Characteristics of a Large-Scale Deep Foundation Pit

Excavated by the Central-Island Technique in

Shanghai Soft Clay. I: Bottom-Up Construction
of the Central Cylindrical Shaft
Yong Tan, A.M.ASCE1; and Dalong Wang2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HUNAN UNIVERSITY on 02/08/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: A large amount of field and experimental data has been devoted to rectangular excavations thus far. In contrast, very few data were
available for cylindrical excavations, especially those with large diameters in thick soft clay deposits. Via a comprehensive instrumentation
program on a 100-m-wide 3 25:89-m-deep unpropped (self-supported) cylindrical excavation constructed by the bottom-up method in
Shanghai soft clay, the characteristics of this large-sized circular excavation were extensively investigated. This cylindrical shaft was a part of
a large-scale deep foundation pit excavated by the central-island technique. The investigated items included (1) lateral wall deflections, (2)
vertical wall movements, (3) lateral ground movements, (4) ground settlements, (5) subsurface settlements, (6) basal heaves, (7) vertical column
movements, (8) column stresses, and (9) variation of pore pressures along depth and artesian water levels. Analysis of the field data indicates that
discharging of the deep artesian water was one of the key factors affecting the excavation behaviors. The influence zone of basal heave caused by
soil removal (stress relief) reached very deep soil layers, far beyond the depths reported in literature. Column movement and stress were shown to
be reliable indicators of the relative movement between basal soils, diaphragm walls, and interior columns. Finally, the comparisons of this study
with other bottom-up excavations in Shanghai, including 11 cylindrical excavations, 92 building basement excavations, and eight metro station
excavations, demonstrate that self-supported (unpropped) cylindrical excavations had much stronger capabilities of resisting deformation than
both multipropped regular basement excavations (in terms of deformation magnitudes) and long and narrow metro station excavations (in terms
of scale of influence zones). For cylindrical shafts, their diameters, and not wall penetration ratios, played a dominant role in the determination of
excavation behaviors. However, when the shaft diameter reached 90 m or more, the advantage of cylindrical shafts over rectangular pits in
constraining wall deflection was no longer obvious. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000928. © 2013 American Society of Civil
Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Deep foundations; Shafts; Structural behavior; Clays; China.
Author keywords: Large-scale deep foundation pit; Cylindrical shaft; Bottom-up method; Structural behaviors; Ground behaviors;
Artesian water; Soft clay; Geometric effect.

Introduction substations, sedimentation ponds, lift stations, ventilation shafts,

Cylindrical shafts are believed to have strong capabilities of resisting
deformation, basically because of the spatial arching effect resulting
from their circular retaining structures. Meanwhile, their axisym-
metric shape enables the circular retaining walls to resist the
excavation-induced lateral earth pressures without bracing struts or
installing ground anchors. As a result, both construction time and
cost can be saved. Because of these advantages, cylindrical shafts
have gained popularity in practice for construction of different un-
derground facilities, e.g., foundation pits, underground transmission
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji Univ.,
Shanghai 200092, People’s Republic of China (corresponding author).
E-mail: tanyong21th@tongji.edu.cn
2
Senior Engineer, Shanghai Geotechnical Investigations and Design
Institute Company Limited, 681 Xiao-Mu-Qiao Rd., Shanghai 200032,
People’s Republic of China. E-mail: wdalong@sina.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 27, 2012; approved on
March 20, 2013; published online on March 22, 2013. Discussion period
open until April 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 139, No. 11, November 1, 2013.
©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2013/11-1875–1893/$25.00.
and working shafts for pipe-jacking or tunneling. However, the
spatial arching effect of a cylindrical shaft decreases as its diameter
increases. Furthermore, with the increase of the shaft diameter, it is
much more difficult to maintain the circular shape of the retaining
walls in practice. Consequently, both the ring stiffness and spatial
arching effect are impaired. Although the diameter of a cylindrical
shaft plays a key role in determination of excavation behaviors, the
limited field or experimental data available in literature excluded
such investigations. Compared with rectangular excavations that
have been extensively investigated (O’Rourke 1981; Finno et al.
1989; Hashash and Whittle 1996; Jen 1998; Ou et al. 1998; Finno
and Calvello 2005; Hashash et al. 2006, 2008; O’Rourke and
McGinn 2006; Tan and Wei 2012), cylindrical excavations received
much less attention. Kumagai et al. (1999) investigated the per-
formance of a cylindrical excavation in thick sand and silt deposits.
Prashar et al. (2007) reported three cylindrical excavations in thick
sand deposits interbedded with clay seams. Unfortunately, they
mainly concentrated on the development of the structural forces
(circumferential and vertical bending stresses) in the circular di-
aphragm wall panels, and few efforts were devoted to investigating
wall movement and ground behaviors during excavation. Because
of the lack of well-documented field data, the characteristics of

