Effect of A Corner in A Three-Dimensional Excavation: Loh Chang Kaan (B.ENG. (HONS.) UTM, M.ENG. (NUS) )

EFFECT OF A CORNER IN A
THREE-DIMENSIONAL EXCAVATION
LOH CHANG KAAN

(B.ENG. (HONS.) UTM, M.ENG. (NUS))
A THESIS SUBMITTED
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE
2003
Dedicated to,
my mother, wife, and two children for their
……….. Continual support, encouragement, and
..........................Endless understanding
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly, I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my first supervisor, Associate
Professor T. S. Tan for his concern and kindness, his continual effort on guiding,
checking and providing ideas throughout my research work. Secondly, I would like to
thank my second supervisor, Associate Professor F.H. Lee, who has provided me with
some most critical ideas and approaches on handling daunting problems that emerged
along the study. In addition, his encouragement is deeply appreciated. Both of my
supervisors’ effort on initiating this research project and shaping up the framework of
this study is acknowledged.
One of the biggest problems on pursuing three-dimensional (3D) study is the handling
of tremendous volume of data generated, compared to 2D study. It is very easy to be
drawn into a whirlpool of data, lost the direction of study, and become exhausted along
the way. It is my friend and colleague, Dr. J. Wang that helps me validate and
prioritize the data, and assists to form a clearer focus of study. His support is
invaluable for the completion of this thesis. Gratitude also extends to my senior and
friend, Dr. T.G. Ng, for his critical proofreading of the thesis, often late into the night.
I would also like to thanks all the laboratory technologists in the Geotechnical
Laboratory, especially Mr. C.Y. Wong, for their help in the experimental works.
Acknowledgement also extends to all my fellow research engineers and scholars for
sharing their experience and stimulating discussion.
i
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Title Page
Acknowledgements i
Table Of Contents ii
List Of Figures vi
List Of Tables xv
Summary xvi
Nomenclature xix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Three Dimensional Behaviour Of Deep Excavation 1

1.2 Current Understanding On 3D Behaviour Of Deep Excavation 2
1.3 Approach To A Better Understanding On Corner Effect In Deep 2
Excavation
1.4 Necessities Of Centrifuge Model Test 4
1.5 Objectives Of The Study 5
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 8
2.1 Introduction 8
2.2 Literature Review On Centrifuge Modelling On Deep Excavation 11
2.2.1 Various Methods To Model Excavation In Centrifuge 12
2.2.1.1 Increasing-g Method 12
2.1.1.2 Excavate and Spin Method 13
2.2.1.3 Heavy Liquid Method 13

2.2.1.4 2D In-Flight Excavation Test In The Centrifuge 15
2.2.1.5 Tunnel Excavation Method 17
2.2.2 The Challenge Of 3D In-Flight Excavation Test 18
2.3 Literature Review On 3D Excavation Behaviour 19
2.3.1 General Appreciation Of 3D Excavation Behaviour 19
ii
Table of Contents
2.3.2 Quantification Of 3D Corner Effect 22
2.3.3 Influence Range Of 3D Corner Effect 25
2.3.4 Other Parameters Which Might Influence Corner Effect 29
2.4 Summary 30
CHAPTER 3 DEVELOPMENT OF 3D IN-FLIGHT EXCAVATOR AND 32
CENTRIFUGE MODEL TESTS
3.1 Design And Development Of 3D In-Flight Excavator 32

3.2 Experimental Details 35
3.2.1 The Model Retaining Wall 35
3.2.2 Soil Sample Preparation 37
3.2.3 Centrifuge Model Container Preparation 40
3.2.4 Instrumentation And Excavator Set-Up 41
3.2.5 Excavation Procedures 43
3.3 The Conditions Of In-Flight Excavation Tests 44
3.3.1 Area Modelled In The Experiments 44
3.3.2 Fixities And Water Table Boundary Conditions 45
3.4 Methodology Of Test 46
3.4.1 Parametric Study On The Effect Of Wall Stiffness 46
3.4.2 Parametric Study On The Effect Of Capping Beam 46
3.4.3 Parametric Study On Influence Of Geotechnical Effect To 47
3D Corner Effect
CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 48
4.1 Introduction 48
4.1.1 Initial Conditions Of Tests 48
4.1.2 Soil Characterization 49
4.1.3 Prototype Modelled and Other Consideration 51
4.2 General Characteristics Of 3D Excavation Behaviour 52
4.2.1 Characteristics Of Surface Settlement And Wall Deflection 53
iii
Table of Contents
4.2.2 Characteristics Of Lateral Earth Pressure On Retaining Wall 59

4.3 2D Versus 3D Excavation Behaviour 62
4.4 Retaining Wall Thickness Effect In A Corner Excavation 67
4.5 Presence Of A Capping Beam In A 3D Excavation 70
4.6 Effect Of Soil Strength In 3D Excavation 72
4.7 Summary 74
CHAPTER 5 FUNDAMENTAL BEHAVIOUR OF CORNER EFFECT 76
IN EXCAVATION
5.1 Introduction 76
5.2 Finite Element Analysis 77

5.2.1 Parametric Studies By Varying Excavation Dimensions Of A 80
Corner Excavation
5.2.2 Parametric Studies On The Effect Of Wall Stiffness And The 84
Presence Of Capping Beam To 3D Corner Effect
5.2.3 Summary Of Findings From FEM Studies 85
5.3 Characterisation Of Corner Effects 86
5.3.1 Major Factors Affecting The Corner Effect 86
5.3.2 Characterization Of Structural Factor 88
5.3.2.1 Deformation Due To Excavation Induced Imbalance 88
Load
5.3.2.2 The Effect Of Structural Restraint At Corner 92
5.3.2.3 Corner Effect Due To Structural Restrain At Corner 94
5.3.2.4 The Corner Effect Influence Range 96
5.3.3 Characterization Of Geotechnical Factors 101
5.4 Combined Characterization Of Corner Effect 106
5.4.1 Evaluation Of Corner Effect Hypotheses 107
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS 113
6.1 Development Of 3D In-Flight Excavator 113

6.2 Summary Of Findings 114
iv
Table of Contents
6.3 Effect Of A Corner In A 3D Excavation 115

6.4 Recommendation For Future Studies 117
TABLES 120
FIGURES 127
REFERENCES 222
v
List of Figures
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Description Page

Fig. 1.1 A schematic diagram showing a typical excavation 127
carried out in the field
Fig. 2.1 Observed settlements behind strutted excavation in 128

Chicago (after O’ Rourke et al., 1976)
Fig. 2.2 Observed settlements behind excavation (after Peck, 128

1969)
Fig. 2.3 Relationship between factor of safety against basal 129

heave and maximum lateral wall movement from case
histories (after Clough et al., 1979)
Fig. 2.4 Relationship between maximum ground settlements 129

and maximum lateral wall movement from case
histories (after Mana & Clough, 1981)
Fig. 2.5 Apparent pressure diagrams for computing strut loads 130
in braced cuts (after Terzaghi et al. 1996)
Fig. 2.6 Distress caused to a buried service by a shallow 131

trenching operation (after Needham and Howe, 1984)
Fig. 2.7 Schematic representation of the “Increasing-g” method 132

to simulate excavation
Fig. 2.8 Schematic representation of the “Heavy Liquid” 132

method to simulate excavation
Fig. 2.9 TIT’s in-flight excavator setup (after Kimura et al. 133
1994)
Fig. 2.10 a) Vertical cut with corner angle ∝ (after Giger 134
and Krizek, 1975)
b) Stability factor Ns as a function of the corner
angle ∝ (after Giger and Krizek, 1975)
Fig. 2.11 Stability Number versus Depth of Excavation Divided 135

by Radius (after Britto and Kusakabe, 1983)
Fig. 2.12 2D Section Used in Trench Excavation Analysis (after 136

De Moor, 1994)
Fig. 2.13 PSR Chart (After Ou et al. 1996) 137
Fig. 2.14 Typical Analysis on a 10m long x 6m deep x 1m wide 138

trench excavation. Ground movement along line e – e
vi
List of Figures
parallel to trench and located 2m below surface:

Comparison between results from three-dimensional
and plane strain analyses (after Nath, 1983)
Fig. 2.15 Variation of maximum wall displacement with the 139

distance from for constant sizes of complementary
wall and various sizes of primary wall, L = Length of
primary wall; B = length of complementary wall.
After Ou et al. (1996)
Fig. 3.1 3D in-flight excavator set-up on centrifuge 140
Fig. 3.2 Schematic diagrams of the 3D in-flight excavator 141
Fig. 3.3 Schematic representation of 3D in-flight excavator set- 142

up on the centrifuge during testing
Fig. 3.4 Indexers/drivers mounted on-board the centrifuge 143
Fig. 3.5 Internal parts of indexers/drivers strengthened by 143

silicone sealant. The indexers/drivers was mounted
near to the centrifuge rotating shaft to minimized
centrifugal force during spinning.
Fig. 3.6 Schematic drawing of a corner of an excavation 144

simulated
Fig. 3.7 2D in-flight excavation test set-up on a narrow 145

centrifuge container
Fig. 3.8 Micro-concrete wall used in the study 146
Fig. 3.9 One of the aluminum alloy wall used in the study. 146
Fig. 3.10 Plan view of the excavation set-up & LVDT set-out for 147
Test 3DK-2
Fig. 3.11 Locations of SGs and TSTs in the experiment: Test 147
3DK-2c
Fig. 3.12 Schematic representation of OCR profiles intended 148
Fig. 3.13 De-airing of pore pressure transducers by boiling 149
Fig. 3.14 Installation of pore pressure transducers into soil 149

sample
Fig. 3.15 a) Completed 3D in-flight excavation test set-up 150

before transporting to centrifuge room
b) 3D in-flight excavation test set-up after
vii
List of Figures
excavation test on centrifuge platform
Fig. 3.16 Excavation in Progress (captured by miniature camera 151

mounted in front of the test sample)
Fig. 4.1 Surface settlement versus elapsed reconsolidation time 152

(Test 3DK-3)
Fig. 4.2 Hyperbolic plot, Elapsed time/Settlement versus 152

Elapsed Time (Test 3DK-3)
Fig. 4.3 Density and undrained shear strength profiles of NC 153

soil used in the experiments
Fig. 4.4 Schematic plan view of model retaining wall edge at 154
container wall face
Fig. 4.5 Responses of LVDTs installed at difference planes 155

(Test 3DK-2)
Fig. 4.6 Flow chart showing centrifuge tests conducted 156
Fig. 4.7 Locations of LVDTs, SG and TST in the experiment: 157

Test 3DK-2c
Fig. 4.8 Test: 3DK-2c: Surface settlement at various location 158

behind the retaining wall
Fig. 4.9 Surface settlement profiles behind wall, at various 159

section from corner
Fig. 4.10 Surface settlement behind wall: Test 3DK-2c compare 160
2D tests and published data (after Peck 1969)
S = Surface settlement
h = Depth of excavation
D = Distance behind wall
Fig. 4.11 Surface settlement profiles at various distances from 161

corner: at 3.0m and 7.0m behind wall (Test 3DK-2c)
Fig. 4.12 Surface settlement contour behind retaining wall (Test 162
3DK-2c)
Fig. 4.13 Wall deflection profiles at Perspex window (Test 163

3DK-2c)
Fig. 4.14 A typical scraping of 1 layer of soil in 3D in-flight 163

excavation test
Fig. 4.15 Incremental surface settlement of a single scrapping 164
viii
List of Figures
operation. LVDTs at 7m behind wall, at various

distances from corner (x)
Fig. 4.16 Normalized incremental surface settlement at 7m 165

behind wall of a single scraping operation: At various
distances from corner at different excavation stages
(Test 3DK-2c)
Fig. 4.17 The final settlement at each stage of scrapping. 166

x = distance from corner
Fig. 4.18 Lateral earth pressures versus depth of excavation. 167

Total stress transducers (TSTs ) at passive and active
sides, at 8m and 15m from corner
Fig. 4.19 a) Coefficient of total stress lateral earth pressure 168

P
K=
coefficient, γy , versus depth of excavation. P =
measured lateral earth pressure, γ = density of soil (16
kN/m3), y = depth of TST from soil level
P − γy
b) versus depth of excavation. P = measured
2C u
lateral earth pressure, γ = density of soil (16 kN/m3), y
= depth of TST from soil level, Cu = undrained shear
strength at the TST level
Fig. 4.20 Surface settlement profiles behind wall. Test 3DK-2c 169
compare 2DK-1 and 2DK-3
Fig. 4.21 Normalized wall deflection profiles. 3D test compare 170

2D tests
Fig. 4.22 Incremental surface settlement at 7m behind wall: 2D 171

(Test 2DK-3) versus 3D (Tests 3DK-2 and 3DK-2c)
NF2D = Normalization factor for 2D test
Fig. 4.23 Incremental wall top displacement: 2D Test (Test 172

2DK-3) versus 3D Test (Tests 3DK-1, 2 and 3), x =
9.1m
Fig. 4.24 PSR-sett at 7m behind wall versus distance from 173

corner (x) Test 3DK-2c
Fig. 4.25 Surface settlement at 7m behind wall versus depth of 174
ix
List of Figures
excavation: 3D tests with various wall thickness
Fig. 4.26 Lateral wall top displacement (δ) versus depth of 174
Fig. 4.27 Lateral displacement at wall top at various distances 175

from corner: 3D tests with various thickness
Fig. 4.28 Surface settlement profiles at 7m behind wall at 175

various distances from corner: 3D tests with various
thickness
Fig. 4.29 Surface settlement contour behind retaining wall after 176
7m-excavation: 3D tests with various wall thickness
Fig. 4.30 Illustration of offsetting surface settlements with 177

settlement at the corner
Fig. 4.31 Sketch illustration of capping beam restrained at 178

corner
Fig. 4.32 Surface settlement: Test 3DK-2c compare Test 3DK-2 179
Fig. 4.33 Wall deflection profiles at the edge of retaining wall 180
(17m from corner): Test 3DK-2c compare 3DK-2
Fig. 4.34 Lateral displacement at wall top at various distances 181

from corner: 3D tests with various thickness
Fig. 4.35 a) Lateral wall top displacement versus distance from 182
corner. Soft NC compares Stiff OC soils
b) Lateral wall top displacement normalized by

dividing with displacement at x = 15.2m (furthest from
corner), at the particular stage of excavation. Soft NC
compares Stiff OC soils
Fig. 4.36 a) Offset-settlement versus distance from corner. 183

Soft NC compares Stiff OC soils
b) Offset-settlement normalized by dividing with
displacement at x = 14.5m (furthest from corner), at
the particular stage of excavation. Soft NC compares
Stiff OC soils
Fig. 5.1 Typical 1000 elements FEM mesh used in the study 184
Fig. 5.2 Wall deflection profiles at the edge (on Perspex 185
window in the experiment)
x
List of Figures
Fig. 5.3 Configuration of excavation case studied by Ou et al. 186

(1996)
Fig. 5.4 Schematic illustration of size of excavation studied 186
Fig. 5.5 Variation of maximum wall displacement with the 187

distance from for constant sizes of complementary
wall and various sizes of primary wall, L = Length of
primary wall; B = length of complementary wall.
After Ou et al. (1996)
Fig. 5.6 Wall top displacement at various distances from 188

corner, FEM analyses with primary wall length (PL) =
17, 25, 65 and 130m
Fig. 5.7 PSR versus distance from corner plot: FEM analyses 189
results. PL = 65 and 130m
Fig. 5.8 Variation of PSR against distance from corner, x 190

Wall with capping beam, with different wall stiffness
Fig. 5.9 Variation of PSR against distance from corner, x 191

Wall without capping beam, with different wall
stiffness
Fig. 5.10 PSR at a section of x = 30m against the depth of 192

excavation. For tests with and without capping beam
Fig. 5.11 Illustration of a simplified corner excavation 193
Fig. 5.12 Schematic representation of the boundary and loadings 194

conditions.
Fig. 5.13 Active and passive earth pressure distribution on 195

cantilever retaining wall
Fig. 5.14 Illustration of corner restrains effect 196
Fig. 5.15 Normalized wall top displacement versus x profiles: 197

FEM 3D excavation modelling compare beam theories
Fig. 5.16 Illustration and derivation of end restrain effect with a 198
Pin-end condition
Fig. 5.17 Illustration and derivation of end restrain effect with a 198
Pin-Moment end condition
Fig. 5.18 Wall top displacement versus distance from corner (x): 199
Test 3DK-1
xi
List of Figures
Test 3DK-2
Test 3DK-3
Fig. 5.21 Offset-surface settlement versus distance from corner 202

(x): Test 3DK-1

(x): Test 3DK-2

(x): Test 3DK-3
Fig. 5.24 Normalized wall top displacement versus x profiles: 205

FEM 3D excavation modelling compare beam theories
Fig. 5.25 a) Lateral bending moment versus distance from 206

corner (x): Test 3DK-2c
b) Theoretical lateral bending moment versus distance

profile
Fig. 5.26 a) Measured Lm for Test 3DK-1 and hypothesis of Lm 207

for tests with no yielding (Tests 3DK-2 and 3DK-3)
b) Hypothesis on the relationship between Lm and wall

area:
Normalized Lm versus Normalized EA, where
E = Elastic modulus of wall, same for all the test (E1 =
E2 = E3)
A = Cross sectional area of the wall, which is total
depth of wall * thickness of wall. Hence:
A3 = 3 * A1 (A of Test 3DK-3 = 3 times of A of Test
3DK-1)
A2 = 2 * A1 (A of Test 3DK-2 = 2 times of A of Test
3DK-1)
Lm1 = Distance from corner when wall of Test 3DK-1
yielded = 10m
Fig. 5.27 Illustration showing the hypothesis of normalization of 208

corner effects to achieved δy
Fig. 5.28 Total lateral earth pressure coefficient at 8m and 15m 209
from corner, at active and passive sides, versus depth
of excavation
Fig. 5.29 Schematic diagram illustrating the variation of earth 210

pressure effect at active side
xii
List of Figures
Fig. 5.30 Lateral earth pressure at the retained soil side versus 211
depth of excavation
Fig. 5.31 Pa ( 3 D ) 212

γh
Pa ( 2 D )
versus Cu for TSTs at 8m and 15m from
corner for Test 3DK-2c
Fig. 5.32 Pa ( 3 D ) 213

γh
Pa ( 2 D )
versus Cu for Test 3DK-2c (Experiment and
FEM)
Fig. 5.33 Relationship between R and distance from corner 213
Fig. 5.34 Wall top displacement versus distance from corner: 214
Test 3DK-1
a) δ before normalization
b) δ normalized with λs
c) δ normalized with λa and λs
Test 3DK-2
Test 3DK-3
Fig. 5.37 Offset-surface settlement at 7m behind wall versus x: 217

Test 3DK-1
a) Offset-Sett before normalization
b) Offset-Sett normalized with λs
c) Offset-Sett normalized with λa and λs

Test 3DK-2

Test 3DK-3
xiii
List of Figures

Fig. 5.40 Wall top displacement versus depth of excavation: 220

Tests 3DK-1, 3DK-2 and 3DK-3
Fig. 5.41 Offset-settlement versus depth of excavation: Tests 221

3DK-1, 3DK-2 and 3DK-3
xiv
List of Tables
List of Tables
Table No. Description Page No.
Table 2.1 Summary of corner effect influence range 120

reported/proposed
Table 3.1 Speed and stroke of NUS’s 3D in-flight excavator 121
Table 3.2 Properties of Malaysian Kaolin clay 122
Table 4.1 Summary of in-flight excavation tests carried out 123
Table 5.1 Summary of soil profile and soil parameters used for 124
FEM analyses
Table 5.2 Initial stress conditions of FEM analyses 125
Table 5.3 Summary of findings from centrifuge modelling and 126

