11 Soil Movement Due To Deep Excavations

Soil movement due to deep excavations
11
Introduction In earlier times the task of the temporary works engineer was to design the
peripheral soil support to a deep basement excavation to provide an adequate,
but not over-generous, factor of safety against collapse. Risk was identified
in terms of the adequacy of the structural strength of strutting, shoring,
anchoring, sheeting or walling. Addressing the risk of excessive deformation
of sheeting and bracing was frequently not a high priority. Now this has
changed and the provision of deep basement accommodation on urban sites
has raised to a new importance the serviceability design conditions of accep-
table horizontal and vertical soil movement around and below the excavation.
As basements are built to greater depths and building developments occupy
greater plan areas, the problems of subsidence, heave and horizontal soil
movement themselves become priorities. Insurers are no longer prepared to
cover risks of property damage which can be recognized, from previous
experience, as inevitable. This chapter addresses those factors which cause
soil movement around an excavation, typically a large deep basement excava-
tion, the measures which can be taken to alleviate soil movement, and the
methods available to the designer to predict movement.
A recent review by Long1 was made of some 300 case histories of wall and
ground movements due to deep excavations worldwide. Generally this data
base ignored geographical boundaries, and variations in local standards of
specification and workmanship and its limitations in this respect must be
acknowledged. Broadly, the collected information was grouped into four
categories: predominantly stiff to medium-dense soils; predominantly stiff to
medium-dense soils with embedment into a stiff stratum; predominantly
stiff to medium-dense soils with a low safety factor against base heave; and
cantilever work. Further subdivision was made for internally propped walls,
anchored walls, top-down construction and soil strengths. Comparison was
made with the charts of Clough et al.2 and Peck3 and the regional studies in
Oslo (Karlsrud4 ), Taipei, Taiwan (Ou et al.5 ), Singapore (Wong et al.6 ) and
the UK (Carder7 , Fernie and Suckling8 ).
The conclusions reached by Long may include the disadvantages of a wide
sweep of published data but cannot be disregarded bearing in mind the very
large data base collected. Long concluded the following.
For retaining walls in stiff clays with a large safety factor against excavation
base heave:
(a) Normalized maximum lateral movement values h max are frequently
between 0.05%H and 0.25%H where H is the excavation depth.
(b) Normalized maximum vertical settlement values v max are usually
lower, at values frequently between 0 and 0.20%H.
(c) There is no discernible difference in the performance of propped,
anchored or top-down systems.
(d ) The values recorded are somewhat less than would be expected from the
charts produced by Clough and O’Rourke9 , possibly because the soils
in the data base are on average stiffer.
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [13/10/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
522 Deep excavations
(e) They seem relatively independent of system stiffness and are perhaps
controlled by excavation base heave and limited by arching effects in
these stiff soils.
( f ) The data indicate that less stiff walls may perform adequately in
many instances and worldwide design practice may be somewhat
conservative.
For retaining walls that retain a significant thickness of soft material (greater
than 0.6 of excavation depth) with stiff material at dredge level and where
there is a large safety factor against base heave:
(a) The h max and v max values increase significantly from the stiff soil cases.
(b) The values are close on average to those predicted by Clough and
O’Rourke9 .
(c) There is some promise in the use by Addenbrooke10 of the flexibility
number for the analysis of the collected data.
For retaining walls embedded in a stiff stratum that retain a significant thick-
ness of soft material (greater than 0.6 of excavation depth) and have soft
material at dredge level but where there is a large safety factor against base
heave (determined intuitively):
(a) The h max and v max values increase significantly from the situation
where stiff soil exists at dredge level.
(b) The Clough et al. charts considerably underestimate movements.
In cases where there is a low safety factor against base heave, large movements
(h max to 3.2% of excavation depth) have been recorded. The data mostly fall
within the limited values suggested by Mana and Clough11 and it is suggested
that the relationship between movement, system stiffness and safety factor
proposed by Clough et al. form a good starting point for preliminary esti-
mates of system performance.
For cantilever walls, the normalized maximum lateral movements:
(a) are relatively modest and average 0.36% of excavated depth
(b) are surprisingly independent of excavation depth and system stiffness
(c) suggest that less stiff walls would perform adequately in many cases.
To relate these findings to a site-specific assessment of wall displacement may
prove difficult or indeed, impossible. The findings by Long represent his
conclusions from a wide data base but may not accurately represent risk of
wall displacement on a particular site.
Factors that influence The principal factors that determine the extent of soil deformation have been
soil movement listed for conditions in Hong Kong12 . For wider geographical application the
list of factors influencing soil deformation around a deep basement excavation
is slightly longer:
(a) effects of stress changes within the subsoil
(b) dimensions of the excavation
(c) soil properties
(d ) initial horizontal stresses within the soil
(e) groundwater conditions and changes to them
(f) stiffness of the sheeting and bracing system
(g) effects of pre-load in bracing and anchoring
(h) construction methods
(i ) construction workmanship.
Soil movement due to deep excavations 523
This list is not given in any order of priority since the importance of each
factor varies from job to job. The list is now examined in more detail.
Effects of stress changes within the subsoil

The complexity of stress changes in four elements in an over-consolidated clay
which is supported by a diaphragm wall during excavation are shown in
Fig. 11.1 (after Gaba et al.)13 . The locations of the four elements are:
. Element A: immediately behind the wall
. Element B: immediately in front of the wall
. Element C: beneath the centre of the excavation, some distance from the
wall
. Element D: behind the wall and remote from it.
The initial pore pressures, prior to installation of the wall are hydrostatic
below an in situ groundwater level.
The changes in the short term during construction and in the long term as
steady seepage is established are summarized in Table 11.1. In more detail the
progressive changes in stress and pore-water pressure for elements A and B are
as follows.
At soil element A
. Over-consolidation of soil in geological time, following deposition and
removal of overburden, no further deposition of recent deposits: stress
path 00 to 0. (K0 greater than 1.)
. Wall excavation below slurry: reduced lateral total stress, pore-water
pressure reduces: stress path 0 to 1.
. Wall concreting: increase in lateral total stress, pore-water pressure
increases to approximate in situ values: stress path 1 to 2.
. Excavation in front of wall: wall moves forward, horizontal total stress
reduced with reduction in pore-water pressure. Following yield, exces-
sive negative pore-water pressure occurs: stress path 2 to 3.
. Steady-state seepage develops with time (as the permeability of the soil
fabric allows). Long-term steady-state seepage pore-water pressure is less
than the initial hydrostatic value but probably greater than pore-water
Fig. 11.1. Stress changes in four elements in an over-consolidated clay during excavation13
Table 11.1 Changes in the short term during excavation and construction and in the long term as steady state seepage is
established13
Element A Element B Element C Element Da
Vertical total stress during excavation Constant Decreases Decreases Unchanged

Horizontal total stress during excavation Decreases Decreases due to Decreases Unchanged
unloading.
Increases due to
wall movement
Pore-water pressure during excavation Decreases Decreases Decreases See noteb
Pore-water pressure in the long term Probably Increases Decreases See noteb
increases
Undrained shear strength in the long term Probably Decreases Decreases Unchanged
decreases
Strain during excavation Vertical Vertical Vertical Unchanged
compression extension extension
Strain in the long term Vertical Vertical Vertical Unchanged
compression extension extension
Notes
a
Assumed to be located sufficiently remotely from the wall so as not to be affected by changes in soil stress due to excavation in front
of the wall.
b
Depends on ground permeability.
pressure immediately after excavation. Pore pressure increasing in the

long term as steady-state seepage is established: stress path 3 to 4.
Soil element A experiences an overall increase in vertical effective stress and a
decrease in horizontal effective stress to bring element A into an active state.
At soil element B
. Excavation makes a large reduction in vertical total stress with a large
reduction of pore pressure. Groundwater at formation level.
. Movement of the wall below formation level towards the soil in front of
the wall increases horizontal total stress and is likely to result overall
in an increase in horizontal effective stress and a reduction in vertical
effective stress during excavation.
. Steady-state seepage develops with time, pore pressures increase
reducing vertical and horizontal effective stresses: stress path 3 to 4.
The vital factor influencing the horizontal movement of soil below formation
level, and therefore the magnitude and extent of vertical settlement is the
proximity of the unloading stress path of element B to the failure envelope.
If the stress path 2 to 4 is well within the passive failure envelope, this
shows that the yield is small and both heave and the resulting horizontal
soil movement will also be small. Conversely, if the effective stress points
for element B are close to the failure envelope this indicates risk of excessive
yield, local passive failure and high lateral movements.
A summary of the stress changes that occur at soil elements A, B, C and D
(from reference13 ) is given in Table 11.1.
Dimensions of the excavation

The plan shape, the plan area and the excavation depth all critically influence
the extent and distribution of soil movement around and below a basement
excavation in given soil conditions. The depth obviously affects movement;
Tomlinson14 referred to unavoidable inward movement in normally strutted
or anchored excavations of the order of 0.25% of excavation depth in soft

clays and 0.05% in dense granular soils or stiff clays. It is usual to assume
that the volume of horizontal soil movement at the sheeting within a unit
length of excavation support is approximately equal to the volume of vertical
soil movement at ground level over the same unit length. As a rule of thumb,
horizontal soil movements are likely to extend to a maximum lateral dimen-
sion of two to three times the excavation depth. The deformed soil profile
therefore begins to take shape, although changes with time (due to pore-
water pressure dissipation) and the effects of irregular plan shape complicate
a simple assessment of settlement risk.
Soil properties
Soil properties were summarized by Peck3 . Figure 11.2, after Peck, shows
smaller wall movements and ground settlements in stiffer soils (such as
granular soils and stiff clays) than in softer soils (e.g. soft and medium clays
and loose silts).
As reported by Long, soil movements due to excavations in soft clays may
prove to be embarrassingly large, particularly where the clays have been
assumed incorrectly to be isotropic. Clough et al.15 and Mana and Clough11
showed the rate and magnitude of lateral wall movement both increase rapidly
as the risk of base heave increases and the factor of safety against base failure
reaches unity.
Overall deformation in terms of heave below the excavation and vertical
settlement around it will depend on many factors including soil stiffness
and, in weaker soils, soil strength. In weak clays and loose silts, yield in soil
zones may result in providing passive resistance to peripheral sheeting or
walling, with large movements resulting. From a practical viewpoint, in
loose cohesionless soils with high piezometric pressure due to groundwater,
excavation conditions may be close to quick conditions with risk of vertical
soil subsidence and loss of ground between timbering, sheet piles or dia-
phragm wall joints. Soil and groundwater conditions, therefore, pre-empt
Fig. 11.2. Observed

settlements behind
excavations3
all other factors as the prime critical risk of soil movement around deep
excavations.
Initial horizontal stresses within the soil