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1875

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1875-1893

 cylindrical excavations in soft clay deposits, especially those in large
diameters, still remain unclear.
Because excavation behaviors are affected by many factors (e.g.,
pit geometries, construction methods, soil conditions, and retaining
systems), those empirical or semiempirical approaches derived from
rectangular excavations (Peck 1969; Mana and Clough 1981;
Clough and O’Rourke 1990; Ou et al. 1993; Hsieh and Ou 1998;
Long 2001; Moormann 2004; Kung et al. 2007) may not yield
reliable prediction on cylindrical excavations. Considering that
cylindrical shafts have been widely used in practice, it is necessary
to investigate their characteristics and develop relevant prediction
approaches for ensuring project safety and protecting environment.
To achieve this, well-documented field data are needed, and the
construction of Shanghai World Finance Center (SWFC) building
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HUNAN UNIVERSITY on 02/08/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(492 m in height) provided a good opportunity. The foundation pit of
SWFC had an area in plan of approximately 30,000 m2 . It consisted
of two portions: the cylindrical shaft at the center and the rectangular
pit at the periphery. Because of the scale and complexity of this
project, the relevant study is presented in two parts. The first part
involving the central cylindrical shaft is introduced in this paper, and
the second part regarding the peripheral pit is presented in a com-
panion paper (Tan and Wang 2013). To better understand the
behaviors of cylindrical shafts, another 11 cylindrical excavations
with different diameters in Shanghai soft clay were included in this
study for analysis. Finally, the behaviors of these cylindrical
excavations were compared with 100 rectangular excavations in
Shanghai to investigate potential geometric effects on excavation
behaviors.
Site Description and Subsurface Conditions
Fig. 1 presents the layout of this large-scale foundation pit. The site
was surrounded by numerous utility pipelines in the proximity, two
overpasses on the north and east sides, and the Jin-Mao Tower
building (420.5 m high) on the west side. The minimum distance
between the Jin-Mao Tower and the pit was only 40 m. In addition,
Metro Line 2 in service runs along Century Boulevard on the north
side.
Prior to construction, the subsurface conditions and soil prop-
erties at the site had been extensively explored by a series of field
tests (e.g., standard penetration tests, cone penetration tests, and field
vane shear tests), as well as laboratory tests (e.g., oedometer tests
and triaxial tests). Fig. 2 presents the soil profiles with the measured
soil properties along depth at the site. In general, the subsurface
conditions, which featured a thick layer of compressible clayey soils
in the upper 28 m below the ground surface (BGS), were charac-
terized as poor. The long-term groundwater table level was observed
at depths of 0.5–1.2 m BGS. Artesian water (aquifers) was en-
countered at depth of 28 m BGS, with the artesian pressure head of
18.2 m (i.e., hydrostatic equilibrium was reached at 9.8 m BGS).
More detailed information regarding the geological and hydrolog-
ical conditions in Shanghai can be found in Xu et al. (2009, 2012).
Bottom-Up Construction of the Central
Cylindrical Shaft
The investigated foundation pit was about 216 m long, 125 m wide,
and 17.85–25.89 m deep, with an area in plan of ∼ 30,000 m2 . It
consisted of two portions: (1) the cylindrical shaft (100 m in internal
diameter and 25.89 m in depth) at the center for the 101-story main
tower structure, and (2) the 17.85-m-deep peripheral rectangular pit
for the 6-story annex structures. Because of its large size, this pit was
1876 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1875-1893
excavated by the central-island technique, i.e., excavation started
from the central cylindrical shaft by the bottom-up method and
ended at the peripheral pit by the top-down method. The excavation
of the peripheral pit did not start until the underground structures at
the central cylindrical shaft had been completed.
Fig. 3 presents the cross section of the cylindrical shaft. The site
work started with constructing the 1-m-thick 3 36-m-deep circular
diaphragm wall panels, installing the auger-cast-in-place (ACIP)
piles inside the pit as load-bearing elements (LBEs), and jet-grouting
the soil berm (5 m wide 3 4 m high) below the excavation base.
Thereafter, the soils were excavated in the order of Soil Layers 1–11.
At each level, the soils near the diaphragm wall were removed first,
followed by immediate casting of the steel-RC Waler beams. When
the Waler beams gained 80% concrete strength in 2 weeks, the soils
at the center were removed. This process was repeated down to the
depth of 20.0 m BGS. After removing Soil Layers 1–11, ACIP piles
were installed as the retaining structures for excavation of the el-
evator shaft. The soils inside the elevator shaft were cut with a side
slope of 1H: 1V. After the removal of Soil Layer 12, underground
structures were constructed in the order of base slabs, intermediate
floor slabs, and roof slabs. Detailed construction activities at the
central cylindrical shaft are summarized in Table 1.
During the construction of the diaphragm wall panels on the west
side, six steel pipe piles (0.7 m in diameter and 70 m in length) were
encountered at 16 m below the ground. These long piles were driven
and left in situ in 1997 as the initially proposed foundation of the
SWFC building. Remedial procedures for construction of the west
wall panels were adopted to ensure the circular shape of the di-
aphragm wall panels, which are illustrated in Fig. 4. For the four west
wall panels encountering the long pipe piles, steel-reinforcement
cages were only installed in the upper 16 m BGS.
Another major concern for this excavation was that artesian water
was encountered at a depth of 28 m BGS. Preliminary analysis in-
dicated that when excavation proceeded to the final depth of 25.89 m
BGS, the weights of the overlying soils were not sufficient to sup-
press the artesian pressures. To avoid pit failure, the artesian pres-
sure head needed to be lowered from 18.2 to 13.1 m. As designed, 14
relief wells (pumping wells) were installed along the outside rim of
the circular diaphragm wall for water discharging (designated as
DW1–DW14 in Fig. 1). Dewatering started on June 30, 2004, and
ended on January 9, 2005.
Instrumentation
To ensure project safety, confirm construction procedures, and in-
vestigate excavation behaviors, both the retaining structures and the
ground were extensively instrumented during the entire construc-
tion progress. Fig. 1 shows the instrumentation layout, and Fig. 3
illustrates the locations of the instruments along depth. The moni-
tored items and related instruments are (1) lateral wall deflections
measured by 12 inclinometer casings (designated as P01–P08 for
the circular diaphragm wall panels and P09–P12 for the ACIP piles);
(2) vertical wall movements surveyed by a level instrument (des-
ignated as Q1–Q16 for the circular diaphragm wall panels and
A1–A12 for the ACIP retaining piles); (3) lateral ground movements
behind the diaphragm wall measured by three inclinometer casings
(designated as T01–T03); (4) ground settlements surveyed at nine
critical sections in a radial pattern behind the circular diaphragm
wall panels by a level instrument (designated as G1-1–G1-5 to
G9-1–G9-5); (5) subsurface settlements monitored at the location
FC behind the wall by five arrowhead magnets along depth (des-
ignated as FC-1–FC-5); (6) basal heaves monitored by two clusters
of arrowhead magnets installed inside two boreholes (designated as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HUNAN UNIVERSITY on 02/08/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Instrumentation layout of the central cylindrical shaft

L1-1–L1-7 and L2-1–L2-7 along depth); (7) vertical column
movements surveyed at LZ1–LZ5 by a level instrument; (8) column
stresses of LZ1–LZ4 measured by vibrating wire stress meters; and
(9) pore pressures along depth monitored by two clusters of vibrating
wire piezometers installed inside two boreholes (designated as ST1-
1–ST1-6 and ST2-1–ST2-6 along depth) and artesian water levels
monitored at the observation wells. The hoop (circumferential) and
vertical bending stresses in both steel rebars and concrete of di-
aphragm wall panels, the hoop stresses in both steel rebars and
concrete of Waler beams, and the settlements of the adjacent st-
ructures and pipelines were also monitored throughout the con-
struction. However, because of the limited paper length, their data
will not be presented in this study.
Field Measurements
Lateral Wall and Ground Movements
Fig. 5 summarizes the lateral wall deflections at P01, P02, P03, P06,
P07, P08, and P11, as well as the lateral ground movements at T03.
As excavation proceeded to 17.85 m BGS (Stage 5b), both the
retaining wall and the ground developed deep-seated lateral mo-
vements toward the excavation side. The bulging wall deflection
profiles of this unpropped cylindrical excavation were similar to
those of multipropped rectangular excavations (Ou et al. 1998;
Wang et al. 2005; Tan and Wei 2012). The field data show that the
cut of the elevator shaft inside the cylindrical shaft only induced

