Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 3342

Deformation Behavior of Retaining Walls in Deep Excavations in Suzhou

Subway Line 1 of China

Xinnan Gao1, Songyu Liu2, M.ASCE, Liyuan Tong3 and Chengbin Lou4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY on 06/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1
PhD Candidate, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Southeast University,
Nanjing, China; PH (86) 025-83795776; FAX (86) 025-83795086; email:
gao_xinnan@126.com
2
Professor, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing,
China; PH (86) 025-83792885; FAX (86) 025-83795086; email: liusy@seu.edu.cn
3
Associate Professors, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Southeast University,
Nanjing, China; PH (86) 025-83792885; FAX (86) 025-83795086; email:
atmu@seu.edu.cn
4
M.S Candidate, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Southeast University,
Nanjing, China; PH (86) 025-83795776; FAX (86) 025-83795086; email:
louchengbin@163.com

ABSTRACT

Data of wall deformation due to deep excavations of 23 stations in Suzhou

subway line 1 was collected, and the deformation behavior of the three types of
retaining walls (diaphragm wall, secant pile wall and soil mixing wall) was analyzed.
The results show that the ratio of the maximum horizontal displacement of diaphragm
wall to the excavation depth ranges from 0.11% to 0.33% with a mean value of
0.213%, and the ratio of the maximum horizontal displacement of secant pile wall
and soil mixing wall to the excavation depth ranges from 0.23% to 0.40% with a
mean value of 0.298%. The maximum horizontal displacement of the retaining wall
occurs near the excavation bottom. The factors that influence the wall deformation
were analyzed, including embedded depth ratio of the retaining wall, average vertical
spacing between supports, ground improvement below the bottom of excavation, and
the depth of the first level support.

INTRODUCTION

The subway construction has developed rapidly in recent years in China. Up

to the end of 2009, subway and light rails have been built in tens of cities in China.
Large-scale subway construction will bring a number of stability problems to subway
excavation and its surrounding environment. In most cases, subway lines pass
through the urban areas with many large and high buildings, so the deformation
control and environmental protection are the key to the success of excavation. The
concept of deformation control design for retaining structure in deep excavation has
been attached more and more importance. Many scholars employed statistical
techniques to analyze the relationship between the measured deformation data and
physical and mechanical parameters of deep excavations (Fernie and Suckling, 1996;

Geo-Frontiers 2011
 Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 3343

Karlsrud, 1986; Long, 2001; Mana and Clough, 1981; Peck, 1969; Wong et al., 1997;
Xu, 2007). However, excavation engineering has a strong regional characteristic, and
whether the research results in other regions can be directly applied in Suzhou, China
remains to be further explored.
Based on the measured deformation data of deep excavations of 23 stations in
Suzhou subway line 1, the deformation behavior of three types of retaining walls
(diaphragm wall, secant pile wall, and soil mixing wall or SMW) was statistically
analyzed. The influence of some correlative factors on the wall deformation was
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY on 06/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

discussed, including embedded depth ratio of the retaining wall, average vertical
spacing between supports, ground improvement below the bottom of excavation, and
the depth of the first level support.

DESCRIPTION OF COLLECTED DATA

In Suzhou subway line 1 most stations adopted retaining walls with a single
type, and some stations adopted two or three types of retaining walls. It resulted in 21
cases of diaphragm wall, 2 cases of secant pile wall and 4 cases of SMW. The
diaphragm wall is usually 800 mm thick. The secant pile wall comprises piles with a
diameter of 800 mm or 1000 mm, which have a positive overlap of 200 mm with
each other. The SMW piles are 850 mm or 1000 mm in diameter with an overlap of
250 mm, and the typical specification of H-section steel inserted in the wall is 700
mm by 300 mm by 13 mm by 24 mm. Excavations in subway are always of an
rectangular shape. The excavations in Suzhou subway Line 1 are mostly 20.3 m wide,
but different in length on account of different design requirements. The average depth
of excavations is 16.8 m. The embedded depth of retaining wall is nearly equal to the
final depth of excavation, so the depth of retaining wall is about twice that of the
excavation. Concrete supports are adopted as the first level support in all excavations
in Suzhou subway Line 1. Most station excavations have one concrete support and
three steel supports, and a small number of excavations have one concrete support
and four steel supports.
The collected data consists of basic information and deformation data of
retaining structure. The basic information of retaining structure includes the depth of
excavation (H), the type of retaining wall and its thickness, the depth of retaining wall
(Hw), ground improvement below the bottom of excavation, the number of horizontal
supports, the depth of the first horizontal support (h1), and the average vertical
spacing of supports (h). The deformation data include the horizontal displacement of
top of wall (δtop), the maximum horizontal displacement (δhm) and its depth (Hδhm).
The data also contains the intermediate procedures whose excavated depth is less than
the design depth.
Soil profiles show a little difference among the sites of 23 stations, and the
general pattern of soil profiles 70m below the ground surface is shown in Table 1.
The groundwater level is located about 1.5m below the ground surface.