FEM analyses
xv
Summary
SUMMARY
In reality, all excavations are three-dimensional (3D) in nature. In routine engineering
practices, the complicated 3D problem is often simplified and idealised into much
simpler plane strain two-dimensional (2D) problem. However, it is generally known
that such 2D analyses usually produced conservative design especially for small
basement excavation where the corner-to-corner distance is relatively short. If this
corner effect is considered in the analysis, a more accurate and economical design often
can be achieved. In the current study, the main objective was to gain a better
understanding of how a corner affects an excavation.
The current study focuses on the basic aspects of 3D corner effect, with the simplest
configuration possible. A 3D in-flight excavator for the National University of
Singapore centrifuge was developed specifically for the present study to provide
physical data for in depth mechanistic study. An un-braced excavation around a right
angle corner was modeled using a simple soil profile in the centrifuge. This model is
able to capture the salient features of 3D corner effects. From the study, it was found
that the presence of a capping beam, which usually ignored by practicing engineers in
analysis, would enhance the corner effect. The effect was more pronounced in the
early stage of excavation. Comparative study on excavation tests with stiff highly
overconsolidated and soft normally consolidated samples found that the presence of a
corner would affect the wall deflection and surface settlement more in soft soil than that
in stiff soil. However, this is in terms of absolute magnitude. In terms of relative
ratio of wall displacement or surface settlement with distance from corner as
mechanistic study is concerned, there is no apparent correlation with the soil strength. It
xvi
Summary
was also found that the behaviour of corner effect is insensitive to the depth of
excavation.
From the study, the 3D corner effect measured based on the wall displacement was
expressed as δ 3 D = δ 2 D * λs * λa .
Where δ3D = Wall top displacement within the 3D corner effect influence zone
δ2D = Wall top displacement in 2D condition
λs = Corner effect factor due to corner structural restrain
λa = Corner effect factor due to geotechnical effect
λs is derived from a beam theory. It shows to some extent how the effect of a corner is
propagated. λa is due to the variation of earth pressure along the distance from corner,
γh
which is dependent on stability number, .
Cu
Where γ = total unit weight of the soil
h = excavation depth
Cu = undrained shear strength of the soil
It was also found in the study that if the flexural capacity of the retaining wall is large
enough, the influence range of the corner is given by the point where the plane strain
condition starts. If not, then it is decided by the point when the flexural capacity of the
wall was exceeded. Thus La= min .{Lm , L2 D }.
Where Lm = Length from corner when lateral flexural capacity is exceeded.
L2D = Length from corner when plane strain condition is achieved.
If the lateral flexural capacity is exceeded in the retaining wall, the 3D corner effect
may be expressed as δ 3 D = δ y * λ s * λ a , where δy is the wall displacement when the
xvii
Summary
wall lateral flexural capacity is exceeded. This expression was examined using
centrifuge experimental data. The results show that the equation is able to estimate the
corner effect influence to the displacement at the top of wall, as well as surface
settlement at 7m behind the wall. This shows that the λs and λa are able to explain
major aspects of 3D corner effects in the excavations.
xviii
Nomenclature
NOMENCLATURE
A cross sectional area of the retaining wall
B the width of excavation
D distance behind retaining wall
E the Young’s modulus of the wall
g gravitational force
I second moment of area
L the length of excavation
Lm length from corner when lateral flexural capacity is exceeded
Ll simplified corner effect influence range from corner
L2D length from corner when plane strain condition is first achieved
P measured lateral earth pressure
Pa earth pressure at the active side at the toe of the wall in Equation (5.3). Also
the measured lateral earth pressure at the active side.
Pp passive earth pressure at the passive side at the toe of the wall in Equation
(5.3). Also the measured lateral earth pressure at the passive side.
b Total depth of the wall from ground level to the toe of wall in Equation (5.3)
PL the length of primary wall in an excavation
PSR defined as the ratio of the maximum wall displacement (δ) of a section over
the maximum wall displacement (δ2D) of the section
y depth of TST from soil level
Cu the undrained shear strength of the soil
h excavation depth
hw the height of water table
xix
Nomenclature
Ko coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest
Ko coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest, total stress term (include water
pressure)
Ka coefficient of lateral earth pressure at active side, total stress term
(include water pressure)
Kp coefficient of lateral earth pressure at passive side, total stress term
K a -active coefficient of lateral earth pressure at active state, total stress term
qs the uniform surface loading on the retained soil behind the excavation
γh
S the stability number defined as S =
cu
x distance from corner
δ horizontal wall displacement
δ3D wall top displacement within the 3D corner effect influence zone
δ2D wall top displacement in 2D condition
δy wall top displacement when the wall lateral flexural capacity is exceeded
λs corner effect factor due to corner structural restrain
λa corner effect factor due to geotechnical effect
γ the total unit weight of soil
σa the Rankine active earth pressures
σp the Rankine passive earth pressures
xx
Chapter 1 Introduction
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 THREE DIMENSIONAL BEHAVIOUR OF DEEP EXCAVATION
Excavation of soil as part of a major infrastructure construction is a common activity in
most heavily built-up cities. Deep excavation is needed for basement, underground
road, sewerage pipe, drainage facilities and other constructions. A schematic diagram
showing a typical excavation carried out in the field is shown in Fig. 1.1. In reality,
excavations are three-dimensional (3D) in nature. At every plane with the distance
from the corner, due to the variation of geometry and influence from the corner, the
behaviour is different, and would interact with each other. This 3D behaviour is very
complicated. Hence, in most engineering practices, a much simpler plane strain two-
dimensional (2D) problem is often used to approximate the 3D problem.
The 2D assumption actually assumed that there are no interactions between adjacent
planes. This assumption is more appropriate for a long trench excavation, such as
excavation for pipe laying and drainage works. In a cofferdam excavation, such as
basement excavation where excavation size is limited, there are inevitable interactions
between adjacent planes with distance from corner. For sections near the mid-span of a
large excavation, the behaviour may be approaching that of a 2D problem. However,
the influence range and under what conditions this is valid is not well established.
In illustration shown in Fig. 1.1, it is apparent that the movement of the retaining wall
and soil at the corner would be smaller due to the 3D effect. This corner restrain would
1
extend to a certain distance away from corner. Hence, if this corner effect is considered
in an analysis, a more accurate and economical design can be achieved.
1.2 CURRENT UNDERSTANDING ON 3D BEHAVIOUR OF DEEP
EXCAVATION
For an excavation supported by retaining wall, the unbalance load due to the removal of
earth would cause movement to occur. This movement is restrained by the retaining
wall and the associated bracing system. This is a classical soil-structure interaction
problem, and many 2D solutions are available. In engineering practice, it is intuitively
recognized that the presence of 3D effect, such as corner of a retaining wall, would
influence the soil-structural interaction predicted by the 2D analysis. For example, it is
generally accepted that the corner of a cofferdam is stiffer than other section far from
corner. It is also generally recognized that the movement of a small size excavation
would be smaller than that of larger excavation. In trenching works, engineers would
usually reduce the length of each panel of excavation to control ground movement.
However, to date, there is no specific reference on quantifying the corner effect, nor any
empirical method or design chart to relate the corner effect to a 2D problem. Hence, to
better make use of the 3D effect, which exists naturally in almost any excavation, to
achieve a more economical design, a better understanding on this effect is necessary.
1.3 APPROACH TO A BETTER UNDERSTANDING ON CORNER EFFECT IN
DEEP EXCAVATION
Currently, there are a number of numerical programs capable of performing 2D and 3D
excavation analyses, such as CRISP, FLAC, ABAQUS, PLAXIS and DIGDIRT.
2
These programs are able to model the soil-structural interaction in a realistic sequence
of operation that follows closely the actual geometry of excavation and construction
sequences. The proper modelling of a 2D problem alone is already not easy task. The
accurate modelling of the initial stress state, boundary conditions, soil behaviour
(model), excavation sequences and the interaction between soil and wall are very
complicated. The extension of such analyses to model a true 3D problem will create
many more uncertainties. Thus, while some studies on 3D analyses of excavation were
conducted using such numerical programs, only broad trends of 3D excavation
behaviour was presented. There is little study on the fundamental aspects of 3D corner
effect in an excavation. This is due mainly to the fact that the confidence level on such
numerical analysis does not justify in-depth mechanics study. The confidence level on
such numerical analyses can definitely be improved by proper calibration of such
analyses with good physical data.
Physical data is usually obtained from instrumented field projects. From the process of
back-analysis of field data using the program and subsequent fine-tuning, the accuracy
of the numerical model can be improved. Though field data represent the most
realistic situation, it itself is complicated and is usually not ideal for calibration. The
complexities of field data arise out of a number of situations which are difficult to
avoid. Major contributing factors are complexity of soil profiles, generally unknown
initial conditions, boundary condition and not well defined excavation procedures.
Hence, field data alone is also not satisfactory for in-depth mechanics study of the
corner effect.
3
Centrifuge is a well accepted tool in geotechnical engineering. Though it has certain
limitations, it also offers many advantages. Chief among these are ensuring correct
physical modelling principles, well defined initial and boundary conditions and well
controlled soil properties. These advantages are particularly useful when mechanism
is being examined. Hence, the centrifuge model test is an option to provide data for
fundamental mechanism study on the 3D effect.
1.4 NECCESITIES OF CENTRIFUGE MODEL TEST
Centrifuge model test have many advantages over field test as they can provide reliable
and repeatable data with well defined boundary condition and known material
properties, which are essential in any mechanism study. More useful is the fact that in
the centrifuge, appropriate parametric study can be conducted to ensure that influence of
specific factor of interest can be isolated to enable a better understanding of how their
effectiveness is being mobilized. Some important factors that can be studied through
parametric studies are:
i) 2D versus 3D effect in an excavation
Centrifuge model test can be conducted on 2D and 3D excavation models.
These tests allow the 3D effects to be highlighted.
ii) Effect of retaining wall stiffness
It is known that the stiffness of the retaining wall plays an important role in
the behaviour of an excavation. By varying the characteristics of the
retaining wall, such as the wall stiffness, such effects on the overall
behaviour of an excavation can be carefully evaluated.
iii) Effects of soil properties
4
The effects of soil properties in an excavation can also be assessed through
parametric studies. This includes varying the over-consolidation ratio,
shear strength and stiffness of the soils.
The above advantages of centrifuge model tests are well recognised, but to conduct a
realistic 3D excavation test in the centrifuge is very difficult. Due to the high
centrifugal force, the model set-up must be able to work under very harsh environment
with degree of complexity increase proportionally with the centrifugal force. As the
size of the centrifuge platform is generally not large, the space for mounting the soil
model and its modelling apparatus is limited. Thus, to avoid complex development on
the model set-up, two traditional methods were used to approximately model
excavations. They are:
1) the increasing-g method, and
2) the heavy liquid method.
Detail descriptions of these methods are presented in Chapter 2. The traditional
methods have limitation on modelling the correct soil stress and the development of
earth pressures, especially when soft normally consolidated clay profile is used. In
view of the above shortcoming, researchers in the Tokyo Institute of Technology
developed the in-flight excavator to model the excavation more accurately (Kimura et
al. 1993). However, the in-flight excavator was only designed to model plain strain
excavation problem.
1.5 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
In view of the above, this study is carried out with the following objectives:
1) To develop and conduct 3D in-flight excavation tests in the centrifuge to
provide reliable physical data. The key challenge is to develop suitable
5
experimental apparatus to conduct centrifuge test with pre-defined initial
and boundary conditions and to model realistic excavation sequences. The
development of an in-flight excavation apparatus suitable for 3D excavation
is already a very complicated task. To put in place an in-flight strutting
system is more daunting and was not pursued in this project. Thus in this
study, unstrutted excavation was carried out. In all excavations, the first
stage is usually an unstrutted excavation. If the excavation is in soft soil,
this first stage of excavation is often a critical stage where significant
movement can take place if it is not handled properly. Thus the results
from this study, besides their intrinsic value to provide reliable data for
fundamental study, are also realistic for actual excavation, especially the
first stage.
In the field, most retaining walls, such as sheet pile, soldier pile, contiguous
bored pile or diaphragm walls are constructed individually or by panels,
where the lateral flexural stiffness is much smaller than the vertically
flexural stiffness. This phenomenon may reduce the influence range of
corner effect. However, the panels such as that for sheet piles and
diaphragm wall are usually connected by interlocking slot, which may
transfer some moment between panels. In addition, the panels are
generally bound together by a capping beam, thus further increase its lateral
stiffness. Hence, as the wall in the field is not fully rigid or perfectly
hinged, its lateral stiffness is difficult to assess. In the current study, the
monolithic wall with known stiffness was used. This shall shed light on
the fundamental effect of lateral wall stiffness in excavation, as well as
6
reflect to what extend the lateral wall stiffness affect the response of the
ground.
2) Through centrifuge test results, mechanics study to better understand the 3D
behaviour of an excavation would be carried out. This is important as a
better understanding would allow a greater exploitation of corner effect in
practice, resulting in a more economical design.
3) Subsequently, it is aimed to quantitatively evaluate the salient feature of
corner effects. This includes the establishment on how the 3D effect is
developed, the contributors of such effects and the influence to an
excavation. In many of these excavations, capping beams are provided.
These are seldom evaluated, mainly because in 2D analyses, such an effect
cannot be accounted for. The capping beam effect in an excavation is
assessed in this study.
7
Chapter 2 Literature Review
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The mechanics of an excavation supported by retaining wall is a typical soil-structure
interaction problem. This problem is a major topic in geotechnical engineering and
drawn extensive coverage in geotechnical textbooks (Lambe & Whitman 1979; Das
1990; Craig 1992; Terzaghi et al. 1996, Bowles 1996; Sevenoaks 1996). Fundamental
theories on lateral earth pressures, stability of slip and basal heave, as well as the
theories and designs of mechanically stabilized earth and concrete walls, cantilevered
and anchored sheet pile walls, cellular cofferdams are widely available. However, most
theories described above are for excavation at limit state where the problem is
structurally determinate. For deep excavation with multi-level propped retaining wall
designed to limit ground settlement, especially near built-up area, the resulting wall
movement is often insufficient to allow full active or passive pressure to be mobilised.
Thus, the assumption of active or passive condition usually does not accurately reflect
reality. Hence, traditionally, empirical relations and charts are generally used in design
for multi-level strutted retaining wall excavation system. Some of these charts are
proposed by Peck (1969), Goldberg et al. (1976), O’Rourke et al. (1976), Clough and
Denby (1977), Clough et al. (1979), Mana and Clough (1981) and Terzaghi et al.
(1996). Figs. 2.1 to 2.5 show some of these charts.
Although empirical charts are easy to use and able to provide some estimation of the
ground movement, the accuracy of the estimation is not certain. This is because ground
movement and strut loads in excavation are highly dependent upon ground conditions,
8
soil properties, construction system and sequence. As the empirical tools do not take
all these factors into account, they are likely only applicable to some specific problems.
Furthermore, there are growing concern on the impact of excavation induced ground
movement to the surrounding structures and foundations (Burland et al. 1979; Brassinga
and Van Tol, 1991; Finno et al. 1991; Poulos and Chen 1997; Tan et al. 1995). Also,
the awareness on the impact of excavation to buried pipes, high voltage cables and
services are also rapidly increasing (Needham and Howe 1984, Philips 1986, Nath
1993). Fig. 2.6 shows an illustration of distress caused to a buried service by a
trenching operation. Hence, since 1970s, two-dimensional (2D) plane strain finite
element method (FEM) is often used to predict ground movements induced by
excavations owing to its ability to incorporate soil non-linearity, boundary conditions,
simulate construction sequences and model time-dependent consolidation phenomena
(Clough and Mana 1976, Clough and Hansen 1981). It is able to predict the excavation
behaviour more accurately at various stages of excavation for a more proper movement
control around the excavation.
However, it is noted that most of the theories, empirical charts and FEM analyses
described above are devoted for 2D problem. While it is recognized that most
excavation in the field are 3D in nature, there are very little understanding devoted to it.
This is mainly because 3D problems are very complicated, and since 2D analysis is
usually more conservative, it is deemed sufficient in most design. The fact that the
extensive computing resources required to carry out 3D analysis also discourage
engineers venture into 3D analysis. However, due to the more stringent requirements
for movement control placed by authorities, and the increasing awareness of movement
control, there are growing needs for more accurate prediction of excavation-induced
9
movements especially for excavation adjacent to critical structures. Hence, the need
for 3D analysis arises for more accurate prediction of the soil-structural interaction
problem. In addition, the fast growing development in information technology has
lowered the cost of computing resources drastically and made 3D analysis more
affordable. As pointed out by Lee et al. (1998), it is expected that the saving of
construction cost can easily outweigh the cost of conducting 3D analysis, should the 3D
analysis is conducted properly. Hence, the real challenge is to carry out a proper 3D
analysis, and to achieve this, a better understanding on the 3D behaviour must first be
sought.
Presently, the understanding on the 3D excavation behaviour is very limited. This is
mainly due to the lack of good physical data to calibrate numerical analyses and to
allow in depth mechanics study to be carried out. Often, while field data represent the
most realistic situation, its complex soil profile, ill-defined initial conditions, and
complicated excavation procedures limits its usage for mechanics study. Hence, as
presented in Chapter 1, the first objective of the current study is to develop and carry
out proper centrifuge excavation test to provide a realistic glimpse of the excavation
behaviour around a corner under fairly simple boundary and initial conditions. This
will facilitate the interpretation of results and allow the capture of the salient features of
3D excavation behaviour. The development for centrifuge modelling of excavation
will be discussed in the following section.
Through carefully planed and executed centrifuge experiments, the response of the soil
and retaining wall could be obtained. The mechanics of excavation behaviour around
10
the corner of an excavation can then be investigated. As such, the literature review in
this study is divided into two main parts, which are:
1) Literature review on centrifuge modelling on deep excavation, and
2) Literature review on 3D excavation behaviour.
2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW ON CENTRIFUGE MODELLING ON DEEP
EXCAVATION
Centrifuge is a well accepted tool in modelling and solving geotechnical problems as
evident by the number of papers presented in international centrifuge conferences
namely Centrifuge ’88, Centrifuge ’91, Centrifuge ’94 and centrifuge ’98. Though it
has certain limitations, it also offers many advantages; chief among these are ensuring
correct physical modelling principles, well defined initial and boundary conditions and
well controlled soil properties. Many literatures on the background and application on
centrifuge modelling tests are available (Craig and Rowe, 1981, Craig, 1984; Schofield,
1980, 1988; Kimura 1988; Scotts 1988; Taylor 1994; Leung et al. 1991).
In the centrifuge, the soil sample and other model set-up are spun at a high angular
velocity to exert a centrifugal force to the model that is equivalent to N-time the
gravitational force, g. In typical applications, the centrifuge is spun at Ng-level ranging
from 50 to 200-g. In the National University of Singapore’s (NUS) Centrifuge (Lee et
al. 1991, 1992), to simulate a 100-g field, the centrifuge is spun at about 350 revolutions
per minute. At this speed, all the testing apparatus and control system must be mounted
onto the centrifuge platform to be spun together with the soil sample, and test carried
out in-flight. Such apparatus is given a prefix “in-flight”. The operations of the
apparatus must be remotely controlled, from a control room via a slip rings system.
11
Due to the high centrifugal force, the model container must be sufficiently strong and
stiff to prevent failure or excessive deformation during spinning. In addition, the in-
flight modelling set-up, in this case, the apparatus to model excavation, must be able to
work under its amplified self-weight and high working load. As the size of the
centrifuge platform is generally not large, in the NUS centrifuge, 0.7m wide x 0.75m
long, the space for the mounting of a soil model and its modelling apparatus is limited.
Thus, to model excavation realistically in the centrifuge is difficult. Many researchers
have devoted extensive effort in the development of devices to model excavation in the
centrifuge. Some of these innovative development and methods to model 2D-
excavation (excavation to study the plane strain effect only) in the centrifuge are
presented below.
2.2.1 Various Methods to Model Excavation in Centrifuge
2.2.1.1 Increasing-g Method
The increasing-g method is one of the pioneering methods to model excavation (Lyndon
and Schofield 1970, Toyosawa et al. 1994). In this method, the soil in the excavation
area is first removed in a 1-g environment. The model is then mounted on a centrifuge
and subjected to increasing centrifugal acceleration to generate imbalance load, mimic
the condition of excavation (Fig. 2.7). In this method, the overall total stresses in soil
can be modelled but the effective soil stresses are difficult to determine as both the
imbalance load simulating the excavation as well as the consolidation of soil affects the
stress changes. This makes the interpretation of the test results very difficult. Another
setback to this approach is that the prototype dimension and stiffness of the model
retaining wall would increase according to the increasing g-level, where it should be
kept constant. Due to these shortcomings, the validity of this method is limited.
12
Nevertheless, this method marked an innovative use of the technique of centrifuge
modelling. Kimura et al. (1993) carried out this “Increasing-g” method to study the 2D
excavation behaviour in Kaolin clay. They reported that due to the unknown initial
stresses in the experiments, they interpret the undrained shear strength of soil sample
based on unconfined compression tests (for constant strength with depth soil sample) or
multiplying with the preconsolidation pressure at different depths (for increasing
strength with depth soil sample).
2.1.1.2 Excavate and Spin Method
“Excavate and spin” or “Increasing-g” method is another alternative method to simulate
excavation. In this method, the centrifuge would stop at each incremental stage for
excavation to carry out in 1-g condition, before the model is spun again (Zhang and
Zhang, 1994; Frydman et al., 1994; Liu et al. 1994). These procedures are repeated
until the final excavation depth is reached or failure happens. This method is used
mainly for excavation involved complicated construction sequences, such as multi-
strutting and soil nailing in the excavation system. This method is able to deliver broad
trend of the behaviour and suitable for case-specific excavation problem related to the
field. However, due to the lack of knowledge in the model conditions, this method is
not suitable for mechanics study.
2.2.1.3 Heavy Liquid Method
Another method to simulate excavation in centrifuge, which is probably the most
popular method, is to draining a heavy liquid with a unit weight identical to that of the
soil to be excavated (Fig. 2.8). This method is referred to as the “heavy liquid”
method. This method is an improvement of the first method, has been used
13
successfully by numbers of researchers e.g. Kusakabe (1982), Powrie (1986), Powrie et
al. (1994), Takemura (1992), Toyosawa et al. (1994), Bolton and Stewart (1994),
Richard and Powrie (1998), and Wei (1998).
As compared to the “Increasing-g” method, the stress condition of the model soil is
known and is kept constant throughout the excavation. Moreover, controlling the
draining of the liquid can more realistically simulate the excavation event. In “Heavy
liquid” method, the vertical stress history of the model soil can be correctly modelled as
long as the unit weight of the liquid chosen is identical to that of the original soil to be
excavated. However, the lateral stress history of the model required further
consideration.
It is noted that the total lateral earth pressure coefficient, Ko for the liquid is always
close to unity. Powrie (1986) in his excavation studies on over-consolidated (OC)
London clay explained that the initial lateral earth pressure coefficient of about 2.0 of
the clay would be reduced to a value of between 1.0 and 1.2 during the slurry trench
phase of the retaining wall. Hence, the Ko of unity of the liquid was deemed to be
approximately correct to simulate the soil Ko before the excavation. However, for
normally consolidated clay, which is commonly found in Singapore, which has a Ko
within the range 0.55 to 0.65, this method will not be able to produce the correct initial
horizontal stress condition.
In addition, the coefficient of lateral earth pressure for the soil on the excavation side
will change from Ko to Kp during an excavation with the development of passive soil
pressure. However, as the coefficient of lateral earth pressure of a liquid is a constant
(unity), this means it cannot simulate the development of passive earth pressure against
14
the wall during an excavation. If this passive resistance is not correctly simulated, the
stress distribution in the model soil will be affected and is likely to be incorrect.
Powrie (1986) explained in his study that since the time taken to drain the liquid
solution is comparatively short (2 to 5 minutes in the centrifuge at 125-G, or 3 to 8
weeks in a prototype time), the error of simulating the lateral earth pressure at this stage
is considered negligible. However, it is in the author’s opinion that the effect of
correct simulation of earth pressure in an excavation needs further consideration. In
the field, excavation usually carried out in stages, and the time required for the complete
excavation to the formation level is usually longer, and the correct lateral earth
pressures are usually considered in the design of retaining wall. This shortcoming is
more severe in a 3D excavation, where the amount of passive earth pressure developed
will vary along the distance from the corner of the wall. This is one of the key effects
in a 3D excavation, and has to be accounted for to obtain a more accurate analysis of
deep excavation.
The researchers at Tokyo Institute of Technology (TIT) have used the above mentioned
alternative methods to model excavation in the centrifuge. In view of the shortcoming
of the above method, especially in modelling excavation in soft clay, they have
developed an in-flight excavator to simulate more accurately the excavation process in
the centrifuge (Kimura et al., 1993, 1994).
2.2.1.4 2D In-Flight Excavation Test In The Centrifuge
The TIT’s in-flight excavator set-up includes a centrifuge container and an excavator
(Fig. 2.9). The excavator consists of a movable table, a cutting blade and a soil-
retaining gate. The cutting blade, powered by stepper motor, is controlled to scrap soil
15
at an intended speed and depth to model excavation in-flight. Some experiments were
also conducted with “tieback” to the retaining wall to simulate supported retaining wall
excavation. The set-up was designed to operate at 100-g environment, but finally could
only excavate soil at about 50-g (Kimura et al. 1993). The friction of mechanical part
is suspected to be the cause of this drawback. However, due to space limitation, higher
capacity motor cannot be accommodated to improve the performance of the excavator.
From the earth pressure measurements on active and passive sides of model retaining
wall, they showed that the initial stress condition of soil was brought from near-isotropy
to anisotropy or Ko condition before and after centrifugal consolidation. From earth
pressure on retaining wall measurements, they showed that when failure took place, the
horizontal earth pressure in the passive side generally agreed well with the pressure
calculated based on Rankine formula, but at the active side, the pressure measured was
smaller than Rankine pressure. Tanaka (1994) has also reported this phenomenon in a
field retaining wall study and postulates that this is due to the changes in shear strength,
which are dependent on strength anisotropy, swelling of soil, adhesion between ground
and the retaining wall. Kimura et al. (1993) postulates that this phenomenon may be
due to stress anisotropy. While there is no certain explanation on this phenomenon, it
is very clear that only realistic simulation of excavation could deliver such complicated
soil behaviour. This highlighted the importance of realistic modeling of centrifuge
experiment if true mechanisms are to be captured.
Kimura et al. (1994) also modeled the provision of bracing to the retaining wall by
using a tieback system. A load cell measured the load in the tieback wire. Through
16
this experiment, they highlighted the advantage of preloading in tieback in an
excavation problem.
TIT’s in-flight excavator is a breakthrough in centrifuge modelling of deep excavation.
Realistic excavation can be performed using this excavator on soil sample with well-
controlled boundary and initial conditions.
2.2.1.5 Tunnel Excavation Method
Other than basement excavation, tunnel excavation or tunneling is also a major topic in
geotechnical engineering. Various tunnel excavation methods in centrifuge were also
developed (Onoue et al. 1994; Nomoto et al. 1994; Konig et al. 1994). As tunnel
excavation is a very different construction method compared to basement excavation,
the excavation techniques are also very different. As the focus of the current study is
on vertical cut excavation, the tunnel excavation technique will not be discussed here.
In NUS, other researchers (Wei 1998) as well as the author had used the heavy liquid
method to simulate excavation in the early stage of experiments. However, it was
found in centrifuge consolidation test for soft NC clay with the heavy liquid setup that
the larger pressure from the heavy liquid had pushed the retaining wall towards the
retained soil side. This make the initial stress condition of the sample very complicated
for interpretation. This serious setback reinforced the author’s desire to develop an in-
flight excavator in this study.
17
2.2.2 The Challenge of 3D In-Flight Excavation Test
In order to perform 3D in-flight excavation test in the centrifuge, an in-flight set-up,
able to excavate soil at an accurate depth and speed under high-g environment, as of
TIT’s excavator, has to be first developed. In addition, the preparation of the soil
sample, model retaining wall and the set-up has to be able to simulate a 3D excavation.
Furthermore, the amount of transducers and control required for a 3D excavation are
significantly more than those for 2D to obtain meaningful results. All of these factors
contribute to the difficulty of conducting 3D in-flight excavation tests. Due to the
above difficulties, it is not surprising that to date, there is no one in the world who can
perform 3D excavation test in the centrifuge, let alone the 3D in-flight excavation test.
In this project, a challenge is taken up to develop and conduct 3D in-flight excavation
tests in the centrifuge to provide reliable physical data. The key challenge is to develop
suitable experimental apparatus to conduct centrifuge test with well-defined initial and
boundary conditions and to carry out model excavation under realistic excavation
sequences. Through these tests, better understanding of 3D behaviour of an excavation
can then be derived.
The development of an in-flight excavation apparatus suitable for 3D excavation is
already a very complicated task. To put in place an in-flight strutting system is more
daunting and thus was not pursued in this project.
In all excavations, the first stage is usually an unbraced excavation. If the excavation
is in soft soil, this first stage of excavation is often a critical stage where significant
movement can take place if it is not handled properly. Thus the results from this study,
18
besides their intrinsic value to provide reliable data for fundamental study, are also
realistic for actual excavation, especially the first stage. In many of these excavations
especially when contiguous bored piles or diaphragm walls are involved, ground beams
are provided. These are seldom evaluated, mainly because in 2D analyses, such an
effect cannot be accounted for. The ability to understand the optimal depth of
excavation possible in an unbraced excavation is also an important construction
consideration.
2.3 LITERATURE REVIEW ON 3D EXCAVATION BEHAVIOUR
2.3.1 General Appreciation of 3D Excavation Behaviour
The 3D effect in excavation was studied as early as 1970s. Giger and Krizek (1975)
conducted a study on the stability of unsupported excavation with corner angle varying
from 90° to 180° (Figs. 2.10a and b). They reported that the stability of a vertical cut
was significantly influenced by the angle of the corner, where an increase of the corner
angle would reduce the stability of a vertical cut. They showed that when the corner
angle equals to 180°, the stability of the vertical cut was the same of those for 2D
problem and was most critical.
St. John (1975) carried out 2D and 3D analyses of square, unsupported excavation in
London Clay using finite element analyses. He reported that axisymmetric analyses
could provide good agreement with that of 3D analyses, and the 2D analyses over-
predicted horizontal soil movements up to 100%. Burland et al. (1979) also suggested
that axisymmetric analysis is a more appropriate method to estimate ground movement
of a square excavations than using plane strain analysis, as the hoop stress of the
excavation is partially considered. Simpson (1992), in his study of the British Library
19
excavation, reported that the differences between axisymmetric and plane strain analysis
are negligible and attributed this to the shallow depth of a relatively stiff stratum.
Arul and Kusakabe (1983) and Kusakabe (1984) in their study on axisymmetric
unsupported excavation, reported that the stability number of an axisymmetric
excavation decreases with the function D/ro, where D is the excavation depth and ro the
radius of the excavation cylinder (Fig. 2.11). This implies that for a constant excavation
depth (D), an increase of the radius of excavation would reduce the stability of an
axisymmetric excavation. This highlighted the excavation geometry effect in
excavation behaviour. They argued that their studies are applicable to deep excavation
problem, as the excavation can be approximated as semi-circular in plan and its
behaviour similar to that of a 3D condition. Philips (1986) in his studies on trench
heading problem, found that the stability of an unsupported flat trench heading was
similar to that for the semi-circular heading.
All the above studies (St. John, 1975; Burland et al., 1979; Arul and Kusakabe, 1982;
Philips, 1986; Simpson, 1992) are in agreement that axisymmetric analysis could
approximately explain some of the 3D excavation behaviour. However, as pointed out
by Lee et al. (1998), as excavation are usually irregularly in shaped and supported by
struts, axisymmetric approach is difficult to apply. Further more, the hoop stress
development behaviour does not replicate the lateral flexural action of the waler system.
Hence, while the axisymmetric approach is simple and intuitively plausible, its
extension to explain the 3D corner effect in a supported excavation is limited.
20
De Moor (1994) in his study on the installation effect on bored pile and diaphragm wall,
investigate the soil stress changes around diaphragm wall trenching. He is aware of the
drawback of 2D analysis which would overestimated the changes around the trench, and
acknowledged that axisymmetric analysis could provide better prediction than the 2D
analysis. However, for a better prediction, he proposed an alternative to consider the
3D behaviour of the trenching work. In his finite element analysis, the 2D plan
horizontal section through a series of wall panels, rather than a vertical cross section
normally used in wall analysis, was used to study the trench behaviour (Fig. 2.12). By
using this approach, he was able to analyze the behaviour of a panel excavation at a
given depth. This method provides an indirect way to account for corner effect as well
as the influence of the overall dimension of an excavation.
The above studies highlighted that the appreciation of 3D effect in excavation and the
traditional approaches to understand and quantify the effect. It is interesting to note
that these early studies are on soil alone, without the presence of retaining wall. This is
probably because the soil behaviour is the primary factor initiated 3D effect and hence
most attempts were devoted to understand it before proceeding into the more
complicated soil-structure interaction in a supported excavation. The lack of
computing resources capable to carry out 3D excavation analysis is also a possible
factor. Since late 1980s, due to the advancement of computer technology, computing
resources able to handle 3D analysis are becoming readily available and affordable.
Hence, many studies on 3D supported excavation were sprouted since then. Some of
these studies were reported by Ou and Chiou (1993), Fernandes et al. (1994), Lee et al.
(1998), Ou et al. (1996) and Lin et al. (2003). Due to the increased awareness on
movement control, the National University of Singapore spearheaded series of research
21
studies on deep excavation topic. Some of these studies are reported by Yong et al.
(1989), Chew et al. (1998), Tan et al. (1995), Liu et al. (1996) and Lee et al. (1998).
Substantial attentions were devoted to study the 3D behaviour of excavation (Liu et al.,
1996; Yong et al., 1997; Chew et al., 1998; Lee et al., 1998 and Sun, 2003). Chew et
al. (1998) used 2D and 3D analyses to predict the wall deflection of a strutted
excavation underlain by deep deposit of soft clay in Central Business District in
Singapore. They found that the 2D analysis always over predicted the wall deflection,
especially nearer to the corner. They attributed this effect to the soil arching and the
mutual support from the intersecting walls at the corner. Lee et al. (1998) carried out
2D and 3D analyses on a multi-strutted diaphragm wall deep excavation for the
Immigration Building in Singapore. They found that at a section nearer to the corner,
the 2D and 3D analyses over predicted the measured maximum wall deflection by 200%
and 30% respectively. The 2D analysis apparently yield more severe error than that of
3D analysis because it did not account for any 3D effect.
General finding from the above studies was that 3D analysis usually provides more
accurate prediction for the wall movement in an excavation than 2D analysis, especially
for small size excavation (Ou and Chiou, 1993; Chew et al., 1998). Detail discussions
on the findings obtained from the above studies are presented in the following several
sections.
2.3.2 Quantification of 3D Corner Effect
While the 3D corner effects were appreciated and intuitively considered in design, there
was very little information on how to quantify the 3D corner effect. Ou et al. (1996)
defined a plane strain ratio (PSR) to quantify the magnitude of 3D corner effect in
22
excavation. The PSR was defined as the ratio of the maximum wall displacement (δ) of
a section over the maximum wall displacement (δ2D) of the section. The higher the PSR,
the lesser is the corner effect, and when PSR is unity, the section is in a plane strain
condition. From FEM parametric studies on various widths and lengths of excavation
(3D excavation behaviour), and subsequently compared the results to independent 2D
analyses using the same program and parameters, a PSR chart relates PSR ratios with
excavation width, length and distance from corner was developed (Fig. 2.13). They
argued that in the field, 3D results could be estimated based on 2D analysis, multiply by
the PSR ratios. They defined this approach as “PSR Method”.
Ou et al. (1996) asserted that with this method, the computing resources required to
capture 3D behaviour of excavation could be significantly reduced. They
acknowledged that the PSR chart reported were not accounted for various factor in
excavation, such as the excavation sequence, excavation depth, penetration depth of
support wall, wall stiffness, excavation geometry and soil strength and can only used for
problem with identical parameters. However, the PSR chart can be expanded to include
other factors.
Lin et al. (2003) carried out a study on corner effect in excavation, and reported a case
study on Bangkok Subsoil (Rajavej Hospital Project). Their approach towards
assessing corner effect was based along the PSR Method proposed by Ou et al. (1996).
Also, using independent 2D and 3D analyses, but with the same program and
parameters, PSR charts were developed for this site condition. Subsequently, they used
the PSR Method to estimate the lateral wall movement, and compared it with field
measurement results. Their results shows that the PSR Method only slightly reduces
23
the over-predicted movement obtained by 2D FEM analysis, and the results were still
significantly different from the measured field results.
The PSR Method proposed by Ou et al. (1996) is innovative and is probably the most
specific method on quantifying the 3D corner effect to date. However, this method has
an apparent problem, that is, the 2D and 3D analyses were both numerical. It is known
that one of the major problems of FEM analysis is the inability to model the full
spectrum of real soil behaviour. Some of the complicated soil behaviour such as the
small strain soil non-linearity (Jardine et al., 1986, 1991; Kavvadas, 1994; Whittle et al.,
1993; Whittle 1997) and anisotropy characteristic (Banerjee et al. 1984, Wroth and
Houlsby 1985; and Banerjee and Yousif , 1986; Jovicic and Coop, 1998) have known to
affect the FEM results. The uncertainty of this soil behaviour under a 2D and 3D
environment alone might cause different set of problem in 2D and 3D analyses. In
addition, the construction details are very difficult to model in FEM analyses. Lee et
al. (1998) reported the difficulty of modelling the out of plane strut forces of diagonal
struts at corner in 2D analysis, and they resorted to approximately model and adjust the
equivalent forces and stiffness of struts to reflect equivalent values per unit width as that
of 3D analysis. Hence, it is clear that the direct comparison between 2D and 3D results
is very difficult. It is in fact likely that the PSR of unity when 3D behaviour ceased at a
section far from the corner may not be achieved at all.
In addition, it is also fundamentally doubtful whether the 2D results obtained in the
FEM analyses represent the actual 2D results in the field, as the actual condition in the
field is always 3D in nature. Hence, is there any 2D excavation condition in the field?
If it is, what is the definition and under what conditions? Lee et al. (1998) in their case
24
study of a deep excavation in Singapore (the Immigration Building) reported that the 2D
FEM predicted maximum wall displacements were constantly about 30% larger than the
field results, even at the mid-span of the excavation. The mid-span was about 37m
away from the corner. They hence suggested that even at this distance, the 2D
conditions still not fully prevailed. This comparison of 2D FEM results with field
measurements to quantify 3D corner effect was also adopted by others (Nath, 1983).
However, is this approach to quantify 3D corner effect valid? To answer these
provoking questions, it is obvious that an understanding on the 3D corner effect
influence range is necessary.
2.3.3 Influence Range of 3D Corner Effect
Lee et al. (1998) has studied the effects of corners on wall deflection and ground
movement around multi-strutted diaphragm wall deep excavation for the Immigration
Building in Singapore. The excavation plan is about 75m long and 50m wide. The
excavation depth is 17.3m below the ground level with three layers of corner diagonal
struts. Significant corner effects have been observed from inclinometer and ground
settlement data for short and long sides, above and below excavation levels. Lee et
al.(1998) compared the 2D and 3D results from FEM analysis and found that the
maximum wall deflection was well predicted by the 3D analysis, whereas the plane
strain 2D analysis consistently over predicts the deflection by about 30%, which suggest
that some corner constrain effects persist and plane strain conditions do not completed
prevail even at mid span sections of this excavation (37m from corner). Lee et al.
(1998) suggests that the corner effect might be control by the length of excavation (L) to
depth of excavation (h) ratio (L/h), a low ratio would provide more significant corner
effect. In their study, the L/h ratio is about 3.0 to 4.5 and significant corner effect still
25
persists. They have also provided a summary table on corner effect and relationship
with the L/h ratio. Part of the information provided were used and presented in Table
2.1 for the subsequent discussion.
Nath (1983) in his study on the effect of trench excavation on adjacent buried pipes,
used 3D FEM analysis to study the 3D behaviour of trench excavation. He assessed the
corner effect of a trench by comparing the 3D analysis results with plane strain analysis
results. From a typical analysis on a 10m long x 6m deep x 1m wide trench excavation
(Fig. 2.14), he reported that the when Length (L)/ Depth (h) greater than 2, the
behaviour is plane strain. Lee et al. (1998) also use the factor of L/h to characterise
corner effect. A summary of corner effect influence range and the associated factors
reported by Nath (1983) and others are shown in Table 2.1.
Ou and Chiou (1993) carried out a case study on the Hai-Hua Building in Taipei. The
comparison of 2D and 3D analyses shows significant corner effects at a distance of 1
times depth of excavation from the corner. From the reported results, it is estimated
that the L/h is between 1.0 and 1.5 in their analysis. Wong and Patron (1993) reported
five cases of excavation in Taipei with diaphragm wall system. They have also
suggested that corner effect were present at distance of 1 times excavation depth from
corner or less.
Simpson (1992) reported a case study in stiff London Clay with L/h ratio of 3.3 and no
apparent corner effect was observed. He attributed this to the shallow depth of
excavation and stiff soil stratum.
26
Ou et al. (1996) in their study on the effect of size of excavation carried out parametric
studies using FEM analyses with various primary and complementary wall lengths (Fig.
2.13a). They found that for a small length of complementary wall (B=20m), the plane
strain condition could be achieved when the primary wall is 40m long (L = 40m).
They also reported that when the complementary wall is short, the distance from the
corner to a section having plane strain condition seems to be independent of the length
of primary wall (Fig. 2.15-B=20m). However, they found that for a given larger length
of complementary wall (e.g., B≥20m), the decrease of primary wall length results in the
decrease of a section’s wall deflection, and for such cases, plane strain condition has not
been achieved even when the primary wall length is 100m long. This implies that the
complementary wall length would also significantly affect the influence range of corner
effect. No explanation is provided for this behaviour in the report. It is in the opinion
that the complementary wall length may influence the behaviour of a small cofferdam
excavation, as the movement at the corner would affect the movement of the primary
wall. However, in a case when the corner has negligible movement, as in the case of
their study, the characteristics of the complementary wall shall have insignificant effect
on the primary wall. In addition, Ou et al. (1996) shows that the 2D movement is
significantly affected by the size of excavation, B. This is quite unreasonable, as the
space in front of a plane strain excavation should not have such major impact on the
overall excavation behaviour. Ou et al. (1996) characterize the corner effect with the
B/L ratio, rather than the L/h ratio used by Nath (1983). However from the reported
data, as the depth of final excavation is 16m, the L/h ratio can be estimated as 2.50 and
6.25 for B = 20m and 100m respectively. These results were also included in the
summary in Table 2.1.
27
Lin et al. (2003) in their 2D and 3D FEM modelling of a 10m deep excavation project in
Bangkok suggested that the corner effect influence range is 25 to 30m from the corner.
From the above review, the corner effect influence range observed on site is generally
confined to 1 to 2 times depth of excavation or less (Nath, 1983; Simpson, 1992; Ou and
Chiou, 1993; Wong and Patron, 1993). The case study of Immigration Building in
Singapore reported by Lee et al. (1998) registered corner effect range beyond 2 times
depth of excavation, which is larger than those reported. However, as most of the struts
employed in this projects were corner diagonal struts, this stiff corner struts may
amplify the corner effect.
It is noted that the influence range reported by Liu et al. (2003) is 3.0 times excavation
depth. This value was higher than those reported above. It is also reported by Ou et
al. (1996) that up to 3.12 times depth of excavation (for case B = 100m, refer Table
2.1), the corner effect still persists. Ou et al. (1996) further reported that the influence
range would further increase if there were an increase of excavation width (B).
Hence, it is apparent that Liu et al. (2003) and Ou et al. (1996) may be over-estimated
the corner effect influence range. It is interesting to notes that both Ou et al. (1996) and
Lin et al. (2003) influence range were deduced from the comparison of 2D versus 3D
FEM analyses, without verification with field results. Hence, it is possible that the
movement predicted in their 2D analyses might be always higher than those obtain from
3D analyses. It is even more interesting to imagine that when movement registered in
the field are constant with distance from corner, this usually considered as plane strain
condition achieved. This is a common understanding percept by many. Hence, the
corner effect influence range deduced from the comparison of 2D versus 3D analyses
28
might over-estimate the real influence range. More detail discussions on this issue are
presented in the subsequent Chapters 4 and 5.
2.3.4 Other Parameters Which Might Influence Corner Effect
Simpson (1992) reported a case study of excavation in stiff London Clay and no
apparent corner effect was observed. He attributed this to the shallow depth of
excavation and stiff soil stratum. From the comparison of various case studies, Lee et
al. (1998) suggested that the corner effect might be influenced by the soil profiles,
especially the depth to stiff stratum. They suggested that if soil strata underlie the
excavation, the maximum wall deflection is likely to reach above excavation level, and
corner effect may be suppressed if sufficiently stiff strutting system is used. It is also
observed from a numbers of published case studies (Dysli et al. 1982; Bono et al. 1992;
Wong et al. 1993; Liu 1995; Lee et al. 1998) that the corner effect is usually reported in
excavation within soft ground. This soil strength effect is discussed in greater detail in
Chapter 4.
Fernandes (1986), in his study of the 3D effects of the strutting in an infinitely long
excavation supported by diaphragm wall, concluded that, 3D effects arising from the
strut loads are only significant in the vicinity of the struts and does not play an
important role in the overall behaviour of the wall. This argument is logical for cross
strutting as strut forces/stiffness are distributed evenly along the length of wall and it
would only provide passive support against movement. It is unlikely to contribute to