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1877

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1875-1893

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HUNAN UNIVERSITY on 02/08/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Soil profiles along with the measured soil properties at the site
limited additional wall deflections and lateral ground movements no
more than 4 mm. Following casting of the concrete base slabs, both
the diaphragm wall and the soil gradually stabilized and even moved
toward the retained side, particularly the portions below the pit base.
By further examination, it was noticed that P06 and P11 at the west
wall panels experienced significantly greater deflections than the
other locations, especially the wall portions below 16 m BGS. This
discrepancy should be mainly attributed to the fact that steel-
reinforcement cages were only installed in the upper 16 m of the
west wall panels. As a consequence, the wall portion below 16 m
BGS did not have sufficient stiffness to constrain the excavation-
induced deformation.
Relationship between dhm and H
To better understand the behaviors of cylindrical excavations, the
field data from another 11 cylindrical excavations in Shanghai
(designated as Cases 1–11) with similar soil conditions as the SWFC
building were also included in this study for investigation. All the
cylindrical excavations were constructed by the bottom-up method
and supported by diaphragm walls without bracing struts (i.e., self-
supported); detailed information can be found in Table 2. Fig. 6(a)
plots the relationship between the measured maximum wall
deflections, dhm , and excavation depths, H. As the excavation of the
elevator shaft barely affected wall deflections, excavation depth
greater than 17.85 m was not considered for the SWFC pit in the
following analysis. As shown in Fig. 6(a), dhm fell below
dhm 5 0:2%H for all the cylindrical excavations.
1878 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1875-1893
To explore potential geometric effects on wall deflections, field
data from 92 rectangular basement excavations (Xu 2007) and eight
long and narrow metro station excavations [i.e., five stations from
Wang et al. (2005), Shangcheng Road station from Tan and Wei
(2012), Jiashan Road station of Metro Line 9, and Yili Road station
of Metro Line 10] in Shanghai were compared with the cylindrical
shafts in Fig. 6(b). All the basement and metro excavations were
constructed by the bottom-up method and retained by multipropped
diaphragm walls (0.6–0.8 m in wall thickness). The aspect ratio of
length over width, AR, was around 1.0–2.0 for most of the base-
ment excavations and 6.6–14.5 for the metro station excavations.
The measured dhm was around dhm 5 0:1%H to dhm 5 1:0%H for
the basement excavations and dhm 5 0:02%H to dhm 5 0:5%H
for the metro excavations. On average, the measured range of
dhm # 0:2%H for the cylindrical excavations was smaller than both
the basement and the metro excavations. Several well-known em-
pirical relationships in the literature (Peck 1969; Clough and
O’Rourke 1990; Kung et al. 2007; Hashash et al. 2008) were also
included in Fig. 6(b) for comparison. The measured dhm for the
cylindrical excavations was significantly smaller than those of Peck
(1969) in soft clay, Clough and O’Rourke (1990) in stiff clay, and
Kung et al. (2007) in soft to medium clay, but was in fairly good
agreement with Hashash et al. (2008) for the Central Artery/Tunnel
project (CA/T) in medium stiff Boston blue clay.
By taking a close look at the data presented in Figs. 6(a and b), it
is interesting to notice that the measured dhm of the cylindrical shafts
was closely related to the shaft diameter, D. For the cylindrical shafts
(Cases 1–9 and 11) with diameters smaller than 90 m, dhm was below
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HUNAN UNIVERSITY on 02/08/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Cross section of the central cylindrical shaft along with the monitoring items
the lower boundary of the regular basement excavations (i.e., dhm
, 0:1%H). For Case 10 in which D was 88 m, dhm fell around the
lower boundary of the basement excavations (i.e., dhm 5 0:1%H).
For this study, in which D increased to 100 m, dhm exceeded the
lower boundary of the basement excavations (i.e., dhm . 0:1%H).
This finding implies that the arching effects resulting from the
circular retaining structures to resist deformation decreased sub-
stantially with the increase in D. It can be concluded here that the
advantage of the cylindrical shafts over regular basement pits in
constraining deformation became less obvious when D . 90 m.
Some previous studies (Goldberg et al. 1976; Mana and Clough
1981; Clough et al. 1989; Addenbrooke 1994) have pointed out that
the stiffness of the supporting system (e.g., wall bending stiffness,
strut axial stiffness, locations of struts, and vertical spacing of struts)
plays an important role in affecting the performance of retaining
walls during excavation. However, the observations in practice
worldwide (Long 2001; Moormann 2004) found that if retaining
structures for excavations were constructed with reasonable system
stiffness, an increase in system stiffness imposed very limited effects
on reducing wall deflections. In this study, as all the investigated
cylindrical shafts were unpropped (self-supported), their supporting
system stiffness was smaller than the multipropped rectangular
basement and metro excavations. However, the analysis results
proved that the cylindrical shafts showed stronger capability of
resisting wall deflection than the other pits. This can be explained by
the fact that the spatial arching effects resulting from the circular
retaining structures helped resist deformation. Therefore, the much
stronger capabilities of the cylindrical shafts for constraining lateral
wall deflection should mainly benefit from their circular geometries
instead of their supporting system stiffness. For the long and narrow
metro excavations, their stronger capabilities of resisting defor-
mation than the regular basement excavations should be ascribed to
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1879
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1875-1893
their narrow geometries, i.e., the braced struts of the metro exca-
vations had smaller slenderness ratios and hence had stronger
capabilities of constraining deformation.
Relationships between dhm and D and R
As shown in Fig. 6(a), the cylindrical shafts in larger diameters
experienced greater wall deflections, dhm , during excavation. To
explore the relationship between wall deflections and shaft diam-
eters, dhm of those cylindrical excavations was plotted against D in
Fig. 7(a), in which dhm was normalized by the final excavation depth,
He . It is interesting to notice that dhm =He increased almost linearly
with D, and their relationship can be approximated by a linear
equation as follows:
dhm =He ¼ 1:5  1025 D (1)
Fig. 7(b) plots the relationship between dhm =He and wall pen-
etration ratio, R, for the cylindrical excavations. R is defined by
Eq. (2) as follows:
Hw 2 He
R¼ (2)
Hw
where Hw 5 height of retaining wall; and He 5 final excavation
depth. The data from the aforementioned basement and metro
excavations were also included in Fig. 7(b) for analysis. As shown in
the figure, the data points are very irregular for both the basement
and the metro excavations, and their normalized dhm =He did not
 Table 1. Main Construction Stages at the Central Cylindrical Shaft
Stage Event Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Days spent
1a Construction of circular diaphragm wall, ACIP bored piles as load-bearing-elements 01/23/2004 to 04/09/2004 77
to support Waler beams, jet-grouting of the soil below final excavation base, and
ACIP isolation piles at the west wall section where the existing long steel pipe piles
were encountered
1b Excavation of Soil Layer 1 at the peripheral part 04/10/2004 to 04/17/2004 8
1c Casting of Waler Beam 1 (capping beam) 04/18/2004 to 04/25/2004 8
1d Excavation of Soil Layer 2 at the central part 05/02/2004 to 05/17/2004 16
2a Excavation of Soil Layer 3 at the peripheral part 05/18/2004 to 05/24/2004 7
2b Casting of Waler Beam 2 at 7.95 m BGS 05/25/2004 to 06/02/2004 9
2c Excavation of Soil Layer 4 at the central part 06/09/2004 to 06/24/2004 16
3a Excavation of Soil Layer 5 at the peripheral part, and begin to dewater artesian water 06/30/2004 to 07/03/2004 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HUNAN UNIVERSITY on 02/08/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

level on June 30, 2004

3b Casting of Waler Beam 3 at 12.45 m BGS 07/04/2004 to 07/25/2004 22
3c Excavation of Soil Layer 6 at the central part 07/04/2004 to 07/17/2004 14
4a Excavation of Soil Layer 7 at the peripheral part 07/29/2004 to 08/01/2004 4
4b Casting of Waler Beam 4 at 15.55 m BGS 08/02/2004 to 08/17/2004 16
4c Excavation of Soil Layer 8 at the central part 08/02/2004 to 08/09/2004 8
5a Excavation of Soil Layer 9 at the peripheral part 08/21/2004 to 08/31/2004 11
5b Excavation of Soil Layer 10 at the central part 09/01/2004 to 09/05/2004 5
6 Excavation of Soil Layer 11 at the central part 09/06/2004 to 09/08/2004 3
7 Construction of ACIP piles as retaining structures for excavation of the elevator shaft, 09/09/2004 to 11/14/2004 66
ACIP bored piles as load-bearing elements to support steel H struts, and casting of the
capping beam on the top of the ACIP pile retaining system
8 Excavation of Soil Layer 12 11/15/2004 to 12/11/2004 28
9 Casting of 2-m-thick base slab at the base of the elevator shaft at 25.89 m BGS, and shutoff 12/12/2004 to 01/09/2005 29
of pumping wells on January 9, 2005
10 Casting of 4-m-thick base slab at the base of the main tower shaft at 17.85 m BGS 01/10/2005 to 01/31/2005 22
11 Casting of the floor slabs 02/01/2005 to 06/27/2005 146

