, as shown in Fig. 5, where only
4 sections showed excessive wall movements (i.e., ␦h,m >
0.3%H) as opposed to 18 sections for H-pile walls.
 and 0.11%H for the braced and anchored walls, respectively.
The difference between the two, however, would become
twice as much when considering the cases with ␦h,m > 0.3%H,
as the average values increase to 0.17 and 0.13%H for the
braced and anchored walls, respectively. Furthermore, for the
braced walls, 17 out of 122 sections examined showed the wall
movements ␦h,m in excess of 0.3%H, whereas only 7 out of
126 sections exceeded 0.3%H for the anchored walls, sug-
gesting that the anchored walls are more effective in restrain-
ing wall movements. The greater wall movement restraining
ability for the anchored walls may be attributed to the effect
of prestressing and less likelihood of overexcavation below a
given support level. Note that the overexcavation below a
given support level is more likely during braced excavations
because there is an incentive for a contractor to install several
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

struts at a time, thus expediting excavation work. For anchored

walls, however, the overexcavation is less likely because it is
much easier to install anchors at the base of excavation so that
the depth excavated below a given support level is equal to
the vertical spacing of anchors. Consistent overexcavation can
easily cause significant wall movements, as pointed out by
Clough and Tsui (1974).
The effect of overexcavation on lateral wall movements for
a braced wall is illustrated using the results of finite-element
analyses in Figs. 7 and 8. As seen in Fig. 7, the lateral wall
movements are increased by over 100% as the overexcavation
depth is increased from 1 to 3 m. Such a trend is further
illustrated in Fig. 8, showing the variation of maximum lateral
FIG. 5. Variation of ␦h , m /H with Wall Type: (a) H-Pile Walls; (b)
wall movements with the overexcavation depth hoe for a range
SCWs and CIP and Diaphragm Walls

FIG. 7. Effect of Overexcavation Depth on Lateral Wall Move-

ments

FIG. 6. Variation of ␦h , m /H with Type of Support System: (a)

Braced Walls; (b) Anchored Walls

Effect of Support Type

The variation of ␦h,m /H with the type of support system is
illustrated in Fig. 6. As can be seen, in general, the braced
walls tend to yield slightly larger maximum wall movements
than the anchored walls, showing the average values of 0.13 FIG. 8. Variation of ␦h , m /H with Overexcavation Depth

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 2001 / 229

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:225-233.

