eel [eae PS Pa fea _ CONSTRUCTION INDUCED MOVEMENTS OF INSITU WALLS By G. Wayne Clough } F. ASCE and Thomas D. O'Rourke 2 mM. ASCE ABSTRACT: The issue of movements of insitu walls has become more important with the growth of new technology in this area, and the increase in litigation associated with damages caused by the move- ments to adjacent facilities. New insights into the subject are possible given the increasing numbers of instrumented case histor- ies, and the ability to model the problem using the finite element method. In this paper movements of insitu walls are examined by updating the existing data base using information on both conven- tional and new systems. The effort differs from previous work in that the movements are divided so that effects of the basic excava- tion and support process can be separated from those caused by factors such as ancillary construction activities. The influence of movements on adjacent structures are considered. The results allow refinements in trends of maximum movement and displacement profiles relative to those given in previous literature. Information is given in a form to provide tools that can be used for design predictions. INTRODUCTION Twenty five years ago the subject of insitu walls involved a relatively simple technology which included mainly temporary sheet- pile and soldier pile walls with crosslot bracing or rakers and earth berms. In the intervening years innovations have had a major impact on this field (Table 1). With the change in technology has come a growing interest in the movements of insitu wall systems, reflecting the increasing litigation over damages caused by excavations constructed within insitu wall systems, and applications in more critical situations. 1 - Professor and Head, Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0105. 2 - Professor, School of Civil & Envr. Engineering, Cornell Univer- sity, Ithaca, NY 14853. 439440 EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES TABLE 1. Innovations In Insitu Wall Technology Tie Back Supports Shoterete and Soil Nail Walls Soil Nail Supports Jet Grouted Walls Diaphragm Walls Lime Column Walls Secant and Tangent Pile Walls Root Pile Walls Chemically Grouted Walls Soil Cement Walls The first practical approach for estimating movements for insitu wall systems was proposed by Peck (42) (Fig. 1). Data were compiled on settlements of the ground adjacent to temporary braced sheetpile and soldier pile walls. Peck’s chart gave the settlement, divided by excavation depth, H, plotted against the distance from the insitu wall also divided by the distance H. Three categories of behavior ° \ 2 3 4 I 2 a ail ls = gg gle 2 8 3 1 2 > 4 Dist. from Excavation jepth Excavation Sand and Soft to Hard Clay, Avg. Workmanship I+ Vary Solt to Sott Clay 4, Limited Depth of Clay Below Bott. Exc. 2. Significant Depth of Clay Below Bott. Exc., But No < New II Very Sott to Soft Clay to a Significant Depth Below Exc. Bott. and Ne > Ne» 1H Level” = 2 Stability No. Using C "Below Bas a Critical Stab No. for Basal Heave Figure 1. Summary of Soil Settlements Behind Insitu Walls (Peck, 42).MOVEMENTS OF INSITU WALLS 441 were defined, with the smallest movements indicated for sands, stiff clays, and soft clays of small thickness (Category I). The maximum movements in the Category I conditions near the wall were 1% of the excavation depth. Recent performance with well designed and constructed insitu walls shows improvement over this standard, an example being the 36m excavation in stiff clay for the Columbia Center in Seattle, Washington, where the maximum movements were less than 0.18 H (19). This reflects progress in control of movements that has come through the use of newer design and construction technologies. tu Peck's chart also included data for excavations in soft clays ed where basal stability was an issue and the thickness of the clay le below the excavation was large (Categories II and III). Movements by in these conditions exceed those in Category I because plastic tu yielding occurs beneath the excavations. Control of movements for or this type of behavior is more difficult than for the Category I condition, but progress is being made. Since the publication of the Peck (42) paper, many workers have contributed to our knowledge of this subject (3, 12, 18, 27, 39, 57). This paper is intended to be a logical extension of the previous work. The goals are: (1) Update the available data in terms of the new wall technologies and the enhanced base of information on movements; (2) Clarify ground movement patterns and refine current methods for estimating wall movements and settlement distributions adjacent to deep excavations; and, (3) Relate the likely ground movements patterns for different soil types with the potential severity of building damage. Various construction activities which often are performed concurrently with the excavation and support process also are reviewed, and methods for evaluating ground movements from these sources are proposed BASIC MOVEMENT TRENDS Movements of insitu walls are a function of many factors, including the soil and groundwater conditions, changes in ground- water level, depth and shape of excavation, type and stiffness of the wall and its supports, methods of construction of the wall and adjacent facilities, surcharge loads, and duration of wall exposure among others. Estimating wall movements requires that all possible factors be considered. In this section of the paper the discussion concentrates on those movements due to the basic excavation and support process Maximum Movements - Stiff Clays, Residual Soils and Sands. It is characteristic of stiff clays, residual soils and sands that basal stability is not an issue except in unusual cases (described later in this paper). Peck's 1969 data suggested that in normal circumstances movements of excavation support systems in these soils were limited to 1¢H. Later, using case histories from the literature, Goldberg et al. (18) showed that the maximum horizontal movements for insitu walls and settlements of the retained soil masses in such materials were usually less than 0.5¢ H. To test this finding, Figs. 2 and 3 were prepared to show maximum horizontal movements and soil settlements respectively as a function of H.442 EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES These plots use the Goldberg et al. (18) data plus new information on conventional walls and new systems including soil nailed walls. Some points on the plots exhibit very large movements relative to the main portions of the data, These special cases are identified by the reference number from which they were obtained, and are unique in that they were influenced by factors outside the basic excavation and support process. Excluding points indicated as special cases, the following conclusions may be drawn: (1) The horizontal movements tend to average about 0.2% of H (2) The vertical movements tend to average about 0.15% H. (3) There is ample scatter in the data, with the horizontal move- ments showing more than the vertical movements (4) There is no significant difference between trends of the maxi- mum movements of different types of walls, and this includes even the new soil nail and soil cement walls. Figs. 2 and 3 are useful to understand movement patterns and also can be used as design tools to estimate maximum wall and soil movements. However, the question to be answered for any particular project is, "Will it be one of those which falls on the average trend line, or will it experience larger or smaller movements?" This issue can be addressed in two parts. The first concerns the case where the movement is within the general scatter. The second addresses the special cases where movements are 0.5% H and above, and is considered later in the paper ‘Soldier Pile 8 Log or Shoetpll ©Diephrom Walls ‘Soll Nail Walls A brilled Pier Walls Soll Cement Wells 8 3 a 3 8 202 2 8 MAX. LAT. WALL MOVEMENT, 8u,,.(mm) is 6 ° 10 20 30 40 DEPTH OF EXCAVATION H, (m) Figure 2. Observed Maximum Lateral Movements for Insitu Walls in Stiff Clays, Residual Soils and Sands