show a clear sign of decreasing with increasing of R as expected.
However, for the cylindrical shafts, it looks like their normalized
dhm =He exhibited a tendency of increasing slightly with R, which
was contrary to the expectation. For the cylindrical shafts, generally
the one with a larger diameter had a slightly greater R (refer to
Table 2). As shown in Fig. 7(a), the greater the shaft diameter, the
larger the normalized wall deflection, dhm =He . Therefore, the in-
crease in dhm =He with R for the cylindrical shafts actually reflects the
dominant influence of shaft diameters on wall deflections. The data
in Fig. 7(b) show that, if retaining walls are designed with appro-
priate penetration lengths, increasing R hardly reduces dhm =He ,
regardless of pit geometric shapes.
Relationship between Hm and H
Fig. 8 plots the relationship between the depth, Hm , where dhm
occurred and excavation depth, H, for the 12 cylindrical, 92 building
basement, and eight metro excavations. For this study, Hm could be
located at 8–12 m BGS, except for the west wall panels (P06 and
P11), in which Hm occurred at 16–18 m BGS, It can be explained by
the fact that steel-reinforcement cages were only installed in the upper
16 m BGS of the west wall panels, which means that the weakest
spots of the west wall panels were around 16 m BGS. Generally, Hm
fell between Hm 5 H 2 20 m and Hm 5 H 1 12 m for the cylindrical
excavations and between Hm 5 H 2 7 m and Hm 5 H 1 7 m for the
basement and metro excavations. Compared with the basement and
metro excavations, Hm of the cylindrical shafts was very irregular.
Such a discrepancy should mainly arise from the fact that the
basement and metro excavations were braced by similar propping
systems. In contrast, some cylindrical shafts were strengthened by
Waler beams (e.g., this study) or inner ring walls (e.g., Case 4),
whereas most cylindrical shafts were supported only by diaphragm
walls. This inconsistency introduced substantial differences in the
self-supporting system stiffness of the cylindrical shafts, and thus Hm
was much more irregular. On further examination, it was noticed that
for the three cylindrical shafts (Cases 1, 2, and 7), dhm occurred at
very shallow depths (smaller than 5 m) and Hm did not develop with
the progress of excavation, which contrasted sharply with the other
nine cylindrical excavations. This aberrant behavior in Cases 1, 2,
and 7 might derive from some unrecorded construction activities
nearby (e.g., passing of heavy construction equipment nearby) and
hence cannot represent typical excavation behaviors.
Vertical Wall Movement
Retaining walls might move upward or downward during excava-
tion, which is mainly dependent on the stress relief caused by soil
removal and the vertical loads applied on the walls. Fig. 9(a) presents
the typical development of vertical wall movements, Vwm , over time
at Locations Q1, Q5, Q9, and Q13. During excavation of Soil Layers
1–8 (Stages 2a–4c), the diaphragm wall panels experienced sig-
nificant heaves of 8–15 mm. Except for the temporary drop in the
upward wall movement around June 30, 2004; it was noticed that
dewatering, which usually leads to wall settlement, did not show
apparent effects on the rates of wall heave during Stages 2a–4c. This
should benefit from the practice of progressively discharging the
artesian water (i.e., the artesian water heads were dewatered to be
near the excavation levels), and hence the basal heave caused by soil
removal imposed much greater effects on vertical wall movement
than deep water pumping. The transient wall settlements around
June 30, 2004, should be caused by the rapid drop in the artesian
water levels from excessive pumping on this date (refer to the

1880 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1875-1893

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HUNAN UNIVERSITY on 02/08/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Remedial procedures for construction of the west diaphragm wall panels
artesian water levels presented in the section Pore Pressures). During
Stages 5a–7, the wall heave almost stabilized over time. However,
there was a sudden drop in the upward wall movement during Stage
8. Considering that (1) during Stage 8, the base heave incurred by
cutting the elevator shaft decreased with the distance from the pit
center (refer to in the section Basal Heave), and (2) the drop of
upward vertical wall movement was consistent with the drop of the
artesian water levels (the artesian water heads dropped from 17.1 to
23.1 m BGS) in Stage 8, the sudden drop in the upward wall
movement at Stage 8 should be attributed to the fact that the soil
settlement caused by significant dropdown of the artesian water
heads outweighed the basal heave induced by cutting the elevator
shaft. Both the diaphragm wall and the basal soils settled during
Stage 9, which should be attributed to the casting of the 2-m-thick
heavy base slabs following completion of the excavation at the
elevator shaft. During the casting of the 4-m-thick base slabs
(i.e., Stage 10), the wall moved upward rapidly. This unexpected
wall heave was mainly caused by the rapid recovery of the artesian
water levels since January 9, 2005 (all the relief wells were shut
down on this date), which exerted immediate huge push-up forces
against the toe of the wall and the soil layers and consequently the
wall was pushed upward. After the completion of the 4-m-thick base
slabs, there were immediate wall settlements under the heavy
weights of the base slabs. However, the wall quickly moved upward
again during Stage 11 as the artesian water levels recovered over
time. Even after the artesian water levels fully recovered on February
24, 2005, the wall continued to heave over time. Such a phenomenon
indicates that the weights of the base slabs were insufficient to
overcome the artesian water pressures. Following the construction of
the floor slabs in Stage 11, the diaphragm wall gradually stabilized
with time and exhibited a tendency of settling. Further examination
on the data at all the survey locations shows that west Wall Panels
Q9–Q13, especially Q10–Q12, experienced much smaller upward
wall movements than the other wall panels during excavation. This
benefited from the jet-grouted soils (2.5 m in width and 34 m in
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1881
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1875-1893
depth) reinforced by the ACIP piles inside (1.2 m in diameter and
34 m in depth) on both sides of the west diaphragm wall panels (refer
to Figs. 3 and 4), which helped suppress upward wall movement
caused by basal heave.
Fig. 9(b) plots the relationships between maximum vertical
wall movements, Vwm , and excavation depths, H, for this study, the
aforementioned basement excavations, and the metro excavations at
Shangcheng Road and Jiashan Road. For Vwm , a negative value
represents settlement and a positive value represents heave. As
shown in Fig. 9(b), Vwm fell between Vwm 5 0:03%H and Vwm
5 0:10%H for this cylindrical shaft, between Vwm 5 20:08%H
and Vwm 5 0:08%H for the metro excavations, and between Vwm
5 20:2%H and Vwm 5 0:2%H for the basement excavations. On
average, the basement excavations experienced significantly greater
vertical wall movements than both the cylindrical shaft and the metro
excavations. Except for this cylindrical excavation, the chances that
retaining walls settle or heave during excavation were almost equal
to either the basement or the metro excavations.
Ground Settlement
Fig. 10 presents typical ground settlement development over time at
Sections G1-1–G1-5, G4-1–G4-5, and G7-1–G7-5. The measured
ground settlements increased almost linearly with time as excavation
went on, except for the transient upward ground movement from
July 22 to 27, 2004. According to the construction log, there was no
excavation conducted during this period; hence, this unusual tem-
porary upward ground movement should have been caused by the
rebound of the artesian water levels during this short period (refer to
the section Pore Pressures). During the time casting the 4-m-thick
concrete base slabs in Stage 10, the ground rebounded about 4–7
mm, which should be the product of the rapid recovery of the artesian
water levels after shutting off all the relief wells on January 9, 2005.
After the artesian water levels fully recovered, the ground quickly
stabilized over time. The further examination on the measured
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HUNAN UNIVERSITY on 02/08/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Summary of wall deflections and lateral soil movements during construction