Where high, locked-in horizontal stresses exist within soils, typically within
over-consolidated clays, soil deformations surrounding excavations increase,
even at relatively shallow depths. For soils with comparatively low values for
coefficient of earth pressure at rest K0 , deformations are much less16 .
Groundwater conditions
The effects of groundwater on soil settlement are varied and occur at different
stages of excavation. Where sheeting penetrates a cohesionless stratum but
does not achieve a cut-off at depth, a steady groundwater seepage condition
will develop whereby flow is established beneath the sheeting and upwards
to the formation level of the excavation. This flow causes a decrease in
groundwater pressure, an increase in effective stress and settlement outside
the periphery of the excavation. At the same time passive resistance reduces
due to the upward flow on the inside of the sheeting, and further horizontal
movement occurs as sufficient passive resistance is mobilized. The establish-
ment of a steady-state groundwater regime therefore causes both vertical
and horizontal soil movement.
Where dewatering of sheeted excavations causes drawdown to the exterior
groundwater table, again where the sheeters to the excavation do not make an
adequate cut-off at full penetration, effective vertical soil pressure increases,
resulting in vertical settlement. Since the drawdown is greatest near the
excavation and reduces progressively with increasing distance from it, this
settlement profile will be similar in shape to that due to relief of overburden
by the excavation itself.
Stiffness of the support system

Parametric studies using Winkler spring or finite element soil–structure inter-
active programs and observations made on site show that the exterior ground
settlement profile surrounding a sheeted excavation reduces as the stiffness of
the sheeting and the bracing supporting it increase. The elastic stiffness of the
bracing system appears to be most important. The vertical embedment of the
sheeting beneath formation level will also materially alter the effective stiffness
of the sheeting and influence external soil movement, both vertically and
laterally.
A study of the effects of wall stiffness, bracing stiffness, vertical spacing of
supports and embedment was reported by Goldberg et al.17 ; a summary of the
results is shown in Fig. 11.3 in which the stability number is plotted against the
stiffness parameter. The data presented also suggest that sheeting stiffness and
support spacing effectively influence external soil movements.
Experience over some years in temporary works design using a Winkler
spring program has confirmed site observation that increasing strut stiffness
decreases external soil movements, although less effectively at very high
values of stiffness. These findings regarding the practical importance of
sheeting and strutting stiffness are not confirmed by Clough and Davidson18
nor by Tomlinson14 . These authors stated that the amount of yielding for
any given depth of excavation is a function of the characteristics of the
supported soil and not of the stiffness of the supports. Tomlinson referred
to steel structural members, even of heavy section, as being insufficiently
stiff to reduce yielding by any significant amount. Reinforced concrete
diaphragm walls, he noted, deflect by amounts similar to those experienced
with sheet pile walls. This similarity has not been the experience of the
Fig. 11.3. Effects of wall

stiffness and support spacing
on lateral wall movements17
Author and, although it is agreed that soil stiffness should be regarded an

important factor, it is considered that both sheeting and strutting stiffness
contribute significantly to the extent that soil behind the wall is allowed to
move.
In summary, the cross-sectional area of the soil vertical settlement trough
outside the basement walls is approximately equal to the cross-sectional
area of the horizontal soil deformation curve at the wall relative to the original
wall line. The deformed shape of the walls, and of the soil immediately
adjacent to it, is made up of deformation between prop levels (and wall defor-
mation prior to the insertion of props) together with inward deformation due
to the compression of the props. Prop compression occurs as all forces on the
inside and outside of the wall reach equilibrium, earth pressures on the outside
face reducing from at-rest earth pressures, and passive pressures on the inside
face below dredge level being progressively mobilized as horizontal deforma-
tion occurs. The balancing forces mobilized in the props and in the soil below
dredge level cause horizontal movement the amount of which depends on the
stiffness of the props and the stiffness of the soil in compression below dredge
level.
Effects of pre-loading
Within the Author’s experience the pre-loading of bracing to deep excavations
has been beneficial in reducing settlements outside the excavation in a variety
of granular soils and medium–stiff to stiff clays using relatively stiff sheeting
and walling such as steel sheet piling and reinforced concrete diaphragm wall-
ing. The pre-load tightens the bracing system and thereby reduces one cause of
horizontal movement and vertical settlement. Apart from this practical
improvement, movement is further reduced due to improving soil stiffness
caused by the hysteresis effect on the soil stress–strain curve as the soil is
progressively unloaded in shear at each frame level (due to pre-loading) and
reloaded for the next bracing frame.
The advantages of reduced soil settlement by pre-loading are not fully
accepted by some temporary works designers, although O’Rourke19 summar-
ized his views by stating that in most instances of cross-lot bracing pre-loaded
to 50% of its design load, further movement would be prevented at that frame
level, and overstress of the bracing at that frame was unlikely if the pre-load
was limited to 50% of the design value.
The pre-loading of bracing can be compared with the pre-stressing of

ground anchor tendons. The Author’s practice over a long period has been
to pre-load anchors to the design load to the completed excavation, calculated
on the basis of the trapezoidal strut load envelope recommended by Peck3
and described in Chapter 7. These loads are applied successively by post-
tensioning jacks at each frame level as the excavation reaches that level. A
10% overload is applied at each anchor to allow for slippage and creep
within the tendon. Winkler spring analysis is then used to check sheeting
stresses and deformations with the applied anchor loads for each stage of
the excavation. No excessive movement or overstress has been experienced
within this procedure.
The efficiency of pre-loading tendons in reducing vertical settlements out-
side the periphery of the excavation is related to anchor length. Where the
fixed length of the anchor is located within the zone of soil movement
caused by the bulk excavation, only a limited reduction in settlement may
be expected. This effect is most likely in cohesive strata, while in sands and
gravels pre-loaded anchors with a fixed grouted length at least beyond the
theoretical Coulomb wedge (at an angle of 458 þ =2 to the horizontal)
may be expected to effectively limit horizontal soil movement and vertical
settlement.
Construction methods
The choice of overall construction method for the basement, either top-down-
wards or bottom-upwards, the technique used for walling or sheeting the base-
ment periphery, and the period taken for each excavation stage, all influence
the extent of soil movement around the excavation for given groundwater
conditions and basement dimensions.
The top-downwards method, using basement floors to successively prop
peripheral diaphragm or piled walls, is frequently used to restrict vertical
soil settlements. No comparative soil measurements are available to substanti-
ate this view, although certain features of the method would appear to mini-
mize soil movement. These include the regular propping to the exterior wall
afforded by the floor at each storey height, the considerable elastic stiffness
of this prop, and the avoidance of movement involved in repropping. (The
exterior wall is repropped when conventional cross-lot bracing is replaced
by temporary supports between the exterior sheeting or walls and the sub-
structure as the permanent works progress in bottom-upwards construction.)
Closer examination of a particular site may, however, reveal a less satisfactory
situation. The regularity of support provided by the floors to the exterior
walling at each storey height would not necessarily provide support at the
optimum levels, especially where external surcharge loads are applied from,
say, existing foundations to adjacent structures or where the height from
the penultimate support to formation level should be minimized, say where
soft or weak strata exist immediately below final formation. Again, some
contractors prefer to construct the exterior walls and excavate to first base-
ment floor level without casting the ground floor. This procedure loses
some advantage of the method in restricting soil movement. Potts et al.20
showed the results of numerical analysis, concluding that the use of temporary
soil berms to support cantilevered external walls from ground floor to
first basement floor level only partly reduces the extra settlement caused
by excavation to first basement level prior to commencement of floor
construction.
The choice of walling or sheeting and its method of installation also
influence the extent of vertical soil settlement. With some methods, such as
walls from vertical soldier piles and horizontal laggings, the loss of ground
caused by the need to have an open face of excavation as the laggings