Geo-Frontiers 2011
 Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 3344

Table 1. General Pattern of Soil Profiles at the 23 Stations

Layer Depth of Top of Soil
Soil Type Soil Conditions
No. Layer (m)
① fill loose
② silty clay plastic to soft plastic 0.7~1.0
③1 clay plastic to hard plastic 2~3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY on 06/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

③2 silty clay plastic 5~7

④1a silty clay soft plastic 7~9
④1 silt loose to medium dense 7~11
④2 silty sand medium dense to dense 9~11
④3 silty clay soft plastic 10~12
⑤ silty clay soft plastic to fluid plastic 18~21
⑥1 clay plastic to hard plastic 21~22
⑥2 silty clay plastic to soft plastic 25~26
⑦1 silty clay soft plastic to plastic 30~32
⑦2 silt medium dense to dense 30~33
⑧ silty clay soft plastic 38~45
⑨ silty clay soft plastic to plastic 30.5~51.0
⑩ fine sand dense 53.0~62.7

DEFORMATION ANALYSIS OF RETAINING WALL BY STATISTICAL

METHOD

Maximum Horizontal Displacement

Figure 1 shows the relationship between the maximum horizontal

displacement of wall and the excavation depth, including the intermediate procedures
whose excavated depth is less than the design depth. Figure 1(a) shows that there are
one excavation with maximum horizontal displacement less than 0.11% H and one
excavation with maximum horizontal displacement greater than 0.33% H, and the
maximum horizontal displacement of other excavations ranges from 0.11% H to
0.33% H with the mean value of 0.213% H. The similar pattern is also found in
Figure 1(b), and the maximum horizontal displacement of secant pile wall and SMW
ranges from 0.23% H to 0.40% H with the mean value of 0.298% H. All these
excavations have been excavated to the design depths except the case with maximum
horizontal displacement less than 0.11% H, whose construction of excavation was

Geo-Frontiers 2011
 Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 3345

later than the others, and resulted in the minimum of the maximum deflection. It can
be found that the minimum of the maximum deflection of secant pile wall and SMW
is even greater than the average maximum deflection of diaphragm wall by
comparing Figure 1(a) and Figure 1(b). Because site conditions show a little
difference at the 23 stations, the stiffness of retaining wall is the main factor that
affects wall deformation.

100 100
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY on 06/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

H
Diaphragm wall
3 %H Secant pile % 8%
H
80 .3 SMW method . 40 2 9
=0 80
=0 =0
.
δ hm δh m δ m
h
60 60

δhm (mm)
δhm (mm)

H H
3% 3%
=0 .2 1 =0.
2
40 40 m
δ hm δh

20 0.11 %H
δ hm= 20

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
H (m) H (m)

(a) Diaphragm wall (b) Secant pile wall and SMW

Figure 1. Relationship between the maximum horizontal displacement of wall
and the excavation depth

According to the statistics of the measured maximum horizontal displacement

of several types of retaining structures, Clough found that the average maximum
horizontal displacement of the wall is about 0.2% H, and most are less than 0.5% H
(Clough and O’Rourke, 1990). The statistical results in this paper are basically
consistent with Clough’s statistics, for the excavations in two cases are both located
in the hard clay or silty sand. According to the statistics of the measured maximum
horizontal displacement of ten excavations in Taipei, Ou found that the maximum
horizontal displacement of most excavations ranges from 0.2% H to 0.5% H with the
mean value of 0.4% H (Ou et al., 1993; Ou et al., 1998). The statistical results in this
paper are less than Ou’s statistics, for the excavations in Ou’s cases are located in soft
soil area.