ground settlements shows that at each survey section the ground
within 20–30 m behind the pit settled almost uniformly during
excavation. This phenomenon is similar to those observed in the long
and narrow metro excavation reported by Tan and Wei (2012), but
different from those of the regular basement excavations in the
literature (Lee et al. 1998; Ou et al. 1998; Seo et al. 2010). As both the
pits in the literature and this study had similar excavation depths
around 17–19 m, this discrepancy should mainly arise from the fact
that this large circular pit (7,850 m2 in plan) and the 290-m-long
metro excavation (Tan and Wei 2012) caused greater stress fields
behind the pits than the regular rectangular basement excavations
with areas of 2,925e4,000 m2 in plan.
Fig. 11 plots the relationships between the measured maximum
ground settlements, dvm , and excavation depths, H, for this cy-
lindrical shaft and the aforementioned basement and metro
excavations. For the cylindrical excavation, dvm ranged between
dvm 5 0:05%H and dvm 5 0:25%H, close to the corresponding
boundaries for the metro excavations and the CA/T project
(Hashash et al. 2008). On average, the observed dvm of the cy-
lindrical excavation and the metro excavations was significantly
smaller than those of the basement excavations (i.e., dvm 5 0:15%H
and dvm 5 1:0%H) and those proposed by Clough and O’Rourke
(1990) for excavations in stiff clay (i.e., dvm 5 0:15%H and
dvm 5 0:5%H). These comparisons indicate that both this

1882 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1875-1893

 cylindrical shaft and the long and narrow metro excavations
exhibited stronger capabilities of resisting ground settlement than
the regular basement pits in terms of settlement magnitudes.
Fig. 12(a) plots the relationship between the ground settlements
corresponding to the final excavation depth, dv , and the distance, d,
behind the diaphragm wall for all the survey sections of this study,
both of which are normalized by He 5 17:85 m. The ground set-
tlement data from the aforementioned basement and metro exca-
vations were also included for comparison. As shown in this figure,
the magnitudes of the ground settlement of this cylindrical

Table 2. Summary of the Cylindrical Excavations in Shanghai Soft Clay

Case number D (m) He (m) t (m) Hw (m) R EA ðN=mÞ EI ðN-m2 =mÞ
1 28.0 18.7 0.7 30.0 0.60 2:1 3 10
10
2:86 3 108
2 62.4 23.2 1.2 38.2 0.65 3:6 3 1010
1:44 3 109
3 60.0 26.5 0.8 37.5 0.42 2:4 3 1010
4:27 3 108
4 5.6 33.7 0.8 48.0 0.42 2:4 3 1010 4:27 3 108
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HUNAN UNIVERSITY on 02/08/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

5 30.0 31.0 1.0 53.0 0.71 3:0 3 1010 8:33 3 108

6 8.2 39.0 1.0 47.0 0.21 3:0 3 1010
8:33 3 108
7 50.0 15.3 1.0 29.1 0.90 3:0 3 1010
8:33 3 108
8 24.6 35.0 1.0 53.0 0.51 3:0 3 1010 8:33 3 108
9 26.5 33.0 1.0 51.3 0.55 3:0 3 1010 8:33 3 108
10 88.0 17.5 2.0 30.0 0.71 6:0 3 1010
6:67 3 109
11 6.2 35.0 1.0 47.4 0.35 3:0 3 1010
8:33 3 108
This study 100.0 17.85 1.0 30.0 0.68 3:0 3 1010 8:33 3 108
Note: D 5 inner diameter of a cylindrical excavation; EA 5 normal stiffness; EI 5 bending stiffness (flexural rigidity); He 5 final excavation depth; t 5 wall
thickness or pile diameter; Hw 5 retaining wall height; R 5 wall penetration ratio equal to ðHw 2 He Þ=He .

Fig. 6. Relationships between dhm and H: (a) cylindrical excavations; (b) cylindrical, basement, and metro excavations

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1883

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1875-1893

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HUNAN UNIVERSITY on 02/08/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Relationships between (a) dhm =He and D and (b) dhm =He and R

Fig. 8. Relationships between Hm and H for the bottom-up excavations

excavation were significantly smaller than those of the basement
excavations and those predicted by Peck (1969) and Clough and
O’Rourke (1990) and are consistent with the long and narrow metro
excavations in Shanghai and the CA/T project in Boston (Hashash
et al. 2008). However, different from the long and narrow pits, the
distribution shape of the ground settlements of this cylindrical ex-
cavation was similar to the basement excavations, i.e., the maximum
ground settlements occurred in the zones around 0:5He to 1:15He
behind the retaining wall, and beyond this range, the ground settle-
ments decreased with distance away from the pit.

1884 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1875-1893

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HUNAN UNIVERSITY on 02/08/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Vertical wall movements: (a) development of vertical movement over time; (b) relationship between Vwm and H

Fig. 12(b) presents the relationships between the normalized Relationship between dhm and dvm
ground settlements, dv =dvm , at the final excavation levels and dis-
Fig. 13 plots the relationships between the maximum wall deflec-
tance ratio, d=He , for this cylindrical excavation, in which dv is the
tions, dhm , and the corresponding maximum ground settlements, dvm ,
ground settlement at a survey point along a section behind the pit
behind the retaining wall for this cylindrical excavation. The data
and dvm is the maximum ground settlement along the same survey
from the 92 basement excavations and eight metro excavations in
section. Like Fig. 12(a), the ground settlement data from the
Shanghai were also included for comparison. The observed rela-
aforementioned basement and metro excavations were also included
tionships were between dvm 5 0:3dhm and dvm 5 1:5dhm for this
for analysis. Most dv =dvm measured in the building basement ex-
cylindrical excavation, between dvm 5 0:1dhm and dvm 5 2:0dhm for
cavations can be bounded by the maximum settlement zone defined
the metro excavations, and between dvm 5 0:3dhm and dvm 5 2:0dhm
by Clough and O’Rourke (1990) for soft to medium clays, but its
for the basement excavations. The observed dvm =dhm in Shanghai
transition zone extended beyond 2He behind the retaining walls. The
had a wider range than the reported dvm 5 0:5dhm to dvm 5 1:0dhm
ground settlement data of the metro excavations fell within the
by Mana and Clough (1981) and dvm 5 0:5dhm to dvm 5 2:0dhm by
boundary defined by Hashash et al. (2008). The dv =dvm of this
Moormann (2004).
cylindrical excavation occurred within 1:15He behind the retaining
wall. Beyond 1:15He , dv =dvm exhibited an apparent tendency of
decreasing as d=He increased. The primary settlement influence
Basal Heave
zone observed in this study was wider than those of the building
basement pits but narrower than those of the long and narrow As the direct consequence of stress relief (soil removal), basal soils
excavations. The comparisons in Figs. 12(a and b) show that this will rebound during excavation. Meanwhile, retaining walls will
cylindrical excavation exhibited apparent advantages of con- move toward pits with the progress of the excavation, which will
straining ground settlements over both regular basement excavations squeeze basal soils and result in additional basal heave. Because
(in terms of settlement magnitudes) and long and narrow excavations instruments installed below excavation bases can be easily damaged
(in terms of scale of influence zones). during construction, until now only few field data were available in