3D corner effect. This is not true when corner diagonal struts were used, as those
reported by Lee et al. (1998), where significant corner effect was still registered beyond
2 times depth of excavation, which is larger than those generally reported in the field
29
(Section 2.3.3). This is most likely because corner diagonal struts will provide more
stiffness at the corner and in turns amplified the corner effect. However, Fernandes
(1986) opinion is still mostly correct as the corner strut effect should fall into the
category of excavation configuration, which includes the excavation shape and
geometry. However due to the complexity and case specific nature, the excavation
configuration effect was seldom studied thus far.
2.4 SUMMARY
In the literature review above, the necessity of carrying out 3D analysis was presented.
It was shown that due to the lack of physical data for calibration of numerical analyses,
there is serious lacking of fundamental understanding on the 3D behaviour of
excavation. In particular, how the 3D corner effect is developed in an excavation has
not been studied before. Hence, the significance of carrying out centrifuge model test
is presented. Subsequently, detail reviews on traditional methods used in the centrifuge
to approximately simulate excavation were presented. Then, the current status on the
development of centrifuge technology to simulate excavation realistically in the
centrifuge was presented.
The general understanding and studies on 3D behaviour on excavation was reviewed
and may be categorized into four main parts, which are:
1) General appreciation of corner effect: Previous studies on the general
observation on corner effect were reviewed. Further, the traditional
approximate methods, such as the axisymmetric method to understand the 3D
behaviour of an excavation were presented.
30
2) The quantification of corner effect: It was clear from the review that although
3D corner effect is recognized and intuitively considered in design, there was
very little, if any, understanding on how to quantify this effect. The first
quantification method, the PSR ratio method to quantify corner effect is
reviewed and examined for its advantages and validity. It was shown that this
method is innovative, but has limitation due to the difficulty to directly compare
2D and 3D FEM results.
3) The corner effect influence range: Numerous site observation and case studies
on corner effects were presented. It was found that the influence range
observed in the field were within 2 times depth of excavation. However, the
range predicted solely from FEM analyses were higher than those observed in
the field.
4) Factors influencing corner effect: Various factors, which may influence the
characteristics of corner effects, were reviewed. These include the excavation
width and length, the soil strength and strata-formation, the strutting and the
excavation configuration effects.
31
Chapter 3 Development of 3D In-Flight Excavator and Centrifuge Model Tests
CHAPTER 3
DEVELOPMENT OF 3D IN-FLIGHT EXCAVATOR AND
CENTRIFUGE MODEL TESTS
3.1 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF 3D IN-FLIGHT EXCAVATOR
In the present study, an in-flight excavator capable of modelling 3D excavation was
developed. The Tokyo Institute of Technology’s (TIT) (Kimura et al., 1993, 1994) in-
flight excavator has provided much inspiration for the design. The main design criteria
for the 3D in-flight excavator was to allow for proper preparation of soil and its
associated transducers in the laboratory floor, and then the excavator set-up can be
mounted separately to excavate soil in 100-g environment. The proper soil sample
preparation, precision control of excavation mechanism, and careful acquisition of data
are paramount to obtained realistic and accurate data, which is critical for data
interpretation and final in-depth mechanics study. The main objective of the current
study was to gain a better understanding on the fundamental aspect of 3D behaviour of
an excavation. Hence, the approach of the experimental set-up was thus focus on the
establishment of an elementary set-up with most typical and simple excavation
configuration, to ensure accurate interpretation can be carried out subsequently. Thus,
the excavator set-up was based on un-braced excavation, with a right angle corner to
provide simple yet useful data to capture the salient features of 3D effects in an
excavation. However, to ensure that the bracing effect can be included in further study,
the set-up has provision of headroom above the in-flight excavator to cater for bracing
installation. This is an improvement over the TIT’s in-flight excavator where no
headroom is provided and the bracing effect was studied by providing tieback to
retaining wall (Kimura et al., 1993, 1994).
32
The author carried out the complete designs, and the fabrication of the excavator set-up
was carried out by a local professional workshop with extensive experience on
centrifuge model set-up.
The excavator set-up consists of two main parts: a detachable lift-shaft and a watertight
centrifuge container, as shown in Fig. 3.1. Figs. 3.2a and b illustrate the various
components of the excavator, such as the detachable lift-shaft, water tight centrifuge
container, Stepper Motor 1, Stepper Motor 2, linear rails, scraper platform, soil retaining
gate. During 1-g and high-g consolidation of soil samples, the detachable lift-shaft was
replaced by a detachable sidewall. The Stepper Motor 1, which is mounted on top of
the centrifuge container, is also detachable and will only be assembled before the final
re-consolidation and excavation period. This provides headroom on the centrifuge
container for surcharge loading to be applied in 1-g consolidation of sample. The
scraper and the soil-retaining gate are mounted on the scraper platform. The vertical
movement of the scraper and soil-retaining gate is synchronised and the top of the gate
is always 1mm lower than the edge of the cutting blade. This is to enable the scraper
to scrape the soil into the lift-shaft for later disposal and ensure that the soil below the
excavation is confined. The vertical movement of the scraper platform is controlled by
Stepper Motor 1 through a bevel gears and precision ball screw system. This stepper
motor has a 1:30 ratio gearbox and can provide a torque of up to 400N.m at 300 RPM.
Stepper Motor 2 powers the horizontal movement of the scraper through a timing belt
and precision ball screw system. This motor which is smaller, has a 1:8 gear-box and
can provide a torque of up to 12N.m at 300 RPM. The vertical and horizontal
movements are guided by two linear rails. Commands to control the motors are sent
33
via personal computers located in the remote control room through a pair of
indexers/drivers mounted on-board of the centrifuge. The excavation process is pre-
programmable but can also be controlled interactively using on-line commands. The
3D in-flight excavator scrapes soil at an accurately controlled speed and movement.
Table 3.1 shows the characteristic of the scraping mechanism.
Fig. 3.3 shows the schematic representation of the 3D in-flight excavator set-up on
National University of Singapore (NUS) centrifuge machine. References on NUS
centrifuge machine were presented elsewhere (Lee et al., 1991, 1992; Thanadol, 2002).
During the commissioning stage for the excavator, it was found that by locating the
indexers/drivers in the control room, which also housed the data-acquisition and video
system, the indexers/drivers generate electrical noise which interfered with the low
intensity transducers’ and video’s signals. The interference was so severe that the in-
flight miniature camera failed to transmit viewable image to the control room, which is
paramount for the monitoring of the centrifuge operation of the centrifuge. This
problem also happens in other centrifuge experiments by fellow researchers using
electrical stepper motor. Through some trial and error and troubleshooting, it was
found that by arranging the indexers/drivers on-board the centrifuge arm (Fig. 3.4), the
signal noise is reduced very significantly. To enable the indexer/drivers to be mounted
on board and subjected to high-g force, the internal parts of the indexers/drivers were
strengthened carefully and extensively by silicone sealant (Fig. 3.5). The
indexers/drivers were then mounted on the centrifuge arm, at an available space nearest
to the centrifuge rotating shaft (400mm from the shaft), so as to minimise the
centrifugal force experienced by the indexers/drivers.
34
The 3D in-flight excavator developed is able to model approximately excavation for a
corner of a cofferdam (Fig. 3.6). The size of the excavation is 170mm width x 155mm
length in plan, modelling a 17.0m x 15.5m prototype corner excavation in a 100-g field
(refer Section 2.2 for the concept of centrifuge –g field). The centrifuge container has
a width of 435mm and a length of 435mm, simulating an area of research of 43.5m x
43.5m.
Another achievement of the in-flight excavator developed in the current study was its
transformation features. When mounted on a narrow container, a 2D excavation
problem can be simulated with the same excavator in the centrifuge (Fig. 3.7). This is a
very important feature which allow the 2D versus 3D behaviour of an excavation be
captured using the same excavator, minimizing unwanted complication if different
excavators, or set-up were used. This allows the comparative study on the 2D and 3D
behaviour be carried out and the 3D effect can be highlighted easily. This is important
in the current study. Other information about this 3D in-flight excavator can be found
in the earlier publication by the author (Loh et al., 1998).
3.2 EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
The method and procedures for carrying out 2D and 3D in-flight excavation tests in the
centrifuge are described below.
3.2.1 The Model Retaining Wall
Model retaining walls are prepared prior to any centrifuge test. Two types of materials
were used in this study to make the model retaining walls. In the initial stage of the
experiment, a micro-concrete (concrete mortar) wall (Fig. 3.8) was prepared by casting
35
sand and cement paste mixture into a smooth L-shape perspex mould. The
reinforcement of the wall was two layers of 2mm thick square wire mesh. With this
method, it was very difficult to cast a wall thinner than 10mm, in which the stiffness
(EI) is equivalent to a 1m thick concrete wall in the field if the experiment is conducted
at 100-g. On site, diaphragm walls are generally 0.6m to 1.2m thick. For sheet pile or
contiguous bored pile walls, the stiffness is usually less. Hence, the mortar wall can
only model a wall where the stiffness is on the high side of that used in practice. Thus,
in the second stage, aluminium alloy walls were used (Fig. 3.9). This material was
chosen as it is light but relatively strong. This minimised the possibility of its sinking
excessively during consolidation and disturbed the soil condition. The thicknesses of
these walls were 3mm and 1mm, which modelled stiffness equivalent to 430mm and
140mm thick concrete walls respectively, or 500mm x 225mm x 28mm and 400mm x
75mm x 8mm (width x height x thickness) U-type steel sheet pile wall respectively at
prototype scale under 100-g.
The size of the L-shaped model retaining wall was 170mm wide x 155mm long,
modelling a 17.0m panel joined perpendicularly to a 15.5m panel in prototype scale.
The two walls were welded together at right angles. This was intended to simulate a
corner of a rectangular wall in an actual excavation. The edges of the retaining wall
and the edges of the wall and soil in this region were therefore allowed to slide along
the side wall or perspex wall (Fig. 3.10).
Miniature total stress transducers (TSTs; Entran EPL Series) were attached, using
flexible silicone rubber on the model retaining wall. These transducers were used to
capture lateral earth pressures acting on the wall. The sizes of TSTs were 5mm wide x
36
10mm long x 1mm thick. TSTs were installed in front and behind the excavation, at
different distances from the corner. The location of the TSTs will be presented in the
individual test report in the next chapter. Twenty-one sets of strain gages (SG) have
also been installed on the model retaining wall to measure vertical and lateral bending
moments at various locations along the wall (Fig. 3.11). The edges of the model walls
were carefully grounded and rubber seals were glued on the edges to ensure that the
edges were watertight during the excavation test.
3.2.2 Soil Sample Preparation
One of the biggest advantages in centrifuge testing is the ability to prepare a well-
controlled soil profile with known properties. For this purpose, remoulded soil sample
was used. The preparation of the clay is carried out by combinations of consolidating
the soil sample through surcharge loading in 1-g environment first and then by self-
weight in high-g centrifugal field. These two-stage consolidation processes were
designed to produce a layer of over-consolidated (OC) soil at the ground surface
overlying normally consolidated (NC) clay. This type of soil profile is more common
in the field, especially in Singapore (Chong et al., 1998).
Kaolin clay was chosen in this study because of its high permeability also because its
physical properties are similar to soft clay. The high permeability will reduce
consolidation time considerably, a major consideration as centrifuge time is at a
premium in NUS. This clay has been used substantially for centrifuge model ground
preparation for excavation related studies, both in NUS (Loh et al., 1998; Thanadol
2002) and other research centres (Philips, 1986; Kimura et al., 1993). The properties of
kaolin clay used are given in Table 3.2. The model ground preparation in this study is
37
similar to that adopted by Kimura et al. (1993) and Thanadol (2002). The kaolin clay
was first remoulded to a water content of at least 1.5 times the liquid limit. A 100-litre
capacity clay mixer was used for remoulding the clay to uniform slurry. The
remoulded clay was then transported to a vacuum chamber for de-airing for 2 days to
expel air bubbles from the clay slurry and ensure a saturated soil model.
The clay sample inside the centrifuge model container is normally left for self-weight
consolidation on the laboratory floor for 2 or 3 days prior to surcharging using loading
plate. This is to let the top layer of the clay to gain some strength, which though small,
is important to prevent the clay from flowing out from around the edges of the loading
plate.
After the self-weight consolidation, a layer of geotextile was laid on the soil sample.
The loading plate was carefully lowered onto the soil surface. Linear variable
displacement transducers (LVDTs) were then attached onto the loading plate to monitor
the settlement of the soil sample through a data logger. The sample is consolidated for
14 days until at least 95% degree of consolidation was achieved.
Two types of soil samples were prepared for this study. The first sample consists of
normally consolidated (NC) soil of approximately 240mm thick overlain a thin layer of
over-consolidated (OC) soil achieved by a surcharge loading of 20kPa. The second
sample consists of highly OC soil achieved by applying surcharge of 230kPa. Fig.
3.12 shows the schematic representation of the OCR profiles obtained from the different
soil samples after the centrifuge consolidation described below.
38
Druck PDCR81 pore pressure transducers (PPTs) installed in the clay samples were
used to monitor the pore pressure and consolidation behaviour of the clay during
centrifuge tests. For NC clay, where relatively lower surcharge pressure was applied,
PPTs were installed into the clay sample after the 1-g consolidation. This is to ensure
that the clay has obtained enough strength to support the PPTs during the subsequent
centrifugal consolidation. On the other hand, in the preparation of OC clay, PPTs were
installed before applying the final step of pneumatic pressure. The gaps formed during
the PPTs installation will closed up after applying the final surcharge pressure of
230kPa. Before inserting into the soil samples, the PPTs were saturated by submerged
under water and de-aired by boiling (Fig. 3.13). To insert PPTs into the soil sample,
the location for the PPTs were first determined. A miniature auger was then used to
bore a channel at the determined location on the soil sample. The PPT was then
inserted into the channel using a guilder (Fig. 3.14). To replace the soil bored out using
the miniature auger, the channel is then filled up with clay slurry. Typically, more than
ten miniature PPTs were installed behind the model retaining wall at different locations
in each clay model.
When the soil sample had achieved at least 95% average degree of consolidation under
1-g applied pressure, the soil sample was transported to centrifuge for second stage of
consolidation using centrifugal force. During this process, clay sample was always
maintained saturated by providing a thin layer of water on top of the model ground
surface. To prevent excessive evaporation due to long hour of centrifugal spinning, a
thin layer of oil is sprayed on the surface of the water before the centrifuge
consolidation.
39
A water standpipe fitted with solenoid valve was mounted at the bottom of the model
container to allow bottom drainage through the sand layer place below the clay sample.
If soil sample modelling one way drainage condition was required, the solenoid valve
will be shut after the desired degree of consolidation was achieved. The soil was then
further consolidated for a few hours to achieve equilibrium under one way drainage
condition.
In the centrifuge consolidation, the degree of consolidation was monitored by measuring
the surface settlement of the clay sample and pore pressure dissipation inside the clay.
The conventional hyperbolic plot method (Tan et al., 1991) was used to predict the
ultimate settlement of the clay. With these final readings known, the degree of
consolidation of the clay during consolidation could then be reasonably predicted.
This centrifuge consolidation was stopped when the clay sample achieved an average
degree of consolidation of at least 95%.
3.2.3 Centrifuge Model Container Preparation
The centrifuge model container was assembled while mixing and vacuuming the clay.
The centrifuge model container was made watertight to prevent water leakage during
consolidation. In order to minimise the wall friction, the container walls were first
greased and then two layers of thin polyethylene sheets with a coating of grease in
between the sheets were then wrapped around the walls. This wall lubrication method
was shown by Khoo et al. (1994) to be effective in reducing friction between concrete-
sand, steel-sand and perspex-sand interfaces in centrifuge tests. As the soil sample
used in this study was kaolin and marine clay, the above lubricating method was also
efficient in reducing wall friction in this case.
40
For preparation of a bottom drainage layer, a layer of fine silica sand, about 30mm in
thickness, was carefully laid on the base of the container. The laying of sand was
conducted under a layer of de-aired water to ensure the sand layer was always
maintained saturated. After the sand was laid, a steel plate was used to lightly compact
the sand surface. Finally, a ruler was used to level the sand surface. A water standpipe
was then installed leading from the sand layer to the pre-determined ground water level
inside the container. The de-aired clay sample was then transported from the vacuum
chamber to this centrifuge model container carefully by using a scoop conducted under
water. This soil sample was then ready for consolidation.
3.2.4 Instrumentation and Excavator Set-Up
Before the centrifuge excavation test, the consolidated soil sample was transferred to the
laboratory floor for final stage of instrumentation and excavator set-up. The
instrumented model retaining wall was first installed by slowly pushed into the
consolidated clay sample with the aid of a vertical guide. This process was conducted
very carefully to ensure that the wall was vertical and the edges flush with the side wall
and perspex wall (refer to Fig. 3.2 for the details).
In the field, it is generally known that wall installation would alter the soil stresses
around the wall (De Moor 1994, Powrie et al. 1998). In a diaphragm wall
construction, trenching prior to wall installation usually causes reduction of soil stresses
around the wall. De Moor (1994) conducted studies on diaphragm wall installation
effect using finite element analysis. He suggested that for stiff overconsolidated fine-
grained soils, the lateral earth pressure coefficient, σh’/σv’ (Ki) should be reduced to Ki
= 1.1, instead of Ko = 1.5. For the case of displacement walls, such as soldier and
41
sheet pile wall, the wall installation effect is different. Finno and Nearby (1989)
conducted field measurement and finite element analyses on sheet pile installation effect
and suggests that sheet pile installation effects tend to preload the soil before excavation
begins. The preload has a beneficial effect on the active side of the wall where the
shear stresses available to resist movement during an active loading are larger than
would have existed without the preload. On the passive side, the preload reduces the
available shear resistant compared to that which would have existed without the
preload.
For the current centrifuge experiments, the wall was push in. Hence, the wall
installation effect would be that described by Finno and Nearby (1989). However, as
the push-in is carried out in 1g, and the model is further reconsolidated in the centrifuge
to reach new equilibrium before excavation started, the wall installation effect is
expected to be less compared to that in the field.
At this stage, the perspex wall was temporary removed to allow insertion of beads and
drawing of grid lines on the front face of the clay for image processing purposes. Then,
the perspex wall was re-assembled, and the detachable side wall was replaced by the
detachable lift shaft together with Stepper Motor 1. LVDTs to measure lateral
deformations at the top of the model wall and ground surface settlement behind the wall
were installed. Finally, a layer of de-aired water was again laid on the surface of the
clay sample before the sample is transported to the centrifuge for re-consolidation.
The above procedures are conducted quickly and without delay to avoid excessive
swelling or shrinking. A typical completed set-up is shown in Fig. 3.15.
42
3.2.5 Excavation Procedures
The completed set-up was re-consolidated under 100-g for about twelve hours for the
soil to re-establish the equilibrium achieved earlier. PPTs and surface settlement
readings were again used to monitor the soil response in the re-consolidation process.
Once the soil had achieved at least 95% of average degree of consolidation, the model
excavation commenced without further stoppage of the centrifuge.
When model excavation began, Stepper motor 1, which controlled the vertical
movement of the scraper, was first activated. The scraper platform, in which the
scraper, stepper motor 2 and soil-retaining gate were mounted, was lowered so that the
cutting blade of the scraper penetrated into the soil (Fig. 3.16b). The interface between
the soil-retaining gate and the soil was properly greased to minimise friction at this
interface during motion. Stepper motor 2 was activated to pull the scraper horizontally
towards the lift-shaft. By doing so, the soil under the edge of the cutting blade was
trimmed and pushed into the base of the lift-shaft (Fig. 3.16c). The scraper platform
was then moved up again to a level slightly higher than the excavated level and then the
scraper was extended out from the lift shaft to a point very close to the front side of the
model retaining wall (Fig. 3.16a). This sequence was repeated until the final
excavation depth was achieved. For the current test, every cycle of excavation would
remove a 5mm layer of soil in 36 seconds. This would simulate a 0.5m thick
excavation in about 4 days in a prototype scale. This is quite realistic speed for a small
excavation. As the excavation stages is continuous, the soil is consolidating when the
readings are taken. To enable the parametric studies be carried out for various tests,
the speed of excavation of all the tests were maintained the same.
43
The soil-retaining gate facing the soil is thoroughly lubricated with grease to minimize
friction. However, it is still likely that the movement of the soil-retaining gate would
affect to the soil in front of it. This would likely affect the passive earth pressure there.
However, the model retaining wall is located at 15.5m away from the soil-retaining
gate. For excavation depth within 5m, the distance of the wall from the soil retaining
gate is more than 3 times the depth of excavation. Hence, the soil friction at the soil-
retaining gate effect to the movement of the retaining wall and retained soil behind it
should be insignificant.
3.3 THE CONDITIONS OF IN-FLIGHT EXCAVATION TESTS
The above in-flight excavation test modelled the following conditions:
3.3.1 Area Modelled in the Experiments
The size of the model container for 2D in-flight excavation test at 100g is 155mm width
by 435mm long, simulating an area of research of 15.5m x 43.5m in prototype scale.
For 3D in-flight excavation test at 100g, the size of the model container is 435mm width
by 435mm (Fig. 3.6), simulating an area of research of 43.5m x 43.5m in prototype
scale.
For both 2D and 3D tests, the size of the actual area of excavation in plan view is
155mm width x 170mm length. For 2D excavation, the above excavation area covered
the entire width of the centrifuge container, hence simulating a plane strain excavation.
For 3D excavation, the excavation area occupies one corner of the strong box, thus
simulating a 17.0m x 15.5m prototype corner excavation (Fig. 3.6).
44
This size of the container and the excavator set-up is limited by the space available on
the centrifuge platform. From previous studies (Wei 1998), the surface settlement
behind the excavation, which is a measure of the effect due to excavation, generally
diminished after a D/h (distance from the edge of the excavation/excavation depth) ratio
of 2.0. In this study, the minimum distance from the container boundary to the back of
the excavation is 265mm, or 26.5m in prototype scale. This provides a D/h of more
than 2.5 for up to 10m of excavation. Hence, the size of model container used in the
present study is deemed adequate to minimise the boundary effects of the container and
to ensure that enough space is provided to capture the entire excavation behaviour.
3.3.2 Fixities and Water Table Boundary Conditions
The four sides of the centrifuge strong box are flat, smooth and rigid, with proper
greasing (refer to Section 3.2.3) to minimise friction, thus providing effective lateral
restraint, making such boundary conditions easy to simulate in a finite element analysis.
The solid side walls and base of the container also provides impervious boundaries with
no ground water recharge. The soil sample was always maintained saturated and the
ground water table was slightly above the ground surface before and during model
excavation.
For 2D and 3D tests, the edges of retaining wall are sealed with rubber membrane and
silicone grease to prevent water from seeping through the side of the wall. For 2D test,
the retaining wall also straddles across the entire container ensuring that the wall will
deform in a plane strain manner. For 3D test, the edges of the retaining wall were
placed perpendicular to the container wall and allow sliding and rotating slightly against
the container wall. As such, this modelling is not a true modelling of a quadrant of a
45
bi-symmetric excavation, where the edges would then have zero slopes at the mid-
points. A more detail discussion on this boundary condition and its limitation is
presented in Chapter 4.
3.4 METHODOLOGY OF TEST
In order to highlight the 3D effect of an excavation, a series of 2D in-flight excavation
tests, using the same set-up and configuration as described in Section 3.1 above were
first conducted. Subsequently, a number of 3D excavations were conducted to highlight
the 3D effect through parametric studies. The parametric studies conducted are
described in the following sub-sections.
3.4.1 Parametric Study on the Effect of Wall Stiffness
The lateral bending stiffness of retaining wall provided by corner restraint acts as an
additional support to restrict wall movement. In order to highlight this effect, 2D in-
flight excavation tests, which are free from such lateral bending stiffening effect, were
conducted and compared to the results of 3D in-flight excavation tests. Subsequently,
model retaining walls with different thickness were used for 2D and 3D in-flight
excavation tests to further evaluate the effect of lateral bending stiffness of walls, and its
influence on the 3D behaviour.
3.4.2 Parametric Study on the Effect of Capping Beam
In the field, capping beam is generally restrained at the corner. The capping beam may
enhance the corner effect by providing extra lateral stiffness to the retaining wall. The
capping beam effect is generally not felt in 2D analysis. This is an important effect,
especially for the first stage of excavation, which is usually without any bracing
46
provided. However, as the effect is truly due to a corner, this has not been studied
specifically before. In this study, the capping beam effect in a 3D excavation is
investigated.
3.4.3 Parametric Study on Influence of Geotechnical Effect to 3D Corner Effect
The behaviour of an excavation is very much dependent on the geotechnical aspect of
an excavation, such as the soil strength, type of soil and depth of excavation. To
investigate these geotechnical aspects, comparative test on tests with marine clay and
stiff highly over-consolidated Kaolin clay soil sample are investigated. This
comparison is a basic first step to gain more insight on the geotechnical effect in this
interesting topic.
More detail discussions on the planning of the parametric studies are presented in
Chapter 4.
47
Chapter 4 Experimental Results And Discussions
CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
For the centrifuge tests carried out in this research, in-flight excavations were carried
out to ensure more realistic simulation of prototype excavation. The results aim to
offer a glimpse of the excavation behaviour around a corner under fairly simple
boundary and initial conditions. The advantage is that this approach will facilitate a
thorough interpretation of the results, which cannot be achieved from a much more
complex problem. One particular point that stands out from the tests carried out in this
research is the fact that no bracing is provided. The main reason is that this is very
complicated to simulate in-flight bracing during a centrifuge test. However, what is
important to recognise is that in any excavation, the very first stage is usually an
excavation without any bracing. In practice, for ease of construction and to expedite the
excavation, many engineers would attempt to carry out this first stage as quickly as
possible. Thus, besides providing a better understanding of the effect of corner, the
tests are also useful to understand the first unbraced stage of an excavation. The effect
of providing a ground capping beam, especially in cases where diaphragm wall is used,
is an important consideration. Attention is also paid to this point in the present study.
4.1.1 Initial Conditions of Tests
As described in Chapter 3 (Sections 3.2.4 and 3.2.5), after the model retaining wall was
installed, various transducers would be installed into the soil model, and then the whole
set-up, including the in-flight excavator would be spun again at 100-g. This process is to
reconsolidate the soil sample to allow it to reach equilibrium again. This
48
reconsolidation process is monitored via pore pressure transducers (PPTs) and vertical
linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) installed on the soil surface.
The LVDTs and PPTs readings are captured real-time. The hyperbolic method (Tan et
al., 1991) is used to analyse the LVDTs readings to provide an accurate estimate of the
expected ultimate settlement. A typical surface settlement versus time plot and its
associated hyperbolic plot for Test 3DK-3 are shown in Fig. 4.1 and 4.2 respectively.
The reconsolidation is considered sufficient when the soil reached at least an average
consolidation ratio of 95%.
4.1.2 Soil Characterization
Soil characterisation tests are important to establish the conditions of the soil sample
prior to the tests and to provide verification of the intended parametric configuration.
In the initial stage of the experiments, characterization tests on soil were conducted
immediately after completion of model testing at 1g. It should be recognised that
characterization tests at 1g may not reflect the actual initial condition of the test due to
soil swelling upon spun down of the centrifuge.
Much of the experimental works described in this thesis were conducted before the in-
flight CPT and T-bar apparatus were introduced in the National University of Singapore
(NUS) centrifuge. Hence, at that time, as an interim solution, in a later stage of the
experiments, a controlled soil sample, with exactly identical preparation procedures as
the actual test is used solely for the purpose of soil characterisation. As no
experimental set-up is attached to this control sample, intensive characterization tests
49
can be carried on this control model immediately after it is spun down to provide a more
accurate picture of the initial condition. Two soil properties were measured.
The soil characterisation tests carried out in this series of centrifuge tests are:
a) water content test to determine the water content profile with depth and
b) 1-g laboratory vane shear test to estimate undrained shear strength (Cu) profile
with depth.
These tests are not as good as in-flight CPT and T-bar tests as the soil would swell
during spinning down and tests carried out in 1-g would not represent the in-flight soil
parameters.
A minimum of three tests were conducted at the same depth and the average water
content and Cu values were taken. The vane shear method was used to measure the
undisturbed shear strength of very soft, fine grain soil (Bowles, 1996) in the present
study. A typical Cu and density profile (estimated from the water content test) plot of
the soil samples are shown in Figs. 4.3. As expected, the Cu of the model ground
increases with depth, from 7 kPa to 27 kPa from 4m to 24m depth below ground level.
Ladd and Foott (1974) and Trak et al. (1980) proposed that the Cu of a normally
consolidated or lightly over consolidated clay could be estimated by the relationship:
Cu
= 0.22 (4.1)
P' v
where P’v is the effective vertical stress of soil. The Cu versus depth profile estimated
based on Equation (4.1) was also plotted on Fig. 4.3 for comparison, and found to be
generally in agreement with the Cu profile measured by vane shear tests.
50
4.1.3 Prototype Modelled and Other Consideration
The dimension and set-up of the centrifuge model container was discussed in Section
3.1 (Chapter 3). It is to note that at the edge of the model retaining wall (refer to Fig.
4.4), the edges were allowed to slide and rotate slightly against the boundary wall.
As such, this modelling is not a true modelling of a quadrant of a bi-symmetric
excavation, where the edges would then have zero slope at the mid-points. As the main
focus of this study is to investigate an excavation about a corner, to provide a better
understanding of how the presence of a corner affects the behaviour away from it, this
limitation at the edges is not deemed to be an error. Because of the complexity of this
class of problems, this test in a centrifuge is, to author’s awareness the first in the world.
Thus the understanding arrived at is a crucial first step towards a better understanding of
the behaviour of a three dimensional (3D) excavation.
The 3D model retaining wall is made of two flat aluminium alloy plates butt-welded
perpendicular to each other. One of the concerns of this L-shape wall is that it may
result in a slight rotation during excavation with the pivot at the corner (Fig. 4.4). As
the wall used is thin, this rotation, if any, is unlikely to be significant. To check this, in
one of the tests, Test 3DK-2, a LVDT is installed on another plane of the retaining wall.
The results of LVDTs installed at difference planes are shown in Fig. 4.5. This plot
shows that the lateral wall movement is largely symmetrical, and very little rotation has
taken place. Thus to optimise the layout of the instrumentation and to prevent
cluttering of the space above the ground surface, the displacement transducers in the
experiments were installed at the plane parallel to the perspex window only. This
minimise the numbers of such transducers needed while providing space for installation
of other transducers.
51
4.2 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF 3D EXCAVATION BEHAVIOUR
Excavation model tests including in-flight excavation in a centrifuge is difficult,
complex and very time consuming. Thus careful planning of the tests to be conducted
is essential so as to minimise the number of tests needed, while ensuring adequate data
were collected on the various aspects associated with deep excavation. Key issues that
need to be considered is this specific research include the difference between plane-
strain (basis of most finite element method analysis) and three-dimensional (3D), and
stiffness of the wall (vary through use of different thickness). In all the 3D cases
except for one, the effect of the presence of a ground capping beam is included through
the provision of a protruded wall.
These tests, their codes and the meaning of the alphabets used in the code are given in
Table 4.1. A chart showing how each test is placed in relation to other conducted is
shown in Fig. 4.6.
In the discussion in this section, the 3D in-flight excavation test with a 2mm thick
model retaining wall, with normally consolidated Kaolin clay as soil model, test label
3DK-2c is used as a basis to provide a general description of the observed behaviour in
a typical excavation around a corner.
The locations of the linear variable displacement transducers (LVDT) to measure the
surface settlements, vertical and horizontal strain gages (SG) to measure the bending
moment of the model retaining wall, and total stress transducers (TST) installed on the
model retaining wall are shown in Figs. 4.7a and b. As can be observed, a
52
comprehensive instrumentation plan was devised, to optimise the efforts needed for
such a complex test.
4.2.1 Characteristics of Surface Settlement and Wall deflection
The surface settlements at various locations behind the retaining wall during the
progress of excavation are shown in Fig. 4.8. This plot of surface settlement responses
is typical of all the 3D tests conducted in this study. The surface settlement profiles
behind the model retaining wall at 3.5m, 9.1m and 14.5m distances from the corner at
various stages of excavation are shown in Figs. 4.9a to c. The graphs clearly shows
that along a line perpendicular to the wall, the surface settlement is a maximum near the
retaining wall (nearest point measured was 3m behind the wall), and reduces rapidly
away from the wall. To give a broad idea on how this settlement compared to general
ballpark figure and trend, the settlement results at 2m and 4m excavation are plotted
together with 2D tests results carried out in this study (Figs. 4.10a and b). Results
provided by Peck (1969) based on a braced retaining wall system was also plotted on
the same graph as a yardstick. The graphs show that the settlements in 3D tests are
significantly smaller than those from 2D tests. It is also shown that the figure proposed
by Peck (1969) is much smaller than both the 2D and 3D results captured in the
experiments conducted. This is because the experimental results are for unbraced
excavation, while Peck’s results are based on braced excavation.
The surface settlement readings presented above are plotted against distance from the
corner, as shown in Fig. 4.11. Within a distance of 9m from the corner, it is shown that
surface settlements both at 3m and 7m behind wall section decrease as distance from the
corner reduces. Beyond 9m from the corner, the ground settlement becomes almost
53
constant. It is of general perception that the corner effect would extend to only a certain
distance from corner. Hence, the fact that the surface settlements observed in this test
become constant at 9m from corner raised a question whether the presence of a corner
has ceased to be felt beyond 9m. If not, what does this nearly “constant movement
zone” means and how is it related to 2D condition? This issue will be dealt in greater
depth in Chapter 5.
Visual inspection of the retaining wall after the tests revealed that in this particular test
with a 2mm thick model wall, the wall had yielded and deformed permanently. The
yielding point was observed to be at a section about 7 to 10m distance away from the
corner. Hence, it is likely that the “constant movement zone” observed above is caused
by the yielding of the plate, and it is quite clear that its behaviour is not the same as that
in a plane strain condition, where the latter would not have any lateral interaction at all.
As the boundary walls were greased extensively (Section 3.2.3) as per a proven method
proposed by Khoo et al. (1994), the friction against the container boundary wall is
unlikely to caused the yielding. Hence, it is interesting to investigate how the lateral
yielding occurs in such corner excavation and how it influences the excavation
behaviour. Also, it is crucial to investigate the behaviour under such a condition, as
compared with 3D excavation with an elastic wall and 2D excavation under a plane
strain condition. Further discussion on this important topic is presented in the coming
section on comparative study with two-dimensional (2D) tests.
What is also interesting is the fact that at 3m away from the wall, the settlement profile
changes dramatically away from the corner, but at 7m away from the wall, the changes
is very minimal except for the case of excavation to 5m depth. What is significant about
54
this observation is that the 3D effect, as represented by the corner is very significant
when near field (relative to the corner) settlement is examined, but not as significant
when far field (relative to the corner) settlement is concerned. In the case of an
unbraced excavation as in this test, up to 5m-excavation, at a distance of 7m away, this
corner effect is already not a major consideration.
For better illustration of the overall surface settlement profile, the above surface
settlement readings are plotted as contours (Fig. 4.12) using the commercial software
Surfer (Golden Software, Inc, 1997). The contour lines are interpolated from the
measured readings. A 6m reference line behind wall is also plotted for easy reference.
It is shown that at 2m-excavation, beyond a distance of 5m from the wall, the surface
settlement is virtually independent of distances from corner, with the settlement contour
nearly parallel to the retaining wall. The maximum settlement is about 0.18m. Even at
this early stage, the presence of a corner in an excavation begins to have different effect
on different regions behind the retaining wall. Close to the wall, the impact is felt, with
the settlement reducing from 0.18m furthest away to about 0.11m at 4m away and
presumably reducing to even smaller value when very near to the corner.
At 4m-excavation, the surface settlement contours become denser, an indication that
changes both along and away from the wall have become more pronounced. Clearly,
the extent of the effect of corner also spreads. Up to a distance of 6m away from the
wall, the settlement increases rapidly as distance from the corner increases. However,
beyond 8m, again the contour is nearly parallel to the wall, indicating that the presence
of the corner is not felt here.
55
At 7m-excavation, the surface settlement contours clearly indicate that the effect of
corner is now felt everywhere. The massive settlement observed means that the
excavation has failed. Thus what these three figures has shown is that the effect of
corner is also very much related to the depth of excavation, besides its distance away
from the corner. Though the presence of a corner is felt instantly, the extent of this
impact increases with depth of excavation. This is a logical development. With
increasing excavation, the imbalance in load increases while the overall stiffness of the
entire support system decreases. Under such a situation, any stiffening, such as the
presence of a corner, will be called more and more into effect. The relationship of the
extent of corner effect to depth of excavation is investigated in more detail in Chapter 5.
By using the still image capturing and processing technique, the wall deflection profiles
of the model retaining wall abutting the perspex window of the test are obtained (Fig.
4.13). The graph shows that the deflection of the wall looks very similar to that for a
typical cantilever wall in a 2D plane strain excavation. At 18m depth, the deflection is
very small. The soil in this test is soft normally consolidated clay with undrained shear
strength (Cu) ranges from 7 kPa to 27 kPa at the toe of wall (Fig. 4.3). Even though
the wall is “floating” within this soft clay, the wall deflection near the toe is near zero.
This indicates that the wall embedment is sufficient. Hence, the toe of the wall could
be considered approximately as a fixed end, this particular observation will be used later
in Chapter 5 for derivation of an approximate solution to calculate wall deflection under
certain loading and boundary conditions.
56
Due to limitations of the imaging systems at the time when these tests were conducted,
the accuracy is estimated to be about 1mm (equivalent to 0.1m prototype). This wall
deflection data is not accurate enough for use in the mechanics study.
As discussed in Chapter 2, a key advantage in centrifuge modelling compared to actual
field studies is the control over model parameters, soil profiles and properties, and
excavation sequences. This advantage enables more in-depth parametric studies be
carried out to obtain better insight into the mechanics. One particularly significant
advantage is the ability to study the movement induced during each excavation stage,
from the time the scraper starts scrapping the soil (scraper nearest to retaining wall), to
the time the scraper finish the scrapping (150mm from retaining wall). Fig. 4.14 shows
a schematic sketch of this typical scraping process. In this scrapping stage, only the
soil response to the scrapping is captured. What is very useful about this is that it
allows a more direct cross comparison of various parameters of interest at each and
every stage of excavation. When accumulated values are used and if the construction
process is not neatly sequenced, as is the case with most field studies, it is difficult to
compare the results from different parametric studies as any induced movement is due
to increase in imbalance of loads and resulting decrease in overall system’s stiffness,
both due to removal of soil on the passive side of the retaining wall. The principal
reason is that after the first stage of excavation, it is very difficult to apportion the
subsequent accumulated measurements to these different effects. The use of
incremental results, due solely to the excavation process at each depth, will allow a
comparison for example of the composite overall system’s stiffness at that depth of
excavation as a result of changes to certain parameters in the test (at the same depth of
excavation, there is same amount of load imbalance). Such incremental behaviour is
57
possible only in centrifuge tests equipped with appropriate instrumentation. This
method was used by fellow researcher (Thanadol 2002) in deep excavation related
studies to establish the mechanism of embedded soil berm in an excavation.
The incremental surface settlement of a single scrapping operation at various stages of
excavation for the series of LVDTs at 7m behind wall and various distance to the corner
(x) are shown in Figs. 4.15a to c. The excavation from 0.5m to 1.0m, 1.5m to 2.0m,
2.5m to 3.0m and 3.5 to 4.0m were denote as 1m exc, 2m exc, 3m exc, 4m exc and 5m
exc respectively in the graphs. The graphs shown that the settlement developed were
larger at the initial stage of scrapping, and the rate of increase in settlement gradually
slowed down when the scraper moves away from the wall. The graphs also show that
the magnitude of incremental settlement increases according to the increase in
excavation depth. For instance, in Fig. 5.15a which is x = 3.5m, it was shown that the
settlement at the end of scrapping (ultimate incremental settlement) gradually increased
from about 0.0015m when excavating from to 1m exc, to about 0.0080m at 5m exc.
LVDTs at x = 9.1m and 14.5m (Figs 5.15b and c) show similar trend, except that the
magnitude of incremental settlement were consistently larger than that at x = 3.5m.
This increase of incremental settlement according to the increase of excavation depth is
expected as excavation proceeds, the imbalance in load increases while the overall
stiffness of the entire support system decreases hence widen the net imbalance. To
highlight the different behaviour at various sections from corner, the incremental
settlement at at x = 3.5m, 9.1m and 14.5m, at the same stage of excavation depth were
plotted (Fig. 4.16). In these graphs, the settlements were normalized by dividing it with
the ultimate incremental settlement at the section x = 14.5m (furthest from corner), for
better comparison. The normalization factors are shown in the graphs. From the graphs
58
(Figs. 4.16 a to d), which are for 1m to 4m exc, it was shown that the incremental
settlement at the section nearest to corner, that is, at x = 3.5m is always smaller than that
at sections x = 9.1m and 14.5m. The ultimate incremental settlement at excavation 1m
to 4m exc at x = 3.5m are always about 60% of that at x = 9.1m and 14.5m. This is
expected as the corner restraint are more pronounced nearer to corner, hence its
influence to the composite overall stiffness at section nearer to corner are larger. What
is more interesting is the fact that the incremental settlements at sections x = 9.1m and x
= 14.5m were almost identical. This suggests that the resultant “composite overall
system stiffness” at these sections are quite similar, and the corner effects felt at these
sections are about the same. To better illustrate the characteristics of incremental
settlement with the development of excavation depth, the ultimate incremental
settlement are plotted against the excavation stages (Fig. 4.17). The graph shows that
the incremental movement at each stage of scrapping is increasing almost linearly with
depth of excavation, indicating a linear net difference between the increase in imbalance
load and the decrease in system composite stiffness. The above presentation of
incremental movement study is means for general appreciation of this method. More
investigations using this method on parametric studies to carry out more in-depth
investigation on factors influencing 3D corner effect are carried out. This is discussed
in greater detail in the subsequent sections.
4.2.2 Characteristics of Lateral Earth Pressure on Retaining Wall
The lateral earth pressures on the model retaining wall are measured by total stress
transducers (TST) installed on the front (passive) and rear (active) sides of the wall
(refer Section 3.2.1 for detail). The cumulative changes of the lateral earth pressures
corresponding to different depths of excavation are shown in Fig. 4.18. This shows that
59
the lateral earth pressures on both the active and passive sides decrease with the
progress of excavation. The decrease of lateral earth pressures at the passive side is
largely attributed to the loss of earth in front of the excavation. On the other hand, as
the soil behind the wall is retained, the decrease of lateral earth pressures on the active
side is largely attributed to the mechanical soil movement, reducing the stress state from
a K o condition to K a − active (active state) condition.
To better reflect the lateral earth pressures (P) response due to ground movement, the
P
coefficient of lateral earth pressure, K = with depth of excavation is plotted (Fig.
γy
4.19a). The total stress K term is the total earth pressure measured in the experiment
and includes water pressure. γ is the total unit weight of the soil, which is about 16.0
kN/m3 (Fig. 4.3). At the active side, y is taken as the depth of the sensor from the
original ground level before excavation. At the passive side, y is taken as the depth of
the sensor from the excavated formation level.
It is observed from Fig. 4.19a that the development of passive earth pressures at 8m and
15m from the corner, measured by TST-X13 and X11 respectively, are almost identical.
On the active side, the decrease of active earth pressure at 8m away from the corner
(TST-X12), is smaller than that at 15m away (TST-X10). This suggests that the 3D
effect is not the same on the active and passive side.
To examine approximately whether the earth pressures have reach limit states, the earth
pressures were checked against Rankine’s theory. Rankine’s theory proposed that for
cohesive soil, the active and passive earth pressures are:
60
Pactive = γ y – 2Cu (4.2)
Ppassive = γ y + 2Cu (4.3)
Based on Equations (4.2) and (4.3) above, the (P - γ y)/2Cu value shall reach ±1.0 in the
limit states. This approach was used by Tanaka (1994) and Kimura et al. (1993) in
their study to characterize earth pressure limit states in excavation.
In the current study, (P - γ y)/2Cu were calculated and plotted against the depth of
excavation (Fig. 4.19b). The terms P, γ and y were explained in the previous paragraphs.
The undrained shear strength, Cu is taken at the TST levels (8m below ground), and
from the soil characterisation tests described in the earlier Section 4.1.2 (Fig. 4.3), the
Cu is 15kPa. From the graph, it is shown that the active state is achieved at 8m (TST-
X12) and 15m (TST – X10) from corner, at excavation depth of 1.5m and 4.5m
respectively. The passive state is achieved at a relatively later stage, where both TSTs
(TST – X13 and TST – X11) at 8m and 15m from corner, achieved passive state at the
end of 5m-excavation. This confirms that the active state is achieved at smaller strain
than the passive state, consistent with the general understanding. The active and passive
earth pressures are generating imbalance load in an excavation. This imbalance load is
restrained by the wall effect. Hence, for a better understanding on excavation
behaviour, the earth pressure and the wall effects must be investigated further for a
better understanding on excavation. This is discussed further in Chapter 5.
The above results present an overview of 3D excavation behaviour and its salient
features that can only be captured from properly conducted centrifuge-modelling test.
In the following sections, parametric studies were carried out to specifically bring out
major characteristics of a corner excavation to allow in depth probing of the mechanics.
61
4.3 2D VERSUS 3D EXCAVATION BEHAVIOUR
One of the main objectives of the current study is to investigate experimentally the
differences in 2D and 3D-excavation behaviour. To achieve this objective, in addition
to 3D tests, a series of 2D tests were also conducted. These 2D tests were carried out
with the same in-flight excavator, but on a modified set-up which facilitates a 2D