are placed is likely to cause greater settlements than those due to other walling
methods. Similarly, where sheet piles are used in granular soils and
heavy vibratory or percussive installation methods are chosen in preference
to, say, assistance by water jetting, the resulting soil settlement may be
significant.
Construction workmanship
Published records of the influence of inadequate construction standards,
usually workmanship standards, are numerous and only serve to confirm
the common sense knowledge of site staff that short cuts and sloppy attitudes
towards workmanship in timbering and excavation support works inevitably
lead to support movement, soil subsidence and even local failure and pro-
gressive collapse. The designer must bear some responsibility with regard to
standards of workmanship. For example, the materials chosen for construct-
ing excavation support should be the best available at site, the chosen method
of walling or sheeting should comply with the experience of the supervisors
and operatives that are to build it, and construction details such as site-
welded connections, reinforcement fixing and stressing works should all be
related to the available site skills.
Many causes of additional movements (and failure) of excavations due to
bad site practices appear in reference 1. These include late installation of
supports, over-excavation, poor pile driving and caisson construction, loss
of water through holes for tie-backs and joints or sheet pile interlocks and
diaphragm wall joints leading to loss of ground, remoulding and undercutting
of clay berms, and excessive surcharge loads from spoil heaps and construc-
tion equipment. Many more items of inadequate workmanship or supervision
standards that can cause movement, subsidence or collapse can be added to
the list. In particular, the lack of rigidity and tightness of shores and braces
are important causes of wall and soil movement. Failure to provide or tighten
wedges between walling and walings is a significant cause of movement and
subsidence. Similarly, with king post walls, failure to efficiently wedge hori-
zontal laggings to vertical soldiers and ensure good uniform contact between
soil and laggings is a direct cause of soil subsidence behind the wall. Peck3
pointed out that the choice of detail of lagging connection to soldier could
cause settlements adjacent to the excavation to vary widely; settlements
adjacent to walls using the detail in Fig. 4.6(b) were three times those using
the detail in Fig. 4.6(a).
Measuring techniques The measurement of small displacements and angular rotations of surfaces
and their accuracy and existing structures has required the development of existing surveying
techniques and the use of electronic techniques. A general review of such
methods was given by Dunnicliff21 . More recently, a review of the methods
of field measurements made on greenfield sites and existing structures on
the extension to the Jubilee Line metro extension was made by Standing
et al.22 Examples of the best accuracies for the different measuring systems
were given in this paper and are reproduced in Table 11.2 as a guide to the
best expectation of accuracy of measurement for such techniques elsewhere.
Measures to reduce To ensure minimum soil movement horizontally and vertically, around and
soil movement at the below a deep excavation of given dimensions in given soil conditions, several
curtilage of a deep measures are necessary. Not all may prove to be financially worthwhile, but
excavation they are:
Table 11.2 Examples of the best accuracies for measuring systems22
Instrument type Building example Resolution Precision Accuracy

(monitoring method)
Precise level (NA 3003) Treasury, Palace of Westminster 0.01 mm 0.1 mm 0.2 mm
Total station (TC 2002) Ritz: (vertical displacement) 0.1 mm 0.5 mm 0.5 mm
Ritz: (horizontal displacement) 0.1 mm 1 mm 1 mm
(angular displacement) 0.1 arcsec 2 arcsec 5 arcsec
Photogrammetry Elizabeth House 1 mm 1 mm 2 mm
Tape extensometer Elizabeth House 0.01 mm 0.03 mm 0.2 mm
Demec gauge Palace of Westminster 0.001 mm 0.01 mm 0.01 mm
Rod extensometer Elizabeth House 0.001 mm 0.01 mm 0.2 mm
Electrolevel Elizabeth House 2 arcsec 10 arcsec 10 arcsec
(a) provide a wall support which provides both temporary and permanent
soil support
(b) make the sheeting or wall support flexurally stiff
(c) avoid installation vibration or other causes of loss of ground
(d ) ensure the wall has adequate embedment in a stiff stratum
(e) ensure the wall receives support at frequent vertical centres and reduce
these centres progressively with depth
( f ) locate the lowest support near formation level
(g) make the bracing stiff in compression
(h) pre-load the bracing or pre-tension the ground anchors
(i) avoid delays in construction of either walling or bracing, avoid keeping
diaphragm wall panels open for long periods and avoid delays in
bracing works or anchor installation at each support level
( j) avoid any loss of ground by over-excavation or removal of fines during
pumping
(k) avoid drawdown caused by dewatering outside the basement
(l ) in weak soils, improve ground conditions below formation level to
ensure adequate passive resistance inside the sheeting from soil with
sufficient strength and high stiffness (such improvement could be
made by localized jet grouting, pin piles, mix-in-place piles or vibro-
replacement).
For deep basements, where soil conditions permit a cut-off against ground-
water ingress, the top-downwards method of construction may prove attrac-
tive in meeting some of these criteria to reduce external soil settlement. The
method has disadvantages, however, including high excavation costs to
remove soil from below basement floor construction, the risk of overall
delay caused by any local hold-up in a sequence of interdependent construc-
tion activities, and the problems in terms of space and access of several specia-
list firms working on site at the same time.
In shallower basements the use of top-downwards construction may be
prohibitively expensive. In such circumstances, the risk of excessive settle-
ments around the site will be minimized by the above methods. In particular,
cantilevered walls and excessively high sheeting are a frequent cause of
excessive soil movement outside the excavation and should be avoided
where possible by propping the sheeting from temporary bases or from a
previously constructed raft at the centre of the basement plan shape. Where
walls are cantilevered at any stage individual piles or diaphragm panels
Fig. 11.4. Relationship between

maximum ground settlement
and stability number at the end
of construction after berm
excavation for berms of varying
batter: (a) fully penetrating,
fixed-end MZ-27 sheet pile wall;
(b) partially penetrating,
free-end MZ-27 sheet pile wall23
within the basement wall should be connected by a stiff capping beam in

reinforced concrete.
The use of soil berms to minimize lateral movements of walls or sheeters at
the periphery of a deep excavation should be noted. The general consensus on
the use of berms23;24 is that the increase in vertical stress using a relatively
small volume of soil is often sufficient to reduce lateral movements to walls
or sheeters by 50% while the berm is left in place. If the berm is removed in
short lengths while rakers or struts are placed, the final lateral movement,
and thence the vertical settlement of soil outside the excavation, can be use-
fully reduced. Numerical studies by Clough and Denby23 on an excavation
in soft to medium clay showed a theoretical relationship (Fig. 11.4) between
settlements behind sheet piles with berms and the stability number H=cub ,
where cub is the undrained shear strength at the base of the excavation for
the condition after the berm has been removed and the rakers installed. The
reduction in ground settlement increases as the stability number increases,
and at high stability numbers increasing berm size leads to larger reduction
in settlements. This apparent improvement may not be produced, however,
where deep-seated movements occur at high-stability numbers with low-
strength clays.
Burland et al.24 showed the effect of a soil berm at one stage of a 16 m deep
basement excavation in London. The peripheral soils were supported by a
diaphragm wall with a depth of embedment 3 m below final formation level.
The initial excavation was 10 m deep, at which depth a thick waling slab
Fig. 11.5. Observations of wall