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1885

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1875-1893

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HUNAN UNIVERSITY on 02/08/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Typical ground settlement development over time at Sections G1-1–G1-5, G4-1–G4-5, and G7-1–G7-5

the literature (Ou et al. 1998). In this study, the basal heaves were
measured by two clusters of arrowhead magnets installed inside two
boreholes (designated as L1 and L2 in plan). In each borehole, seven
arrowhead magnets were installed at depths of 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20,
and 24 m below the final excavation levels (designated as L1-1–L1-7
and L2-1–L2-7). In each borehole, the arrowhead magnets were
initially placed on the outside of a PVC pipe, and the gap between the
sidewall of the borehole and the PVC pipe was filled with the sandy
soils. Then, by pulling up the PVC pipe slightly, the claws of each
arrowhead magnet penetrated through the fills and stuck tightly into
the natural subgrade. Because of the unique nature of the arrowhead
magnet installation, the claws of some arrowhead magnets might just
stick into the surrounding fills instead of penetrating into the natural
subgrade. If the surrounding fills were not in a compact state, the
arrowhead magnets might experience local settlements once the fills
were disturbed by construction activities.

1886 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1875-1893

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HUNAN UNIVERSITY on 02/08/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Relationships between dvm and H

Fig. 12. Observed ground settlement profiles versus those predicted by empirical methods: (a) relationship between dv =He and d=He ; (b) relationship
between dv =dvm and d=He

Fig. 14 presents the measured basal heaves at L1 and L2. All the
measurement points below the excavation bases heaved continu-
ously with the progress of the excavation to 12.45 m BGS (Stages
2a–3c). Except for the two abnormal measurements at L2-1 and L2-3,
the basal soils almost stabilized with time between Stages 4a and 6,
which was contrary to the expectation. This probably was caused by
dewatering since June 30, 2004. The basal heaves caused by stress
relief were canceled out by the settlements of deep soil layers
resulting from water discharge. During excavation of Soil Layer
12 in Stage 8, the basal soils experienced additional heaves up to

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1887

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1875-1893

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HUNAN UNIVERSITY on 02/08/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Relationship between dhm and dvm

Fig. 14. Development of the basal heaves at L1 and L2 during construction

5–7 mm. Following the dropdown of the artesian water levels in
Stage 8, the basal soils stopped heaving and quickly stabilized over
time at Stage 9, when steady artesian water heads were maintained.
The field measurements at both L1 and L2 show that the soils within
24 m below the excavation bases heaved almost uniformly during
excavation, which indicates that the mobilized zone of basal heave
extended to a depth of at least 24 m below the excavation bases.
Further examination on the data presented in Fig. 14 shows that
during excavation of the elevator shaft (i.e., Stage 8), L1 still ex-
perienced base heave, although it was located outside the elevator
shaft. Meanwhile, the development pattern of basal heave at L1 was
similar to L2 but with smaller magnitudes. As the instruments at
L2-3–L2-7 were deeper than the tips (32 m BGS) of the 12-m-high
ACIP retaining piles for the elevator shaft, it is reasonable to assume

1888 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1875-1893

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HUNAN UNIVERSITY on 02/08/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. The measured upward movement of the ACIP retaining piles at A2 to A11 during construction of the elevator shaft

that the excavation of the elevator shaft incurred a basal heave zone
extending far below the excavation surface and outside the ACIP
retaining piles. This means the ACIP retaining piles were not deep
enough to isolate the basal heave outside the elevator shaft, and hence,
basal heave occurred at L1 during Stage 8. This was verified by the
measured upward movements of the ACIP retaining pile during
construction of the elevator shaft. As shown in Fig. 15, the ACIP piles
(A2–A11) experienced substantial heaves up to 3–7 mm during con-
struction of the elevator shaft and then stabilized with the completion of
the 2-m-thick base slabs. The smaller measured basal heave increments
at L1 than L2 in Stage 8 indicate that the basal heave caused by cutting
the elevator shaft decreased with the distance from the pit center.
The aforementioned drop in the basal heave readings at L2-1 on
July 27 and September 5, 2004, and at L2-3 on June 30, 2004,
should be caused by the fact that the claws of the arrowhead
magnets at L2-1 and L2-3 were just stuck in the surrounding fills
instead of penetrated into the natural soil strata. As a result, dew-
atering since June 30, 2004, caused temporary settling of the fills
accompanied by settling of the arrowhead magnets. Although the
measured basal heaves at L2-1 after September 5, 2004, and at L2-
3 after June 30, 2004, were significantly smaller than those of the
other locations, their development tendencies were consistent.
This verifies that the temporary drop in the basal heave readings Fig. 16. Relationships between dbh and H
at L2-1 and L2-3 should be attributed to the factors mentioned
previously.
Fig. 16 plots the relationships between the basal heaves, dbh , and
the excavation depths, H, for this study, in which dbh is the measured dewatering started. Similar to the vertical wall movements shown in
maximum basal heave at L1 and L2. To explore the effects of pit Fig. 9(a), the columns continuously moved upward as excavation
geometry, the data from the aforementioned basement excavations went on. Because the columns rested on the ACIP piles of which the
in Shanghai and the basement excavation in Taipei soft clay (Ou pile tips were located at 46.8 m BGS, the continuous upward column
et al. 1998) were also included for comparison. The measured dbh of movements verify the previous finding that the mobilized zone of
this cylindrical excavation ranged between dbh 5 0:10%H and basal heave extended to a great depth below the excavation base.
dbh 5 0:22%H, which were significantly lower than the measured Following completion of removing Soil Layer 11 (Stage 6), the
dbh 5 0:30%H to dbh 5 0:90%H for the basement excavations. columns almost stabilized in Stage 7. During excavation of Layer 12
(Stage 8), the columns developed additional uplifts up to 5 mm.
However, the columns tended to settle after the 2-m-thick concrete
Vertical Column Movement and Column Stress
base slabs at 25.89 m BGS were poured (Stage 9). When con-
Fig. 17(a) presents the development of the vertical column move- struction of the 4-m-thick base slabs at 17.85 m BGS (Stage 10) was
ments at LZ1–LZ5 during construction. The column movements completed, the columns experienced significant settlements up to 7.5
were not surveyed until June 30, 2004, which was the day when mm in a short time.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1889

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1875-1893

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HUNAN UNIVERSITY on 02/08/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 17. Observed column behaviors: (a) vertical movements; (b) stress states; (c) average values of vertical wall movements, basal heaves at L1,
vertical column movements, and column stresses

The stress states in Columns LZ1–LZ4 were monitored by vi-
brating wire stress meters, which were attached to the lower end of
the columns and socketed into the heads of the underlying ACIP
piles (LBEs). Fig. 17(b) shows the development of column stresses
at LZ1–LZ4 during construction, in which positive stress represents
tension and negative stress represents compression. During June 30
to July 17, 2004, the columns were compressed. As excavation
proceeded to greater depths, the stresses in the columns gradually
transitioned to tension. During Stage 7, the column stresses almost
stabilized over time. However, the column stresses changed rapidly
from tension to compression during Stage 8. Different from the
vertical column movements, the column stresses did not show
apparent changes at Stage 9. During Stage 10, the column stresses
tended to approach the neutral state. However, following completion
of the 4-m-thick base slabs, there was a dramatic increase of the
compressive stresses in the columns.
Because the columns were supported by the ACIP piles (LBEs)
and connected to the diaphragm walls via the Waler beams, the
movements and stresses of the columns were largely affected by the
movements of the retaining wall and the basal soils. To better
understand the roles they played during construction, the average
values of the basal heave at L1, the vertical wall movements, the