excavation (see Chapter 3). The 2D tests were carried out on NC Kaolin clay soil
model, using 1mm and 3mm thick model retaining wall. The tests were labelled 2DK-1
and 2DK-3 respectively.
The surface settlement profiles behind the wall during excavation for 2D tests, 2DK-1
and 2DK-3 were plotted together with results of 3D test on wall without capping beam
(3DK-2c). If a 3D excavation is sufficiently large, far enough from the corner, the
behaviour should approach a 2D problem. Thus, for the 3D test, readings of LVDTs
furthest away from the corner, that is, 14.5m from the corner were chosen for
comparison (Fig. 4.20). It is shown that even at a distance of 14.5m away from the
corner, the settlement of the 3D test is significantly less than that of 2D tests. Thus,
this means that at that distance away from the corner, and for a relatively thin wall, the
behaviour is still not 2-D. This also suggests that the “constant movement zone”
observed earlier cannot be due to the cessation of corner effect.
The wall deflection profiles at the perspex window (17m from corner) captured using
image processor for tests described above are shown in Fig. 4.21. In the plot, the wall
deflection of the graph is divided with a Normalization Factor (NF), which is the wall
displacement at ground level, to better illustrate the deflection trend. It is noted that the
62
NF of 2D tests are a few times larger than that of 3D tests, indicating that the effect of a
corner to a 3D test at the distance of 17m is still very significant. It is shown that at the
mid depth, there is significant different in wall deflection profiles between 2D and 3D
Tests. In the graph, it is also shown that the deflection profiles in the 3D tests
extended deep below the formation level, up to about 18m deep from the ground level.
This is very much different from that in 2D tests, where the wall deflections have
mostly attenuated at a depth of about 8m from the ground level. The principal reason
for this is that in the 3D test, the deformation is due to a set of perpendicularly joined
plates. Thus in balancing the removal of soil in the passive side, the whole plate
mechanism is mobilised, unlike the 2D case where only deflection of a beam in a
vertical plane is used. This is crucial to the understanding of the characteristics of
corner excavation, and will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.
To allow more in-depth investigation into the mechanics, the incremental settlement
plot (Section 4.2.1) are carried out for the 2D and 3D tests discussed above. The
incremental settlement at various distances from corner, x = 3.5m, 9.1m and 14.5m were
shown in Figs. 4.22a, b and c respectively. In these graph, the incremental settlement
at 3 different stages, namely the excavation from 0.5m to 1.0m (1m-excavation), 1.5m
to 2.0m (2m-excavation), and 2.5m to 3.0m (3m-excavation), are presented. In these
graphs, the incremental settlements were divided by normalized values to highlight the
trend. The normalization factors were denoting as NF2D and NF3D for 2D and 3D test
respectively. For the 2D test, the normalization factors were taken as the ultimate
settlement (at end of scraping) for the corresponding stage of excavation. For 3D test,
the normalization factors were taken as the ultimate settlement at x = 14.5m (furthest
from corner), for the corresponding stage of excavation.
63
Fig. 4.22a shows that at the section nearest to corner, x = 3.5m, for up to 3m-excavation,
the 3D test (with and without wall protrusion) show movement largely developed in the
initial stage of scraping, and the movement apparently reach equilibrium earlier than
that of 2D test. In this excavation, the immediate scrapping of soil at the passive side
would create an immediate imbalance in the system, which the soil on the passive side
and the retaining wall must respond to. In the current study, as the retaining wall was
“floating” in the soft clay with undrained shear strength ranging from 17 kPa to 27 kPa,
it s expected that the soil behaviour would be more prominent in equilibrate the
imbalance. However, as the soils needs time to adjust to reach new equilibrium, it is
hence expected that there would be time lapsed after the soil immediately in front of the
retaining wall is scraped, for the movement to stabilize. In 3D test, there is another
response which would help to equilibrate the imbalance, that is, the lateral restrained of
the wall developed from the corner. As the structural (wall) response to load is much
faster than that of soil, it is hence logical that the movement at 3D test would reach
equilibrium faster than that of 2D test. It is also observed that for 3D test at sections
further from corner, namely at x = 9.1m and 14.5m, Figs. 4.22b and c show that the
graphs are almost identical to that of 2D test. This indicates that the lateral restrain
effect decreases with increasing distance from the corner, as expected.
After each stage of excavation, soil would undergo consolidation. Hence, except the
very first stage of excavation, all incremental settlement would be the results of
immediate response of soil to the excavation process, plus the consolidation effect. At
7m behind wall, it is expected that the consolidation settlement contribute significantly
to the total settlement caused by immediate scraping of soil. Hence, to capture the
64
immediate behaviour of the excavation system solely due to the excavation process, the
response of wall provides a better gauge. In this study, all the tests carried out in this
study were equipped with horizontal LVDTs mounted on wall top to monitor its
displacement, except Test 3DK-2c. Test 3DK-2c has no wall protrusion as it was
intended to simulate 3D wall without capping beam. The incremental wall top
displacement of 2D and 3D tests with capping beam, at section x = 9.1m, at 4 different
stages of excavation are plotted in Fig. 4.23a to d. Again, the incremental movements
were divided by normalized factors to highlight the trend. The normalization factors
were denoting as NF2D and NF3D for 2D and 3D test respectively. For the 2D test, the
normalization factors were taken as the ultimate settlement (at end of scraping) for the
corresponding stage of excavation. For 3D test, the normalization factors were taken as
the ultimate settlement for test 3DK-1 (thinnest wall), at x = 14.5m, for the
corresponding stage of excavation. It is shown very clearly in these graphs that at all
excavation stages, the lateral wall top displacement responded to the scraping
immediately, and reaches the ultimate movement almost immediately after the soil in
front of the retaining wall was excavated (scraper at 30m from wall). This is a clear
contrast to that of 2D test where the ultimate movement occur only when the scrapping
was almost completed (scraper at 140mm from the wall). This result confirms the
observation made in the previous paragraph that the wall restraint due to the 3D effect
helps substantially in equilibrate the imbalance, and the response to the imbalance was
much faster.
It is also noted that for all the 3D tests, while the respond time to achieve stabilization
are the same regardless of the wall thickness, the magnitude of ultimate movement of
thicker wall are consistently smaller than that of thinner wall. This shows that in these
65
series of 3D tests, the wall stiffness highly influences the composite system stiffness of
the excavation system. Correspondingly, the effect of soil parameters was suppressed.
Lee et al. (1995) reported that unstrutted excavation in soft soils could exhibit very
strong 3D effects due to corner restraint. The importance of such effects causes the 2D
analyses to be much more sensitive to soil parameters than the 3D analyses. This is in
agreement with the above experimental findings. More detail study on the wall
thickness effect on 3D behaviour of an excavation will be presented in the subsequent
sections.
Ou et al. (1996) and Lin et al. (2003) have used the concept of plane strain ratio (PSR)
to describe the effect of a corner (Section 2.3.2). In the following discussion, the idea
of PSR is adopted to compare the 3D surface settlement at various distances from corner
with that of 2D results.
As no 2D test is carried out with exactly the same thickness (2mm) as that of the 3D
test, the Test 2DK-3 (3mm wall) is selected for comparison. This test is selected
instead of Test 2DK-1 (1mm wall) because the smaller movement in this test would not
exaggerate the difference between 2D and 3D results. The surface settlements of 3D
test (3DK-2c) at various distances from corner (x) are divided by the surface settlement
of 2D test (2DK-3), at the same stage of excavation to give PSR-sett. The surface
settlements at 7m behind wall are used for this comparison. The PSR-sett against x plot
at every stages of excavation is as shown in Fig. 4.24. It is shown that the PSR-sett of
the 3D test is within 0.12 to 0.27 throughout the wall length, indicating a very
significant corner effect. In addition, the small PSR-sett value clearly indicates that a
constant settlement profile away from the corner, caused by yielding of the wall, does
66
not imply to the cessation of 3D effect. Also, the above phenomena also indicate that
the excavation in these 3D experiments is not large enough.
An immediate concern thus pops up from these observations: In the field, all excavation
is 3D in nature. Thus how large should an excavation be for 2D condition to occur and
3D (or corner effect) need not be considered? This is also discussed in Chapter 5.
4.4 RETAINING WALL THICKNESS EFFECT IN A CORNER EXCAVATION
The stiffness of retaining wall is an important factor controlling the behaviour of an
excavation. In this study, centrifuge tests were carried out to evaluate the effect of wall
stiffness in a 3D excavation. In this series of tests, except for the different model wall
thickness used, all other procedures for preparation of the models were identical. The
model retaining walls were made of aluminium alloy with thickness of 1mm, 2mm and
3mm. The stiffness of these walls are tabulated and compared with the equivalent
prototype concrete wall thickness in Table 4.1. All the walls are relatively flexible as
compared to those used in practice. The tests identification labels were 3DK-1, 3DK-2
and 3DK-3 respectively. Please refer to the summary table (Table 4.1) presented in
Section 4.3 above for description of the labels.
The broad trends of surface settlement and lateral deflection of wall top in all the three
tests are shown in Figs. 4.25 and 4.26 respectively. The results were fairly consistent,
and more importantly, indicate that the overall behaviours namely the response with
increasing excavation and response away from the corner were highly dependent on the
stiffness of the retaining wall. One useful observation is both the similarity in the
67
responses and their consistency. This is highly relevant to subsequent effort to explain
the behaviours.
The lateral displacements of wall top at various distances from the corner in these three
tests are shown in Fig. 4.27. In this plot, the maximum lateral displacement at x =
15.2m for the case when a 1mm plate is used, 0.3064m, is used to normalize the other
results. For the case with 2mm retaining wall, the wall top displacement decreases
almost linearly towards the corner. For 3mm retaining wall, only the measurement at
9.8m from corner is captured due to a technical glitch and hence the movement profile
cannot be established. This shortcoming of data is complemented by surface settlement
measurements, which will be discussed subsequently. For 1mm retaining wall, from
the corner to 10m away, the wall top displacement increases quite rapidly. Beyond
10m from the corner, there is a change in the wall displacement profiles, and the
displacement becomes nearly constant with distance from the corner. The surface
settlement results are further examined to better appreciate this observation.
The surface settlement profiles at 7m behind the retaining wall, at various distances
from corner of these tests are shown in Fig. 4.28. In this plot, the maximum surface
settlement at x = 14.5m for the case of 1mm plate, 0.1223m, is used for normalization.
All the surface settlement profiles show a slight reduction as they approach the corner
except for the case of 1mm plate with 4m-excavation. Overall, the results indicate that
at this distance away from the excavation (7m from retaining wall), the effect of the
corner is not distinctly felt. This does not mean there is no effect of the corner, that the
behaviour is 2-D. Instead, what this means is that at that distance away, the effect is
averaged out, an idea similar to St Venant’s Principle in stress concentration. The
68
characteristics of surface settlement can be seen more clearly in the surface settlement
contours of the tests (Fig. 4.29). As there were some settlements at the corner, the
settlement results were offset with the settlement at the corner to highlight the
differences with distance from the corner. In this exercise, the settlement at the corner
is taken as the intercept of surface settlement at the Y-Axis, as shown in a typical plot in
Fig. 4.30a. The offset-surface settlements versus distance from corner plots for the
tests described above are shown in Figs. 4.30b to d. These graphs show identical trend
as per the wall top displacement plots, where the 2mm and 3mm walls show an almost
linear decreasing of settlement towards the corner, while the 1mm wall show changed in
movement profile and developed a “constant movement zone” at 10m from corner.
Visual inspection of the retaining wall after the tests revealed that the 1mm wall has
yielded and deformed permanently at a section about 8m to 10m distance away from the
corner. There are no sign of yielding observed for the 2mm and 3mm walls. Hence,
the pronounced change in the movement profile above is caused largely by the yielding
of the plate. This phenomenon was also observed in Test 3DK-2c (Section 4.2.1).
Hence, it is clear that the yielding of the plate, which causes the changing shape profile
and “constant movement zone”, are also dependent on the stiffness of the plate and also
the associated flexural capacity. Clearly, this yielding in the wall and the resulting
change in the movement and settlement profiles significantly affect the behaviour of an
excavation around a corner. A more detail study on this issue will be carried out in
Chapter 5.
69
4.5 PRESENCE OF A CAPPING BEAM IN A 3D EXCAVATION
In the field, a capping beam is usually constructed to bind panels of wall, or contiguous
pile together such that the panel/pile can act together as a contiguous retaining wall.
The capping beam is usually designed as a continuous beam, with stiffness (thickness of
beam) much larger than the wall. In typical design, usually only 2D analyses were
carried out and the effect of this capping beam is not captured as the reinforcement
coming from a capping beam derived mainly from its lateral stiffness and connection to
a nearly stationary corner. An illustration showing the configuration of capping beam
at site and the general assumption made in 2D analysis is shown in Fig. 4.31. In a real
excavation, this could be an important effect, especially during the first stage of
excavation, which is usually carried out without any bracing provided. However, as
the effect is truly due to a corner, to the author’s awareness, this aspect has not received
any attention before. In this study, an in-flight excavation test, labelled 3DK-2, with
identical set-up as for test 3DK-2c, is carried out to study the stiffening effect due to the
presence of a capping beam in 3D excavation. In this study, a monolithic extension to
the wall (model retaining wall protruding from the ground) is used to approximately
simulate the additional stiffening due to a capping beam. For both Tests 3DK-2 (with
capping beam) and 3DK-2c (without capping beam), the retaining walls were made of
2mm thick aluminium alloy, equivalent to a concrete wall of 287mm thick. Hence, a
protrusion of 60mm from ground surface, used for 3DK-2, will approximately model a
0.52m thick x 1m height concrete capping beam. This is within the practical range of
capping beam on site.
Comparison of surface settlement profiles of Tests 3DK-2c and 3DK-2 are presented in
Fig. 4.32a. Clearly in the test with capping beam (3DK-2) the ground settles
70
significantly less than that for the case without capping beam (3DK-2c) illustrating the
importance of accounting this effect. To highlight the effect of capping beam with the
depth of excavation, settlement at 7m behind wall at various distances from corner are
plotted against various stages excavation (Fig. 4.32b). Further, the ratio in terms of
settlements of Test 3DK-2 (Sett (cap)) divided by settlement of Test 3DK-2c (Sett
(uncap)), versus depth of excavation graph was also plotted (Fig. 4.32c). From the
graph, it is observed that for the first 2m of excavation, the settlements from Tests 3DK-
2 were within 20% to 40% of that for Test 3DK-2c. But beyond 2m-excavation, the
effectiveness of the capping beam as an additional reinforcement start to decrease
significantly. The reduction is almost linear with depth of excavation. At 4.5m-
excavation, the ratio of Sett (cap)/Sett (uncap) was within 50 to 70%. What is also
interesting is that the effect is less important when very near to the corner. It is
important to recognise that this observation shows that with capping beam, the
behaviour is akin to the provision of a bracing at the top of the wall. This “bracing” is
effective to restrain movement in the early stage of an excavation. When excavation
becomes deeper, the vertical spacing between this bracing and formation level widens,
and this bracing effect reduces. This has important practical implications, as almost all
analyses will show that the most significant deflection in a retaining wall is induced
during the initial stage of excavation when conventional bracing cannot be provided.
In this case, the presence of the capping beam, if any, must be included.
The wall deflection profiles at the edge of retaining wall (17m from corner) captured
from image processing for Tests 3DK-2 and 3DK-2c are plotted on Fig. 4.33. The
graphs show that the deflection profiles of the two tests are very different. For the test
3DK-2c, the deflection profiles show a cantilever profile, similar to that of a typical 2D
71
unbraced cantilever wall profile and the profile expected during the early stages of an
excavation when conventional spacing is not available. For Test 3DK-2, the deflection
profiles of the wall show the top being restrained in a manner akin to that of a wall
provided with a top bracing. This further support the assertion that the capping beam
provides reinforcement effect similar to that provided by a top brace. Further
investigation on the effect of capping beam on 3D corner effect is discussed in more
detail in Chapter 5.
4.6 EFFECT OF SOIL STRENGTH IN 3D EXCAVATION
As reviewed in Section 2.3.4, soil strength of an excavation is reported to influence
corner effect. To investigate the contribution of soil strength, tests with stiff highly
OC (Test 3DK-2o) and relatively soft NC (Test 3DK-2) Kaolin clay soil models are
examined. Though this may not be adequate to establish fully how the soil contributes
in an excavation around a corner, it does provide basic first insight into the soil effect in
this interesting topic. The preparation of these two soil samples was discussed in
Section 3.2.2. The undrained shear strength (Cu) profiles determined using the 1-g vane
shear method (discussed in Section 4.1.2) of these two soil samples are shown in Fig.
4.34.
The lateral displacements at the top of the wall at various distances from corner for the
above tests were shown in Fig. 4.35a. It is shown that the OC clay test generally
having the same trend as that for NC clay test, but with smaller magnitude. To
highlight the influence of corner, the ratio of displacement with distance from corner is
plotted (Fig. 4.35b). The displacements at the measurement point furthest from corner,
that is, at x = 15.2m, are used as normalization factors (NF) to divide the displacements
72
measured at nearer distances from corner. In this exercise, the lower normalized
displacement ratio reflects larger variation of displacement with distance from corner,
an indication of larger corner effect. It is shown in Fig. 4.35b that except at 2 m-
excavations where the NC tests show large deviation at x = 4.5m to 9.8m, all the plots
are generally showing the same trend and magnitude. This suggests that the soil
strength has no significant effect to the characteristics of corner effect.
To confirm this point, the surface settlement data is examined. The offset-settlement
(settlement relative to settlement at the corner, refer Section 4.4) versus distance from
corner plots was shown in Fig. 4.36a. The graph shows similar trend as that of wall top
displacement plot (Fig. 4.35a). However, it is interesting to note that there are
apparently larger differences in settlement for soft NC clay test than that of stiff OC
clay test. For instance at 6m-excavation, as indicated in the graph (Fig. 4.36a), the
differences of settlement at x = 4.5m and 15.2m were 0.084m and 0.041m for NC clay
and OC clay tests respectively. This shows a clear indication of larger magnitude of
corner effect for the NC clay test. To highlight the influence of corner, the ratio of
settlement with distance from corner is plotted (Fig. 4.36b). The same procedures used
for wall top displacement results discussed earlier were adopted. It is shown in Fig.
4.36b that except at 2m-excavation where the NC clay test show large deviation, all the
plots are generally showing the same trend and magnitude. This shows the
characteristic of corner effect is not sensitive to the soil strength. This finding is
consistent with the wall top displacement results described earlier.
The above results conclude an interesting point; that the more pronounced corner effect
observed in soft ground reported in the field is mainly in terms of magnitude, rather than
73
relative ratio quoted in the current study. Hence, to estimate the magnitude of corner
effect in an excavation, the soil strength has to be considered.
4.7 SUMMARY
It is to note that thin walls were used in the experiments and large displacements are
captured. This large displacement is not likely to be obtained in the field. This is to
highlight the behaviour of corner effect for theoretical study and not to simulate a field
problem directly.
It is noted that all the experiments were done once due to limited time. It is
acknowledged that it is better to conduct two identical tests at least once to check the
repeatability of the results. However, it is observed that all the experimental data
captured were consistent and some characteristics of corner effects in an excavation
were identified. Firstly, from the 3D tests, it shows that the movement at corner is
smaller than that at a distance away due to the presence of corner restrains effect. This
corner restrain effect is shown to increase with wall stiffness. Secondly, it is also
evident that the presence of a capping beam enhances the wall stiffness, and hence the
corner effect increases accordingly. In Tests 3DK-1 (1mm plate with capping beam)
and 3DK-2c (2mm plate without capping beam), the wall displacement as well as
surface settlement profiles changed shape at 10m and 9m respectively from the corner,
and the movements become constant with distance from the corner. At this “constant
movement” range, the movement is still found to be much lesser than that at 2D
condition. The changing shape is found to be caused by the yielding of the wall.
Hence, it is clear that the “constant movement” range in a 3D excavation does not imply
the cessation of corner effect. The wall yielding and the “changing shape” behaviour
74
show a fundamental change in the excavation behaviour which has not been studied
before. The influence of wall effect in a corner excavation, incorporating the wall
yielding effect is hence important to be established to gain better understanding on the
behaviour of a corner excavation.
Secondly, from the measurement of lateral earth pressure at different distances from
corner, it was found that the lateral earth pressure varied with distance to the corner.
This is due to the variation of soil strain mobilize in an excavation against the distance
to the corner. As earth pressure causes imbalanced load in an excavation, its
contribution to corner effect is crucial. It was shown that the variation of earth pressure
with distance from corner is increasing with the increase of depth of excavation. Also,
while the soil strength (Cu) has shown to have insignificant effect on the characteristics
of corner effect (in terms of relative ratio), it still would influence the magnitude of
γh
corner effect. Hence, the stability number, S = , where the effect of excavation
Cu
depth (h) and soil strength (Cu) are considered together, is used to correlate with the
variation of earth pressure effect to better represent the “geotechnical effect”
influencing the corner effect of an excavation. This is discussed in Chapter 5.
75
Chapter 5 Fundamental Behaviour of Corner Effect in Excavation
CHAPTER 5
FUNDAMENTAL BEHAVIOUR OF CORNER EFFECT
IN EXCAVATION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
In the earlier chapters, results from experimental studies investigating key issues
concerning corner effect in excavation were presented. Key issues examined include
the plane strain (or 2D) versus 3D behaviour of the retaining system, with emphasis on
the effects of corner, wall thickness and the presence of a capping beam.
Other than the wall stiffness as described above, the experimental studies also show that
the depth of excavation and shear strength of soils will affect the effectiveness of a
corner. These geotechnical issues could be characterized by the stability
γh
number, S = , where the effect of excavation depth (h) and soil strength ( cu ) is
cu
considered together (Peck, 1969).
In this chapter, the above factors are studied in more details to better understand the
mechanics of how a corner in an excavation affects the overall behaviour.
Due to space constraint and the limitation of the 3D in-flight excavator, excavation with
a fixed width and length were conducted in the centrifuge testing stage of this study.
With the current centrifuge at National University of Singapore (NUS), it was not
practical to conduct parametric studies of the size in the centrifuge. Thus, to
complement the understanding on the effect of the size of an excavation and its relation
76
to the presence of a corner, numerical analyses were carried out. As the objective of
the numerical analyses was to carry out parametric studies on excavation dimension to
gain better insight, and not to develop or enhance any numerical program, a reliable and
readily available FE program was used.
5.2 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
The Finite Element Method (FEM) program, CRISP, was chosen for numerical analyses
in this study. CRISP (CRItical State Program) was first developed by research workers
in the Cambridge University Engineering Department soil mechanics group. This
program has been widely customized and used for the modeling of excavation in 2D
(Powrie 1986; Balasubramanium et al. 1992; Chee 1999; Tan et al. 2001; Sun 2003) and
3D (Liu 1995; Quan 1995; Yong et al. 1997; Lee et al. 1998; Sun 2003) analyses.
Detail information on the overall structure of this program can be found elsewhere (e.g.
Britto and Gunn, 1990, Liu 1995, Lee et al. 1998, Sun 2003).
A typical 3D mesh used for the 3D excavation study is shown in Fig. 5.1. Both the
retaining wall and the surrounding soil are modeled using twenty-node linear strain
brick elements with 8 vertex nodes, with extra pore pressure degrees of freedom for a
consolidation analysis. The mesh has a total number of 10 x 10 x 10 = 1000 elements
with 1331 vertex nodes. In Sun (2003), for a 3D FEM modeling of a similar size
excavation problem, he demonstrated that about 1000 elements are sufficient to reach
convergence when compared with those with much finer FEM mesh.
Two types of material properties were used in this FEM analysis. For the retaining
wall, the property of aluminum alloy used in the experimental studies was modeled
77
using the Mohr-Coulomb elastic perfectly plastic model. The wall is modeled as a
monolithic structure, which is indeed the case in the centrifuge experiments. The soil
was modeled using Modified Cam Clay model where the soil properties were
determined from consolidation tests and the critical state parameter, M, from triaxial
tests. The parameters used in the FEM analyses are as shown in the Table 5.1. These
parameters have been used extensively for a number of similar works, including that by
Thanadol (2002) and Goh (2003) in their 2D FEM analyses.
The boundary conditions imposed for the FEM analyses simulate the condition of the
model test conducted. For 3D analyses, the four vertical side boundaries are constrained
laterally but free to move along the boundary faces. At the base, the mesh is restraint
from movement in all the directions. Drainage was permitted at the top of the soil
model. The drainage conditions for the side and bottom boundaries of the soil
domain are impervious. The initial soil stress condition is the condition after the
centrifuge re-consolidation and before the commencement of excavation. Table 5.2
shows the initial condition simulated in the analyses. In the centrifuge experiments
(Section 3.2.1), the edges of retaining wall abutting the centrifuge container were not
physically connected perpendicularly to the container sidewalls and allowed to slide.
The main reason is technical; it was too complicated and difficult to impose this
condition. As a result of this, the retaining wall might not be always perpendicular to
the container sidewalls during the excavation when it moved. This means that the edge
of the retaining wall may tilt slightly. This is difficult to simulate properly in the FEM
analyses and thus was not modeled. This shortcoming is acknowledged and noted for
the subsequent interpretation of results. In the present study, the main focus is on the
behaviour around the corner and how the effect is extended away from it.
78
The FEM analysis was first checked using results from the centrifuge tests. 3D FEM
analyses were carried out to model tests 3DK-3, 3DK-2, 3DK-1 (all with wall
protrusion) and 3DK-2c (without wall protrusion). The deflection profiles of the
retaining wall in these tests as well as those predicted by the FEM analyses are plotted
in Figs. 5.2 a to d. It is shown that except for Test 3DK-1, the trend and magnitude of
the deflection profiles obtained experimentally for all the tests were captured reasonably
well by the FEM analyses. The large discrepancy between experimental and FEM
results for Test 3DK-1 is likely due to the yielding of the thin wall in the experiment
and the deficiency of FEM analyses to model this yielding, even though the wall was
modeled as an elastic perfectly plastic wall, with an appropriate yield strength specified.
From the above study, it is found that FEM analyses are able to produce the right trend
of behaviour of the excavation. Hence, the FEM program together with the associated
soil parameters, initial and boundary conditions are adopted for the subsequent
parametric study. Where appropriate, results will also be used to provide a deeper
appreciation of the adequacy of the FEM analysis.
It is to note that some preliminary 2D FEM analyses using the same program, soil
parameters, initial and boundary conditions were carried out with an intention to
compare it with the 3D FEM results. However, the 2D FEM model predicted large
displacement, and the model becomes unstable after about 1.5m excavation, due to the
fact that the excavation is in soft clay and is un-braced. Hence, a comparison of 2D and
3D FEM results were not possible.
79
5.2.1 Parametric Studies by Varying Excavation Dimensions of a Corner
Excavation
Ou et al. (1996) in their study of 3D excavations carried out a series of parametric
studies on the effect of varying excavation sizes. Fig. 5.3 shows the configuration of
the excavation cases studied by them. The parametric studies carried out were based
entirely on 3D and 2D FEM analyses. When the movement of the section furthest from
the corner in a 3D analysis coincides with that of the results from the equivalent 2D
analysis, they define that the plane strain condition is achieved in that 3D test.
In the current study, the investigation on the effect of excavation sizes is first carried out
through a series of FEM analyses, with different primary wall length. The definition of
the terms primary (denotes as PL) and complementary wall (denotes as B) length in the
analysis is shown in Fig. 5.4. For this exercise, the Test 3DK-2 is used as a reference
test in the modelling. The primary wall lengths investigated were 17m (the actual
experimental dimension), 25m, 65m and 130m long. The complementary wall length is
15.5m (the actual experimental dimension) for all the analyses.
It is reported by Ou et al. (1996) that the behaviour of the excavation, especially the
deformation of the primary wall, is highly dependent on the length of the
complementary wall. They also show that an increase of complementary wall length
would increase the maximum wall deflection and the corner effect influence range (Fig.
5.5). However, no explanation is provided for this behaviour in the report. As the
complementary wall is connected to the primary wall at the corner, it is plausible that
the length of complementary wall would influence the behaviour of an excavation to a
certain extent. However, in a real case in the field, when the corner of an excavation
80
only moved slightly, as in the reported cases, the characteristics of the complementary
wall shall have insignificant effect to the primary wall behaviour. Hence, in this study,
the length of the complementary wall is remained constant at 15.5m for all the analyses.
Figs. 5.6a-d show the displacement at the top of the wall versus distance from corner for
the above analyses, with experimental data superimposed for comparison. The
experimental data do land support to the ability of the FEM analysis chosen to model
correctly the overall behaviour of an excavation around a corner. It is generally known
that one of the major shortcomings of FEM analysis is the inability to model the full
spectrum of real soil behaviour. Some of the soil behaviours such as the small strain soil
non-linearity (Jardine et al., 1986; Whittle et al., 1993; Whittle 1997) and anisotropy
characteristic (Banerjee et al. 1984, Wroth and Houlsby 1985; and Banerjee and Yousif,
1986; Jovicic and Coop, 1998) have known to affect the FEM results. The uncertainty
of this soil behaviour under a 2D and 3D environment alone might cause different set of
problem in 2D and 3D analyses. Detailed discussion on this issue was presented in
Section 2.3.2. Hence, while it is more convincing to compare the results of 2D and 3D
FEM analyses to quantify the 3D effect, as adopted by Ou et al. (1996) and Lin et al.
(2003), it is difficult to be carried out accurately. It is noted from Ou et al. (1996) and
Lin et al. (2003) studies that when plane strain condition is achieved in their 3D
analyses, the wall displacement graph becomes constant with distance from corner, and
the magnitude of maximum displacement becomes identical for all cases with longer
primary wall (Fig. 5.5). This suggests that the corner effect has ceased to be felt beyond
this distance, and the condition is in plane strain. These characteristics were observed in
the current study for cases with primary wall length (PL) of 65m and 130m (Figs. 5.6c
and d), where the wall displacement becomes virtually constant beyond 60m to 70m
81
from the corner, and the magnitude of maximum displacement is identical for both
cases. Hence, it is concluded that in the above two cases (PL of 65m and 130m), the
condition is in plane strain beyond the distance of 60m to 70m from the corner. In the
same graph (Fig. 5.6), the 2D test results (Test 2DK-3) were also plotted for
comparison. It is shown that the plane strain condition predicted by the 3D FEM
analyses underestimated the movement captured in the 2D test. This suggested the 3D
analyses carried out has its short coming. However, as the main focus in the current
study is to use the 3D FEM analyses to carry out parametric study to establish the
theoretical behaviour, this short coming is deemed not a major issue. The
improvement of 3D FEM program to capture true 2D behaviour is a major task and is
beyond the scope of the current study.
From Figs. 5.6a-b, for shorter PL of 17 and 25m, there is no section in the primary wall
which has not reached plane strain condition.
The distance of 60 to 70m when the corner effect diminished, or plane strain condition
achieved, can be viewed as the extent of the corner effect. It is proposed to denote this
“extent of corner effect” as L2D, as illustrated in Figs. 5.6c and d. Within a distance of
L2D, the corner effect is felt. To investigate the characteristics of L2D, the normalized
wall displacement, in terms of wall displacement divided by the wall displacement at
2D condition, or plane strain ratio (PSR) as proposed by Ou et al. (1996) is plotted
against the distance from corner, x (Fig. 5.7). In this graph, PSR goes to unity for both
analyses at about 60 to 70m from the corner. For an excavation depth of 5m, this
70m
influence range translates to about = 14 times the depth of excavation (L2D/h =
5m
82
14). The comparisons of this influence range with results reported by others would be
discussed in more detail in Section 5.2.3.
5.2.2 Parametric Studies on the Effect of Wall Stiffness and the Presence of
Capping Beam to 3D Corner Effects
To investigate the wall stiffness effect in a corner excavation, parametric studies were
carried out on corner excavation with different wall stiffness, with and without capping
beam. All analyses were modelling the experimental configuration, except a longer
primary wall of 130m is adopted to ensure the corner effect is extended. FEM analyses
were first carried out to model experimental Tests 3DK-1, 3DK-2 and 3DK-3, but with
Lp of 130m. This series of test were carried out with wall protrusion simulating capping
beam at ground level. The analyses were labeled as 3DK-1-130, 3DK-2-130 and 3DK-
3-130 accordingly. The graphs for plane strain ratio (PSR) versus the distance from
corner (x) of these analyses are shown in Figs. 5.8a-c. These graphs clearly show that
the corner effect’s influence range, L2D, is a constant 70m for all three tests. It should
be noted that the wall stiffness (EI) of Tests 3DK-2 (2mm thick wall) and 3DK-3 (3mm
thick wall), are 8 and 27 times of that for Test 3DK-1 (1mm thick wall). Thus, this
finding clearly shows that the corner effect’s influence range is independent of wall
stiffness.
To isolate the effect of capping beam, the above analyses were repeated with wall
without protrusion. These analyses were labeled as 3DK-1c-130, 3DK-2c-130 and
3DK-3c-130 accordingly. Graphs showing PSR versus the distance from corner (x) of
these analyses are shown in Figs. 5.9a-c. These graphs again clearly show that the
corner effect’s influence range, L2D, is virtually constant for all the tests. More
83
interestingly, the results are also the same with those from analyses with capping beam.
This confirms that the corner effect’s influence range is not affected by the wall
stiffness, as the presence of a capping beam is mainly add to the wall stiffness,
especially at the upper part. This result is thus consistent with the previous set.
Another interesting point that emerged from the above analyses is that the L2D is not
affected by the depth of excavation. To probe whether this is also true before the 2D
condition is achieved, the PSR at a section of x = 30m is plotted against the depth of
excavation, for the analyses described above and shown in Fig. 5.10. The graph shows
that the PSR for all the tests (various thicknesses, with and without capping beam) were
within 0.8 to 1.0. This indicates that the effect of depth of excavation is only within
20% variation for the first 5m of excavation. This finding is consistent with that of
experimental results presented in Section 4.3, where the corner effect is shown to be
relatively insensitive to the depth of excavation. In addition, the graph also shows that
the wall stiffness and capping beam have insignificant impact (within 20% variation) on
the way corner affects the soil, in relation to its equivalent 2D behaviour.
5.2.3 Summary of Findings from FEM Studies
From the above FEM analyses, it was found that for a small excavation, with a primary
wall length of 2 x 25 = 50m, the corner affect covered the entire excavation and plane
strain condition cannot be achieved at any section of the wall. However, for a
sufficiently large excavation, plane strain condition is achieved at a distance sufficiently
far away from the corner. In these cases, the corner effect’s influence range is about 60
to 70m away from the corner. In 3D FEM studies by Ou et al. (1996), for a
complementary wall length of 100m, the corner effect’s influence range is more than
84
50m from the corner. Lin et al. (2003) in their 3D FEM study on corner effect
reported that the influence range is about 30m. More detail comparison on corner
effect’s influence zone have been presented in Section 2.3.3. It is to note that the FEM
analyses carried out in the current study is on unbraced excavation, while those carried
out by Ou et al. (1996) and Lin et al. (2003) were on multi-level-braced excavation.
However, all the above analyses reported large influence range. An influence range of
50m implies that even for an excavation with one section up to 100m long, no section
can be considered to be in truly plane strain condition. This is generally larger than the
reported figure from case studies, as presented in Section 2.3.3 and Table 2.1.
The FEM analyses also show that in a situation when an excavation is large enough and
the plane strain condition developed, the corner effect’s influence range is nearly
independent of the excavation depth and wall stiffness. However, within the influence
range, corner effect is indeed more pronounced at deeper excavation level, but the effect
is relatively insignificant of within 20% variation in the first 5m of excavation. The
results also show that the presence of a capping beam would not affect the corner effect
influence range as it is practically providing additional stiffness to the retaining wall.
However, the presence of capping beam did enhance the magnitude of corner effect
within the influence range.
Table 5.3 summaries the findings of FEM analyses. The findings from centrifuge
modelling discussed in Chapter 4 also presented in the same table for comparison.
Discussion on the agreement, disagreement and elaboration between the FEM and
centrifuge findings is presented in Section 5.3.2.4.
85
The FEM analyses above provided useful information pertaining to the effect of
excavation dimension to corner effect to complement the shortcoming of experimental
studies. Equip with this information, further probe into the fundamental behaviour of
corner effect in an excavation is carried out.
5.3 CHARACTERISATION OF CORNER EFFECTS
5.3.1 Major Factors Affecting the Corner Effect
The centrifuge test results and the FEM analysis results have shown that the corner
effect is mainly controlled by the following factors:
1) Structural issues - Stiffness of retaining wall and the restrain condition at the corner.
The restraint of wall at the corner is the source of corner effect and the wall stiffness is
the factor controlling the magnitude of the corner effect. From FEM studies, the wall
stiffness seems to have little effect on the extent of this corner effect, as indicated by
Figs. 5.8 and 5.9 for different wall thickness and for wall with and without a capping
beam. In these cases, the corner effect extends up to a distance of 14 times the depth
of excavation. However, from centrifuge Tests 3DK-1 and 3DK-2c, when the lateral
flexural capacity of the wall is exceeded and the wall yielded permanently, the corner
effect’s influence range apparently shortened and a “constant movement zone”
developed.
2) Geotechnical issues – Responses of lateral earth pressures, depth of excavation and
γh
shear strength of soil. This could be characterized by the stability number, S = ,
cu
where the effect of excavation depth (h) and soil strength ( cu ) is considered together
(Peck, 1969).
86
To understand better the fundamental behaviour of how a corner affects the overall
excavation behaviour, a simple model to explain the salient features and their
controlling factors is desired.
The configuration of a corner excavation carried out in the centrifuge experiment in this
study is illustrated in Fig. 5.11. The retaining wall was made of two aluminum alloy
plates fully welded orthogonally to each other. As the corner of the plate was rigidly
connected there is transfer of moment between the plates. This had been shown in the
experimental results that the two plates were deformed almost symmetrically without
sign of rotation at the corner (Section 4.1.3, Fig. 4.6). As a first approximation, the
boundary condition at the corner of the plate could be approximated as a fixed
boundary, as shown in Fig. 5.11b. As there are negligible movements observed at the
toe of the plate in the experiments, it could also be assumed as fixed for the convenience
of derivation. The schematic representations of the idealized boundary and loading
conditions of the system are shown in Fig. 5.12.
The loadings acting on the plate are the earth pressure in front (passive side) and behind
(active side) of the plate. The conditions of the plate are similar to that of a typical 2D
problem’s cantilever wall subjected to active and passive earth pressures, if the restraint
at the boundary is ignored. Many references are available for this kind of retaining wall
analysis (Bowles 1996, Sevenoaks 1996, CIRIA 1993). The idealized pressure diagram
of the wall is as shown in Fig. 5.13. As described earlier, the corner effect is controlled
by structural and geotechnical factors. The characterizations of these factors are
discussed in the following subsections.
87
5.3.2 Characterization of Structural Factor
The plate problem as shown in Fig. 5.12 is complicated and no standard formula is
available. Hence, in the current study, the wall is first assumed to be in an elastic state
and the plate problem above can be divided into a number of vertical and horizontal
strips to enable some analytical solutions be arrived at (Fig. 5.12). The deformation of
the plate is the combination of displacements due to the horizontal and vertical earth
pressures. This is applicable in a geotechnical soil-structure interaction problem. The
important thing is to ensure that these composite analyses are able to capture the
essential mechanism of an excavation around such a perpendicularly jointed plates
system. The vertical strips are subjected to the imbalance earth pressures that would be
generated in an excavation as shown in Load Cases 1a and 1b in the figure. The
horizontal strips are subjected to the differences between active and passive earth
pressures at the particular strips, or q y = Pp ( y ) − Pa ( y ) , as shown in Load Case 2 in the
figure. Load Cases 1a and 1b are the imbalance loads that cause movement, and hence it
is examined first.
5.3.2.1 Deformation Due to Excavation Induced Imbalance Load
Based on moment equilibrium, the bending moment at any coordinate y on the vertical
strip due to Load Case 1a, which denotes the case with active earth pressure loading, is
1 P y P
M = * a y * y * = a y3 (5.1)
2 b 3 6b
The general equation for bending moment in a beam is (Timoshenko 1958):
d 2δ
M = EI (5.2)
dy 2
Combining Equations (5.1) and (5.2) yield
88
d 2δ Pa 3
EI = y (5.3)
dy 2 6b
where
Pa = Active earth pressure at the toe of the wall
b = Total depth of the wall from ground level to the toe of wall
y = Coordinate along the depth of wall
δ = Deflection at y-axis
E = Elastic modulus of the wall
I = Second moment of area of the wall
Integrating Equation (5.3), give
dδ P
EI = a y 4 + C1 (5.4)
dy 24b
and
Pa 5
EIδ = y + C1 + C 2 (5.5)
120b
Apply the boundary condition of Case 1a to Equation (5.4), where
dδ Pa 3
y = b, =0 , gives C1 = − b (5.6)
dy 24
Pa 4
y = b, δ = 0 , gives C 2 = b (5.7)
30
Substituting the constants C1 and C2 into Equation (5.5) and rearranging yields
Pa P P
δ= y 5 − a b3 y + a b 4
120 EIb 24 EI 30 EI
= Pa ( β1 y 5 + β 2 y + β 3 ) (5.8)
89
where
1 1 1 b3 1 b4
β1 = , β2 = − , β3 =
120 EIb 24 EI 30 EI
The above solution is actually the standard solution for deflection for triangular loading
on simple cantilever beam (Gere and Timoshenko, 1994). The derivation is presented
here for a better illustration of the imbalance loads and the subsequent relationship with
the corner effect. Equation (5.8) is the equation for wall displacement due to the active
earth pressure. This deformation is countered by deformation due to passive earth
pressure, which is Load Case 1b in this exercise.
The solution for wall displacement due to Load Case 1b, below the excavation level, or
when h ≤ y ≤ b , is
Pp Pp Pp
δ =− ( y − h) 5 +
3
h1 ( y − h) − h1
4
120 EIh1 24 EI 30 EI
= Pp γ 1 ( y − h) 5 + Pp γ 2 ( y − h) + Pp γ 3 (5.9)
where,
3 4
1 1 1 h1 1 h1
γ1 = − , γ2 = , γ3 = −
120 EIh1 24 EI 30 EI
h = depth of excavation
h1 = embedment of wall after excavation, measured from the excavated
formation level to the toe of wall
The solution for deformation of wall above the excavation level, which is the focus of
the study, is governed by the equation
90
dδ  Pp Pp 3 
EI =  − ( y − h) 4 + h1 
dy y =h  24h1 24  y =h
Pp 3
= h1 (5.10)
24
Rearrange and integrate Equation (5.10), gives
 P 
δ =  p h13 (h − y )
 24 EI 
= Pp γ 4 (h − y ) (h ≥ y ≥ 0) (5.11)
where
3
h1
γ4 =
24 EI
The combination of displacements due to Load Cases 1a and 1b shall give the total
displacement due to earth pressure. For displacement at ground level, which is the
focus of the current study, combine and solve for Equations (5.8) and (5.11), for
0 ≤ y ≤ h . This gives:
δ = − Pa ( β1 y 5 + β 2 y + β 3 ) + Pp γ 4 (h − y )
{
= − Pa nγ 4 (h − y ) − ( β1 y 5 + β 2 y + β 3 ) } (5.12)
where
Pp
=n
Pa
Equation (5.12) above is the solution for displacement at ground level, for a cantilever
elastic wall subjected to excavation induced imbalance load. This is akin to a typical
plane strain, cantilever wall excavation problem.
91
5.3.2.2 The Effect of Structural Restraint at Corner
For Load Case 2, the load qy is assumed as a uniformly distributed load (UDL) along the
x-axis (distance from wall). It is changing along the y-axis (the depth from ground).
The UDL assumption is only approximately accurate as the earth pressures may vary
with distance from corner, especially during excavation, but this simple assumption is
necessary so that the derivation can proceed. A more detailed discussion on the effect
of earth pressure is given in the following few sections.
The loading and boundary conditions are actually the standard equation of a cantilever
beam subjected to uniformly distributed load. The general expression for displacement
for this problem is (Gere and Timoshenko, 1994):
qy
δ= ( x 4 − 4 Lx 3 + 6 L2 x 2 ) (5.13)
24 EI
where
L = length of the cantilever beam, and
x = distance from the fixed end (in the current study, the corner)
The displacement for this Load Case 2 shall be combined with that for Load Case 1a
and 1b to give an approximate solution for a corner excavation. It is noted that the
displacement of the system is actually driven by the imbalance of earth pressure, which
is captured in Load Case 1a and 1b. The structural beam effect in Load Case 2 is
actually the wall retraining effect, which is the source of the corner effect. The
expression for the beam displacement is controlling the development of this corner
restrain.
92
It is noted that qy, the difference between passive and active earth pressure at a given
depth is a variable dependent on depth of excavation, distance from corner, type of soil,
status of consolidation and so on. Hence, to simplify the problem, lets the restrain of
Load Case 2 at any section of the beam be described in terms of normalization ratio,
which is the displacement at any distance divided by the maximum displacement at
distance furthest from corner:
δ
λs = (5.14)
δ max
Where
δ = displacement at any distance from corner, x
δmax = displacement at distance furthest from corner, or at x = L
Fig. 5.14 illustrates this assumption.
Substituting Equation (5.13) into Equation (5.14) and simplified, gives the normalized
ratio as
4 3 2
1 x 4 x x
λ s =   −   + 2  (5.15)
3 L 3L L
Combining Equations (5.12) and (5.15), the wall displacement of a corner excavation
satisfying all the boundary conditions, at ground level (y = 0), is
δ = Pa {nγ 4 h + β 3 }λs (5.16)
where
3
h4 h
γ4 = − + 1
24 EIh1 24 EI
1 b4
β3 =
30 EI
93
5.3.2.3 Corner Effect Due to Structural Restrain at Corner
As the first expression Pa {nγ 4 h + β 3 } in Equation (5.16) is the displacement of wall top
under a plane strain condition, this means that the 3D displacement of the wall can be
estimated based on the plane strain results, multiply by the factor λs.. In that sense, the
factor λs serves a similar role to that of the plane strain ratio (PSR) proposed by Ou et al.
(1996) (Section 5.2.1). The only difference between the PSR and λs in this study is that
the λs is at the furthest distance from the corner, and only when the distance is far
enough, and 2D condition is developed, that λs becomes PSR.
Following the philosophy first proposed by Ou et al. (1996), in this study, it is proposed
to consider λs as a “corner effect factor”, which is an “active” contributor providing
corner effect in a 3D excavation. The displacement of a retaining wall subjected to
corner effect can then be estimated as
δ max
δ= (5.17)
λs
Curve 1 of Fig. 5.15 shows a typical plot of normalized wall top displacement versus
distance from corner calculated from FEM analysis modeling Test 3DK-2-130. It is
shown that the wall reached 2D condition (PSR = 1) at x = 70m. At this distance, the
corner effect has ceased completely, and the x value is L2D, which is the corner effect’s
influence range. More importantly, the corner effect is felt most acutely in the initial
range of about 30m from the corner. At x = 25m, the PSR achieved is already 85%,
and the remaining 15% of corner effect is obtained from distance between 30m to 70m.
94
Hence, for easier illustration, it is not unreasonable to assume the corner effect influence
range as 25m, and this distance is termed Ll, as shown in the graph.
The normalized beam deflection curve based on the structural beam Fixed-end
condition, as represented by Equation (5.15) above, is also reflected in the same graph
with a prefix PSR-Fixed (Fig. 5.15). The L is taken as Ll, or 25m in the calculation. It
is shown that the PSR-Fixed curve is significantly smaller than that from the FEM
analysis, especially at distance near to the corner. This suggests that using a fixed-end
condition over-estimated the effect of the corner restrain. This is reasonable as the
fixed-end condition actually assumed a perfect lateral bending moment transfer from a
stiff, fixed boundary. The connection of the wall at the corner is unlikely to achieve this
perfect fixed-end condition.
The other extreme condition at the corner can be a pin-end with zero moment transfer.
The illustration and derivation of this end condition is shown in Fig. 5.16. For this
end condition, the expression of the corner restrain normalization ratio is:
x  8 4  x 
2 3
δ  1 x 
λs= =  −   +    (5.18)
δ max L l  5 5  Ll  5  Ll  