lateral movement; effect of soil
berm24
was cast on the exposed surface of the London clay. Excavation was then
made to the full depth leaving a soil berm below the waling slab, as shown
in Fig. 11.5. After the basement raft had been concreted in the central area
the berm was removed in short lengths and the raft completed to support
the wall. Observations of lateral movement of the wall shown in Fig. 11.5
indicate the efficiency of the berm in reducing wall movement before its
removal. Burland et al. considered that the weight of berms could be very
effective in controlling the softening of the clay, and hence the movements
and stability of the toe of the wall. Burland et al. also gave the results of a
numerical analysis showing the use of berms to reduce movements while
excavating the lowest and fourth basement floor spaces to an excavation
within London clay. The berm, removed in short lengths and replaced by
the propping action of the basement floor, contributes an important shear
connection with the diaphragm wall and adds significant surcharge to the
soil below final formation level, providing passive resistance to the toe of
the wall.
Two recent papers describing strut load measurements, at Mayfair car
park25a and Canary Wharf underground station25b , London have highlighted
the influence of corner stiffness of walling in rectilinear excavations and
the discrepancy between 2D and 3D analyses. The effect of stiffness of
corner panels to relieve load from corner brace struts and reduce lateral
wall displacements within the plan length of the walling has been long
accepted by designers, but field measurements of strut loads and 3D finite
element analyses now confirm this. The calculated reduction in displacement
of walls due to three-dimensional analysis is also discussed by Simic and
French26 .
Where soil movements at the outside of a deep excavation are a vital con-
sideration and space allows a wall thickness substantially greater than usual
but the proximity of nearby structures prohibits the use of anchors, a cellular
type of wall may be considered. Although not cost-effective in terms of area of
diaphragm wall per linear metre of completed wall, the cellular wall, utilizing
the self-weight of the enclosed soil for stabilization, is remarkably efficient in
limiting horizontal soil movements and vertical settlement behind the wall.
Plan forms of a T-panel wall and a double-flange cellular wall were shown
in Fig. 8.44.
In Medinah, Saudi Arabia, a cellular diaphragm wall was built to avoid soil
deformation at the rear of a 17.5 m deep excavation which was required not to
be obstructed by temporary raking shores. The excavation was 100 m wide
and more than 1.5 km long. Cross-lot strutting was therefore not practical and
ground anchor capacities were uneconomical in the conditions. The
excavation was through silty clays and silty sands overlying bedrock up to
55 m deep in close proximity to precious religious shrines. The maximum
acceptable lateral soil movement immediately behind the wall, either in the
short term or prior to placing permanent props (with basement floors) some
18 months after excavation, was 25 mm. The maximum acceptable lateral
soil movement in the proximity of piles to existing substructures within
50 m of the perimeter of the deep excavation was 5 mm. The cellular dia-
phragm wall, shown in Fig. 11.6, was analysed using finite element methods
and measured small strain modulus values with a non-linear finite elastic–
plastic numerical model. The combined immediate and drained soil move-
ments were shown to be less than these maximum values. The movement of
the wall as-built was significantly less than that predicted, as shown in Fig.
11.7. Difficulties were experienced modelling the effect of the shear stiffness
of the cross-walls in the two-dimensional model, and only when this stiffness
was reduced was a deformed shape produced by the analysis typical of a
cantilever wall.
The proximity of nearby buildings required major temporary works of a
different kind during the substructure construction of a large arts centre at
the Barbican in London in the 1970s (Fig. 11.8)27 . Nearby tower blocks,
although piled, were susceptible to tilt caused by soil movement during bulk
excavation for the theatre, but even more importantly, analyses predicted
excessive shear stresses in these piles if significant soil movement were allowed
between the piles due to the excavation. Even though cellular diaphragm walls
of considerable stiffness were designed at each side of the theatre basement,
the predicted horizontal inward movement of these walls below formation
level exceeded the maximum that the pile shear could withstand. To prevent
this movement below formation level, two props were constructed in tunnels
between the cellular walls and pre-loaded with thrusts up to 10 000 kN. The
length of the north wall of the theatre exceeds 60 m, with a minimum height
of 14 m. The wall was designed to be propped apart by the two diaphragm
walls at the east and west sides of the theatre basement and at low level by
the two pre-loaded tunnel props, as shown in Fig. 11.8. A horizontal waling
was formed by the arch slab at the 6 m level spanning across the whole base-
ment width. The wall itself spans horizontally across the low-level supports
and vertically between the arch slab and the prestressed concrete beam
within the wall at lower level. Measurements during construction showed
that the north theatre wall was moved northwards by a maximum of 10 mm
and the south wall moved southwards by 5 mm. The jacks were maintained
in an operable state for one year after the basement excavation and were
then stabilized by the exchange of hydraulic fluid with epoxy resin grout with-
out loss of pressure. The jacks had therefore fulfilled their purpose and instead
of soil movement towards the theatre excavation, the pre-loaded tunnel props
caused small movement in the opposite direction. The essential point in this
basement design was the risk, avoided by the use of the pre-loaded tunnel
props, of progressive wall/soil movement below the excavated level of the
theatre basement as it was dug out, the stiffness of the peripheral cellular
walls below excavated level being insufficient to reduce it to acceptable
levels without the action of the pre-loaded props.
A later, but similar, use of tunnelled struts was made for basement construc-
tion at Westminster station, London. Stringent settlement criteria were neces-
sary to avoid damage to the Big Ben clock tower, the adjacent metro tunnels,
trunk sewer and nearby parliamentary buildings. Top-downwards construc-
tion was used for basement construction but risk of soil deformation below
Fig. 11.6. Medinah car park: (a) plan of cellular wall construction; (b) design soil profile; (c) design cross-section; (d) key plan
(dimensions are in m)
Fig. 11.7. Medinah car park: (a) key plan; (b) finite element mesh; (c) predicted horizontal soil movement due to panel
excavation; (d) predicted horizontal soil movement due to bulk excavation; (e) observed horizontal soil movement at rear of
wall by inclinometer E
Fig. 11.8. Barbican Arts Centre: site plan and cross-section of site during excavation showing use of pre-loaded tunnel
props27
the final excavation level required structural support to the diaphragm wall
box below that level. A cross-section is shown in Fig. 11.9. Both low-level
diaphragm cross-walls and tunnel struts were considered as alternative
means of strutting. The low-level tunnel struts were finally adopted because
of the risk of poor contact between the outer box diaphragm wall and the dia-
phragm cross-wall together with the difficulty of installing jacking equipment
under 40 m head of bentonite slurry. Three hand-dug tunnel struts, 1770 mm
dia. were used, lined with precast concrete segments and filled with reinforced
concrete. Hammerhead walings, 1800 mm deep were constructed at the ends
of the struts. Access for tunnelling was gained from two 3 m diameter lined
pile shafts. At each strut a jacking chamber, 2440 mm dia., was constructed
with a jack capacity of 38 000 kN and a stroke of up to 50 mm.
Fig. 11.9. Westminster underground station, London. Use of tunnel struts in top-down construction33
(continued p 538)
Methods of predicting Soil movement behind a supported excavation can be predicted empirically,
soil movement semi-empirically, by finite element or finite difference methods, or by other
methods such as velocity fields.
Empirical methods
The risk of settlements in the vicinity of proposed deep excavations can be
assessed, in broad terms, from published data from sites in similar soil condi-
tions. The most useful records include those published by Peck3 , O’Rourke
et al.28 and others2931 .
Peck’s work is summarized in Fig. 11.10(a) showing vertical settlement (as a
percentage of excavation depth) against distance from the excavation (plotted
non-dimensionally as a ratio of excavation depth). Peck used this plot to draw
attention to the distances from the cut at which settlement occurs, and to the
experience that settlements in plastic clays were likely to be greater than in
cohesive soils and stiff clays. Both immediate and consolidation settlements
are included in the settlement data in Fig. 11.10. It should be noted that in
very soft to soft clays, settlements as great as 0.2% of the excavation depth
can occur at distances of three or four times the depth. The critical influence
of excavation depth on vertical settlement in shown in Fig. 11.10(b) for base-
ments in Chicago soils, generally supported by sheet piling with small embed-
ment and cross-lot strutting, or more usually with rakers. The upper 5 m of
soil in downtown Chicago consists of fill and sand underlain by a soft clay,
becoming stiffer with depth until hardpan is met at 23 m. The single-storey
basements shown therefore do not penetrate into the soft clays and the
recorded settlements were probably caused by the caisson construction on
which the basements were founded rather than by the basement excavation.
The care required in extrapolating data obtained from one set of soil condi-
tions to another site with an inexact match of soil conditions is self-evident.
Fig. 11.9. Continued
Fig. 11.10. Summary of settlements adjacent to open cuts in various soils as a function of distance from edge of excavation:
(b) settlement associated with foundation construction in Chicago: summary of results and settlements as a function of
excavation depth3
The data published by Peck serve only to show the order of settlement and the
extent to which such settlements are likely to occur in soft clays.
O’Rourke et al.28 published settlement data for excavations supported by
soldier piles and horizontal laggings with cross-lot strutting, in dense sand
and interbedded clays in Washington, DC (Fig. 11.11). In these conditions,
maximum settlements of the order of 0.3% of excavation depth were recorded
immediately to the rear of the sheeting and extended up to twice the excava-
tion depth laterally from the rear of the excavation. O’Rourke et al. also pub-
lished records of settlement readings from Chicago which, while similar to the
earlier data by Peck, showed three zones of settlement related to the salient
construction characteristics. These plots are shown in Fig. 11.12.
Using these data, O’Rourke19 published further work on settlement due to
braced excavations. He considered the pattern of stress in three stages of exca-
vation and strutting (see Fig. 11.13).
(a) Stage 1, initial excavation before strutting. The cantilevered sheeting
deforms with horizontal soil strains and strain contours of triangular
shape, decreasing with depth and distance from the sheeting.
(b) Stage 2, excavation to formation level. After installation of the top frame
support, lateral movement is prevented at that level, but further inward
Fig. 11.11. Summary of

measured settlements adjacent
to strutted excavations in
Washington, DC28
wall movement at lower levels caused by further excavations produces

tensile strains at approximately 458 to the vertical.
(c) Stage 3, replacement of temporary supports. As the lower struts are pro-
gressively removed to build the permanent structure there is further
inward movement of the wall. As the upper supports are removed,
the lower part of the sheeting is held by re-strutting to the permanent
structure and movement associated with a cantilever wall deflection
Fig. 11.12. Summary of settlements adjacent to strutted excavations in Chicago28
Fig. 11.13. Horizontal strains as measured at successive stages of strutted excavations: (a) stage 1, initial excavation;
(b) stage 2, excavation to subgrade; (c) stage 3, removal of struts; (d) principal components of wall movement (bold arrows
show movement vectors)19
occurs in the upper parts of the wall. The strain contours in this stage
are therefore those from a combination of the inward movement of
the sheeting at depth and to cantilever action at the higher levels.
O’Rourke19 developed a relationship between the deformed wall slope and
the vertical settlement of the ground at the rear of the wall and defined a
coefficient of deformation as the ratio of maximum movement due to the
cantilever action of the wall to the maximum total lateral movement of
the wall, including elastic bulging of the wall (as shown in Fig. 11.14).
These data referred to walls founded in stiff strata and where lateral soil
movement below the sheeting towards the excavation was minimal. This
relationship could therefore be used to estimate maximum vertical settlement
from calculated values of horizontal deformation of the wall. However, no
vertical settlement profile results from this computation, and the maximum
value of settlement, at the rear of the sheeting, is of limited use on its
own.
Clough et al.32 and Mana and Clough11 examined data from sheet pile walls
and king post walls in clays supported by cross-lot struttings with either free-
end or fixed-end support. The results (in Fig. 11.15) show the relationship
between maximum lateral wall movement and the factor of safety against
basal failure by heave. Lateral movements of sheeting are shown to increase
very rapidly below a factor of safety of 2.
Fig. 11.14. Ratio of horizontal to

vertical soil movement as
function of the coefficient of
deformation19
Fig. 11.15. Empirical

relationship between the factor
of safety against basal heave
and non-dimensional maximum
lateral wall movement15
Fig. 11.16. Empirical

relationship between maximum
ground settlement and
maximum lateral wall
movements11
Mana and Clough11 produced an empirical relationship between maximum

ground settlement and maximum wall movement from data in varied overall
ground conditions in clays in San Francisco, Oslo and Chicago (Fig. 11.16).
Perhaps the limited conclusion to be drawn from this plot is that maximum
vertical settlements appear most likely to be equivalent to maximum hori-
zontal displacements in clays.
Clough had earlier summarized empirical data on anchored sheeting and
walls (Fig. 11.17) for subsoils varying from sands and silts to stiff clays and
shales to soft clays. Most values of maximum movement remain below 1%
of excavated depth and no significant variation is shown with soil type.
Clough31 suggested that the maximum reduction in soil movement using
pre-stressed anchors was achieved with pre-stress forces obtained from
ground pressures slightly greater than those advised by Terzaghi and Peck34 .
Fig. 11.17. Observed

movements of anchored wall
systems for varying soil types31
Fig. 11.18. Semi-empirical

method to estimate settlement
in sands: (a) ground settlement
adjacent to wall; (b) variation of
settlement ratio with soil
properties37
Semi-empirical methods
Several methods have been devised which enable the settlement profile at the
rear of the wall supporting a deep excavation to be calculated from empirical
relationships determined for the lateral movement of the wall. Caspe35
published a method of analysis which related the settlement profile to the
deflected shape of the wall. In this method:
(a) there is a surface behind the wall which defines the limit of soil deforma-
tion due to the excavation
(b) a variation in horizontal strain in the soil between this no-strain surface
and the wall is assumed
(c) at all locations, vertical strain is assumed to be related to horizontal
strain by Poisson’s ratio.
Others have commented that for plane strain conditions this last assumption
is incorrect and the relationship between vertical and horizontal strain should
be expressed by the ratio v=ð1 vÞ. Caspe’s method was altered by Bowles36
to take this into account, with reasonable agreement between the calculated
settlement profile and site measurement.
A further semi-empirical method devised by Bauer37 is shown in Fig. 11.18.
This method, applicable to excavation in sands, was claimed to show reason-
able fit of settlement profiles with site movements, although the calculated
width of settlement influence appears to limit the lateral extent of this zone
to less than the excavated depth for practical values of .
Finite element and finite difference methods