 of wall system stiffnesses. As can be observed, the maximum
lateral wall movement ␦h,m /H increases with increasing hoe ,
with this trend being more pronounced at smaller ks . The trend
shown in these figures highlights the negative impact of the
overexcavation on wall performance and the need for enforc-
ing a strict restriction on the overexcavation to limit wall
movements to acceptable levels, especially for less stiff walls.
Effect of System Stiffness
Fig. 9 demonstrates the variation of maximum lateral wall
movements ␦h,m /H with the system stiffness ks for the mea-
sured data together with the data obtained from the finite-el-
ement analyses. It is seen in this figure that the trend of de-
creasing ␦h,m /H with increasing system stiffness ks is evident.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9 also shows a line defining the upper bound of maximum
wall movements for the range of system stiffnesses considered
in this study. The upper bound line follows an exponential
decay function and is best fitted by (1). With the wall flexural
stiffness and vertical support spacing provided, the upper limit
of maximum lateral wall movement for a given condition can
be estimated using
␦h ,m
(%) = 0.5 exp(⫺0.007ks)
H al. (1976), illustrates that reducing the support spacing would
Further inspection of Fig. 9 reveals that the scatter in the
data for a given system stiffness is greater when the system
stiffness is smaller. This trend may be because lateral wall
movements for less stiff walls are more prone to site condi-
tions such as ground water, retained soil stiffness, and work-
manship, and it is supported by the results of finite-element
analyses shown in Fig. 10, which illustrates the variation of
␦h,m /H with the retained soil stiffness Es for walls with various
FIG. 9. Variation of ␦h , m /H with System Stiffness
FIG. 10. Variation of ␦h , m /H with Retained Soil Stiffness
230 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 2001
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:225-233.
levels of system stiffnesses. Note that the retained soil stiffness
Es is the initial soil stiffness at the level of the wall midheight
for a given condition, calculated based on an empirical rela-
tionship given by Janbu (1963); Es = KPa(␴3 /Pa)n, where K
and n are the hyperbolic parameters, and ␴3 and Pa are con-
fining and atmospheric pressures, respectively. As one can ex-
pect, the smaller the system stiffness, the greater the ␦h,m /H
for a given soil stiffness. The data also suggest that the soil
stiffness has more pronounced effect on wall movements in a
less stiff wall environment than in a stiffer wall environment.
This trend is consistent with the aforementioned trend ob-
served in the measured data shown in Fig. 9.
The system stiffness can be increased either by increasing
the wall flexural stiffness EI or by reducing the vertical support
spacing h. Fig. 11 demonstrates the variation of maximum wall
movements ␦h,m /H with strut spacing h for walls with different
flexural stiffness EI values using the results of finite-element
analyses. As would be expected, the strut spacing h has more
pronounced effect on ␦h,m /H for less stiff walls, showing a
wider range of ␦h,m /H with the variation of h. Furthermore, it
is evident that a reduction in the strut spacing h of 1 or 2 m
can be as effective as increasing the wall flexural stiffness EI
by 100% or more in reducing the wall movement, especially
for less stiff walls. This trend, as pointed out by Goldberg et
(1)
be a more efficient strategy in increasing the system stiffness
and thus decreasing the wall movement, because the support
spacing is raised to the fourth power. Subsidiary advantages
when adopting stiff walls, such as watertightness and less like-
lihood of forming a cavity behind the wall during construction,
however, should not be overlooked.
APPARENT EARTH PRESSURE
Apparent earth pressures acting on an in situ wall system
can be back-calculated using the measured axial forces of sup-
ports. As mentioned before, the axial forces back-calculated
using the readings of load cells and strain gauges for anchors
and struts, respectively, from 69 sections were used to deter-
mine the apparent earth pressures. It should be noted that, for
anchored walls, the anchors are prestressed, usually to 75–
100% of their design loads; therefore, the back-calculated ap-
parent earth pressures may not reveal actual earth pressures
acting on the wall but rather design loads that are applied. For
braced walls, the temperature effect due to seasonal tempera-
ture variation on strain gauge readings for struts was taken
into consideration when calculating the strains. Furthermore,
when comparing the measured earth pressures with the avail-
able design earth pressure envelopes, a multilayered ground of
soils overlying rock stratum was modeled as sand rather than
FIG. 11. Variation of ␦h , m /H with Strut Spacing
 soft to medium clay or stiff fissured clay. Such an approach
was adopted in the present study because field experience has
shown that the design envelopes for clays would likely yield
conservative estimates of support loads when used for multi-
layered ground conditions composed of rock stratum.
General Pattern
An example of measured apparent earth pressure distribu-
tion is presented in Fig. 12 for braced and anchored walls in