Depth of the Maximum Horizontal Displacement

Figure 2 shows the relationship between the depth of the maximum horizontal
displacement of wall and the depth of excavation, including all three retaining
structures. The depth of the maximum horizontal displacement of the retaining wall
occurs near the bottom of excavation. It usually appears between 6.5 m above the
excavation bottom and 4.5 m below the excavation bottom. When the excavation
depth is greater than 17.5 m, the depth of the maximum horizontal displacement tends
to be above the excavation bottom, maybe because the excavation bottom is in hard
soil layer under such circumstances.

Geo-Frontiers 2011
 Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 3346

Influencing Factors of the Maximum Horizontal Displacement

The horizontal displacement of retaining wall is influenced by many factors,

including embedded depth ratio of the retaining wall, average vertical spacing of
supports, ground improvement below the bottom of excavation, and the depth of the
first level support, etc.

30
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY on 06/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

25

H
m=
20

δh
5

H
4.

5
Hδhm (m)

.
-6
H

H
15

m=

m=
δh
H

δh
H
10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
H (m)
Figure 2. Relationship between the depth of the maximum horizontal
displacement of wall and the excavation depth

The influence of embedded depth ratio on normalized maximum horizontal

displacement of retaining wall is shown in Figure 3. It can be seen that the
normalized maximum horizontal displacement increases slightly with the increase of
embedded depth ratio. Hashash’s study by finite element method showed that only
when the excavation reaches the limit excavation depth, the embedded depth would
have smaller effect on the wall deformation, otherwise the influence of the embedded
depth on the horizontal displacement of the retaining structure can be ignored
(Hashash, 1992). The scattered data shown in Figure 3 is consistent with Hashash’s
results.
1.0

0.8

0.6
δhm/H (%)

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
( H w -H ) /H
Figure 3. Influence of embedded depth ratio on normalized maximum horizontal
displacement of retaining wall

Geo-Frontiers 2011
 Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 3347

The influence of average vertical spacing between supports on normalized

maximum horizontal displacement of retaining wall is shown in Figure 4. It can be
seen that the values of average spacing between supports are between 3.5 ~ 4.5 m, it
is difficult to analyze the impact of the spacing on the maximum horizontal
displacement since the spacing value of different cases varies in a small range.

0.8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY on 06/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

δhm/H (%) 0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
h (m)
Figure 4. Influence of average vertical spacing of supports on normalized
maximum horizontal displacement of retaining wall

Strengthening or stiffening of soil by means of ground improvement has been

proved as a useful technique in stabilizing excavation bottom. Based on ground and
site conditions of Suzhou subway stations, the most suitable method is mechanical
soil mixing. The auger and mixing paddles attached to the rod drill the ground and
mechanically mix in-situ soil with cementitious materials to produce homogenous
solidified columns of well-defined dimension and strength. Ground improvement in
passive zones was carried out in most of Suzhou subway stations. The influence of
ground improvement below the excavation bottom on the maximum horizontal
displacement is shown in Table 2. All data in Table 2 are in average. It can be seen
from the table, the mean value and the average depth of the maximum horizontal
displacement of the retaining wall with or without ground improvement do not show
much difference. Ground improvement below the excavation bottom does not have an
appreciable restriction effect on the horizontal displacement of retaining walls. It is
suggested that the excavation bottom needs no ground improvement unless the soil
below the excavation bottom is saturated soft clay or the surrounding environment is
complex.