Numerical methods using finite elements or finite differences allow a soil–
structure analysis. As mathematical tools these methods provide convenient
two-dimensional plane strain solutions (three-dimensional soil–structure
solutions are increasingly becoming available) and use commercially available
programs (such as PLAXIS and CRISP) or in-house programs developed by
academic or professional organizations (such as ICFEP from Imperial
College, London). The methods attempt to address all theoretical require-

ments with boundary conditions that realistically model the site problem
and incorporate, for instance, a stage-by-stage simulation as the excavation
progresses, including time-related aspects such as dissipation of excess pore
pressure. Displacements are the primary unknown solved by the methods,
so prediction of horizontal displacement and vertical settlements fall con-
veniently to this solution.
Finite element packages generally offer the user a choice of constitutive
models, ranging from simple elastic models to sophisticated non-linear
elastic–plastic models. The final choice of model will depend on the
accuracy required of the prediction and the availability of appropriate
input data, particularly with regard to soil parameters. Some of the issues
facing the designer in the choice of constitutive model were raised by
Woods and Clayton38 and included two items related to soil stiffness:
linearity and small-strain behaviour. Although the solution, using the
simple linear model, has been available for many years, it has always been
appreciated that most natural soils are of non-linear nature, even at the
very low-strain values that occur in wall deformation and settlement profile
prediction. In addition, the use of finite element programs to predict
movement around excavations has been shown generally to exaggerate
deformation unless soil stiffness at very small strain volumes is used in the
analysis. To obtain these values, specific measurement procedures have
been designed for use in the triaxial test. Even so, choice of a suitable average
operational strain level is necessary, particularly for soils from previously
undeveloped areas. Where the excavation is near previous sites where meas-
ures have been made, back analysis will provide appropriate soil stiffness
parameters, providing the excavation and subsoil conditions are similar.
Good agreement between the use of small-strain non-linearity to predict
settlement behind a strutted excavation and field behaviour was described
by Jardine et al.39
The Author’s experience of use of the PLAXIS model is that soil deforma-
tions tend to be overestimated when using the Mohr–Coulomb soil model;
more accurate deformation prediction is obtained by use of the PLAXIS
soil hardening model, especially in stiff clays. This model is an elastic–plastic
type of hyperbolic model handling soil stiffness in terms of stress level and
stress path.
In addition to the use of appropriate soil stiffness parameters, the quality
of prediction will of course depend on the selection of accurate K0 values
for the particular site. The method of back analysis on its own may not
prove sufficiently dependable to obtain these values because of the relatively
large variations in at-rest pressures within relatively small distances.
The finite element method was developed by Mana and Clough11 to formu-
late a design method for estimating wall deformation and the settlement
trough for a strutted excavation in soft to medium clays without resorting
to use of a finite element program for a particular design problem. Their
procedure was as follows.
(a) At each construction stage where prediction of movement is needed,

calculate the minimum factor of safety against basal heave using Terza-
ghi’s method.
(b) Estimate the maximum wall movement hmax from the relationship
between factor of safety against basal heave and maximum wall move-
ment shown in Fig. 11.19. Approximate ground movement vmax can
be estimated by assuming that vmax lies within the range 0.6 hmax
to 1.0hmax .
Fig. 11.19. Analytical

relationship between maximum
lateral wall movement and
factor of safety against basal
heave11
Fig. 11.20. Effect of wall

stiffness on maximum lateral
wall movement and maximum
ground settlement11
(c) Based on the wall stiffness factor, the strut stiffness factor, the depth to
a firm soil layer and the excavation width B, determine the influence
coefficients w , s , D , B , using Figs. 11.20–11.23.
(d ) Determine the influence coefficient for the design strut pre-loading p
using Fig. 11.24.
(e) Determine the modulus multiplier influence coefficient m from Fig.
11.25.
( f ) Using the value of hmax from step (b) and the influence coefficients
determined in stages (c)–(e), calculate a revised value for the maximum
lateral movement from hmax ¼ hmax w s D p m .
(g) Revise the estimate of hmax using the relationship vmax ¼ 0:6hmax
to 1:0hmax .
(h) Plot the ground settlement profile using the calculated value vmax and
the profile shown in Fig. 11.26.
This method can be used for walls supported by anchors provided the anchors
themselves are embedded in a mass of soil or rock which is materially beyond
the movement zone.
Other predictive methods

A method originally developed by Roscoe40 and developed by James et al.41
and Serrano42 uses stress and strain fields for increments of structural
Fig. 11.21. Effect of strut

stiffness on maximum lateral
ground settlement11
Fig. 11.22. Effect of depth to

firm layer on maximum lateral
ground settlement11
Fig. 11.23. Effect of excavation

width on maximum lateral wall
movement and maximum
ground settlement11
Fig. 11.24. Effect of strut pre-

load on maximum lateral wall
movement and maximum
ground settlement11
Fig. 11.25. Effect of modulus

multiplier on maximum lateral
ground settlement11
Fig. 11.26. Envelopes to

normalize ground settlement
profiles11
deflection and load. In a series of iterative steps, stress and strain fields are
produced which comply with all the parametric values for a particular
problem. More recently Maruoka et al.43 presented a predictive method for
vertical settlement in cohesive soils based on the deformed shape of the wall
and patterns of zero extension lines in the adjacent soil. They concluded
that strain fields consisting of straight lines and circular areas could be used
with a rigid body spring model and finite element analysis to give reasonably
accurate settlement profile predictions. This method, however, requires the
initial prediction of the deformed shape of the wall due to the excavation,
and while a solution based on a Winkler spring model could be used to do
this, any inaccuracy in this prediction would presumably be reflected in the
accuracy of the final settlement profile. A simpler solution based on the
kinematics of a mechanism involving soil and wall mass is referred to in
Eurocode 744 .
Soil movement during diaphragm wall and bored pile wall

installation
The soil deformations considered in this chapter so far have been due to
unloading of the soil surrounding the deep substructure during bulk excava-
tion. The soil structure, however, undergoes several stress changes during
installation of the peripheral walling prior to bulk excavation. These changes
may be due to dynamic stresses set up by the driving of sheet piles, or the relief
of stress due to augering of piles or the excavation of diaphragm wall panels.
Each in situ soil stress change has an associated volume change and a resulting
vertical settlement. The stress changes and settlements which result from the
installation of diaphragm wall panels and bored piles at the periphery of a
deep excavation deserve special comment. Soil movements associated with
diaphragm wall installation are generally small and limited in lateral extent,
but experience with the initial sections of the Island Metro Line in Hong
Kong indicated otherwise, and the causes for this difference should be noted.
Stress changes near a diaphragm wall panel excavation occur as a result of
unloading due to panel excavation, recharging with bentonite slurry and the
subsequent fluid pressures from liquid concrete. (The in situ stresses from
the concreting operation were measured in tests by Reynaud45 , which empha-
sized the relatively high pressures caused by concreting relative to soil values
of K0 .) The soil stress changes due to diaphragm wall panel installation are
therefore relatively complex and do not stem only from the excavation opera-
tion. Similar stress changes occur during bored pile installation.
The extent of soil movement due to excavation of diaphragm wall panels
depends on soil properties, groundwater levels, panel width and the length
of time between excavation and concreting. There are limited published
records of in situ measurements of soil movement due to panel installation:
those due to Uriel and Oteo46 in Seville, Spain; Farmer and Attewell47 in
London; Symons and Carder48 in London clay; and Humpheson et al.49 ,
Davis and Henkel50 , Morton et al.51 and Stroud and Sweeney52 in Hong
Kong, should be referred to. Plots of maximum movement due to the installa-
tion of diaphragm walls and bored piles due to Thompson75 and Carder7 are
reproduced in Figs. 11.27 and 11.28.
Early measurements on the sites in London and Seville within stiff over-
consolidated clays confirmed the general opinion of diaphragm wall specialist
firms that soil movements are generally small and reduce rapidly at short
distances from the panel, say equal to the panel length. Measurements
made by the Author at panel excavations in lightly over-consolidated silty
clay and silty sand washdown soils in Medinah, Saudi Arabia, also confirm
this view. The movements caused by panel excavation in Hong Kong, as
Fig. 11.27. Maximum

movement due to installation
of planar and counterfort
diaphragm walls in stiff clays75
described in Chapter 9, were substantial. Measurements made at these sites

are compared in Table 11.3. The soil conditions in Hong Kong are materially
different from those in London, Seville and Medinah. In the Chater station
excavation in Hong Kong, fill and marine deposits to a total depth of 15 m
overlie decomposed granite, and the groundwater is only approximately
2.5 m below ground level. Measurements were made during panel excavations
up to 35 m deep at three points, 6 m, 15 m and 24 m from the diaphragm wall.
Fig. 11.28. Maximum

movement due to contiguous
and secant bored pile wall
installation in stiff clays7
The vertical settlements at these points reached 50 mm, 40 mm and 25 mm,

respectively, increasing progressively as the adjacent panels were excavated
and concreted.
The following conditions caused these movements in Hong Kong,
partly due to the breaking down of soil arch structures spanning panel
excavations:
(a) a high groundwater table providing a ready supply of moisture
(b) a relatively high soil permeability (105 m/s in the completely decom-
posed granite) which allowed the ready transmission of moisture
Table 11.3 Observed soil deformation due to diaphragm wall panel excavation
Site and reference Ground conditions Panel size Maximum horizontal soil Remarks
deformation at stated
horizontal distance from
panel centre line
1. London London clay: over- 15 m deep At 1 m: 16 mm Observations made on