1890 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1875-1893

 vertical column movements, and the column stresses were plotted
against time in Fig. 17(c). As shown in the figure, the basal soils
moved upward much faster than the diaphragm wall from June 30 to
July 7, 2004. As a result, the columns were pushed upward by the
basal soils but suppressed by the diaphragm walls, which led to
compressive stresses in the columns. Thereafter, the basal heave
tended to slow down, whereas the upward wall movement continued
until August 16, 2004. This asynchronous development might result
from the potential lagging effect existing between the immediate
basal heave and the associated vertical wall movement. Conse-
quently, the column stresses gradually transitioned from compres-
sion to tension. The tension in the columns continued to increase
until the diaphragm wall stabilized around August 16, 2004. From
August 16 to November 24, 2004, both the basal soils and the di-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HUNAN UNIVERSITY on 02/08/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
aphragm walls were in steady states, and hence both the column
movements and the column stresses stabilized. From November 24
to December 14, 2004, the walls settled slowly while the basal soils
moved upward significantly, which led to additional column uplifts.
As a result, the columns were compressed again. During Stage 9, the
basal soils and the diaphragm walls settled consistently, and thus the
columns settled at a similar rate, and the column stresses were steady.
Following the completion of the 4-m-thick base slabs, the heavy
weights of the concrete slabs pushed the columns downward and
compressed them. The previous analyses prove that column stress is
a reliable indicator of relative movements between basal soils, in-
terior columns, and retaining walls.
Fig. 18 plots the relationship between the vertical column
movements, dcu , and excavation depths, H, for this cylindrical ex-
cavation. The data available from the aforementioned building
basement and metro excavations were included for comparison. It was
noticed that most dcu fell between dcu 5 0:01%H and dcu 5 0:07%H
for this cylindrical excavation, between dcu 5 0:05%H and dcu
5 0:30%H for the basement excavations, and between dcu 5 0:05%H
and dcu 5 0:18%H for the metro excavation. The measured dcu of this
cylindrical excavation was located near the lower boundaries of the
basement and metro excavations. This discrepancy can be attributed
to the smaller basal heaves in this study.
Subsurface Settlement
Fig. 19 presents the development of the subsurface settlements with
time at Location FC. Except for the spikes around July 22–27, 2004,
the measured subsurface settlements at all the monitoring points
increased with excavation depths during Stages 2a–6 and later tended
to stabilize during Stage 7. Because no construction activity was
conducted between July 17 and August 2, 2004, these spikes should be
induced by the temporary rebound of the artesian water levels from
July 22 to 27, 2004 (refer to the section Pore Pressures). During
excavation of the elevator shaft (Stage 8), subsurface settlements
increased up to 9 mm at the monitoring points, which were mainly
caused by the substantial dropdown of the artesian water levels.
Following construction of the heavy concrete base slabs, the sub-
surface soils along the depth tended to stabilize over time. It was
expected that subsurface settlements would decrease along the depth,
and the subsoils in the upper layers (FC-1–FC-3) did experience much
greater settlements than those in the deep layers (FC-4 and FC-5).
However, the maximum settlements took place at FC-2 instead of FC-
1 on the ground surface. This abnormal phenomenon mainly derived
from the fact that the instrument at FC-2 was installed in the sensitive
soft muddy clay, which underlies the firm silty clay layer (the
crust layer). The crust layer at shallow depths can sustain relatively
greater loads, whereas the strength and the stiffness of the underlying
soft clays would degrade substantially once disturbed during con-
struction. As a result, the measured data of FC-2 included not only
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1891
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1875-1893
subsurface settlements but also some local settlements around the
instrument.
Pore Pressures
Because discharging of the deep artesian water imposed substantial
effects on the excavation behaviors, the development of artesian
water levels and the measured pore pressures were closely moni-
tored during construction. Fig. 20 presents the development of the
measured pore pressures at ST2 along with the measured artesian
water levels. The artesian water levels dropped sharply around June
30, 2004 and November 19, 2004, because of too much pumping in
a short time. The transient rebound (spike) of the artesian water
levels from July 22 to 27, 2004 was the result of temporary shut-off
of the relief wells. Overall, the artesian water was dewatered very
gently during most of the construction time, i.e., the artesian water
levels were maintained near the excavation levels at each stage.
Following shutting off all the relief wells on January 9, 2005, the
artesian water level recovered quickly and almost reached its initial
state in about 50 days. The measured pore pressures along the depth
indicate that discharging of the artesian water significantly affected
the water pressures in the deep layers (ST2-4–ST2-6) but hardly
affected the phreatic water levels at shallow depths (ST2-1–ST2-3).
Conclusions
Through analysis of this large-scale deep cylindrical excavation and
comparisons with 11 cylindrical, 92 regular building basement, and
eight long and narrow metro station excavations constructed by the
bottom-up method in Shanghai soft clay, the following major find-
ings and conclusions can be drawn:
1. Like the multipropped rectangular excavations, the unprop-
ped diaphragm walls of the cylindrical shaft developed
deep-seated deflections during excavation. The measured
dhm fell below dhm 5 0:2%H, close to the lower boundaries
of the regular rectangular excavations. The shaft diameter,
D, of cylindrical shafts plays a dominant role in determi-
nation of wall deflections, and their relationship can be
approximated by the linear equation dhm =He 5 1:5 3 1025 D.
When D reached 90 m or larger, the advantage of cylindrical
shafts over rectangular pits in resisting deformation became
much less obvious. Similar to rectangular pits, dhm =He was
relatively independent of wall penetration ratio, R, for cylin-
drical shafts. Compared with the multipropped rectangular
excavations in which Hm showed equal possibilities of oc-
curring within the ranges of 7 m below or above excavation
surfaces (i.e., between Hm 5 H 2 7 m and Hm 5 H 1 7 m),
Hm of the self-supported cylindrical shafts fell within much
wider ranges between Hm 5 H 2 20 m and Hm 5 H 1 12 m.
2. In this cylindrical excavation, the ground settlements had
typical concave profiles, and dvm took place within 0:5He to
1:15He behind the wall. The measured dvm ranged between
dvm 5 0:05%He and dvm 5 0:25%He , which was close to those
of the long and narrow metro excavations but significantly
lower than those of the basement excavations. This cylindrical
excavation exhibited apparent advantages of constraining
ground settlements over both regular basement excavations
(in terms of settlement magnitudes) and long and narrow metro
excavations (in terms of influence zones).
3. During excavation, the soil below the excavation base heaved
uniformly. The primary influence zone of the basal heave
extended to a depth at least 24 m below the excavation
bases. The basal heave, dbh , lay between dbh 5 0:10%H and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HUNAN UNIVERSITY on 02/08/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 18. Relationship between dcu and H

Fig. 19. Development of the subsurafce settlement with time

Fig. 20. Variation of the pore pressures and artesian water levels during construction