Also, the end condition may be pin, but with certain moment transfer at the corner. The
relationship of the development of restrain under this condition is:
δ x  8 x 1  x  
2
λs= =  − 2 +    (5.19)
δ max Ll  3 Ll 3  Ll  

The complete derivation and illustration of this end condition is shown in Fig. 5.17.
95
The normalized displacement curves based on the above end restrains are shown in the
graph (Fig. 5.15) with prefix Pin and Pin-Moment accordingly. It is shown in the
graph that both the pin and pin-moment end conditions underestimated the effect of
corner restrain where the displacement curves are always higher than the actual FEM
results.
Hence, a logical situation of the above end-condition should be in between fixed and pin
end condition. However, it is impossible to assess the end condition accurately. Hence,
linear approximation between that for the fixed and pin conditions is proposed to
illustrate the corner effect due to the corner restrain easier. The linear relationship is
x x
, which is shown as PSR- curve in the graph. The Ll is assumed as 25m for all
Ll Ll
the corner effect ratios presented above. Though not perfect, the results of this case
agree much better with that from the FEM analyses.
The above expressions show to some extent of how the effect of a corner is propagated.
This is true not only at the wall top, but also for the entire depth of the wall. However,
the above discussions are confined only to the general evaluation of the development of
corner effect. To quantity the corner effect, it is clear that the corner effect influence
range, L2D or Ll have to be understood better.
5.3.2.4 The Corner Effect’s Influence Range
Literature review on previous studies and observations on the corner effect influence
range was presented in Section 2.3.3. From the above review, the corner effect
influence range observed on site is generally confined to 1 to 2 times depth of
excavation or less (Nath, 1983; Simpson, 1992; Ou and Chiou, 1993; Wong and Patron,
96
1993). Also from the above review (Section 2.3.3), the corner effect influence range
obtained from FEM analyses (Ou et al., 1996; Lin et al. 2003) is more than 3 times
depth of excavation, which is significantly larger than that observed in the field.
In the current study, the FEM analyses simulating the centrifuge tests show that the
corner effect influence range is up to 70m away from the corner. The influence range
is almost constant regardless of excavation depth, wall thickness, with or without
capping beam. Table 5.3 compared the findings from FEM analyses and centrifuge
modelling. In contrast, centrifuge modelling described in Chapter 4 shows that for thin
wall (1mm and 2mm), a “constant displacement zone” developed at about 10m from
corner. This “constant displacement zone” is usually considered as an indication of the
cessation of corner effect. Hence, the FEM analyses carried out seems overestimated
the corner effect influence range. This is consistent with the literature review findings
discussed in the previous paragraph.
From the 3D centrifuge tests (Chapter 4), it is found that the “constant displacement
zone” is actually caused by the yielding of the retaining wall in the lateral direction.
When the lateral flexural capacity was exceeded, the wall cannot extend the corner
effect far enough to approach a plane strain condition but instead developed into a
region with nearly constant displacement. In the FEM analyses, the retaining walls
were assumed to be isotropic homogenous monolithic structures and the lateral yielding
was not captured.
As a matter of fact, in the actual retaining wall construction, such as sheet pile, soldier
pile, contiguous bored pile or diaphragm walls, there are minimal lateral moment
97
transfers between the piles/panels. The lateral flexural capacities of the walls are
usually much smaller than the vertical capacity. The relatively lower lateral flexural
stiffness of the retaining wall reduces the corner effect which was not able to be
modeled by the 3D FEM due to the deficiency of 3D FEM in modeling the anisotropy
of bending moment capacity of the retaining wall (Sun 2003).
In view of the above findings, it is concluded that the extent of corner effect is also
limited by the lateral flexural capacity of wall. In the condition that the wall is strong
enough, the effect of the corner would propagate far enough to achieve a plain strain
condition. Hence, the corner effect influence range can also be written as:
La= min .{Lm , L2 D } (5.20)
Fig. 5.24 illustrates the scenario of Equation (5.20) as Curve 3 in the graph. Curves 1
and 2 are presented earlier (Fig. 5.15) for the situation if lateral flexural capacity of the
wall is not exceeded, and 2D condition is achieved. In Curve 2, the L2D is simplified
as Ll as most corner effect is contained within Ll, as discussed in Section 5.3.2.3.
In the centrifuge experiments, due to the relatively short length of the wall, 2D
condition cannot be achieved. In Tests 3DK-1 and 3DK-2c, where yielding occurred,
the Lm condition is achieved. This scenario is illustrated in Fig. 5.24. In the field, due
to the small lateral flexural capacity of wall compared to the vertical direction, it is also
likely that the Lm condition is achieved rather than the L2D condition. From this
98
deduction, it is clear that the corner effect within the Lm zone also deserved in-depth
investigation.
It is noted that in the experiments, one end of the wall is welded to the corner while the
other end is a free-end. Hence, the structural corner restrain effect is controlled only
by the corner end condition, regardless of the wall length. As such, it is not counter
intuitive to assume that the displacement versus x curve of a short length wall, is the
same as that of a longer wall, which is represented by Curve 3 in the graph (Fig. 5.24).
From Curve 3 in the graph (Fig. 5.24),
δ x
= = λ 2 D if lateral flexural capacity is not exceeded (5.21)
δ 2 D Ll
δ x
= = λ y if lateral flexural capacity is exceeded, as in the experiments. (5.22)
δ y Lm
Though approximate, this is an useful expression as it suggests that if Lm is known, the
corner effect at any distance from the corner, within the Lm zone can be estimated.
Similarly, if the Ll or L2D is known, the corner effect at any distance can also be
quantified relative to that of the plane strain condition. It also means that the lateral
flexural capacity has to be evaluated; this is an important extension to Ou et al. (1996)’s
concept of a PSR.
From the experimental studies of Test 3DK-2, it was found that negative lateral bending
moment developed near to the corner due to the welding at the corner (Fig. 5.25a).
Nearer to the other end, the bending moment is decreasing due to the free-end condition.
At other span of the wall, the lateral bending moment is increasing with distance from
corner. The capture bending moment profiles agreed well with the theoretical lateral
99
bending moment profile shown in Fig. 5.25b. When the bending moment (BM)
developed exceeded the yield stress of the wall at certain distance from the corner, the
wall will yield. However, due to the limited information that could be obtained from the
measurements, a more detailed bending moment profile to allow for in-depth analysis of
yielding behaviour cannot be carried out. Nevertheless, from the results, it clearly
suggests that at a certain distance from the corner, the lateral bending movement
reached the lateral flexural capacity of the wall and the wall yielded.
In the present series of tests, the case of a 1mm thick wall with capping beam (Test
3DK-1) showed yielding, at about 10m from corner. Theoretically, when the wall
stiffness is zero, Lm should be zero, reflecting no wall retrain effect at all. In addition,
from the test results, tests with 2mm and 3mm thick wall show no sign of yielding. The
accurate estimation of Lm according to the wall stiffness is difficult as the problem
involves soil-structure interaction. Hence, based on the above observations, as a first
approximation, it is assumed that Lm is linearly proportional to the wall thickness (Fig.
5.26a), with intercept at zero. The wall thickness can be represented by the first
moment of wall section area (EA), to more reasonably define the moment capacity.
Fig. 5.26b illustrates this the Lm versus EA relationship. Based on this hypothesis,
values of Lm for 2mm and 3mm thick wall are deduced as 20 and 30m respectively.
If the above hypothesis is true, by using the deduced Lm and applying Equation (5.22)
above, the movement at various distances from corner, of various stiffness walls, would
be normalized to the value of δy, as illustrated in Fig. 5.27. These hypotheses are
examined with the experimental test results in the coming sections.
100
5.3.3 Characterization of Geotechnical Factors
For Test 3DK-2c, the lateral earth pressures at the front and back faces of the wall were
measured at two locations from corner, which are, at 8m and 15m from the corner (Fig.
5.28 and also described in Section 4.2.2, Figs. 4.18 and 4.19). While the data are
limited, the variation of earth pressure values captured provides useful information for
the characterization of corner effect on the earth pressure due to the excavation depth
and soil strength.
As discussed in Section 4.2.2, the changes of total lateral earth pressure coefficient, K ,
during excavation show the following interesting trend (Fig. 5.28) :
a) At the active side, the changes of K a ( K at active side) at a further distance
from the corner (15m) drop significantly faster than that nearer (8m) from the
corner.
b) At the passive side, the changes of K p ( K at passive side)at 8m and 15m from
corner during the excavation were almost identical.
To understand the first observation, it is important to reiterate that the soil behind the
wall should be at K o condition before excavation and the lateral earth pressure would
reduce as the shear strength was mobilized and the wall deflection increased. The
lateral earth pressure coefficient should reduce from K o to K a − active ( K at active state),
the exact value is dependent on the magnitude of soil strain mobilized. Nearer to
corner, the wall displacements are smaller hence the drop of K a is accordingly smaller.
101
It was shown in Section 4.2.2 that for TSTs at 15m from corner, the active state was
achieved by the time excavation reached 1.5m depth. At the same location on the
passive side, the passive limit state has just reached at the end of 5m-excavation.
Hence, the above phenomenon is consistent with the general understanding that much
more significant development of strain is needed to reach passive state. Nevertheless,
the magnitudes of change in the passive stress are larger than that for the active stress,
as evident from the experimental results shown in Fig. 5.28. K p changes from 0.85 to
1.60, while K a changes from 0.85 to 0.60. Intuitively, the larger changes on the passive
side should mean more variation in the lateral earth pressure with distance from the
corner. However, the experimental results clearly show otherwise. Hence, from the
above observation, it is not unreasonable to consider that, for the above centrifuge tests,
the variation of earth pressure due to corner effect would mainly influence the active
side only and to a very insignificant extent on the passive side. A schematic diagram
illustrating the above scenario is shown in Fig. 5.29.
The active earth pressures of the 3D test described above (Test 3DK-2c) are plotted
together with active earth pressure of 2D test (Test 2DK-3) and showed in Fig. 5.30. It
is shown that the active earth pressure for the 3D test, measured by total stress
transducer (TST) at 15m from corner ( Pa ( 3 D ) −15 m ), shows almost identical response
during the excavation as that for the 2D test ( Pa ( 2 D ) ). For TST at 8m from corner
( Pa (3 D ) −8 m ) of the 3D test, the active earth pressure decreases significantly less during
the excavation as compared to that of the TST at 15m from corner or that for the 2D
test.
102
To better illustrate the relationship between the active earth pressure at various distances
away from the corner for the 3D test, as well as to distinguish the differences of 3D and
Pa ( 3 D ) γh
2D earth pressure behaviour, relationship with the stability number is plotted
Pa ( 2 D ) Cu
in Fig. 5.31. The stability number combines the effect of excavation depth (h) and the
soil strength and is widely used to characterize excavation (Peck, 1969; Clough and
Denby, 1977). The graph shows two interesting points:
Pa ( 3 D ) −15 m
1) The ratio is always near to unity throughout the excavation. This shows
Pa ( 2 D )
that the earth pressure at 15m away from the corner is already close to the plane strain
condition. It is important to note that here it is the soil condition that is approaching 2D
condition, not the overall system including the structural stiffness of the wall. This is
also consistent with general understanding of earth pressure theory that only a small
mobilized strain is needed to reach an active state.
Pa ( 3 D ) −8 m
2) the ratio is unity before excavation, but increases almost linearly with the
Pa ( 2 D )
γh
increase of stability number, and reaches 1.20 when is 5. This trend suggests that
Cu
the corner effect on the development of active earth pressure would increase according
to excavation depth. In other word, the deeper the excavation, the more significant is the
effect of corner on the active earth pressure.
Pa ( 3 D )−8 m
For , the best-fit linear curve of the graph is in a form of
Pa ( 2 D )
103
Pa ( 3 D ) γh
= 1+ R (5.23)
Pa ( 2 D ) Cu
Where
R = slope of the graph
Pa ( 3 D )
The variation of magnitude of at 8m and 15m distances from the corner described
Pa ( 2 D )
above is due to the differences of wall movement at the two points. Hence, it indicates
Pa ( 3 D )
that is not only dependent on the excavation depth, but also influenced by the
Pa ( 2 D )
distance from corner. Due to the small size of the scale model in a centrifuge test, only
four TSTs were installed. To complement the limited information, FEM analyses
Pa ( 3 D ) γh
modelling the same test, Test 3DK-2c, were carried out. The versus
Pa ( 2 D ) Cu
relationship obtained is shown in Fig. 5.32. The Pa(2D) in the plot is taken from the
FEM analysis for 3DK-2c-130, where earlier, it was shown that with a 130m long wall,
plane strain condition could be developed (Section 5.2.1). The experimental results
were also plotted in the same graph for comparison.
Fig. 5.32 shows the followings:
Pa ( 3 D )−15.8 m
1) ratio is close to unity throughout the excavation. This shows that
Pa ( 2 D )
the earth pressure at 15m away from the corner is already close to or at plane
strain condition. This finding is consistent with the experimental results.
Pa ( 3 D )
2) The ratios at sections 1.7m, 6.3m and 11.8m from the corner increase
Pa ( 2 D )
almost linearly with an increase in the stability number. This trend is again
104
consistent with the experimental results, and supports the observation that the
Pa ( 3 D )
ratio indeed increases proportionally to an increase in excavation depth.
Pa ( 2 D )
Pa ( 3 D )
However, Fig. 5.32 also shows that the slope (R) governing the increase in
Pa ( 2 D )
increases as section is closer to the corner. To see this relation better, the slope (R) is
plotted against the distance from corner, as shown in Fig. 5.33. The graph shows a
relationship of the form:
 x
R = K 1 −  (5.24)
 a1 
Where a1 is the distance when the earth pressure first reached that of the plane strain
condition, or when the corner effect is fully diminished. In the current exercise, a1 is the
intersect of the graph at X-axis, which is 13m. This value is slightly shorter than the
Pa ( 3 D )
15m observed above where at 15m is close to unity during excavation. As shown
Pa ( 2 D )
in Fig. 5.33, K in Equation (5.24) above is a constant, which is the intercept of the graph
against the R-axis.
Substituting Equation (5.24) into Equation (5.23), yield
Pa (3 D ) x γh
= 1 + K (1 − ) (5.25)
Pa ( 2 D ) a1 C u
Since the displacement of a corner excavation is actually directly related to Pa at plane
Pa ( 3 D )
strain condition, the relationship of as shown in Equation (5.25) above is actually
Pa ( 2 D )
a “corner effect factor”, as shown below:
105
Pa ( 2 D ) 1
=λ a = (5.26)
Pa ( 3 D ) x γh
1 + K (1 − )
a1 Cu
At corner when x =a1, λa = 1, which is at the plane strain condition.
It is noted that while the passive earth pressure is shown to be not influenced by the
corner effect, it may be case specific for the current experimental study only. With
variation in soil type and soil strength, the corner effect may also influence the passive
earth pressure. However, with limited information, this cannot be assessed in the
current work.
5.4 COMBINED CHARACTERIZATION OF CORNER EFFECT
From the above study, it is clear that the corner effect results mainly from two factors,
the structural restrain and the geotechnical factors. Hence, the general equation for
wall top displacement of a corner in an excavation can be approximately expressed as:
δ 3 D = δ y * λs * λa (5.27)
Where
δy = Maximum wall top displacement when the wall lateral flexural capacity is
exceeded
λa = Corner effect factor due to geotechnical factors
In the condition that the wall is strong enough, the effect of the corner would propagate
far enough to achieve a plain strain condition, and δy shall becomes δ2D, and the above
equation shall becomes:
106
δ 3 D = δ 2 D * λs * λa (5.28)
It is to note that these corner effect factors are isolated and can be quantified separately.
These two factors have been shown to explain major aspects of 3D corner effects in an
excavation. And if these two factors are used to normalize the displacements at various
distances from corner to take into account how the corner affects the overall behaviour,
the displacement after normalization should approach the value of δy, as illustrated in
Fig. 5.27.
However, the discussions on the characteristics of corner effect in this section have been
mostly theoretical to this point. It is necessary to apply these principles to evaluate the
experimental results.
5.4.1 Evaluation Of Corner Effect Hypotheses
The wall top displacement of Test 3DK-1, 3DK-2, 3DK-3 is as shown in Figs. 5.34a,
5.35a and 5.36a. As described in Section 5.3.2.4, Test 3DK-3 has only one
measurement point due to technical difficulty in this test. To isolate the corner effect
due to the structural corner restrain effect, the displacements in the graph above are
divided by the respective λs accordingly (Fig. 5.34b, 5.35b and 5.36b). The simplified
λs = x/Lm relationship, with the restrain condition of between the fixed and pin-end
restraint condition, described in Section 5.3.2.3, is used for this exercise. The Lm
deduced in Section 5.3.2.4 are 10, 20 and 30m respectively for 1mm, 2mm and 3mm
thick wall (with wall protrusion), and the x is the distance from corner. The graphs
show that the normalized displacements versus x approaching a flat line against the
distance form corner, indicating the removal of contribution from the lateral structural
107
stiffness of the wall. This also suggests that the observed effects of a corner in these
tests are derived from the structural restraint at the corner.
The above results are further normalized to remove the corner effect due to the
geotechnical factors as a result of the structural effect. For this, the displacements
divided by λs were further divided by the respective λa accordingly (Fig. 5.34c, 5.35c
and 5.36c). Due to the limited earth pressure measurement results, λa is assumed to be
the same for all the tests. λa is estimated based on Equation (5.26), by using K =
0.0857, and a1 = 15m (Fig. 5.33). The graphs show that the normalized displacements
versus x approaching a constant value, highlighting that these are the two main factors
controlling how a corner affects an excavation.
The above normalization shows that the ideas developed thus far in this chapter are able
to capture the mechanics of the corner on an excavation. But thus far, only the
displacement at the wall top is examined. Next, the surface settlement is examined.
The surface settlement behind an excavation and wall displacement can generally be
related with a ratio. For example, Mana and Clough (1981) reported that the
maximum ground settlement is within 0.5 to 1.0 times the maximum wall movement.
Hence, it is possible to use the corner effect factors, developed thus far to interpret the
surface settlement behind the wall with distance from corner directly.
The surface settlement picked up by displacement transducers installed nearest to the
wall, which is at 7m behind the retaining wall are used for this exercise because the
settlement here is the maximum. Figs. 5.37a, 5.38a and 5.39a show the offset-surface
108
settlement of tests 3DK-1, 3DK-2 and 3DK-3. The settlements were offset against the
settlement at the corner to highlight the corner effect (Section 4.4). To account for the
corner effect due to the structural restrain from the corner, the displacements in the
graphs above are divided by the respective λs accordingly (Fig. 5.37b, 5.38b and 5.39b).
The simplified λs used was the same as that used earlier to interpret the displacement at
the top of the wall. The results obtained are then divided by the respective λa
accordingly (Fig. 5.37c, 5.38c and 5.39c) to remove the corner effect due to the
geotechnical factors. From the graph, it is observed that the surface settlement
divided by λs versus x for all the tests approaching a constant value, suggesting that the
structural restrain from the corner play a very significant role. When the results
obtained is further divided by λa, a further improvement is obtained.
To better compare the results of all the tests, the wall top displacement versus depth of
excavation of the above tests are plotted on a same graph. In these graphs, the results
of Tests 2DK-1 and 2DK-3 were also plotted to provide an overall comparison. Fig.
5.40a shows the wall top displacements of all the tests before normalization. Fig. 5.40b
shows the wall top displacements divided by λs. The graph shows that the data band
narrowed significantly, illustrating the impact of the lateral structural restraint arising
from a corner. When the above results in Fig. 5.40b are further divided by λa, as
shown in Fig. 5.40c, the data band narrowed further, and at each stage of excavation, the
data are converging to a constant value. This shows that the two factors are able to
account for a large extent the corner effect in an excavation.
109
A similar exercise is carried out for the offset-surface settlements (at 7m behind wall)
and the results are shown in Figs. 5.41a to c. The results are consistent with that
observed for the displacement at the wall top.
It is obvious from the graphs (Figs. 5.40c and 5.41c) that the normalized wall top
displacement and surface settlement has not reached the plane strain condition (Tests
2DK-1 and 2DK-3). This is because the normalization above is based on the
movement at a situation where the lateral flexural capacity is exceeded, where “constant
corner effect” developed, rather than that at plane strain condition. This “constant
corner effect” zone is the focus of the current study, and it provides important elemental
findings on how the corner effects are developed in an excavation. In the field, due to
the fact that the walls lateral flexural capacity is much smaller than that of vertical
panels, it is also more likely that the corner effect at “constant corner effect zone” are
developed, rather than the ideal plane strain condition. More importantly is the fact that
these findings are fundamentally valid and applicable even for a large excavation where
plane strain problem may develop at sections far from corner.
However, it is noted that there are still some scatter in the data after all the
normalizations (Figs. 5.40c and 5.41c). This spread of the data is likely due to the fact
that the corner effect factors described above are only based on generalized parameters
and also simplified mechanics. Further fine-tuning of the above factors based on more
accurate estimate of wall and soil characteristics, such as the wall yielding criteria,
bending moment transfer at the corner, soil strength and inclusion of passive earth
pressure effect, can further improve the normalization.
110
Lee et al. (1998) carried out a study on the 3D corner effect in excavation with some
reported case studies. From the assessment of corner effect at various sites, with
different wall length and final excavation level, they suggested that the length of wall
over the depth of excavation ratio might be a possible contributory factor for corner
effects. The lower the ratio, the more significant is the corner effect. In the discussion
earlier (Sections 5.3.2.3 and 5.3.2.4), the proposed corner effect ratios, λs and λa, are a
function of distance from corner (x). The further from the corner, the smaller is the
corner effect. Hence, for the same excavation depth, the shorter is the wall; the lesser
is the corner effect. This is consistent with the suggestion made by Lee et al. (1998).
However, for a same excavation where the length of the wall is a constant, Lee et al’s
suggestion implied that the excavation depth would increase the corner effect. This is
only partially true as the corner effect shown in the current study is not as sensitive to
excavation depth. It is valid in terms of magnitude, rather than relative ratio quoted in
the current study.
Another major factor of excavation parameters in the field that was not investigated in
the current study is the effect of bracing on the influence of a corner. It is to note that
cross bracing only provides passive resistance, even for the case of braces with pre-
loading. Liu (1995) and Lee et al. (1998) in their 3D-excavation study reported that the
presence of steel strutting might have actually suppressed the corner effect above
excavation level. In their excavation analysis where thick soft clay was found below
the final formation level, they observed that the corner effect was more pronounced
below the excavation level where there were a thick soft clay, likely because there were
no suppressing effect by the stiff strutting system. However, it is to note that the
bracings at corner often are diagonal bracings, which may be stiffer than cross braces at
111
other areas far from corner. This may have increased the structural stiffness at the
corner wall, contributing to corner effect. The inclusion of these factors is well beyond
the scope of the present study, but would be needed to ensure a comprehensive
understanding of how a corner affects an excavation.
Giger and Krizek (1975) conducted a study on the stability of vertical cut with variable
corner angle. They postulated the 3D-failure mechanism of vertical cuts and showed
that the stability of a vertical cut is significantly dependent on the corner angle. In the
current study, the corner of the excavations, at the initial stage is always at 90°. In the
field, many excavations are not having 90° corner. The variation of corner angle is
expected to have a significant effect on the end-restrain condition, which would then
affect the development of the structural restrain. In addition, complicated passive and
active earth pressure effect would also develop due to the variation of corner angle.
However, the purpose of the current study is to develop a basic understanding on the
behaviour of a corner effect in an excavation, and the approach was based on the
understanding of a simple excavation with a set of perpendicular wall. Consideration of
other factors mentioned above is beyond the scope of the present work. In particular,
new techniques need to be developed to carry out such tests in a centrifuge, this is not
an easy task.
112
Chapter 6 Conclusions
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS
6.1 DEVELOPMENT OF 3D IN-FLIGHT EXCAVATOR
1) A 3D in-flight excavator was developed in the current study to simulate excavation
around a corner in the centrifuge. The results obtained from the centrifuge tests are
used for mechanistic study on three-dimensional (3D) behaviour of an excavation
affected by the presence of a corner.
2) The in-flight excavator developed is able to model both 2D (plane strain) and 3D
(corner) excavations in the centrifuge. This has made the comparison between 2D
and 3D tests more straightforward without complication caused by using different
set-up for different tests.
3) The results of the centrifuge tests present a glimpse of the excavation behaviour
around a corner under controlled boundary and initial conditions. This facilitates
the interpretation of the results, something a much more complex problem in the
field cannot offer. In addition, the in-flight excavator has the advantage over the
traditional “increasing-g” and “heavy liquid” methods to simulate excavation as the
in-situ soil stresses and changes in earth pressures due to excavation could be
modeled more correctly, especially in normally consolidated soft clay. The effect
of variation of lateral earth pressure with distance from corner, which proven to be
an important parameter influencing corner effect, was captured in the centrifuge
test.
113
6.2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The following findings may be concluded from the current study:
1) The presence of capping beam, which usually ignored by practicing engineers in
analysis, would enhance the corner effect. The effect of capping beam is more
pronounced in the early stage of excavation. This is expected as the capping beam
is akin to a bracing at the top of wall which effectively restrains wall movement
when the excavation is near to the top of wall level. The capping beam effect is
significance as the first stage of any excavation is often an unbraced open
excavation, and is also the stage where significant movement occurs.
2) Comparative study on excavation tests with stiff highly over consolidated and soft
normally consolidated samples found that the presence of a corner would affect the
wall deflection and surface settlement more pronounced in soft soil than that in stiff
soil. However, this is in terms of absolute magnitude. In terms of relative ratio
of movement as mechanistic study is concerned, there is no apparent correlation
between the behaviour of corner effect with the soil strength.
3) From centrifuge tests and finite element analyses, it was found that the behaviour of
corner effect is insensitive to the depth of excavation.
4) If the retaining wall flexural capacity is strong enough, the influence range of the
corner is given by the point where the 2D plane strain condition starts. In this case,
the influence range is independent of the wall’s flexural capacity or whether there is
a presence of ground capping beam. If the wall is not strong enough, the influence
range is decided by the point when the flexural capacity of the wall was exceeded,
which is at a shorter distance from the corner.
5) The retaining wall in the current study is essentially a structural plate problem
subjected to varying earth pressures. The wall movement subjected to the earth
114
pressures is actually similar to that of a typical 2D problem, if there is no restraint
at the boundary. Thus, the boundary condition at the edge is actually the source of
the 3D corner effect.
6) The development of corner restrain from the corner of a “plate” was further
simplified to that of a beam problem assuming that the wall is in an elastic state.
The corner effect factor due to this structural restrain was established and denotes
as λs. λs is dependent on the wall fixities at the corner, and it shows to some
extent how the effect of a corner is propagated. This is true not only at the wall
top, but also for the entire depth of the wall.
7) The variation of wall movement along the distance from corner inevitably results in
the variation of earth pressures along this axis. The variation of earth pressure
γh
effect can be correlated with the stability number, , to better represent the
Cu
geotechnical factors influencing how a corner affects an excavation. This
contribution on the corner effect was quantified separately from that of structural
restrain, using λa, which is the corner effect factor due to geotechnical factors. A
semi-empirical relationship to calculate λa was given by Equation 5.26.
6.3 EFFECT OF A CORNER IN A THREE-DIMENSIONAL EXCAVATION
From the above findings, the 3D corner effect measured based on the wall displacement
can be expressed as:
δ 3 D = δ 2 D * λ s * λa (6.1)
Where δ3D = Wall top displacement within the 3D corner effect influence zone
δ2D = Wall top displacement in 2D condition
115
λa = Corner effect factor due to geotechnical effect
Equation (6.1) is valid if the retaining wall is strong enough and the influence range of
the corner is given by the point where the plane strain condition starts. The general
expression considered the situation if the flexural capacity of the wall was exceeded, is:
La = min .{Lm , L2 D } (6.2)
For the present series of experimental results, the length of influence was confined to
the Lm zone, rather than the L2D. In the field, due to the small lateral flexural capacity
of wall, it is also likely that the Lm condition would occur. Based on Equation (6.2), the
expression for 3D corner effect of an excavation as shown in Equation (6.1), can be
revised to:
δ 3D = δ y * λ s * λ a (6.3)
Where δy = Wall displacement when the wall lateral flexural capacity is exceeded
The suitability of Equation (6.3) was examined using centrifuge experimental data.
The results show that the equation is able to estimate the corner effect influence to the
displacement at the top of wall, as well as surface settlement at 7m behind the wall.
This shows that the λs and λa are able to explain major aspects of 3D corner effects in
the excavations.
The findings and hypotheses obtained in the current study provide a better
understanding on how a corner affects an excavation, in particular the range of influence
116
of a corner and the factors controlling how the corner propagates its presence. The
corner effect factors proposed, λs and λa, provided insight into how to quantify the
corner effect. Nevertheless, more in depth study is required to estimate λs and λa more
accurately, so that it can be applied into actual field condition.
6.4 RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE STUDIES
It is apparent from the above study that the influence range of a corner is dependent on
the lateral flexural capacity of wall which deserves more detailed study. In particular,
the characteristics of yielding related to the bending stresses need to be investigated to
allow for a more specific evaluation of the length of influence, Lm. In the actual
retaining wall construction, such as sheet pile, soldier pile, contiguous bored pile or
diaphragm walls, there are minimal lateral moment transfers between the piles/panels.
The lateral flexural capacities of the walls are usually much smaller than the flexural
capacity in the vertical direction. Hence, it is recommend that centrifuge modeling and
3D FEM analysis of retaining wall constructed by panels, instead of monolithic wall
used in the current study, be carried out in the future studies.
The current study was carried out for excavation with a right-angled (orthogonal)
corner, which is a typical case. Nevertheless, there are many excavations with non-
orthogonal walls. The variation of corner angle would affect the corner restrain
conditions as well as the earth pressure distribution around the corner. This in turn, will
affect the way the corner affects an excavation.
Another major factor not investigated in the current study is the effect of bracing on the
corner effect. While it is important, the task of conducting such studies in a centrifuge
117
is non-trivial and would need additional development of robotics to carry out the
bracing. In spite of the difficulty, this is a very important aspect that needs more in-
depth look.
From the study, it was found that the corner effect in terms of relative ratio, is quite
insensitive to the excavation depth. However, in terms of absolute displacement
magnitude, the differences of displacement at various distances from corner actually
change according to the excavation depth. This is the reason why it is generally
perceived in the field that the corner effect is more pronounced at a greater excavation
depth. Also, the different excavation rate might influence the corner effect as the
consolidation of soil would change the magnitude of movement, hence influence the
absolute movement magnitude. But again, this should have insignificant effect to the
corner effect in terms of relative ratio. However, it is noted that the above findings
are derived from homogeneous soil. In cases where the soil have significant different
undrained shear strengths, the corner effect behaviour might change according to the
excavation depth. This might be worthwhile for future centrifuge studies. Also,
centrifuge experiments with sandy soil might be carried out to investigate the influence
of soil friction to corner effect.
It is noted that the 3D FEM analyses carried out in the current study have some
limitations. Firstly, the excavation dimension is anisotropy, and this might influence
the results. Secondly, the boundary the retaining wall is modeled as having a zero
slope, which is different from the centrifuge experiment where a rotation is allowed.
Thirdly, the retaining wall is assumed in-placed, rather than simulating the actual 1g
push-in wall. And finally, the drainage condition of the FEM model needs to further
118
refined to better reflect the actual drainage condition of the centrifuge test model. The
above limitation is deemed acceptable in the current study as the main focus is to bring
out the salient mechanism of corner effect. But if the FEM results are to be applied
directly to an actual problem, the above limitations shall be fixed.
119
Table 2.1 Summary on Corner Effect Influence Range Reported/Proposed
a) Influence range deduced from case study and comparison with FEM analyses
Reference Corner effect Influence Range (m) Length (L)/ Remarks
Depth (h)
ratio
Nath (1983) Reported that beyond 2 x depth away 1.7 Trench