a 33-m-deep excavation site with a multilayered ground of
soils overlying rock strata. Note that these data were obtained
from various sections with different support systems in the
excavation site. Also included in this figure are the design
earth pressure envelopes for sand suggested by Peck (1969)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and Weatherby (1998) for braced and anchored walls, respec-
tively. As can be seen, a significant difference between the two
sets of data is evident. For the braced walls, the apparent earth
pressures are larger in the upper levels with considerably
smaller values in the zone of soft and hard rock strata. Such
a distribution pattern may be associated with the characteristics
of braced wall movements as well as significant resistance
against wall movements provided by the rock strata. Note that,
for a braced wall, the strut load builds up because of the re-
straint provided by the stiff strut, resulting in high strut loads
in the upper levels of excavation. For the anchored walls, on
the other hand, more or less a uniform pattern prevails, due
primarily to earth pressure concentration around the anchor
locations as a result of prestressing. As noted, the actual pres-
sure envelopes exhibit maximum pressure ordinates approxi-
mately equal to 0.12 and 0.15␥H for the braced and anchored
walls, respectively, which correspond to 68 and 83% of their
design pressures. This trend suggests that the design earth
pressure envelopes for purely soils may yield conservative es-
timates of support loads for in situ walls in soils overlying
rock stratum.
Maximum Apparent Earth Pressure
Fig. 13 illustrates the relationship between the measured
maximum apparent earth pressures ␴h,m and the Rankine active
earth pressure Ka␥H along with the design earth pressures pro-
posed by other researchers. The maximum apparent earth pres-
sure ␴h,m can be viewed as an ordinate of actual pressure en-
FIG. 12. Apparent Earth Pressure Distribution for Braced and
Anchored Walls
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 2001 / 231
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:225-233.
FIG. 13. Maximum Apparent Earth Pressure versus Ka␥H
velope for a given condition. Note that weighted average
values of internal friction angle ␾avg and total unit weight ␥avg
for the multilayered ground were used when calculating the
Rankine active earth pressure for a given site. Although the
apparent earth pressures may be influenced by such factors as
initial earth pressure coefficient K0 , wall movements, and con-
struction sequence, no attempt was made to relate these factors
to the measured values because of limited information on the
excavation sites. This issue is beyond the scope of the present
paper, and a further study is required.
As can be observed in Fig. 13, most of the measured data
fall within the Peck’s design pressure envelope for sand de-
fined by ␴h,m /Ka␥H = 0.65, averaging approximately ␴h,m /
Ka␥H = 0.49. Note that the cases plotted above the Peck’s
design pressure envelope are mainly associated with anchored
walls. Although the reasons for such a trend are not immedi-
ately clear because of limited information on the excavation
sites, a possible reason may be overstressing of anchors. In
addition, the design earth pressure envelope of ␴h,m /Ka␥H =
0.8 given by Tschebotarioff (1973) is well above the measured
data and appears to be somewhat conservative. The average
value of measured data ␴h,m /K␣␥H = 0.49 is approximately
75% of the Peck’s design earth pressure and is substantially
lower than that for in situ walls in purely soils. Such a trend
may, in part, be a consequence of the presence of rock strata,
which restrains the wall from moving outward and causing an
increase in support loads. Similar findings have been reported
by other researchers (Lee and Chun 1993; Chae and Moon
1994; Hong and Yoon 1995) based on the studies done for
excavation sites in Korea. Although the data presented herein
provide strong evidence of reduced earth pressures for in situ
walls in soils overlying rock stratum, the selection of the de-
sign earth pressure should be based on local experience with
excavations in similar ground conditions and characteristics of
discontinuities in rock mass, such as orientation and shear
strength, not necessarily the shear strength of the intact rock.
Fig. 14 compares the relationships between the maximum
apparent earth pressure ␴h,m and the Rankine active earth pres-
sure Ka␥H for the braced and anchored walls. As can be ob-
served in this figure, although there exists ample scatter in the
data, a tendency of smaller apparent earth pressures for the
braced walls than for the anchored walls is evident, exhibiting
the average values of ␴h,m /Ka␥H = 0.43 and 0.53 for the braced
and anchored walls, respectively. Note that the average value
of ␴h,m /Ka␥H = 0.53 for the anchored walls, which is approx-
imately 85% of the Peck’s design pressure of 0.65Ka␥H, is in
close agreement with ␴h,m /Ka␥H = 0.55 as reported by Hong
and Yoon (1995) for anchored walls in soils overlying rock
stratum. It should be emphasized that the average value of
␴h,m /Ka␥H = 0.53 for the anchored walls may not represent
actual maximum earth pressure that might exert on the wall
but rather the effect of prestressing, considering the fact that