Table 2. Influence of Ground Improvement below the Excavation Bottom on the

Maximum Horizontal Displacement
Stations with ground Stations without ground
Conditions
improvement improvement
δhm / H 0.242% 0.223%
Hδhm / H 0.881 0.863

Geo-Frontiers 2011
 Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 3348

The relationship between the depth of the first level support and the maximum
horizontal displacement of retaining wall is shown in Figure 5. The abscissa denotes
the ratio of the depth of the first level support to the excavation depth and the ordinate
denotes the ratio of the maximum horizontal displacement to the excavation depth. It
can be seen that the depth of the first level support has little or no relation to the
maximum horizontal displacement. Hashash’s results show that the cantilever
excavation has no influence on the maximum deformation of retaining wall when the
excavation depth reaches a certain value (Hashash, 1992). The data in Figure 5 is also
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY on 06/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

consistent with this conclusion.

0.8

0.6
δhm/H (%)

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
h1/H
Figure 5. Influence of the depth of the first level support on normalized
maximum horizontal displacement of retaining wall

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the statistical analysis of the measured data in Suzhou subway line 1,
following conclusions can be drawn:
1) The ratio of the maximum horizontal displacement of diaphragm wall to
the excavation depth ranges from 0.11% to 0.33% with the mean value of 0.213%,
and the ratio of the maximum horizontal displacement of secant pile wall and SMW
to the excavation depth ranges from 0.23% to 0.40% with the mean value of 0.298%.
The diaphragm wall is proved to be more effective in controlling the deformation of
deep excavations than secant pile wall or SMW.
2) The depth of the maximum horizontal displacement of the retaining wall
occurs near the excavation bottom. It usually appears between 6.5 m above the
excavation bottom and 4.5 m below the excavation bottom.
3) The embedded depth ratio of the retaining wall has no effect on the
maximum horizontal displacement. It is difficult to analyze the impact of the spacing
of supports on the maximum horizontal displacement since the spacing value of
different cases varies in a small range. The mean value and the average depth of the
maximum horizontal displacement of retaining wall with or without ground
improvement do not show much difference, and the maximum horizontal
displacement is less affected by the depth of the first level support.

Geo-Frontiers 2011
 Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 3349

4) The maximum horizontal displacement of the retaining wall is the creation

of the combining powers: the stiffness of retaining wall, the site conditions, the
embedded depth, the spacing of supports, the ground improvement below excavation
bottom, the depth of the first level support, the construction procedures and etc. The
statistical analysis of the measured data in the paper show poor correlations. It is
concluded that no single factor proved to be most influential, but a combination of
different factors works.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY on 06/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Financial supports for this work provided by the Major Program of Suzhou
Science and Technology Projects (No. ZXJ0805) are gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

Clough, G.W., O’Rourke, T.D. (1990). Construction induced movements of in situ

walls. Proceedings of ASCE Conference on Design and Performance of Earth
Retaining Structures, New York: Geotechnical Special Publication, 25,439-470.
Fernie, R., and Suckling, T. (1996). Simplified approach for estimating lateral
movement of embedded walls in UK ground. International Symposium on Geo
Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, City University, London,
131-136.
Hashash, Y.M.A. (1992). Analysis of deep excavation in clay. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Karlsrud, K. (1986). Performance monitoring in deep supported excavations in soft
clay. 4th International Geotechnical Seminar, Field Instrumentation and In-Situ
Measurement, Nanyang Technological Institute, Singapore, 187-202.
Long, M. (2001). Database for retaining wall and ground movements due to deep
excavations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
127(3): 203-224.
Mana, A.I., and Clough, G.W. (1981). Prediction of movements for braced cuts in
clay. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 107(6): 759-777.
Ou, C.Y., Hsieh, P.G., and Chiou, D.C. (1993). Characteristics of ground surface
settlement during excavation. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 30(5): 758-767.
Ou, C.Y., Liao, J.T., and Lin, H.D. 1998. Performance of diaphragm wall constructed
using top-down method. Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 124(9): 798-808.
Peck, R.B. (1969). Deep excavation and tunneling in soft ground. Proceedings of the
7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
State-of-the-Art-Volume, Mexico City, 225-290.
Wong, I.H., Poh, T.Y., and Chuah, H.L. 1997. Performance of excavations for
depressed expressway in Singapore. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 123(7): 617-625.
Xu, Z. 2007. Deformation behavior of deep excavations supported by permanent
structure in Shanghai soft deposit. Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China. (in
Chinese)

Geo-Frontiers 2011