1892 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1875-1893

 dbh 5 0:22%H for this cylindrical excavation, which was
significantly smaller than the measured dbh 5 0:30%H to
dbh 5 0:90%H for the regular basement excavations.
4. Basal heave, vertical wall movement, vertical column move-
ment, and column stress are closely related to each other. The
development of column movement and column stress are
governed by the relative movement between walls and the
basal soils. Column stress was demonstrated to be a reliable
indicator of relative movements between basal soils, interior
columns, and retaining walls. The measured column stresses in
this study and the companion paper (Tan and Wang 2013)
show that the interior columns and the ACIP piles (LBEs)
directly below were mainly in the tensile state during bottom-
up excavations and in the compressive state during top-down
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HUNAN UNIVERSITY on 02/08/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
excavations.
5. Discharging of the artesian water at deep levels played an
important role in affecting basal heave, vertical wall move-
ment, vertical column movement, and column stress during
excavation. Progressively dewatering was proved to be helpful
in controlling basal heaves and associated structure uplifts.
6. Because of its relatively far distance from the circular di-
aphragm wall, the open cut of the elevator shaft at the pit center
hardly affected the behaviors of the cylindrical shaft. How-
ever, the excavation of this small-scale pit caused a relatively
large and deep basal heave zone extending beyond its exca-
vation boundary. Such a kind of pit-in-pit excavation should
be treated with caution in design and construction.
Acknowledgments
Many organizations and people contributed to the success of this re-
search project and special thanks are due to Mr. Hongliang Lan
and Mr. Linkang Xuan of Shanghai Geotechnical Investigations
and Design Institute Company Limited for providing the detailed in-
formation about site conditions and field instrumentation. The fi-
nancial support provided by the Innovation Program of Shanghai
Municipal Education Commission (No. 13ZZ027) is gratefully ac-
knowledged. Dr. Ye Lu from Shanghai University is appreciated
for her contribution to improve the quality of this paper. Finally,
the insightful comments and suggestions from the anonymous
reviewers, the Associate Editor, and the Editor-in-Chief Dr. Pat-
rick J. Fox are sincerely appreciated.
References
Addenbrooke, T. I. (1994). “Displacement controlled design of multi
propped retaining walls.” Ground Engrg., 27(7), 41–45.
Clough, G. W., and O’Rourke, T. D. (1990). “Construction induced mo-
vements of in-situ walls.” Geotechnical special publication: Design and
performance of earth retaining structures (GSP 25), ASCE, Reston,
VA, 439–470.
Clough, G. W., Smith, E. M., and Sweeney, B. P. (1989). “Movement
control of excavation support system by iterative design.” Proc., Foun-
dation Engineering: Current Principals and Practices, Vol. 2, ASCE,
Reston, VA, 869–884.
Finno, R. J., Atmatzidis, D. K., and Perkins, S. B. (1989). “Observed
performance of a deep excavation in clay.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 115(8),
1045–1064.
Finno, R. J., and Calvello, M. (2005). “Supported excavations: Observa-
tional method and inverse modeling.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
131(7), 826–836.
Goldberg, D. T., Jaworski, W. E., and Gordon, M. D. (1976). “Lateral
support systems and underpinning.” Rep. No. FHWA-RD-75-129,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1893
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1875-1893
Hashash, Y. M. A., Marulanda, C., Ghaboussi, J., and Jung, S. (2006). “Novel
approach to integration of numerical modeling and field observations for
deep excavations.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132(8), 1019–1031.
Hashash, Y. M. A., Osouli, A., and Marulanda, C. (2008). “Central artery/
tunnel project excavation induced ground deformations.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 134(9), 1399–1406.
Hashash, Y. M. A., and Whittle, A. J. (1996). “Ground movement prediction
for deep excavations in soft clay.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 122(6), 474–486.
Hsieh, P. G., and Ou, C. Y. (1998). “Shape of ground surface settlement
profiles caused by excavation.” Can. Geotech. J., 35(6), 1004–1017.
Jen, L. C. (1998). “The design and performance of deep excavations in clay.”
Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Kumagai, T., Ariizumi, K., and Kashiwagi, A. (1999). “Behaviour and analysis
of a large-scale cylindrical earth retaining structure.” Soils Found., 39(3), 13–26.
Kung, G. T. C., Juang, C. H., Hsiao, E. C. L., and Hashash, Y. M. A. (2007).
“Simplified model for wall deflection and ground-surface settlement
caused by braced excavation in clays.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
133(6), 731–747.
Lee, F. H., Yong, K. Y., Quan, K. C. N., and Chee, K. T. (1998). “Effects
of corners in strutted excavations: Field monitoring and case histories.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 124(4), 339–349.
Long, M. (2001). “Database for retaining wall and ground movements due
to deep excavations.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127(3), 203–224.
Mana, A. I., and Clough, G. W. (1981). “Prediction of movements for braced
cuts in clay.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 107(6), 759–777.
Moormann, C. (2004). “Analysis of wall and ground movements due to
deep excavation in soft soils based on a new worldwide database.” Soils
Found., 44(1), 87–98.
O’Rourke, T. D. (1981). “Ground movements caused by braced excava-
tions.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 107(9), 1159–1178.
O’Rourke, T. D., and McGinn, A. J. (2006). “Lessons learned for ground
movements and soil stabilization from the Boston Central Artery.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132(8), 966–989.
Ou, C. Y., Hsieh, P. G., and Chiou, D. C. (1993). “Characteristics of ground
surface settlement during excavation.” Can. Geotech. J., 30(5), 758–767.
Ou, C. Y., Liao, J. T., and Lin, H. D. (1998). “Performance of diaphragm wall
constructed using the top-down method.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
124(9), 798–808.
Peck, R. B. (1969). “Deep excavation and tunneling in soft ground. State-of-
the-art-report.” Proc., 7th Int. Conf. of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, International Society of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering (ISSMGE), Mexico City, 225–281.
Prashar, S., Mitchell, R., Hee, M. W., Sanmuganathan, D., and Nicholson, G.
(2007). “Performance monitoring of deep shafts at Changi WRP project,
Singapore.” Proc., 7th Int. Symp. on Field Measurements in Geo-
mechanics (FMGM 2007), Geotechnical Special Publication 175
(GSP175), ASCE, Reston, VA, 1–12.
Seo, M. W., Olson, S. W., Yang, K. S., and Kim, M. M. (2010). “Sequential
analysis of ground movements at three excavation sites with mixed
ground profiles.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 136(5), 656–668.
Tan, Y., and Wang, D. L. (2013). “Characteristics of a large-scale deep
foundation pit excavated by the central-island technique in Shanghai soft
clay. II: Top-down construction of the peripheral rectangular pit.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 139(11), 1894–1910.
Tan, Y., and Wei, B. (2012). “Observed behaviors of a long and deep
excavation constructed by cut-and-cover technique in Shanghai soft
clay.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 138(1), 69–88.
Wang, Z. W., Ng, C. W. W., and Liu, G. B. (2005). “Characteristics of wall
deflections and ground surface settlements in Shanghai.” Can. Geotech.
J., 42(5), 1243–1254.
Xu, Y. S., Ma, L., Shen, S. L., and Sun, W. J. (2012). “Evaluation of land
subsidence by considering underground structures penetrated into
aquifers in Shanghai.” Hydrogeol. J., 20(8), 1623–1634.
Xu, Y. S., Shen, S. L., and Du, Y. J. (2009). “Geological and hydro-
geological environment in Shanghai with geohazards to construction
and maintenance of infrastructures.” Eng. Geol., 109(3–4), 241–254.
Xu, Z. H. (2007). “Deformation behavior of deep excavations supported by
permanent structures in Shanghai soft deposit.” Ph.D. thesis, Shanghai
Jiao Tong Univ., Shanghai, China.