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 14. Maximum Apparent Earth Pressure versus Ka␥H : (a)
Braced Walls; (b) Anchored Walls
additional earth pressures imposed on anchored walls are not
usually significant after prestressing. The trend of larger appar-
ent earth pressures for anchored walls than for braced walls
substantiates the recommendation by Weatherby (1998) in
which a trapezoidal apparent earth pressure envelope with a
larger ordinate is suggested for anchored walls in sands as com-
pared to the Peck’s design pressure envelope for braced walls,
although the total load remains the same at 0.65Ka␥H 2.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper examined the measured data obtained from >60
different excavation sites in order to provide insights concern-
ing the lateral wall movements and apparent earth pressures
for deep excavation sites in multilayered ground conditions of
soils overlying rock stratum. Attention has been paid to sorting
out the collected data so that the effects of wall and support
types on the lateral wall movements and apparent earth pres-
sures can be identified. The results of finite-element analyses
on a hypothetical braced excavation were also examined to
provide insights concerning the in situ wall behavior. On the
basis of the results of the present study, the following conclu-
sions can be drawn:
• There exists some evidence of smaller lateral wall move-
ments for walls in soils overlying rock than for walls in
purely soils. Such a trend is overshadowed by ample scat-
ter in the data, which may have resulted from various
construction effects as well as local ground conditions,
especially discontinuities presented in rock mass. It is
therefore suggested that any beneficial effect of the pres-
ence of rock stratum be disregarded for conservative es-
timates of lateral wall movements for walls in soils
overlying rock stratum.
• Diaphragm walls tend to yield much smaller wall move-
ments than other types of walls. Although there exists
some evidence of smaller wall movements for SCWs and
232 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 2001
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:225-233.
CIP walls than for H-pile walls, no significant difference
between the trends of maximum wall movements of H-
pile walls, SCWs, and CIP walls is observed.
• Anchored walls tend to show greater wall movement re-
straining ability than braced walls, largely because of the
prestressing effect as well as less likelihood of overex-
cavation below a given support level for anchored walls.
A strict restriction on the overexcavation below a given
support level should be enforced to limit wall movements
to acceptable levels, especially for braced walls.
• As a means for controlling lateral wall movements, re-
ducing the support spacing would be a more efficient
strategy than increasing the wall flexural stiffness. Pro-
vided the wall flexural stiffness and vertical support spac-
ing, the upper limit of maximum lateral wall movement
for a given condition can be estimated using (1).
• The earth pressures exerted on in situ walls in soils
overlying rock stratum are smaller than those on walls in
purely soils. Considering ample scatter in the measured
data, however, it seems to be logical to use the design
earth pressure envelopes for purely soils until the findings
from this study are supported by further verification.
• The measured apparent earth pressures for anchored walls
exhibit more or less a uniform distribution pattern and
appear to be larger than those for braced walls. Such a
trend substantiates the recommendation by Weatherby
(1998) in which a trapezoidal design pressure envelope
with a larger ordinate is suggested for anchored walls in
sand.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was supported by the Korea Science and Engineering Foun-
dation under Grant No. KOSEF 961-1201-002-2. The financial support
is gratefully acknowledged. The writer also acknowledges the effort by
Dr. Yeon-Jung Kim in collecting the field data. Special thanks are ex-
tended to the paper reviewers for their thoughtful comments.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Caspe, M. S. (1996). ‘‘Surface settlement adjacent to braced open cuts.’’
J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 92(4), 51–61.
Chae, Y. S., and Moon, I. (1994). ‘‘Earth pressure on in situ walls for
ground conditions in Korea.’’ J. Korean Geotech. Engrg., 9(1), 59–68.
Clough, G. W., and O’Rourke, T. D. (1990). ‘‘Construction induced
movements of in situ walls.’’ Proc., Des. and Perf. of Earth Retaining
Struct., ASCE, New York, 439–470.
Clough, G. W., and Tsui, Y. (1974). ‘‘Performance of tied-back walls in
clay.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 100(12), 1259–1273.
Duncan, J. M., Bryne, P., Wong, K. S., and Marbry, P. (1980). ‘‘Strength,
stress-strain and bulk modulus parameters for finite element analyses
of stresses and movements in soil masses.’’ Geotech. Engrg. Res. Rep.
No. UCB/GT/80-01, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Fernie, R., and Sucking, T. (1996). ‘‘Simplified approach for estimating
lateral movement of embedded walls in UK ground.’’ Proc., Geotech.
Aspects of Underground Constr. in Soft Ground, Mair and Taylor, eds.,
131–136.
Goldberg, D. T., Jaworski, W. E., and Gordon, M. D. (1976). ‘‘Lateral
support systems and underpinning, construction methods.’’ Rep.
FHWA-RD-75-128, 129 and 130, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C.
Goodman, R. E., Taylor, R. L., and Brekke, T. L. (1968). ‘‘A model for
the mechanics of jointed rock.’’ J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE,
94(3), 637–657.
Hashash, Y. M., and Whittle, A. J. (1996). ‘‘Ground movement prediction
for deep excavations in soft clay.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 122(6),
474–486.
Hong, W. P., and Yoon, J. M. (1995). ‘‘Earth pressure on anchored wall
during deep excavation.’’ J. Korean Geotech. Engrg., 11(1), 63–77.
Janbu, N. (1963). ‘‘Soil compressibility as determined by oedometer and
triaxial tests.’’ Proc., Eur. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg., Vol.
1, 19–25.
Lee, J. K., and Chun, S. G. (1993). ‘‘Earth pressure distribution on in
situ walls in multi-layered ground.’’ J. Korean Geotech. Engrg., 9(1),
59–68.
Mana, A. I., and Clough, G. W. (1981). ‘‘Prediction of movements for
braced cuts in clay.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 107(6), 759–777.
 O’Rourke, T. D. (1981). ‘‘Ground movements caused by braced exca-
vations.’’ J. Geotech Engrg. Div., ASCE, 107(9), 1159–1178.
Ou, C. Y., Hsieh, P. O., and Chiou, D. C. (1993). ‘‘Characteristics of
ground surface settlement during excavation.’’ Can. Geotech. J., Ot-
tawa, 30(5), 758–767.
Peck, R. B. (1969). ‘‘Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground.’’
Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg., State-of-the-
Art Rep., State-of-the-Art Vol., 225–290.
Sabatini, P. J., Pass, D. G., and Bachus, R. C. (1999). ‘‘Ground anchors
and anchored systems—Vol. 1.’’ Rep. FHWA-IF-99-015, Federal High-
way Administration, Washington, D.C.
Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R. B. (1967). Soil mechanics in engineering prac-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tice, 2nd Ed., Wiley, New York.
Tschebotarioff, G. P. (1973). Foundations, retaining and earth structures,
2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Weatherby, D. E. (1998). ‘‘Design manual for permanent ground anchor.’’
Rep. FHWA-RD-97-130, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C.
Wong, K. S., and Broms, B. B. (1989). ‘‘Lateral wall deflections of
braced excavations in clay.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 115(6), 853–
870.
Yoo, C. S. (1998). ‘‘Development of a prediction method for ground
movements due to excavation in urban area.’’ Rep. KOSEF 961-1201-
002-2, Korea Science and Engineering Foundation.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 2001 / 233

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:225-233.