(Farmer and Attwell47 ) consolidated fissured stiff 6.1 m long At 2.5 m: 6 mm one panel only, kept
silty clay 0.8 m wide At 4.5 m: 2.6 mm open 7 days before
No movement at 6.1 m concreting
from panel
2. Seville Sandy silt up to 13 m 34 m deep At 2.4 m: 7.5 mm. Excavation for circular
(Uriel and Oteo46 ) overlying Quaternary 3.4 m long During panel excavation wall, 25 m dia.
gravels up to 13 m 0.8 m wide maximum horizontal measurements made
thickness overlying plastic deformation 7.5 mm and 2.4 m from two panels,
fissured clay 7 m depth, 2.4 m from diametrically opposite
panel centre line each other
3. Hong Kong Chater Rd/Jackson Rd. 36 m deep At 1.4 m: 30 mm at 20 m Trial panel
(a) (Stroud & Sweeney52 ) 7 m of fill overlying 4 m 6.1 m long depth.
of marine deposits At 6.4 m: less than 10 mm
overlying completely at 20 m depth
decomposed granite
(b) (Davis and Henkel50 ) Chater station 17.4 m deep Maximum movement of
about 0.15 to 0.2% depth
of excavation movement,
some movement at least
for horizontal distance
equal to panel depths
4. Medinah Car Park Layered silty sand and 30 m deep At 15 m: 8 mm at ground Trial panel. Readings
sandy silt overlying basalt 6.8 m long level, reducing linearly made over 11 day period
bedrock at 30 m depth 0.8 m wide with depth to zero at 30 m after excavation. No
subsequent movement
(c) soil with high swell potential which required moisture to cause signifi-
cant volume change.
The lesson to be learnt from the Hong Kong diaphragm wall excavations is
that where these three subsoil conditions occur together, large soil settlements
result from diaphragm wall panel installation in advance of bulk excavation in
addition to settlements related to bulk excavation.
Mention should also be made of the effects of poor slurry quality control.
Where bentonite is subject to prolonged use, vital properties (particularly
viscosity) become ‘tired’ and contamination and pH are inadequately con-
trolled, high fluid loss results. In turn, this leads to less effective lateral support
and greater movement.
Researchers have given considerable attention to the installation effects of
diaphragm wall panels. Although soil deformation effects may be of limited
practical effect (with the exception of the described conditions in Hong
Kong) there is likely to be some reduction in in situ earth pressures close to
the wall as panel excavation is made. These pressure reductions, likely to be
small and only near the wall, may be of the order of 20% for a diaphragm
wall panel and about 10% for a bored pile wall. The published analytical
work on panel and pile installation includes papers by Tedd et al.53 (finite
element data from Bell Common wall), Powrie54 (elastic stress analysis),
Gunn et al.55 (finite element analysis), Ng et al.56 (finite element analyses,
Lion Yard Cambridge), Page57 (centrifuge model tests), de Moor58 (finite
element analyses of a number of panels in sequence), Ng and Yan59 (3D
finite element analysis), Gourvenec and Powrie60 (3D finite element analysis of
panels in sequence), Ng and Yan (3D finite difference analysis of panels in
sequence)61 , Powrie and Batten62 (axisymmetric analysis of a single bored
pile), and Cowland and Thorley63 (Building settlements in Hong Kong due
to panel excavation). Lings et al.64 examined the pressure effect due to wet
concrete.
Building response to The earliest published work on the effects of settlement on structures was
ground displacement directed to the tolerance of buildings to settlement and their own weight.
Papers by Skempton and MacDonald65 (1957), Meyerhoff 66;67 (1953, 1956),
Polshin and Tokar68 (1957) and others were based on angular distortion of
the structure, or deflection ratio, and horizontal strain was not a prime con-
sideration. Burland and Wroth69 (1974) and others showed how tensile strains
when considered with simple elastic beams could be used to give deflection
criteria for the onset of structural damage. Later, in 1977, Burland et al.70
reproduced ‘critical tensile strain’ with the concept of ‘limiting tensile
strain’, which could be varied to take account of the properties of differing
structural materials and serviceability limit states.
Boscardin and Cording71 (1989) further developed the relationship between
building damage and angular distortion and horizontal strain. A study of
eighteen case histories of buildings affected by excavation, either braced
excavations or tunnel workings, examined the effects of angular distortion
and strain. The classification of visible damage used by Boscardin and
Cording is reproduced in Table 11.4. Using this data together with the
analysis of a deep beam model they proposed a correlation between angular
distortion, horizontal strain and degree of cracking damage as shown in
Fig. 11.29. Burland72 in 2001 progressed the matter further by adopting
Table 11.4 Classification of visible damage to buildings71
Class of Description of damagea Approximate widthb

damage of cracks (mm)
Negligible Hairline cracks <0.1

Very slight Fine cracks easily treated during normal redecoration. Perhaps isolated <1
slight fracture in building. Cracks in exterior brickwork visible upon close
inspection
Slight Cracks easily filled. Redecoration probably required. Several slight fractures <5
inside building. Exterior cracks visible, some repointing may be required for
weathertightness. Doors and windows may stick slightly
Moderate Cracks may require cutting out and patching. Recurrent cracks can be 5 to 15 or several
masked by suitable linings. Tuck-pointing and possibly replacement of a cracks >3 mm
small amount of exterior brickwork may be required. Doors and windows
sticking. Utility service may be interrupted. Weathertightness often impaired
Severe Extensive repair involving removal and replacement of sections of walls, 15 to 25 also
especially over doors and windows required. Windows and door frames depends on number
distorted, floor slopes noticeably. Walls lean or bulge noticeably, some loss of cracks
of bearing in beams. Utility service disrupted
Very severe Major repair required involving partial or complete reconstruction. Beams usually >25 depends
lose bearing, walls lean badly and require shoring. Windows broken by on number of cracks
distortion. Danger of instability
a
Location of damage in the building or structure must be considered when classifying degree of damage.
b
Crack width is only one aspect of damage and should not be used alone as a direct measure of it.
Note. Modified from Burland et al.70
Fig. 11.29. Relationship of