(h = 6m) excavation.
from corner, already plane strain No retaining
wall.
Ou and Chiou Reported that significant corner effect 1.0to 1.5 Top down
(1993) within 1x depth away from corner (Estimated diaphragm
from report) wall
construction.
Wong and Authors suggested corner effect 2.1 to 6.0 Multi-strutted

Patron (1993) presence at 1 x depth away from corner diaphragm
wall
Lee et al. Corner effect extended beyond 35m 3.0 to 4.5 Multi-strutted
(1998) from corner. Hence, corner effect (h = 17.3m) diaphragm
apparent beyond 35/17.3 = 2.0 x depth wall. Most
away from corner struts are
corner
diagonal struts
b) Influence range deduced solely based on FEM analyses

Ou et al. FEM analysis results: 2.5 Multi-strutted
(1996) For excavation width (B) = 20m, corner (h = 16m) diaphragm
effect up to 20m away from corner wall
For B = 100m, corner effect extended

beyond 50m away from corner. Hence, 6.3
corner effect apparent beyond 50/16 = (h = 16m)
3.12 x depth away from corner
Lin et al. Authors suggested corner effect 6.0 Multi-strutted

(2003) confined within 30m from corner. (h = 10m) diaphragm
Hence, corner effect within 30/10 = 3.0 wall
x depth away from corner
120
Table 3.1 Speed and Stroke of NUS’s 3D In-flight Excavator
Horizontal Direction Vertical Direction

Min. Speed 0.06 mm/s 0.40 mm/s
Max. Speed 31.0 mm/s 2.5 mm/s
Effective Stroke 170mm 170mm
Accuracy of Displacement ± 1.0mm ± 0.5mm
Operational environment: 100-g in the centrifuge
121
Table 3.2 Properties of Malaysian Kaolin clay
Properties Value
Specific Gravity (Gs) 2.60
Liquid Limit (WL) 80

Plastic Limit (WP) 35
Compression Index (Cc) 0.55
Swelling Index (Cs) 0.14
Permeability at 100 kPa on NC Clay 3.2 x 10-8 m/s
122
Table 4.1 Summary of In-flight Excavation Tests Carried out
No Test Dimension Type of Clay Wall Prototype Equivalent Wall
Code of Test Thickness Stiffness, EI Prototype Embedment
(kN/m2) Concrete
Wall
Thickness
(mm)
1 2DK-1 2D NC Kaolin Clay 1mm 6417 150 240mm
3 3DK-2c 3D NC Kaolin Clay 2mm 51333 300 240mm
7 3DK-2o 3D OC Kaolin Clay 2mm 51333 300 240mm
NOTES:
1) Embedment is the depth of model retaining wall penetration into the soil, before
excavation.
2) NC is clay with 20kPa 1-g surcharge loading, followed by 100-g self-weight
consolidation without surcharge on the surface
3) OC is clay with 230kPa 1-g surcharge loading, followed by 100-g self-weight
consolidation without surcharge loading on the surface
Additional Information
Symbol Legend c : without capping beam
K for Kaolin Clay o : Highly OC clay (1-g

consolidation to 230 kPa
before centrifuge
consolidation)
3D K – 2 c
3D for 3D Test Thickness of Model

2D for 2D Test Wall In mm
123
Table 5.1 Summary of soil profile and soil parameters used for FEM analyses
Depth Material Soil Model and properties used

(mm)
0 –10 Highly OC Clay Modified Cam Clay
Ko = 1.505, κ = 0.079, λ=0.244, ecs = 2.221, M=0.9, ν=0.3,
γbulk=16.7kN/m3, kx = ky = 2.0x10-8 m/sec
10 - 30 OC Clay Modified Cam Clay

Ko = 0.792, κ = 0.079, λ=0.244, ecs = 2.221, M=0.9, ν=0.3,
γbulk=16.7kN/m3, kx = ky = 2.5x10-8 m/sec
30 - 270 NC Clay Modified Cam Clay

Ko = 0.6012, κ = 0.079, λ=0.244, ecs = 2.221, M=0.9,
ν=0.3, γbulk=16.7kN/m3, kx = ky = 3.0x10-8 m/sec
Structure Material Soil Model and properties used
Model Aluminum Mohr-Coulomb

retaining
E=7.7 x 107 kPa, v =0.33, γbulk=16.7kN/m3,
wall
kx = ky = 1.0x10-15 m/sec
124
Table 5.2 Initial Stress Conditions of FEM Analyses
Strata Soil Vertical σx ’ σy’ σz’ Total Water Pc’ Remarks

Reference Type Coordinates Pressure, Uss
(m) kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa
1 Soil 0.27 0 0 0 0 20 At ground surface

clay
2 Soil 0.26 9.76 16.0 9.76 0 20 0.01m below ground. Assumed KO =
clay 0.61
3 Soil 0.00 107.93 176.94 107.93 255.06 176
clay
Note: The FEM analysis is simulating centrifuge test, with 100-G gravitational force σv ‘ = 0.01 * 100* 16
= 16 kPa
Soil Ground Level
Ground Water Table Level
0.27m 0.26m
σv ‘ = 16.0 + 0.26 *100

*(16.0 – 9.81)
= 176 94 kPa
σv = 0.27 * 100* 16.0 U = 0.26*100*9.81 125
= 432.0 kPa = 255.06 kPa
Table 5.3 Summary of Findings from Centrifuge Modelling and FEM analyses
S/N Description Centrifuge Modelling FEM Analyses Agreement/disagreement and elaboration

1 Wall thickness Corner effect increases with Corner effect increases with the Agreement.
effect the increase of wall increase of wall thickness.
thickness.
2 Capping beam Capping beam increases the Capping beam increases the Agreement.
effect wall stiffness hence enhance wall stiffness hence enhance
the corner effect. the corner effect.
3 Wall stiffness on a) For thin wall (1mm and a) Not able to model the lateral Disagreement.
corner effect 2mm), “constant movement” yielding of wall.
influence range range developed beyond If the retaining wall flexural capacity is strong enough, the
about 10m from the corner b) The dimension of FEM influence range of the corner is given by the point where
due to lateral yielding of mesh able to enlarge until the the 2D plane strain condition starts, as shown by the 3D
wall. plane strain condition is FEM analyses. In this case, the influence range is
achieved. The influence range independent of the wall’s flexural capacity or whether
b) For thicker wall (3mm), is 70m, which is much larger there is a presence of ground capping beam.
the corner effect still felt at than the “constant movement”
the edge of the wall furthest range registered in the If the wall is not strong enough, the influence range is
from the corner. This is centrifuge modelling. decided by the point when the flexural capacity of the wall
limited by the centrifuge was exceeded, which is at a shorter distance from the
container size. c) The influence range is the corner. This is shown in the centrifuge modelling.
same for all wall thickness or However, FEM unable to show this behaviour. A general
whether there is a presence of equation explaining the corner effect influence range
ground capping beam. considered the situation if the flexural capacity of wall is
exceeded is then established (Eq. 5.20).
The above finding highlighted the advantage of centrifuge

modelling of able to show the actual mechanism.
4 Geotechnical Geotechnical effect Geotechnical effect Agreement.
effect characterized by the stability characterized by the stability
γh γh
number S = influencing number S = influencing
Cu Cu
the corner effect. the corner effect.
126
Fig. 1.1 A schematic diagram showing a typical excavation carried out in the field
127
Notes: (1) Zone I - Well-braced excavations with slurry wall or substantial berms left permanently in place.
(2) Zone II - Excavation with temporary berms and raking strut support.
(3) Zone III – Excavations with ground loss from caission construction or insufficient wall support.
(4) In this context, the term ‘berm’ was used for a passive buttress.
Fig. 2.1 Observed settlements behind strutted excavation in Chicago

(after O’ Rourke et al., 1976)
Notes: (1) Zone I – Sand and soft to hard clay, average workmanship.
(2) Zone II – (a) Very soft to soft clay.
(i) Limited depth of clay below bottom of excavation.
(ii) Significant depth of clay below bottom of excavation but Nb < 5.14.
(b) Settlement affected by construction activities.
(3) Zone III – Very soft to soft clay to a significant depth below bottom of excavation and with Nb > 5.14.
where Nb = γH/Cub and Cub is as defined in Figure 31.
(4) The data used to derive the three zones shown in this figure are taken from excavation supported by soldier
piles or sheet piles with cross-lot struts or tie-backs.
Fig 2.2 Observed settlements behind excavation (after Peck, 1969)
128
Fig. 2.3 Relationship between factor of safety against basal heave and maximum lateral wall
movement from case histories (after Clough et al., 1979)
Fig. 2.4 Relationship between maximum ground settlements and maximum lateral wall
movement from case histories (after Mana & Clough, 1981)
129
Fig. 2.5 Apparent pressure diagrams for computing strut loads in braced cuts (after Terzaghi et al. 1996)
130
Fig. 2.6 Distress caused to a buried service by a shallow trenching operation
(after Needham and Howe, 1984)
131
h = fixed
Ng = increasing
σ = increasing
σ’ = unknown
Fig. 2.7 Schematic representation of the “Increasing-g” method to

simulate excavation
γliquid = γsoil
Ng = constant
σ = constant
σ’ = known
Fig. 2.8 Schematic representation of the “Heavy Liquid” method

to simulate excavation
132
Fig. 2.9 TIT’s in-flight excavator setup (after Kimura et al. 1994)
133
12
φ = 40°
10
Stability Factor, Ns = Hc . γ/c

30°
∝ 8
20°
10°
6
0°
H 4
2 90° Hc
0
45 90 135 180
Corner Angle, ∝ (degrees)
Fig. 2.10b Stability factor Ns as a function of the

Fig. 2.10a Vertical cut with corner angle ∝ (after
corner angle ∝ (after Giger and Krizek, 1975)
Giger and Krizek, 1975)
134
Fig. 2.11 Stability Number versus Depth of Excavation Divided by Radius
(after Britto and Kusakabe, 1983)
135
Fig. 2.12 2D Section Used in Trench Excavation Analysis
(after De Moor, 1994)
136
a) Configuration of excavation case studied
b) PSR Chart: Relationship between B/L and distance from corner for various PSR
Fig. 2.13 PSR Chart (After Ou et al. 1996)
137
Fig. 2.14 Typical Analysis on a 10m long x 6m deep x 1m wide trench
excavation. Ground movement along line e – e parallel to trench and located
2m below surface: Comparison between results from three-dimensional and
plane strain analyses (after Nath, 1983)
138
Fig. 2.15 Variation of maximum wall displacement with the distance from for
constant sizes of complementary wall and various sizes of primary wall, L =
Length of primary wall; B = length of complementary wall. After Ou et al.
(1996)
139
Detachable
lift-shaft
Watertight centrifuge
container
Scrape
Fig. 3.1 3D in-flight excavator set-up on centrifuge
Stepper Motor
140
(1) Precision ball screw
(2) Bevel gear
(3) Trust bearing Scale
(4) Stepper motor 2
0 200 mm
(5) Detachable lift shaft
(6) Linear rail
(7) Scraper platform
(8) Scraper
(9) Soil-retaining gate
(10) Stepper motor 1
(11) Soil sample
(12) Excavated soil
(13) Retaining wall
(14) Perspex window
a) Front view b) Cut-section A - A
Fig. 3.2 Schematic diagrams of the 3D in-flight excavator
141
Data Acquisition
3D in-flight System
Indexers/
excavator set-up
drivers
Sliprings
Motor 1 Control
Terminal
Counter
Centrifuge balance
platform Motor 2 Control
Terminal
Video Camera
Monitor
Centrifuge Chamber Control Room
Fig. 3.3 Schematic representation of 3D in-flight excavator set-up on the centrifuge during testing
142
Indexer/Drivers for
stepper motors
Fig. 3.4 Indexers/drivers mounted on-board the centrifuge
silicone sealant
Fig. 3.5 Internal parts of indexers/drivers strengthened by silicone sealant.

The indexers/drivers was mounted near to the centrifuge rotating shaft to
minimized centrifugal force during spinning
143
43.5m
43.5m
17.0m
15.5m
Fig. 3.6 Schematic drawing of a corner of an excavation simulated
144
Detachable liftshaft (excavator)
from 3D in-flight excavator
150mm
Fig. 3.7 2D in-flight excavation test set-up on a narrow centrifuge

container
145
Fig. 3.8 Micro-concrete wall used in the study
Fig. 3.9 One of the aluminum alloy wall used in the study
146
Fig. 3.10 Plan view of the excavation and LVDT set-up for Test 3DK-2
Fig. 3.11 Locations of SGs and TSTs in the experiment: Test 3DK-2c
147
OCR Ratio
0 1 ∝
About
30mm 1)
2)
Depth from Ground
1) 20kPa laboratory floor consolidation to

achieve NC soil overlain by a thin layer of
OC soil sample after centrifuge spinning
without surcharge
2) 230kPa laboratory floor consolidation to

achieve OC soil sample after centrifuge
spinning without surcharge
Fig. 3.12 Schematic representation of OCR profiles intended
148
Fig. 3.13 De-airing of pore pressure transducers by boiling
Fig. 3.14 Installation of pore pressure transducers into soil sample
149
Stepper motor 1 controlling
vertical movement of cutting
blade
Cutting Vertical
blade LVDTs
Horizontal
LVDTs
Detachable
liftshaft
3.15a) Completed 3D in-flight excavation test set-up before transporting to centrifuge room
Miniature
camera on
camera frame
3.15b) 3D in-flight excavation test set-up after excavation test on centrifuge platform
150
a) Scraper
extended close to
retaining wall
b) Scraper lowered
to penetrate into soil
and then scrapping
soil towards the
liftshaft
c) Finished
scrapping. Scraper
in liftshaft
Fig. 3.16 Excavation in Progress (captured by miniature camera mounted in

front of the test sample)
151
0
Surface Settlement (mm) Model Scale
20
29.104mm
40
0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Elapsed Time (s)
Fig. Fig.
4.1 4.1 Surface
Surface settlement
settlement versusversus elapsed
elapsed reconsolidation
reconsolidation time3DK-3)
time (Test (Test 3DK-3)
800
Estimated final settlement = 1/0.0331022 = 30.209 mm
Average % consolidation = 29.104/30.209 = 96.3%

t/sett (s/volts)
400
Fit Equation:
Y = 0.0331022 * X + 22.427
0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Elapsed Time (s)
Fig. 4.2 Hyperbolic plot, Elapsed time/Settlement versus Elapsed Time (Test 3DK-3)
Fig. 4.2 Hyperbolic plot, Elapsed time/Settlement versus Elapsed Time (Test 3DK-3)
152
Unit Weight (kN/m3) Undrained Shear Strength, Cu (kPa)
16 16.5 17 17.5 18 0 10 20 30 40
0 0
5 5
Depth from Ground Level (m) Prototype Scale

1-g Vane Shear Test
10 10
15 15
Cu = 0.22 P’v
20 20
25 25
30 30
a) Density profile of NC soil used in the experiments b) Undrained shear strength profile of NC soil used in
the experiments
Fig. 4.3 Density and undrained shear strength profiles of NC soil used in the experiments
153
Fig. 4.4 Schematic plan view of model retaining wall edge at container wall
face
154
8
Horizontal LVDTs Layout (Plan)
Lateral Displacement (mm)
98
98
4
Primary wall investigated
0 10 20 30
Elapsed Time (mins)
Fig. 4.5 Responses of LVDTs installed at difference planes (Test 3DK-2)

Fig. 4.6 Responses of LVDTs installed at difference planes (Test 3DK-2D)
155
Fig. 4.6 Flow chart showing centrifuge tests conducted
156
165
70
35
Fig. 4.7a) Plan view of the excavation and LVDT set-out: Test 3DK-2c
Fig. 4.7b) Locations of SGs and TSTs in the experiment: Test 3DK-2c 157
Depth of Excavation (m) Prototype
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
0.00
0.10
Surface Settlement (m) Prototype
0.20
D=3, x=3.5
0.30 D=3, x=9.1
D=3, x=14.5
0.40 D=7, x=3.5
D=7, x=9.1
D=7, x=14.5
0.50 D = distance behind wall (m)
D=16.5, x=3.5
D=16.5, x=9.1 x = distance from corner (m)
0.60 D=16.5, x=14.5
0.70
Fig. 4.8 Test: 3DK-2c: Surface settlement at various location behind the retaining wall
158
Distance behind Wall (m) Prototype Scale
0 5 10 15 20
0.00
0.10
0.20 1m exc
0.30 2m exc
0.40 3m exc
0.50 4m exc
0.60 5m exc
0.70
a) 3.5m from corner

0 5 10 15 20
0.00
0.10
0.20 1m exc
0.30 2m exc
0.40 3m exc
4m exc
0.50
5m exc
0.60
0.70
b) 9.1m from corner

0 5 10 15 20
0.00
0.10
0.20 1m exc
0.30 2m exc
3m exc
0.40
4m exc
0.50 5m exc
0.60
0.70
c) 14.5m from corner
Fig. 4.9 Surface settlement profiles behind wall, at various section from corner
159
D/h
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0%
2%
4%
6%
8% 2DK-1
S/h
10% 2DK-3
3DK-2c: x =3.5
12%
3DK-2c: x = 9.1
14% 3DK-2c: x = 14.5
16% Upper bound of Zone III by Peck (1969) for very soft clay (for soldier
pile or sheet pile wall with cross-bracing or tiebacks)
18%
a) at 2m excavation
D /h
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0%
5%
10%
15% 2D K -1
S/h
2D K -3
20%
3D K -2c: x =3.5
25% 3D K -2c: x = 9.1
3D K -2c: x = 14.5
30%
Upper bound of Zone III by Peck (1969) for very soft clay (for soldier
35% pile or sheet pile wall with cross-bracing or tiebacks)
b) at 4m excavation
Fig. 4.10 Surface settlement behind wall: Test 3DK-2c compare 2D tests and
published data (after Peck 1969)
S = Surface settlement
h = Depth of excavation
D = Distance behind wall
160
0.70
1m Exc
0.60 2m Exc
3m Exc
0.50 4m Exc
5m Exc
0.40
3m behind wall
0.30
0.20
7m behind
wall
0.10
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Distance from Corner (m) Prototype
Fig. 4.11 Surface settlement profiles at various distances

from corner: at 3.0m and 7.0m behind wall (Test 3DK-2c)
161
14.00
12.00
Distance From Corner (m)
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Distance Behind Wall (m)
a) after 2m excavation
14.00
12.00
Distance from Corner (m)
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
b) after 4m excavation
14.00
12.00
Distance from Corner (m)
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
c) after 7m excavation
Fig. 4.12 Surface settlement contour behind retaining wall (Test 3DK-2c)
162
0.00
5.00
Depth from Ground (m) Prototype
10.00
15.00
20.00
3DK-2c, 1m exc
3DK-2c, 2m exc
25.00 3DK-2c, 3m exc
3DK-2c, 4m exc
30.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
Lateral Displacement of Wall (m) Prototype
Fig. 4.13 Wall deflection profiles at Perspex window (Test 3DK-2c)
150mm
5mm
Fig. 4.14 A typical scraping of 1 layer of soil in 3D in-flight excavation test
163
0.000
0.002
Settlement (m) Prototype
Incremental Surface
0.004
0.006 1.0m exc
0.008 2.0m exc
3.0m exc
0.010
4.0m exc
0.012
5.0m exc
0.014
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance of Scraper from Wall (mm) Model Scale
a) at x = 3.5m from corner
0.000
0.002
0.004
Incremental Surface
0.006 1.0m exc

0.008 2.0m exc
0.010 3.0m exc
0.012 4.0m exc
0.014 5.0m exc
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

b) at x = 9.1m from corner
0.000
0.002
Incremental Surface
0.004
1.0m exc
0.006
2.0m exc
0.008 3.0m exc
0.010 4.0m exc
0.012
0.014
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
c) at x = 14.5m from corner
Fig. 4.15 Incremental surface settlement of a single scraping operation.

LVDTs at 7m behind wall, at various distances from corner (x)
164
0.0 0.0
Normalized Factor = 0.002197m prototype Normalized Factor = 0.005112m prototype
0.2 0.2
Normalized Incremental
Surface Settlement
Surface Settlement
0.4 0.4
0.6 0.6
0.8 0.8 x = 3.5m

x = 3.5m
x = 9.1m x = 9.1m
1.0 1.0
x = 14.5m x = 14.5m
1.2 1.2
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Distance of Scraper from Wall (mm) Model Scale Distance of Scraper from Wall (mm) Model Scale
a) 0.5m to 1.0m-excavation b) 1.5m to 2.0m-excavation
0.0 0.0
Normalized Factor = 0.007939m prototype Normalized Factor = 0.011265m prototype
0.2 0.2
Surface Settlement
Surface Settlement
0.4 0.4
0.6 0.6
0.8 0.8
x = 3.5m x = 3.5m
x = 9.1m x = 9.1m
1.0 1.0
x = 14.5m x = 14.5m
1.2 1.2
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Distance of Scraper from Wall (mm) Model Scale Distance of Scraper from Wall (mm) Model Scale
c) 2.5m to 3.0m-excavation d) 3.5m to 4.0m-excavation
Fig. 4.16 Normalized incremental surface settlement at 7m behind wall of a single scraping operation: At
165
various distances from corner at different excavation stages (Test 3DK-2c)
0.000
Incremental Surface Settlement at the end
of each scraping stages (m) Prototype
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010 x= 3.5m
x= 9.1m
0.012
x= 14.5m
0.014
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Fig. 4.17 The final settlement at each stage of scrapping.

x = distance from corner
166
120
P = measured lateral earth (kPa)
100
X13 Passive
X12 Active 8m
80
24m
X11 Passive
X10 Active TST-X10 Active Side
60 TST-X11 Passive Side
8m TST-X12 Active Side
*Prototype Scale
15m
TST-X13 Passive Side
40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Fig. 4.18 Lateral earth pressures versus depth of excavation. Total stress
transducers (TSTs ) at passive and active sides, at 8m and 15m from
corner
167
X13 Passive
X12 Active 8m
2.0 24m
X11 Passive
X10 Active
1.6
8m
*Prototype Scale
15m
1.2
P
K=
γy 0.8
TST-X10 Active Side
0.4
TST-X12 Active Side
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

P
Fig. 4.19a Coefficient of total stress lateral earth pressure coefficient, K = ,
γy
versus depth of excavation. P = measured lateral earth pressure, γ =
density of soil (16 kN/m3), y = depth of TST from soil level
1.5
Rankine’s Passive State
1.0
0.5
0.0
P − γy
2C u -0.5
Rankine’s Active State
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
P − γy
Fig. 4.19b versus depth of excavation. P = measured lateral earth
2C u
pressure, γ = density of soil (16 kN/m3), y = depth of TST from soil
level, Cu = undrained shear strength at the TST level
168
0 5 10 15 20 25
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
2DK-1, 2m exc
1.00
2DK-1, 4m exc
1.20
2DK-3,2m exc
1.40
2DK-3,4m exc
1.60
3DK-2c, at 14.5m from corner, 2m exc
1.80
3DK-2c, at 14.5m from corner, 4m exc
2.00
Fig. 4.20 Surface settlement profiles behind wall. Test 3DK-2c compare 2DK-1 and 2DK-3
169
0.00
2m excavation
4m excavation
5.00
Depth from Ground (m) Prototyp
10.00
2DK-1, 2m exc: NF=0.480m

15.00 2DK-1, 4m exc: NF=1.600m
2DK-3, 2m exc: NF=0.148m
2DK-3, 4m exc: NF=0.884m
20.00 3DK-2c, 2m exc: NF=0.050m
3DK-2c, 4m exc: NF=0.299m
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Normalized Lateral Displacementof Wall
(Normalized against Wall Top Displacement)
Fig. 4.21 Normalized wall deflection profiles. 3D test compare 2D tests
170
Excavate from 0.5 to 1.0m Excavate from 0.5 to 1.0m Excavate from 0.5 to 1.0m
0.0 0.0 0.0
NF2D = 0.029500m
0.4 0.4 0.4 NF3D = 0.002197m
Normalized Incremental Surface Settlement

3DK-2c
3DK-2c
3DK-2c
0.8 0.8 0.8
NF2D = 0.029500m 2D NF2D = 0.029500m
NF3D = 0.002197m NF3D = 0.002197m 2D
1.2 1.2 1.2 2D
0.0 Excavate from 1.5 to 2.0m 0.0 Excavate from 1.5 to 2.0m 0.0 Excavate from 1.5 to 2.0m
0 50 100 150Stabilization
200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
0.4 of 2D 0.4 0.4
movement
0.8 Stabilization 0.8 0.8
NF2D = 0.046000m of 3D NF2D = 0.046000m NF2D = 0.046000m
1.2 NF3D = 0.005112m movement NF3D = 0.005112m 1.2 NF3D = 0.005112m
1.2
0.0 Excavate from 2.5 to 3.0m 0.0 Excavate from 2.5 to 3.0m 0.0 Excavate from 2.5 to 3.0m
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
NF2D = 0.046200m NF2D = 0.046200m
0.4 0.4 0.4
NF3D = 0.007940m NF3D = 0.007940m
0.8 NF2D = 0.046200m 0.8 0.8

NF3D = 0.007940m
1.2 1.2 1.2
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Distance of scraper from wall (mm) Distance of scraper from wall (mm) Distance of scraper from wall (mm)
a) x = 3.5m b) x = 9.1m c) x = 14.5m
Fig. 4.22 Incremental surface settlement at 7m behind wall: 2D (Test 2DK-3) versus 3D (Tests 3DK-2 and 3DK-2c)
171
0.0
0.2 Test 3DK-3
0.4
a) 0.5 to 1.0m
excavation 0.6
Test 3DK-2
0.8
NF2D=0.07920m Test 2DK-3
1.0
NF3D=0.00684m
1.2
Test 3DK-1
1.4
1.6
0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0.2
Normalized Incremental Wall Top Displacement
0.4
b) 1.5 to 2.0m 0.6
excavation
0.8
NF2D=0.12089m 1.0
NF3D=0.02110m 1.2
1.4
0.0
1.6
0.2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
c) 2.5 to 3.0m
excavation 0.4
NF2D=0.14888m 0.6
NF3D=0.05058m
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
d) 3.5 to 4.0m 0.2
excavation
0.4
NF2D=0.15566m
NF3D=0.06358m 0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance of scraper from wall (mm)
Fig. 4.23 Incremental wall top displacement: 2D Test (Test 2DK-3) versus
3D Test (Tests 3DK-1, 2 and 3), x = 9.1m
172
0.30
0.25
0.20
PSR-sett
0.15
0.10 1m Exc
2m Exc
0.05 3m Exc
4m Exc
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
x , Distance from Corner (m)
Fig. 4.24 PSR-sett at 7m behind wall versus distance from corner (x) Test 3DK-2c
173
h, Depth of Excavation (m) Prototype
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.00
0.05
0.10
3DK-1: x = 3.5m
0.15
3DK-1: x = 9.1m
0.20 3DK-1: x = 14.5m
0.25 3DK-2: x = 3.5m
3DK-2: x = 9.1m
0.30 Long null
3DK-2: x = 14.5m period after
0.35 5m-
3DK-3: x = 3.5m
excavation
3DK-3: x = 9.1m in this
0.40 experiment
3DK-3: x = 14.5m
0.45
Fig. 4.25 Surface settlement at 7m behind wall versus depth of excavation: 3D

tests with various wall thickness
0.7
3DK-1: x = 4.2m
3DK-1: x = 9.8m
0.6
δ, Wall top displacement (m) Prototype
3DK-1: x = 15.2m
3DK-2: x = 4.2m
0.5
3DK-2: x = 9.8m
3DK-2: x = 15.2m
0.4
3DK-3: x = 9.8m
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
h , Depth of Excavation (m)Prototype
Fig. 4.26 Lateral wall top displacement (δ) versus depth of excavation: 3D
tests with various wall thickness
174
1.2
3DK-1, 2m Exc
Wall top displacement ratio (1=0.3064m)
3DK-1, 4m Exc
1
3DK-2, 2m Exc
3DK-2, 4m Exc
0.8
3DK-3, 2m Exc
3DK-3, 4m Exc
0.6
0.4
0.2
-0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
x, Distance from Corner (m)
Fig. 4.27 Lateral displacement at wall top at various distances from
corner: 3D tests with various thickness
1.2
1
Surface Settlement Ratio (1 = 0.1223m)
3DK-1, 2m Exc
0.8 3DK-1, 4m Exc
3DK-2, 2m Exc
3DK-2, 4m Exc
0.6 3DK-3, 2m Exc
3DK-3, 4m Exc
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
x, Distance from Corner (m)
Fig. 4.28 Surface settlement profiles at 7m behind wall at various

distances from corner: 3D tests with various thickness
175
14.00
x, Distance from corner (m) Prototype
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00
Distance behind wall (m) Prototype
a) Test 3DK-1
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00
b) Test 3DK-2
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00
c) Test 3DK-3
Fig. 4.29 Surface settlement contour behind retaining wall after 7m-
176
0.14

0.12
1m Exc 0.20
0.10
Offset-Settlement (m) Prototype

2m Exc
0.08 3m Exc
0.16
4m Exc
0.06 5m Exc
6m Exc 0.12
0.04
7m Exc
0.02 0.08
0.00
0.04
0 5 10 15 20
x, distance from corner (m) Prototype
0.00
a) Typical surface settlement versus distance from
0 5 10 15 20
corner plots (Test 3DK-3). The settlement profiles x, distance from corner (m) Prototype
are projected to Y-Axis, and the intercepts are taken
as the settlement at corner for offset b) Offset-surface settlement versus x graph (Test 3DK-1)
0.20 0.06

0.16 0.05
0.04
0.12
0.03
0.08
0.02
0.04 0.01
0.00 0.00
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
x, distance from corner (m) Prototype x, distance from corner (m) Prototype
c) Offset-surface settlement versus x graph (Test 3DK-2) d) Offset-surface settlement versus x graph (Test 3DK-3)
Fig. 4.30 Illustration of offsetting surface settlements with settlement at the corner 177
A E
B
B’
F’
a) 3D view of a corner of an open excavation
Capping
Beam
Retaining wall
b) Section B-B’ - Typical 2D modelling configuration
Fig. 4.31 Sketch illustration of capping beam restrained at corner
178
Distance behind wall (m) prototype
0 5 10 15 20 25
Surface settlement (m) Prototype
0.00
0.02
0.04
3DK-2c, 2m exc
0.06 3DK-2c, 4m exc
3DK-2, 2m exc
0.08
3DK-2, 4m exc
0.10
a) Surface settlement behind wall: Test 3DK-2c compare Test 3DK-2
Cumulative surface settlement (m)
0.00
0.04 3DK-2: x = 3.5

3DK-2: x = 9.1
0.08 3DK-2: x = 14.5
3DK-2c: x = 3.5
0.12 3DK-2c: x = 9.1
3DK-2c: x = 14.5
0.16
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Depth of excavation (m)
b) Surface settlement at 7m behind wall versus depth of excavation: Test
3DK-2c compare Test 3DK-2
80%
Sett (cap)/Sett (uncap) %
60%
40%
x = 3.5
20% x = 9.1
x = 14.5
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Depth of excavation (m)
c) Differences of settlement at 7m behind wall versus depth of excavation:
Test 3DK-2c compare Test 3DK-2
Fig. 4.32 Surface settlement: Test 3DK-2c compare Test 3DK-2 179
-10.00
-5.00
Ground surface
0.00
Depth from Ground (m) Prototype
5.00
10.00
15.00
3DK-2c, 1m exc
3DK-2c, 2m exc
20.00 3DK-2c, 3m exc
3DK-2c, 4m exc
3DK-2, 1m exc
3DK-2, 2m exc
25.00 3DK-2, 3m exc
3DK-2, 4m exc
30.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Lateral Displacement of Wall (m) Prototype
Fig. 4.33 Wall deflection profiles at the edge of retaining wall (17m
from corner): Test 3DK-2c compare 3DK-2
180
Undrained Shear Strength, Cu (kPa)
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
10
15
20
NC (Test 3DK-2)
25 OC (Test 3DK-2o)
30
Fig. 4.34 Undrained shear strength profiles of NC and

OC soils determined by 1-g vane shear test
181
0.45
2m exc
Lateral Wall Top Displacement (m) Prototype
0.40
4m exc
NC (3DK-2)
0.35
6m exc
0.30
OC (3DK-2o)
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 5 10 15 20

Fig. 4.35a Lateral wall top displacement versus distance from corner. Soft
NC compares Stiff OC soils
1.20
Normalized Lateral Wall Top Displacement
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40 3DK-2o: 2m exc. NF = 0.0537m

3DK-2o: 4m exc. NF = 0.1594m
3DK-2o: 6m exc. NF = 0.5041m
0.20 3DK-2: 2m exc. NF = 0.0115m
3DK-2: 4m exc. NF = 0.1927m
0.00 3DK-2: 6m exc. NF = 0.4120m
0 5 10 15 20
Fig. 4.35b Lateral wall top displacement normalized by dividing with

displacement at x = 15.2m (furthest from corner), at the particular
stage of excavation. Soft NC compares Stiff OC soils
182
0.08
NC (3DK-2)
2m exc
0.06
4m exc
OC (3DK-2o)
6m exc 0.084m
0.04
0.041m
0.02
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
Fig. 4.36a Offset-settlement versus distance from corner. Soft NC compares
Stiff OC soils
1.20
1.00
Normalized Offset-Settlement
0.80
0.60
3DK-2o: 2m exc. NF = 0.0033m

0.40
3DK-2o: 4m exc. NF = 0.0208m
3DK-2o: 6m exc. NF = 0.0527m
0.20 3DK-2: 2m exc. NF = 0.0048m
3DK-2: 4m exc. NF = 0.0250m
3DK-2: 6m exc. NF = 0.0763m
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
Fig. 4.36b Offset-settlement normalized by dividing with displacement at x =
14.5m (furthest from corner), at the particular stage of excavation.
Soft NC compares Stiff OC soils
183
Additional 27 wall elements
to model wall with protrusion
Wall elements
Fig. 5.1 Typical 1000 elements FEM mesh used in the study
184
Deflection (m) Prototype Deflection (m) Prototype
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
-5
-5
These 2 points not

so clear in the 0
0 experiments
5
5
Prototype Depth (m)

Prototype Depth (m)
10 10
15 15 3DK-2D: 2m Exc (Exp)

3DK-1D: 2m exc (Exp)
3DK-2D: 4m Exc (Exp)
3DK-1D: 4m exc (Exp)
20 20
3DK-1D: 2m exc (FEM) 3DK-2D: 2m exc (FEM)
3DK-1D: 4m exc (FEM) 3DK-2D: 4m exc (FEM)

25 25
a) Test 3DK-1 b) Test 3DK-2
Deflection (m) Prototype Deflection (m) Prototype

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60
-5 -5
0 0
5 5
Prototype Depth (m)
Prototype Depth (m)
10 10
3DK-3D: 2m Exc too small

3DK-3D:
to capture 2m Exc
in experiment
15 15 3DK-2Dc: 2m exc (Exp)
3DK-3D: 4m Exc (Exp)
3DK-2Dc: 4m exc (Exp)
20 3DK-3D: 2m exc (FEM) 20 3DK-2Dc: 2m exc (FEM)

3DK-3D: 4m exc (FEM)
3DK-2Dc: 4m exc (FEM)
25 Fig. 5.3 FEM predicted wall deflection s 25
c) Test 3DK-3 d) Test 3DK-2c
Fig. 5.2 Wall deflection profiles at the edge (on Perspex window in the experiment)
185
Fig. 5.3 Configuration of excavation case studied by Ou et al. (1996)
Distance from corner (x)

Length of primary wall (PL)
Length of
complementary
wall (B)
Fig. 5.4 Schematic illustration of size of excavation studied
186
Fig. 5.5 Variation of maximum wall displacement with the distance from for
constant sizes of complementary wall and various sizes of primary wall, L =
Length of primary wall; B = length of complementary wall. After Ou et al.
(1996)
187
0.80 0.80
5m exc. at plane strain condition 5m exc. at plane strain condition
Wall Top Displacement (m) Prototype

0.70 0.70
0.60 0.60
1m Exc (Exp)
(3D Exp)
0.50 0.50
4m exc. 4m exc. 2m Exc (Exp)
(3D Exp)
0.40 0.40
0.30 3m exc. 0.30 3m exc. (3D Exp)

3m Exc (Exp)
0.20 0.20
2m exc. 2m exc.
4m Exc (Exp)
(3D Exp)
0.10 1m exc. 0.10 1m exc.
0.00 0.00 5m Exc (Exp)

(3D Exp)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance from Corner (m) Distance from Corner (m)
1m exc (FEM)
a) PL = 17m (actual experimental length) b) PL = 25m
0.80 0.80
2m exc (FEM)
5m exc. at plane strain condition 5m exc. at plane strain condition

0.70 0.70
Reached plane strain condition

3m exc (FEM)
0.60 0.60
Reached plane strain condition
0.50 0.50 4m exc (FEM)

4m exc. 4m exc.
0.40 0.40
5m exc (FEM)
0.30 3m exc. 0.30 3m exc.
0.20 2m exc (2D Exp)
2m exc. 0.20 2m exc.
0.10 1m exc. 0.10 1m exc. 3m exc (2D Exp)
0.00
L2D
L2D 0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Distance from Corner (m) Distance from Corner (m)
c) PL = 65m d) PL = 130m
188
Fig. 5.6 Wall top displacement at various distances from corner, FEM
analyses with primary wall length (PL) = 17, 25, 65 and 130m
1.20 Corner effect influence range, L2D
1.00
0.80
PL = 65m
PL = 130m
PSR
0.60
1m Exc (FEM)
0.40
2m Exc (FEM)
3m Exc (FEM)
0.20
4m Exc (FEM)
5m Exc (FEM)
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
xd = Distance from Corner (m)
Fig. 5.7 PSR versus distance from corner plot: FEM analyses results. PL = 65
and 130m
189
1.2
L2D = 70m
1.0
0.8
PSR
0.6 1m exc: Max. Disp = 0.0680m

PSR 2m exc: Max. Disp = 0.1290m
0.4 = 0.92 PSR 3m exc: Max. Disp = 0.2593m
= 0.78
4m exc: Max. Disp = 0.6138m
0.2
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
xd(m)
(m)
a) 3DK-1-130 (1mm thick wall in model scale)
1.2
L2D = 70m
1.0
0.8
PSR
0.6
0.4 2m exc: Max. Disp = 0.1386m
0.2 4m exc: Max. Disp = 0.4144m
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
x (m)
d (m)
b) 3DK-2-130 (2mm thick wall in model scale)
1.2
L2D = 70m
1.0
0.8
PSR
0.6 1m exc: Max. Disp. = 0.0680m

2m exc: Max. Disp. = 0.1416m
0.4 3m exc: Max. Disp. = 0.2366m
0.2
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
x (m)
d (m)
c) 3DK-3-130 (3mm thick wall in model scale)
Fig. 5.8 Variation of PSR against distance from corner, x
Wall with capping beam, with different wall stiffness
190
1.2
L2D = 70m
1.0
0.8
1m exc
PSR
0.6
2m exc
0.4 3m exc
4m exc
0.2
5m exc
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
x d , distance from Corner (m)
a) 3DK-1c-130 (1mm thick wall in model scale)
1.2
L2D = 70m
1.0
0.8
PSR
0.6
1m exc
0.4 2m exc
3m exc
0.2 4m exc
5m exc
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
d , distance from Corner (m)
x,
b) 3DK-2c-130 (2mm thick wall in model scale)
1.2
L2D = 70m
1.0
0.8
PSR
0.6
1m exc
0.4 2m exc
3m exc
0.2 4m exc
5m exc
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
xd , distance from Corner (m)
c) 3DK-3c-130 (3mm thick wall in model scale)
Fig. 5.9 Variation of PSR against distance from corner, x

Wall without capping beam, with different wall stiffness 191
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
PSR
0.50 3D-1-130
0.40 3D-2-130
3D-3-130
0.30
3DK-1c-130
0.20 3DK-2c-130
0.10 3DK-3c-130
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Depth of Excavation (m)
Fig. 5.10 PSR at a section of x = 30m against the depth of excavation.