damage to angular distortion
and horizontal tensile strain71
limiting values of tensile strain associated with the Boscardin and Cording
categories of damage and showed the derivation of an interaction diagram
similar to Fig. 11.29 but for a particular value of the ratio of building
length to building height. Burland points out that there are wide gaps in
knowledge in these predictions of likely damage, including paucity of observa-
tions relating building stiffness to slope and magnitude of structural damage,
the effect of piling to these observations, and the effects of time-related soil
movement.
The conclusions to Boscardin and Cording71 are worthy of reiteration.
(a) Buildings sited adjacent to excavations are generally less tolerant of
differential settlements due to excavation than similar structures settling
under their own weight. This is due to the lateral strains that develop in
response to most excavations.
(b) As a structure is subjected to increasing lateral strains, its tolerance to
differential settlement decreases. As a consequence, measures to miti-
gate excavation-related building damage should include provisions to
reduce the lateral strains sustained by the structure.
(c) Since the ground movements develop in the form of a travelling
wave gradually impinging on a structure, the ratio of the length of
the portion of the structure affected by the excavation induced
ground movements to height of the structure will initially be very
small and grow gradually. Thus, the tolerance of a building to initial
deformation will be governed by its tolerance to shearing deformation
and horizontal extension.
(d ) Increasing the ratio of longitudinal stiffness to shear stiffness, E=G, as
openings in a wall are assumed to cause, increases the range of
deformed length to height ratio, L=H, in which the diagonal strain
capacity or shearing resistance is the limiting factor.
(e) Points (c) and (d) suggest that angular distortion, a measure of shearing
strain, would be an appropriate parameter to correlate with observed
response.
( f ) If reasonable estimates of "crit and L=H can be made for a structure in
the vicinity of proposed underground construction, the limiting deflec-
tion ratio and angular distortion for that structure can be estimated and
compared to the estimated ground movement to permit engineers to
assess the potential for damage and suitability of possible remedial
measures.
(g) Frame-type structures, depending on size and other details, can often
resist some of the ground movements. Increasing the number of stories
creates a structure stiffer in shear that would tend to tilt rather than dis-
tort. Conversely, increasing the number of bays typically increases the
length of a structure and causes it to distort more to accommodate
the ground movements caused by the excavation.
(h) Horizontal ties in the form of reinforced grade beams or similar items
are effective means of controlling the strains and distortions in both
bearing wall and frame structures adjacent to excavation.
(i) This study only examined cases where the lateral strains are tensile in
nature. However, compressive strains may create a critical condition
for structures sited over the centre-line of a tunnel or mine. The effects
of compressive lateral strain were examined by the National Coal
Board73 .
Measures to alleviate Whilst use of construction methods such as the top-down system or pre-
the effects of settlement loading of temporary struts may achieve reductions in settlements below
nearby buildings, these measures may not reduce settlements to acceptable
levels. Further measures may be needed to reduce risk of cracking or tilt. In
summary, these are as follows.
(a) Strengthening the ground by means of grout injection, cement or
chemical, or by mix-in-place or pin piles, in order to increase soil stiff-
ness. In extreme cases, freezing of the subsoil may prove an effective
solution in granular, water-bearing soils.
(b) Strengthening the affected building by the insertion of improved
vertical support by underpinning and horizontal ties to resist horizontal
tensile strains imposed by the soil deformation. Shear stiffness of the
building can be improved by temporarily filling window and door open-
ings in facades and cross-walls with brickwork or blockwork of
requisite strength.
(c) Structural jacking applied progressively as the deep excavation is made
to counteract vertical settlement, possibly with improvements of
temporary strengthening to the structure.
(d ) Compensation and fracture grouting applied progressively as deep
excavation is made. Compaction grouting applied to both granular
and cohesive subsoils can provide a means of lifting structures to
counteract the effects of vertical settlements. The injection of a stiff
viscous spherical bulb of grout leads to some compaction and
permeation in granular soils, which can be controlled by grout design
and control of applied pressures. In cohesive soils neither compaction
nor permeation will occur materially and control of grout stiffness and
applied pressure will determine the extent of volume of the grout bulb
and vertical soil displacement.
Fracture grouting is generally applied to cohesive soils at high
pressure, to create thin layers of grout, often of considerable lateral
extent. The grout exploits existing planes of weakness at fissures and
joints within the soil structure and the extent of this intrusive plane
of grout is controlled by grout volume and pressure. Successive injec-
tions of compensation and fracture grouting can be made from tubes
à manchette, sleeved grout tubes, drilled in arrays from positions
both inside and outside the affected structure.
Recently published data and experience associated mainly with
tunnelling for the Jubilee Line Extension in London74 are valuable in
the consideration of compensation and fracture grouting as a means
to alleviate settlements caused by deep excavations.
References 1. Long M. Database for retaining wall and ground movements due to deep
excavations. ASCE J. Geotech. Eng. 2001, Mar., 203–224.
2. Clough G., Smith E. and Sweeney B. Movement control of excavation systems by
iterative design. Proc. ASCE Geotech. Eng., 1989, 2, 869–884.
3. Peck R.B. Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground. Proc. 7th Int. Conf.
S.M.F.E., Mexico City, 1969, State of the art volume, 225–290. Sociedad de
Mexicana de Mecanica de Suelos, Mexico City, 1969.
4. Karlsrud K. Performance monitoring in deep supported excavations in soft clay.
Proc. 4th Int. Geo. Symp. Field Instrumentation, Naryang Inst., Singapore, 187–
202.
5. Ou C., Hsieh P. and Chiou D. Characteristics of ground surface settlement. Can.
Geotech. J. Ottawa, 30, 758–767, 1993.
6. Wong I., Poh T. and Chesah H. Performance of excavation for depressed
expressway in Singapore. ASCE J. Geotech. Eng., 1997, 123, No. 7, 617–625.
7. Carder D. Ground movements caused by different embedded retaining wall con-
struction techniques. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 1995. TRL
report 172.
8. Fernie R. and Suckling T. Simplified approach for estimating lateral movement
of embedded walls in UK ground. Proc. Int. Symp. Geo. Aspects of Underground
Construction in Soft Ground. City University, London, 131–136, 1996.
9. Clough G.W. and O’Rourke T.D. Construction induced movements of in situ
walls. Proc. Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE Special
Publication 15, 439–470. Cornell University, 1989.
10. Addenbrooke T.I. A flexibility number for the displacement controlled design of
multi propped retaining walls. Ground Eng. 1994, 41–45.
11. Mana A.I. and Clough G.W. Prediction of movements for braced cuts in clay.
ASCE J. Geotech. Engng, 1981, 107, Jun., 759–777.
12. Review of design methods for excavations. Geotechnical Control Office, Hong
Kong, 1990.
13. CIRIA. Embedded retaining walls: guidance for economic design. Gaba A.R. et al.
CIRIA, London, 2002.
14. Tomlinson M.J. Foundation design and construction. Pitman, London, 4th edn.,
1980.
15. Clough G.W. et al. Prediction of support excavation movements under
marginal stability conditions in clay. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Numerical Methods
in Geomechanics, Aachen, 1979, Vol. 4, 1485–1502. Balkema, Rotterdam,
1979.
16. Potts D.M. and Fourie A.B. The behaviour of a propped retaining wall: results of
a numerical experiment. Geótechnique, 1984, 34, No. 3, 383–404 (discussion 1986,
35, No. 1, 119–121).
17. Goldberg D.T. et al. Vol. 1, Lateral support systems and underpinning; Vol. 2,
Design fundamentals; Vol. 3, Construction methods. Federal Highway
Administration, FHWA-RD-75–128, FHWA-RD-75–129, FHWA-RD-75–130.
(National Technical Information, 1976 PB 257210, PB 257211, PD 257212.)
18. Clough G.W. and Davidson R.R. Effects of construction on geotechnical perfor-
mance. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. S.M.F.E., Tokyo, 1977, 15–53. Japanese Society of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 1977.
19. O’Rourke T.D. Ground movements caused by braced excavations. ASCE J.
Geotech. Engng, 1981, 107, Sept., 1159–1178 (discussion 1983, 109, Mar., 485–
487).
20. Potts D.M. et al. The use of soil berms for temporary support of retaining walls.
Proc. Conf. Retaining Structures, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 1992,
440–447.
21. Dunicliff J. Geotechnical instrumentation for monitoring field performance. J. Wiley,
New York, 1988.
22. Standing J.R., Withers A.D. and Nyren R.J. Measuring techniques and their
accuracy. Proc. Conf. Building Response to Tunnelling, Vol 1, 273–299. CIRIA.
Thomas Telford Ltd., London, 2001.
23. Clough G.W. and Denby G.M. Stabilizing berm design for temporary walls in
clay. ASCE J. Geotech. Engng, 1977, 103, Feb., 75–90.
24. Burland J.B. et al. Movements around excavations in London clay. Proc. 7th
Euro. Conf. S.M.F.E., Brighton, 1979, Vol. 1, 13–29. British Geotechnical
Society, London, 1979.
25. a Richards D., Holmes G. and Beardman, D. Measurement of temporary prop
loads at Mayfair car park. Proc. ICE Geotech. Eng., July, 1999, 137, No. 3,
165–174.
25. b Batten M., and Powie W. Measurement and analysis of temporary prop leads at
Canary Wharf underground station, East London. Proc. ICE. Geotech. Eng.,
July, 2000, 151–164.
26. Simic M. and French, D. Three dimensional analysis of deep underground
stations. Proc. Conf. Value of Geotechnics, Institution of Civil Engineers,
London, 1998.
27. Stevens A. et al. Barbican Arts Centre. Structural Engr, 1977, 55, No. 11, Nov.,
473–485.
28. O’Rourke T.D. et al. The ground movements related to braced excavation and their
influence on adjacent buildings. US Department of Transport, 1976, DOT-TST76,
T-23.
29. Clough G.W. and Tsui Y. Performance of tied back support systems in clay.
ASCE J. Geotech. Engng, 1974, 100, Dec., 1259–1273 (discussion 1975, 101,
Aug., 833–836).
30. Clough G.W. Performance of tied back walls. Proc. ASCE Spec. Conf.
Performance of Earth and Earth Supported Structures, Lafayette, Indiana,
1972, Vol. 3, 259–264. ASCE, New York, 1972.
31. Clough G.W. Deep excavations and retaining structures. Proc. Symp. Analysis
and Design of Founds, Bethlehem, PA, 1975, 417–465.
32. Clough G.W. et al. Prediction of support excavation movements under marginal
stability conditions in clay. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Numerical Methods, Aachen,
1979, Vol. 4, 1485–1502. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1979.
33. Crawley J. and Glass P. Westminster Station, London. Proc. Deep Foundations
Conf., Vienna, 1998, 5.18.1–5.18.14. Deep Foundations Institute, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, 1998.
34. Terzaghi K. and Peck R.B. Soil mechanics in engineering practice. Wiley, New
York, 2nd edition, 1967.
35. Caspe M.S. Surface settlement adjacent to braced open cuts. ASCE J. S.M.F.E.,
1966, 92, Jul., 51–59 (discussion 1966, 92, Nov., 255–256).
36. Bowles J.E. Foundation analysis and design. McGraw-Hill, New York, 4th
edition, 1988.
37. Bauer G.E. Movements associated with the construction of a deep excavation.
Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Ground Movements and Structures, Cardiff, 1984, 694–706
(discussion 870–871 and 876). UWIST, Cardiff, 1984.
38. Woods R.I. and Clayton C.R.I. The application of the Crisp finite element
program to practical retaining wall problems. Proc. Conf. Retaining Structures,
Cambridge. Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 1992, 102–111.
39. Jardine R.J. et al. Studies of the influence of non-linear stress-strain characteris-
tics in soil-structure interaction. Geótechnique, 1986, 36, No. 3, 377–396.
40. Roscoe K.H. The influence of strains in soil mechanics. Geótechnique, 1970, 20,
No. 1, 129–170.
41. James R.G. et al. The prediction of stresses and deformation in a sand mass
adjacent to a retaining wall. Proc. 5th Euro. Conf. S.M.F.E., Madrid, 1972,
Vol. 1, 39–46. Sociedad Española de Mechanica del Suelo y Cimentationes,
Madrid, 1972.
42. Serrano A.A. The method of associated fields of stress and velocity and its appli-
cation to earth pressure problems. Proc. 5th Euro. Conf. S.M.F.E., Madrid, 1972,
Vol. 1, 77–84. Sociedad Española de Mechanica del Suelo y Cimentationes,
Madrid, 1972.
43. Maruoka M. et al. Ground movements caused by displacements of earth
retaining walls. Proc. Conf. Retaining Structures, Cambridge. Institution of
Civil Engineers, London, 1992, 121–130.
44. Eurocode 7. Foundations. British Standards Institution, sixth version, London,
1993.
45. Reynaud P.Y. Mesure des pressions developpées dans une paroi moulée en cours
de bétonnage. Bull. de Liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chausseés, 1981,
May-June, 135–138.
46. Uriel S. and Oteo C.S. Stress and strain beside a circular trench wall. Proc. 9th
Int. Conf. S.M.F.E., Tokyo, 1977, Vol. 1, 781–788. Japanese Society of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 1977.
47. Farmer I.W. and Attewell P.B. Ground movements caused by a bentonite sup-
ported excavation in London clay. Geótechnique, 1973, 23, Dec., 576–581.
48. Symons I.F. and Carder D.R. Field measurement on embedded retaining walls.
Geótechnique, 1992, 42, No. 1, 117–126.
49. Humpheson C. et al. Basement and substructure for the Hong Kong and
Shanghai Bank, Hong Kong. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, 1986, 80, Aug., 851–883
(discussion 1987, 82, Aug., 831–858).
50. Davis R. and Henkel D.J. Geotechnical problems associated with construc-
tion of Chater Station. Proc. Conf. Mass Transport, Hong Kong, 1980,
paper J3.
51. Morton K. et al. Observed settlement of buildings for the modified initial system
of the mass transit railways, Hong Kong. Proc. 6th Asian Conf. S.M.F.E., Taipei,
1980, Vol. 1, 415–429. Organising Committee, Taipei, 1980.
52. Stroud M.A. and Sweeney D.J. Readings from diaphragm test panel, Chater
Road. A review of diagraphm walls and anchorages. Institution of Civil Engineers,
London, 1977, 142–148.
53. Tedd P. et al. Behavior of propped embedded retaining wall in Bell Common
Tunnel. Geótechnique, 1984, 34, No. 4, 513–532.
54. Powrie W. Discussion on performance of propped and cantilever rigid walls.
Geótechnique, 1985, 35, No. 4, 546–548.
55. Gunn M., Setkunanasthan A. and Clayton C. Finite element modelling of
installation effects. Proc. Conf. on Retaining Structures, Cambridge, 46–55.
Thomas Telford Ltd., London, 1993.
56. Ng C. et al. An approximate analysis of the three dimensional effects of
diaphragm wall installation. Geótechnique, 1995, 45, No. 3, 497–508.
57. Page J. Changes in lateral stress during slurry trench installation. Ph. D. Thesis,
Univ. of London, 1995.
58. de Moor E. An analysis of bored pile/diaphragm wall installation effects.
Geótechnique, 1994, 44, No. 2, 341–347.
59. Ng C. and Yan R. Stress transfer and deformation mechanisms around a
diaphragm wall panel. ASCE J. Geotech. Eng., 1241, No. 7, 638–648.
60. Gourvenec S. and Powrie W. Three dimensional finite element analysis of
diaphragm wall installation. Geótechnique, 1999, 49, No. 6, 801–823.
61. Ng C. and Yan R. Three dimensional modeling of a diaphragm wall construction
sequence. Geótechnique, 1999, 49, No. 6, 825–834.
62. Powrie W. and Batten M. Prop loads in large braced excavations. CIRIA,
London, 2000. Project Report 77.
63. Cowland J. and Thorley C. Ground and building settlement associated with
adjacent slurry trench excavation. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Ground Movements,
Cardiff, 1984, 871–876. UWIST, 1984.
64. Lings M., Ng C. and Nash D. Lateral pressure of wet concrete in diaphragm
wall panels cast under bentonite. ICE Proc. Geotech. Eng., 1994, 107, No. 3,
163–172.
65. Skempton A.W. and MacDonald D.H. The allowable settlement of buildings.
Proc. ICE, 1957, III, No. 5, 727–784.
66. Meyerhoff G.G. Some recent foundation research and its application to design.
Struct. Eng., 1953, 31, 151–167.
67. Meyerhoff G.G. Discussion of Skempton and MacDonald’s paper. Proc. ICE,
1956, II, No. 5, 774.
68. Polshin D. and Tokar R. Maximum allowable non-uniform settlement of
structures. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. S.M.F.E., London, 1957, 402–405. Butterworth
Scientific Publications, London, 1957.
69. Burland J. and Wroth C. Settlement of buildings and associated damage. Proc.
Conf. on Settlement, 1974, 611–654. Cambridge, Pentech Press.
70. Burland J. Broms B. and De Mello V. Behavior of foundations and structures.

Proc. Int. Conf. S.M.F.E., Tokyo, 1977, Vol. 2, 495–546. Japanese Society of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 1977.
71. Boscardin M. and Cording E. Building settlement due to excavation induced
settlement. ASCE J. Geotech. Eng., 1989, 115, No. 1, 1–21.
72. CIRIA. Building response to tunnelling. Ed. J. Burland, J. Standing and F. Jardine,
Thomas Telford Ltd., London, 2001, 23–41.
73. National Coal Board. Subsidence engineers’ handbook. National Coal Board
Production Dept., London, 1975.
74. CIRIA. Building response to tunnelling. Ed. J. Burland, J. Standing and F. Jardine,
Thomas Telford Ltd., London, 2001, Vols. 1 and 2.
75. Thompson P. A review of retaining wall behaviour in overconsolidated clay during
the early stages of construction. M.Sc. Thesis, Imperial College, 1991.
76. Marino G.G. Subsidence damage to homes over room and pillar mines in Illinois.
PhD Thesis, University of Illinois, 1985.
Bibliography Chang C.Y. and Duncan J.M. Analysis of soil movement around a deep excavation.
ASCE J. S.M.F.E., 1970, 96, Sept., 1655–1681.
Cole K.W. and Burland J.B. Observation of retaining wall movements associated
with a large excavation. Proc. 5th Euro. Conf. S.M.F.E., Madrid, 1972, Vol. 1,
445–453. Sociedad Española de Mechanica del Suelo y Cimentationes, Madrid,
1972.
Cowland J.W. and Thorley C.B. Ground and building settlement associated
with adjacent slurry trench excavation. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Ground Movement
and Structures, Cardiff, 1984, 723–738 (discussion 871–876). UWIST, Cardiff,
1984.
Creed M.J. et al. Back analysis of the behaviour of a diaphragm wall supported
excavation in London clay. Proc. Int. Conf. Ground Movements and Structures,
Cardiff, 1981, 743–758. UWIST, Cardiff, 1984.
Gumbel J.E. and Wilson J. Observations of ground movement around a trench
excavated in London clay. Proc. Int. Conf. Ground Movements and Structures,
Cardiff, 1981, 841–856.
Jardine R.J. et al. Some practical applications of a non-linear ground model. Proc.
10th Euro. Conf. S.M.F.E., Florence, 1991, Vol. 1, 223–228. Balkema, Rotterdam,
1991.
Milligan G.W. Soil deformation behind retaining walls. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Ground
Movement and Structures, Cardiff, 1984, 702–722. UWIST, Cardiff, 1984.
Potts D.M. and Burland J.B. A numerical investigation of the retaining walls of the Bell
Common Tunnel. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 1983, Supplemen-
tary Report 783.
Simpson B. et al. A computer model for the behaviour of clay. Geótechnique, 1979, 29,
No. 2, 149–175 (discussion 1980, 30, No. 3, 336–339).
Tedd P. et al. Behaviour of a propped embedded retaining wall in stiff clay at Bell
Common Tunnel. Geótechnique, 1984, 34, No. 4, 513–532.
Wood L.A. and Perrin A.J. Observations of a strutted diaphragm wall in London
clay: a preliminary assessment. Geótechnique, 1984, 34, No. 4, 563–579.

11 Soil Movement Due To Deep Excavations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 Soil Movement Due To Deep Excavations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil movement due to deep excavations

Eﬀects of stress changes within the subsoil

Element A Element B Element C Element Da

Vertical total stress during excavation Constant Decreases Decreases Unchanged

pressure immediately after excavation. Pore pressure increasing in the

Dimensions of the excavation

or anchored excavations of the order of 0.25% of excavation depth in soft

Fig. 11.2. Observed

Initial horizontal stresses within the soil

Stiﬀness of the support system

Fig. 11.3. Eﬀects of wall

Author and, although it is agreed that soil stiﬀness should be regarded an

The pre-loading of bracing can be compared with the pre-stressing of

caused by the need to have an open face of excavation as the laggings

Table 11.2 Examples of the best accuracies for measuring systems22

Instrument type Building example Resolution Precision Accuracy

Fig. 11.4. Relationship between

within the basement wall should be connected by a stiﬀ capping beam in

Fig. 11.5. Observations of wall

Fig. 11.9. Continued

Fig. 11.11. Summary of

wall movement at lower levels caused by further excavations produces

Fig. 11.12. Summary of settlements adjacent to strutted excavations in Chicago28

Fig. 11.14. Ratio of horizontal to

Fig. 11.15. Empirical

Fig. 11.16. Empirical

Mana and Clough11 produced an empirical relationship between maximum

Fig. 11.17. Observed

Fig. 11.18. Semi-empirical

Finite element and ﬁnite diﬀerence methods

College, London). The methods attempt to address all theoretical require-

(a) At each construction stage where prediction of movement is needed,

Fig. 11.19. Analytical

Fig. 11.20. Eﬀect of wall

Other predictive methods

Fig. 11.21. Eﬀect of strut

Fig. 11.22. Eﬀect of depth to

Fig. 11.23. Eﬀect of excavation

Fig. 11.24. Eﬀect of strut pre-

Fig. 11.25. Eﬀect of modulus

Fig. 11.26. Envelopes to

Soil movement during diaphragm wall and bored pile wall

Fig. 11.27. Maximum

described in Chapter 9, were substantial. Measurements made at these sites

Fig. 11.28. Maximum

The vertical settlements at these points reached 50 mm, 40 mm and 25 mm,

1. London London clay: over- 15 m deep At 1 m: 16 mm Observations made on

Table 11.4 Classiﬁcation of visible damage to buildings71

Class of Description of damagea Approximate widthb

Negligible Hairline cracks <0.1

Fig. 11.29. Relationship of

70. Burland J. Broms B. and De Mello V. Behavior of foundations and structures.

You might also like