For tests with and without capping beam
192
Primary wall
being studied Fixed end Primary wall
at corner being studied
x
Pa
Pp
a) corner excavation carried out in the b) assume primary wall is fixed at

experiments the corner
Fig. 5.11 Illustration of a simplified corner excavation
193
x
L Free edges
0 δ
h1
Pp Pa
y
Front View Cross Sectional View
Case 1b
Pp
Case 1a
Case 1 y 0
Pa
δ
b
UDL = q = Pp ( y ) − Pa ( y )
Case 2 x
Fig. 5.12 Schematic representation of the boundary and loadings conditions.
194
Retaining Wall
Retaining Wall
Load Case 1b: Load Case 1a:

Passive earth Active earth
Pp1 pressure pressure
Pa1
Pa
Pp
Pa2 Pp2
a) Idealized pressure diagram b) Simplified pressure diagram
Fig. 5.13 Active and passive earth pressure distribution on cantilever retaining wall
195
L
δ δ max
Fig. 5.14 Illustration of corner restrains effect
196
PSR or δ/δ2D
1.20
1.00
δ2D
Curve 1: FEM analysis modelling Test 3DK-2-130
0.80
3DK-2: 1m exc.
0.60
δy PSR-x/a
PSR-Fixed
0.40
PSR-Pin
0.20 PSR-Pin
Moment
L2D
Lm Ll
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
x(m)
Fig. 5.15 Normalized wall top displacement versus x profiles: FEM 3D excavation
modelling compare beam theories
197
S
L L
x
qx
δ= ( S 3 − 2Sx 2 + x 3 )
24 EI
Let S = 2L
qx
The maximum δ at L = δ max = (8L3 − 4 Lx 2 + x 3 )
24 EI
x  8 4  x  1  x  
2 3
δ
λs = =  −   +   
δ max L  5 5  L  5  L  
Fig. 5.16 Illustration and derivation of end restrain effect with a Pin-end condition
S
L L
Mox
δ= (2 S 2 − 3Sx + x 2 )
6 LEI
Let S = 2L
Mox
The maximum δ at L = δ max = (8 L2 − 6 Lx + x 2 )
12aEI
x  8 
2
δ x 1 x 
λs = =  −2 +   
δ max L  3 L 3 L 
Fig. 5.17 Illustration and derivation of end restrain effect with a Pin-Moment end
condition
198
0.35
1m exc
0.30 2m exc
3m exc
δ, wall top displacement (m) Prototype
0.25 4m exc
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
Fig. 5.18 Wall top displacement versus distance from corner (x): Test 3DK-1
199
0.25
1m exc
2m exc
3m exc
δ, wall top displacement (m) Prototype
0.20
4m exc
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
200
0.09
1m exc
0.08
δ, wall top displacement (m) Prototype 2m exc
0.07 3m exc
4m exc
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
201
0.14
1m exc
0.12 2m exc
3m exc
Offset-Surface Settlement (m) Prototype
0.10 4m exc
5m exc
0.08 6m exc
7m exc
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
-0.02
Fig. 5.21 Offset-surface settlement versus distance from corner (x): Test 3DK-1
202
0.12
1m exc
2m exc
Offset-Surface Settlement (m) Prototype 0.10 3m exc
4m exc
0.08 5m exc
6m exc
7m exc
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
203
0.06
1m exc
2m exc
0.05
3m exc
Offset-Surface Settlement (m) Prototype
4m exc
0.04 5m exc
6m exc
7m exc
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
X, distance from corner (m) Prototype
204
PSR or δ/δ2D
1.20
Curve 2: Simplified curve if wall is
elastic (lateral flexural capacity not
1.00 exceeded)
δ2D
Curve 1: Actual curve if wall is elastic
0.80 (lateral flexural capacity not exceeded)
3DK-2: 1m exc. FEM
0.60 PSR-x/a
δy
PSR-Fixed
0.40
Cuve 3: Simplified PSR-Pin
curve if wall’s
0.20 lateral flexural PSR-Pin Moment
capacity exceeded
Lm Ll L2D
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
x(m)
Region studied in the
centrifuge tests
Fig. 5.24 Normalized wall top displacement versus x profiles: FEM 3D excavation
modelling compare beam theories
205
150 Theoretical moment capacity for 2mm wall = 420 kNm
Lateral Bending Moment (kNm) Prototype
100
50
-50 4.5m from GL, 1m exc

4.5m from GL, 2m exc
-100
-150 4.5m from GL, 4m exc
-200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Distance from corner (m) Prototype
Fig. 5.25a Lateral bending moment versus distance from corner (x): Test 3DK-2
Bending moment increases with

distance from corner, and approach
to zero near to free end edge
BM
Fixed
Fig. 5.25b Theoretical lateral bending moment versus distance profile
206
Lm , Length from corner when
Additional length of wall

lateral yielding (m) occur
30
from corner for lateral

Measured
yielding to occur
20
10
1.7
1mm 2mm 3mm
Wall thickness
Test 3DK-1 Test 3DK-2 Test 3DK-3 (Model Scale)
Fig. 5.26a Measured Lm for Test 3DK-1 and hypothesis of Lm for tests with no
yielding (Tests 3DK-2 and 3DK-3)
lateral yielding to occur

wall from corner for
Additional length of
3
Lm/Lm1
1
1.7
E1 A1 E 2 A2 E 3 A3
E1 A1 E1 A1 E1 A1
Test 3DK-1 Test 3DK-2 Test 3DK-3
Ratio of EA
Fig. 5.26b Hypothesis on the relationship between Lm and wall area:
Normalized Lm versus Normalized EA, where
E = Elastic modulus of wall, same for all the test (E1 = E2 = E3)
A = Cross sectional area of the wall, which is total depth of wall * thickness
of wall. Hence:
A3 = 3 * A1 (A of Test 3DK-3 = 3 times of A of Test 3DK-1)
A2 = 2 * A1 (A of Test 3DK-2 = 2 times of A of Test 3DK-1)
Lm1 = Distance from corner when wall of Test 3DK-1 yielded = 10m
207
Curve 2: Simplified curve if wall is elastic (lateral
PSR or δ/δ2D flexural capacity not exceeded)
1.20
δ2D
1.00
0.80 Curve 1: Actual curve if wall is elastic

(lateral flexural capacity not exceeded)
δy
0.60
0.40 Cuve 3: Simplified

Normalized curve if wall’s
corner effects lateral flexural
towards δy capacity exceeded
0.20
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
x(m)
Fig. 5.27 Illustration showing the hypothesis of normalization of corner effects to achieved δy
208
X13 Passive
X12 Active
8m
24m
X11 Passive
X10 Active
8m *Prototype Scale
15m
= Total Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient
2.0
Rankine’s Passive State

1.6
1.2
0.8 Rankine’s Active State

TST-X10 Active Side
0.4
TST-X12 Active Side
0.0
P
K= 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
γ y
Depth of Excavation (m) Prototype Scale
Fig. 5.28 Total lateral earth pressure coefficient at 8m and 15m from corner, at
active and passive sides, versus depth of excavation
209
Primary wall
being studied Fixed end Primary wall
at corner being studied
x
h1
h1
h2
h2
K oγh1
K aγh1
K pγh2
Fig. 5.29 Schematic diagram illustrating the variation of earth pressure effect at active side
210
120
Lateral Earth Pressure at Active Side,
100
80
Pa (kPa)
60
Pa ( 2 D )
2DK-3S
40 Pa (3 D )−8 m
3DK-2Dc: 8m from corner
20 3DK-2Dc: 15m from corner Pa ( 3 D ) −15 m
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Depth of Excavation (m)
Fig. 5.30 Lateral earth pressure at the retained soil side versus depth of excavation
211
1.35
1.30
8m from corner (Exp) Pa ( 3 D ) − 8 m
1.25
1.20 15m from corner (Exp) P a ( 3 D ) − 15 m
Pa ( 3 D ) 1.15 R = 0.04
Pa ( 2 D ) Best fit curve for TST at 8m
from corner
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
γh
Cu
Pa ( 3 D ) γh
Fig. 5.31 versus for TSTs at 8m and 15m from corner for Test 3DK-2c 212
Pa ( 2 D ) Cu
1.35 8m from corner (Exp)
15m from corner (Exp)
1.30
1.7m from corner (FEM)
1.25 6.3m from corner (FEM)
Pa ( 3 D ) 11.8m from corner (FEM)
1.20
Pa ( 2 D ) 15.8m from corner (FEM)
1.15
1.10 R
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
γh
Cu
Pa ( 3 D ) γh
Fig. 5.32 versus for Test 3DK-2c (Experiment and FEM)
Pa ( 2 D ) Cu
0.1
0.09 FEM
0.08
Experiment
0.07
R = -0.0057x + 0.0857
0.06
R
0.05
0.04
R = -0.0031x + 0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
x, distance from corner (m)
Fig. 5.33 Relationship between R and distance from corner
213
0.40
1m exc
2m exc
0.30
3m exc
4m exc
a) 0.20
δ (m)
0.10
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
0.40
0.30
δ/λs (m)
b)
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
0.40
0.30
δ/(λs *λa) (m)
c)
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
Fig. 5.34 Wall top displacement versus distance from corner: Test 3DK-1
b) δ normalized with λs 214
0.20
1m exc
2m exc
3m exc
4m exc
0.10
a)
δ (m)
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
0.40
0.30
0.20
δ/λs (m)
b)
0.10
0.00
0 5 10 15 20

0.40
0.30
δ/(λs *λa) (m)
c) 0.20
0.10
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
0.40
1m exc
2m exc
0.30 3m exc
4m exc
0.20
a)
δ (m)
0.10
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
0.40
0.30
δ/λs (m)
b)
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
0.40
0.30
δ/(λs *λa) (m)
c)
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
0.14
1m exc
0.12 2m exc
3m exc
Offset-Sett (m) 0.10 4m exc
5m exc
0.08 6m exc
7m exc
a) 0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
0.20
0.16
Offset-Sett /λs (m)
0.12
b)
0.08
0.04
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
0.20
0.16
Offset-Sett /(λs *λa) (m)
0.12
c)
0.08
0.04
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
Fig. 5.37 Offset-surface settlement at 7m behind wall versus x: Test 3DK-1

b) Offset-Sett normalized with λs 217
0.12
1m exc
2m exc
3m exc
Offset-Sett (m)
0.08 4m exc
5m exc
6m exc
7m exc
a)
0.04
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
0.20
0.16
0.12
b)
0.08
0.04
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
0.24
0.20
0.16
c)
0.12
0.08
0.04
0.00
0 5 10 15 20

0.06
1m exc
2m exc
3m exc
Offset-Sett (m)
0.04 4m exc
5m exc
6m exc
7m exc
a)
0.02
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
0.20
0.16
0.12
b)
0.08
0.04
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
0.20
0.16
0.12
c)
0.08
0.04
0.00
0 5 10 15 20

1.0 2DK-1
2DK-3
3DK-1: x=4.2
0.8 3DK-1: x=9.8
3DK-1: x=15.2
3DK-2: x=4.2
0.6 3DK-2: x=9.8
a)
δ (m)
3DK-2: x=15.2
3DK-3: x=9.8
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
h, depth of excavation (m)
1.0
0.8
0.6
δ/λs (m)
b)
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1.0
0.8
δ/(λs *λa) (m)
c)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Fig. 5.40 Wall top displacement versus depth of excavation: Tests 3DK-1, 3DK-2 and 3DK-3
0.60 2DK-3
3DK-1: x=3.5
3DK-1: x=9.1
Offset-sett (m)
0.50
3DK-1: x=14.5
0.40 3DK-2: x=3.5
3DK-2: x=9.1
a)
3DK-2: x=14.5
0.30
3DK-3: x=3.5
3DK-3: x=9.1
0.20 3DK-3: x=14.5
0.10
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0.60
0.50
Offset-sett /λs (m)
0.40
b)
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0.60
Offset-sett /(λs *λa) (m)
0.50
0.40
c)
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fig. 5.41 Offset-settlement versus depth of excavation: Tests 3DK-1, 3DK-2 and 3DK-3
References
REFERENCES
Arul, M.B. and Kusakabe, O. Stability of axisymmetric excavations in clays. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering. (109), No. 5: 666 – 681. 1983.
Atkinson, J.H. An Introduction to The Mechanics of Soils and Foundations: Through
Critical State Soil Mechanics. McGraw-Hill, 1993.
Balasubramanium. A.S., Loganathan. N., Fernando. G.S.K., Indraratna. B., Phien-wej.
N., Bergado. D.T., and Honjo. Y. Advanced Geotechnical Analysis. Report of
Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. 1992.
Banerjee, P.K. and Yousif , N.B. A plasticity model for the anisotropically
consolidated clays. Int. J. for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics. (10), 521 – 541. 1986.
Banerjee, P.K., Kumbhojkar, A.S. and Yousif, N.B. Finite element analysis of the
stability of a vertical cut using an anisotropic soil model. Can. Geotech. J. (25),
119 – 127. 1988.
Bica, A.V.C. and Clayton, C.R.I. An experimental study of the behaviour of
embedded lengths of cantilever walls. Geotechnique (48), No. 6: 731 – 745. 1998.
Bjerrum, L. and Eide, O. Stability of excavation in clay. Geotechnique (6), 32 - 47.
1956.
Bjerrum, L. Embankments on soft ground. 5th PSC, ASCE, (2): 1 - 54.
Bolton, M.D. and Powrie, W. Behaviour of diaphragm walls in clay prior to
collapsed. Geotechnique, (38), No. 2: 167-189. 1988.
Bolton, M.D. and Powrie, W. The collapsed of diaphragm walls retaining clay.
Geotechnique, (37), No. 3: 335-353. 1987.
Bolton, M.D. and Stewart, D.T. The effect on propped diaphragm walls of rising
groundwater in stiff clay. Geotechnique, (44), No. 1: 111-127. 1994.
222
References
Bosscher, P.J. and Gray, D.H. Soil arching in sandy slopes. J. of Geotechnical
Engineering (112), No. 6 : 626 – 645. 1986.
Bowles, J.E. Foundation Analysis and Design. McGraw-Hill. 5th Edition, 1996.
Brassinga, H.E. and Van Tol, A.F. Deformation of a high-rise building adjacent to a
strutted diaphragm wall. Earth Retaining Structures and Deep Excavation. Proc.
XECSMFE, (2) : 787 – 790. 1991.
Britto, A.M. and Kusakabe, O. Stability of axisymmetric excavation in clays. J.
Geotechnical Engineering, (109), No. 5: 666 – 681. 1983.
Britto, A.M. and Kusakabe, O. Stability of unsupported axisymmetric excavation in
soft clay. Geotechnique (32), No. 3: 261-270. 1982.
Burland, J.B., Simpson, G.B., St John, H.D. Movement around excavation in London
Clay. National Press. 1979.
Chew, S.H., Yong, K.Y. and Lim, Y.K.A. Three-dimensional finite element analysis
of a strutted underlain by deep deposits of soft clay. 1998.
Chong, P.T., Tan, T.S., Lee, F.H., Yong, K.Y. and Tanaka, H. Characterisation of
Singapore lower clay by in-situ and laboratory tests. Proc. Of the Int. Symp. On
Problematic Soils, IS Tohoku, Sendai, Japan: 641-644. 1998.
CIRIA, Special publication 95. The design and construction of sheet piled
cofferdams. Thomas Telford. London, 1993.
Clough G.W. and Denby G.M. Stabilizing berm design for temporary walls in clay.
ASCE J. Geotech. Engng., (1), 13 – 29. 1977.
Clough, G.W. et al. Prediction of support excavation movements under marginal
stability conditions in clay. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Numerical Methods, Aachen, (4),
1485-1502. 1979.
Craig, R.F. Soil Mechanics. Chapman & Hall. 5th Edition. 1992. (Reprinted 1995).
223
References
Craig, W. H. Proc. Symp. On the application of centrifuge modelling to geotechnical
design. University of Manchester, UK. 1984 .
Craig, W.H. and Rowe, P.W. Operation of a geotechnical centrifuge from 1970 –
1979. Geotechnical Testing Journal, (4), No. 1, March 1981: 19-25.
Das, B.M. Principles of geotechnical engineering. 2nd Edition, PWS-Kent Publishing
Company. 1990.
De Moor, E.K. An analysis of bored pile/diaphragm wall installation effects.
Technical Note, Geotechnique, (44), No. 2: 341 –347. 1994.
Fernandes, M.M.A. Three-dimensional Analysis of Flexible Earth Retaining
Structures. Proc. Second NUMOG (Eds. G.N. Pande & W.F. van Impe), M.
Jackson & Sons, UK. 1986.
Fernandes, M.M.A., Cardoso, A.J.S, Trigo, J.F.C. and Marques, J.M.M.C. Finite
element modelling of supported excavations. Soil-Structure Interaction: Numerical
Analysis and Modelling (Ed. J.W.Bull), E & FN Spon. 1994.
Finno, R.J. and Nerby, S.M. Saturated clay response during braced cut construction.
J. Geotech. Engrg. ASCE, (115), No. 8: 1065 – 1084. 1989.
Finno, R.J., Lawrece, S.A., Allawh, N.F. and Harahap, I.S. Analysis of performance
of pile groups adjacent to deep excavation. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering.
(117), No. 6: 934-955. 1991
Fourie, A.B. and Potts, D.M. A numerical and experimental study of London Clay
subjected to passive stress relief. Geotechnique. (41), No. 1: 1 – 15. 1991.
Frydman, S., Baker, R. and Levy, A. Modelling the soil nailing – excavation process.
Proc. Centrifuge 94, Singapore: 669 – 674. 1994
Gere. J.M. and Timoshenko. S.P. Mechanics of materials. 3rd SI Edition. Chapman &
Hall. 1994.
224
References
Giger, M.W. and Krizek, R.J. Stability analysis of vertical cut with variable corner
angle. Soils and Foundations, (15), No. 2: 63 – 71. 1975.
Goh, T.L. Stabilization of an excavation by an embedded improved soil layer. PhD
Thesis, National University of Singapore, 2002.
Goldberg, D.T. Jaworski, W.E., Gordon, M.D. Lateral support systems and
underpining. Report FHWA-RD-75-128, (1), Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C. Apr 1976.
Golden Software, Inc. Surfer (Win 32) Version 6.04, 1997.
Griffiths, D.V. & Koutsabeloulis, N. Finite element analysis of vertical excavations.
Computers and Geotechnics, (1) : 221-235. 1985.
Gunn, M.J. Satkunananthan, A. and Clayton, C.R.I. Finite element modelling of
installation effect. In Retaining Structures, 46-55. London: Thomas Telford.
(1993).
Hashash, Y.M.A. and Whittle, A.J. Ground movement prediction for deep excavation
in soft clay. J. of Geotechnical Engneering (122), No. 6: 474 – 486. 1996.
Hsi, J. P. & Small, J. C. Ground settlements and drawdown of the water table around
an excavation. Canadian Geot. J. (29): 740 – 756. 1992.
Jardine, R.J., Potts, D.M., Fourie, A.B. and Burland, J.B. Studies of the influence of
non-linear stress-strain characteristics in soil-structure interaction. Geotechnique
(36), No. 3: 377 – 396. 1986.
Jovicic, V. and Coop, M.R. The measurement of stiffness anisotropy in clays with
bender element tests in the triaxial apparatus. Geotech. Testing J. (21), No. 1: 3 –
10. 1998.
Khoo, E., Okumura, T. & Lee F.H. Side friction effects in plane strain models. Proc.
Centrifuge 94, Singapore: 115-120. 1994.
225
References
Kimura, T. Centrifuge research activities in Japan. Centrifuge in Soil Mechanics.
Graig, James & Schofield (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam. 1988.
Kimura, T., Takemura, J., Hiro-oka, A., Suemasa, N. & Kouda, N. Stability of
unsupported and supported vertical cuts in soft clay. Proc. 11th Southeast Asian
Geo. Conf. Singapore: 61-70. 1993.
Kimura, T., Takemura, J., Hiro-oka, A., Okamura, M. & Park. J. 1994. Excavation in
soft clay using an in-flight excavator. Proc. Centrifuge 94, Singapore: 649 – 654.
1994.
Konig, D., Jessberger, H.L., Chambon, P. and Dangla, P. Behaiour of a tunnel lining
embedded in a bentonite quartz flour water mixture in granular soil. Proc.
Centrifuge 94, Singapore: 705 – 711. 1994
Kusakabe, O. Stability of excavation in soft clay. Ph.D Thesis, Cambridge
University. 1982.
Kusakabe, O. Centrifuge model tests on the influence of an axisymmetric excavation
on buried pipes. Geotechnical Centrifuge Model Testing. Proc. Int. Symposium
on Geotechnical Centrifuge Model Testing. Tokyo: 87 – 93. 1984.
Ladd, C.C. and Foott, R. New design procedure for stability of soft clays. ASCE, J. of
GED, (100) (GT7): 763 – 783. 1974.
Lambe, T.W. and Whitman, R.V. Soil Mechanics, SI Version. John Wiley & Sons.
1979.
Lee, F.H. The National University of Singapore Geotechnical Centrifuge User
Manual. Research Report No. CE001. July 1992.
Lee, F.H., Tan, T.S., Yong, K.Y., Karunaratne, G.P. and Lee. S.L. Development of
geotechnical centrifuge facility at the National University of Singapore. Proc. Int.
Conf. Centrifuge 1991: 11-17. 1991.
226
References
Lee, F.H., Yong, K.Y. and Liu, K.X. Three-dimensional analyses of excavation in soft
clay. Proc. 11th African Regional Conf. Cairo’95, Egyption Geotechnical Society,
Cairo, Egypt. 1995.
Lee, F.H., Yong, K.Y., Quan, K.C.N. and Chee, K.T. Effect of corners in strutted
excavations: Field monitoring and case histories. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, (124), No. 4 : 339-349. 1998.
Lee, K.M. and Rowe, R.K. An analysis of three-dimensional ground movements: the
Thunder Bay tunnel. Can. Geotech. J. (28): 25 – 41. 1991.
Leung, C.F., Lee, F.H. and Tan, T.S. Principles and applications of geotechnical
centrifuge model testing. Journal of the Institution of Engineers, Singapore, (31),
No. 4: 39-44. 1991.
Lin. D.G., Chung. T.C. and Phien-wej. N. Quantitative evaluation of corner effect on
deformation behavior of multi-strutted deep excavation in Bangkok subsoil. Journal
of the Southest Asian Geotechnical Society. 41 –57. 2003.
Liu, K. X. Three-dimensional analyses of deep excavation in Soft Clay, M.Eng.
Thesis, National University of Singapore. 1995.
Liu, K.X., Yong, K.Y. and Lee, F.H. A numerical study on 3-D behaviour of
excavation-support system. Proc. 2nd. Int. Conf. On soft soil engineering, Nanjing,
China. 1996.
Liu, W. Lee, K.M. and Zhang, S.D. Modelling of a large underground excavation in
China. Proc. Centrifuge 94, Singapore: 675 – 680. 1994
Loh, C.K., Tan, T.S. and Lee, F.H. Three dimensional excavation tests in the
centrifuge. Proc. Of the Int. Conf. Centrifuge98, Tokyo, Japan. 1998.
Lyndon, A. and Schofield, A.N. Centrifuge model test of a short term failure in
London clay. Geotechnique, (21): 440-442. 1970.
227
References
Mana A.I. and Clough G.W. Prediction of movements for braced cuts in clay. J.
Geotech. Engng, ASCE, (107), June: 759 – 777. 1981.
Nath, P. Trench excavation effects on adjacent buried pipes: Finite element study. J.
Geotechnical Engineering, (109), No. 11: 1399 – 1415. 1983.
Needham, D. and Howe, M. Why Pipes Fail III. Report E. 419, Engineering
Research Station, British Gas Corporation. 1984.
Ng, N. N. C. and Lings, .L. M. Effects of modelling soil nonlinearlity and wall
installation on back analysis of deep excavation in stiff clay. J. of Geotechnical
Engineering, (121), No. 10: 687 – 695. 1995.
Nomoto, T., Mito, K., Imamura, S. Ueno, K. and Kusakabe, O. A miniature shield
tunnelling machine for a centrifuge. Proc. Centrifuge 94, Singapore: 699 – 704.
1994.
O’Rourke, T.D., Cording, E.J. & Boscardin, M. The ground movements related to
braced excavation and their influence on adjacent buildings. U.S. Department of
Transportation, Report no. D0T-TST 76, T-23, 1976.
Onoue, A., Kazama, H., Hotta, H., Kimura, T. and Takemura, J. Behaviour of stacked-
drift-type tunnels. Proc. Centrifuge 94, Singapore: 687 – 692. 1994.
Ou, C. Y. and Chiou, D. C. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of deep
excavation. Proc. 11th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conf. Singapore: 769-774.
1993.
Ou, C. Y., Chiou, D. C. & Wu, T. S. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of
deep excavations. J. of Geotechnical Engineering, (122) No. 5 : 337 – 345. 1996.
Ou, C.H. and Lai, C.H. Finite-element analysis of deep excavation in layered sandy
and clayey soil deposit. Can. Geotech. J. (31): 204 - 214. 1994
Peck. R.B. Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground. Prof. 7th Int. Conf.
228
References
S.M.F.E., Mexico, State-of-the-art volume: 225 –290. 1969.
Philips, R. Ground Deformation in The Vicinity of A Trench Heading. PhD Thesis,
Cambridge University. 1986.
Poulos and Chen. Pile response due to excavation-induced lateral soil movement.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, (123), No. 2: 94 – 99.
1997.
Powrie. W. The behaviour of diaphragm walls in clay. PhD Thesis, Cambridge
University. 1986.
Powrie, W. Richards, D.J., and Kantartzi, C. Modelling diaphragm wall installation
and excavation processes. Proc. Centrifuge 94, Singapore: 655 – 661. 1994.
Powrie, W., Pantelidou, H. and Stallebrass, S.E. Soil stiffness in stress paths relevant
to diaphragm walls in clay. Geotechnique, (48), No. 4: 483 – 494. 1998.
Richards, D.J. and Powrie, W. Centrifuge model tests on doubly propped embedded
retaining walls in overconsolidated kaolin clay. Geotechnique, (48), No. 6: 833-
846. 1998.
Schofield, A.N. Cambridge geotechnical centrifuge operation. Geotechnique 30, UK.
1980.
Schofield, A.N. An introduction to centrifuge modelling. Centrifuge in soil
mechanics, Craig, James & Schofield (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam. 1988.
Scotts, R.S. Physical and numerical models. Centrifuge in soil mechanics, Craig,
James & Schofield (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam. 1988.
Sevenoaks, Kent. Deep excavations: a practical manual. 1996. Thomas Telford,
London.
Simpson, B. Retaining structure: displacement and design. Geotechnique. (42), No
7: 541 –576. 1992.
229
References
Smith, I. M. & Ho, D. K. H. Influence of construction technique on the performance
of a braced excavation in marine clay. Int. J. for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, (16): 845-867. 1992.
St. John, H.D. Field and theoretical studies of the behaviour of ground around deep
excavation in London clay. Ph.D Thesis. Cambridge University. 1975.
Sun. J. H. Development of plate element for FEM modeling of deep excavation.
MEng Thesis, National University of Singapore. 2003.
Tan, T.S., Inoue, T. and Lee, S.L. Hyperbolic method for consolidation analysis.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, (117), No. 11, November: 1723 -
1737. 1991.
Tan, T.S., Yong, K.Y., Lee, F.H. and Leung, C.F. Deep excavation problem in
Singapore. Proc. Of the Regional Symposium on Infrastructure Development in
Civil Engineering, Bankkok, Thailand. 1995.
Tan. T.S., Ng. T.G., French, D., Wong, F-H. and Takeda, T. Use of an improved soil
berm for stabilization in deep excavation. Proc. of Underground Singapore 2001,
Singapore. 2001.
Tanaka. H. Behaviour of a braced excavation in soft clay and the undrained shear
strength for passive earth pressure. Soils and Foundations. (34), No. 1: 53 – 64.
1994.
Taylor, R.N. (editor). Geotechnical Centrifuge Technology, Blackie Academic &
Professional. An imprint of Chapman & Hall. 1994.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B. and Mesri, G. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John
Wiley & Sons. 3rd Edition. 1996.
Thanadol, K. Behaviour of an embedded improved soil berm in an excavation. PhD
Thesis, National University of Singapore, 2002.
230
References
Timoshenko. S.P. Strength of materials-part 2: advanced theory and problems. 3rd
Edition. D. Van Nostrand Company. 1958.
Tominaga, M., Hashimoto, T. and Fukuwaka, M. Application of stress path method to
a large excavation. Proc. 11th Int. Conf. On Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering. 1985.
Toyoyawa, Y., Norii, N., Tamate, S., Hanayasu, S. and Ampadu, S.K. Deformation
and failure characteristics of vertical cuts and excavations. Proc. Centrifuge 94,
Singapore: 663 – 668. 1994
Trak, B., La Rochelle, P., Tavenas, F., Leroueil, S. and Roy, M. A new approach to
the stability analysis of embankments on sensitive clays. Canadian Geotechnical J.
(17), No. 4: 526-544. 1980.
Ugai, K. Three-dimensional stability analysis of vertical cohesive slopes. Soils and
Foundations, (25), No. 3: 41 – 48. 1985.
Wei, J. Centrifuge modelling of deep excavation, M.Eng Thesis, National University
of Singapore. 1998.
Whittle, A.J. Evaluation of a constitutive model for overconsolidated clays.
Geotechnique, (43), No. 2: 289 – 315. 1993.
Whittle, A.J. Prediction of Excavation performance in clays. In Civil Engineering
Practice: 65 – 88. 1997.
Whittle, A.J. and Hashash, Y.M.A. and Whitman, R.V. Analysis of a deep excavation
in Boston. J.Geotech. Engrg. (119), No. 1: 69 – 91. 1993.
Whittle, A.J., Degroot, D.J. Ladd, C.C. and Seah, T.H. Model prediction of
anisotropic behaviour of Boston blue clay. J. Geotech. Engrg. (120), No. 1: 199 –
224. 1994.
Whittle, A.J. and Kavvadas, M.J. Formulation of MIT-E3 constitutive model for
231
References
overconsolidated clay. J. Geotech. Engrg. (120), No. 1: 173 – 198. 1994.
Wong, L.W. and Patron, B.C. Settlements induced by deep excavation in Taipei.
Proc., 11th Southeast Asian Geotech. Conf., The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia,
KL., M’sia: 787 – 791. 1993.
Wroth, C.P. and Houlsby, G.T. Soil mechanics – Property characterization and
analysis procedures. Proc., 11th Int. Conf. On Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engrg. San Francisco, (1), 1 – 55. 1985.
Yong, K. Y., Lee, F.H and Liu, K.X. Three dimensional finite analysis of deep
excavation in marine clay, Proc. 12th SEAG Conference and the 4th Int. Conf. On
Tropical Soil, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. (1), 435-440. 1997.
Yong, K.Y., Lee, F.H., Parnploy, U., and Lee, S.L. Elasto-Plastic Consolidation
Analysis for Strutted Excavation in Clay, Comput. Geotech., 8 (4), 311-328. 1989.
Zhang, S.D. and Zhang, H.D. Stability of deep excavation in soft clay. Proc.
Centrifuge 94, Singapore: 643 – 647. 1994.
232

Effect of A Corner in A Three-Dimensional Excavation: Loh Chang Kaan (B.ENG. (HONS.) UTM, M.ENG. (NUS) )

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

Effect of A Corner in A Three-Dimensional Excavation: Loh Chang Kaan (B.ENG. (HONS.) UTM, M.ENG. (NUS) )

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EFFECT OF A CORNER IN A

LOH CHANG KAAN

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE

my mother, wife, and two children for their

……….. Continual support, encouragement, and

Firstly, I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my first supervisor, Associate

along the study. In addition, his encouragement is deeply appreciated. Both of my

this study is acknowledged.

of tremendous volume of data generated, compared to 2D study. It is very easy to be

sharing their experience and stimulating discussion.

1.1 Three Dimensional Behaviour Of Deep Excavation 1

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 8

2.2.1.3 Heavy Liquid Method 13

2.3.2 Quantification Of 3D Corner Effect 22

2.3.3 Influence Range Of 3D Corner Effect 25

2.3.4 Other Parameters Which Might Influence Corner Effect 29

CHAPTER 3 DEVELOPMENT OF 3D IN-FLIGHT EXCAVATOR AND 32

CENTRIFUGE MODEL TESTS

3.1 Design And Development Of 3D In-Flight Excavator 32

CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 48

4.2.2 Characteristics Of Lateral Earth Pressure On Retaining Wall 59

CHAPTER 5 FUNDAMENTAL BEHAVIOUR OF CORNER EFFECT 76

5.2 Finite Element Analysis 77

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS 113

6.1 Development Of 3D In-Flight Excavator 113

6.3 Effect Of A Corner In A 3D Excavation 115

Figure No. Description Page

Fig. 2.1 Observed settlements behind strutted excavation in 128

Fig. 2.2 Observed settlements behind excavation (after Peck, 128

Fig. 2.3 Relationship between factor of safety against basal 129

Fig. 2.4 Relationship between maximum ground settlements 129

Fig. 2.6 Distress caused to a buried service by a shallow 131

Fig. 2.7 Schematic representation of the “Increasing-g” method 132

Fig. 2.8 Schematic representation of the “Heavy Liquid” 132

Fig. 2.11 Stability Number versus Depth of Excavation Divided 135

Fig. 2.12 2D Section Used in Trench Excavation Analysis (after 136

Fig. 2.13 PSR Chart (After Ou et al. 1996) 137

Fig. 2.14 Typical Analysis on a 10m long x 6m deep x 1m wide 138

parallel to trench and located 2m below surface:

Fig. 2.15 Variation of maximum wall displacement with the 139

Fig. 3.1 3D in-flight excavator set-up on centrifuge 140

Fig. 3.2 Schematic diagrams of the 3D in-flight excavator 141

Fig. 3.3 Schematic representation of 3D in-flight excavator set- 142

Fig. 3.4 Indexers/drivers mounted on-board the centrifuge 143

Fig. 3.5 Internal parts of indexers/drivers strengthened by 143

Fig. 3.6 Schematic drawing of a corner of an excavation 144

Fig. 3.7 2D in-flight excavation test set-up on a narrow 145

Fig. 3.8 Micro-concrete wall used in the study 146

Fig. 3.12 Schematic representation of OCR profiles intended 148

Fig. 3.13 De-airing of pore pressure transducers by boiling 149

Fig. 3.14 Installation of pore pressure transducers into soil 149

Fig. 3.15 a) Completed 3D in-flight excavation test set-up 150

excavation test on centrifuge platform

Fig. 3.16 Excavation in Progress (captured by miniature camera 151

Fig. 4.1 Surface settlement versus elapsed reconsolidation time 152

Fig. 4.2 Hyperbolic plot, Elapsed time/Settlement versus 152

Fig. 4.3 Density and undrained shear strength profiles of NC 153

Fig. 4.5 Responses of LVDTs installed at difference planes 155

Fig. 4.6 Flow chart showing centrifuge tests conducted 156

Fig. 4.7 Locations of LVDTs, SG and TST in the experiment: 157

Fig. 4.8 Test: 3DK-2c: Surface settlement at various location 158