LATERAL SUPPORT

IN SURFACE EXCAVATIONS

CODE OF PRACTICE
1989

THE SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTION OF

CIVIL ENGINEERS
GEOTECHNICAL DIVISION
LATERAL SUPPORT IN SURFACE EXCAVATIONS
 LATERAL SUPPORT
IN SURFACE EXCAVATIONS

CODE OF PRACTICE
1989

THE SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTION OF

CIVIL ENGINEERS
GEOTECHNICAL DIVISION
 of Practice
LATERAL SUPPORT IN SURFACE EXCAVATIONS - Code

© SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEE�.

First edition 1972

Second edition 1989 . .
Second edition, second impression 1993

Published by the South .African Institution of Civil Engineers (Geotechnical Division).

All rights reserved. No part of this Code of Practice may be reproduced, be broadcast
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronically, mechanically, including
photocopying, recording or by information storage or in any retrieval system without the
prior permission of the Geotechnical Division of South African Institution of Civil
Engineers.

Although every effort has been mad� to e�sure tha(the information and data present­
ed in this Code of Practice are correct, neither the Geotechnical Division nor the South
African Institution of Civil Engineers are responsible for any errors and omissions, nor
for any consequences resulting from these errors, omissions, etc. The views expreSSed
in this Handbook are not necessarily those of the Geotechnical Division nor the South
African Institution d Civil Engineers.

This Handbook can be ordered from:

South African Institution of Civil Engineers,

P.O. Box 94345
YEOVILLE
2143

ISBN 0-620-13790-8 (soft cover)

ISBN 0-620-13951-X (hard cover)·

Printed by Sigma Press (Pty) Limited .. �- .

·
Typesetting by Industrial Graphics.·.
 FOREWORD
This Code of Practice represents the efforts of a dedicated group of civil
engineers_ from th� Geotechnical Division of the SAICE, who have spent
five years in updating and revising the Code of Practice on Lateral Support
in Surface Excavations, which was first published in 1972.
The previous publication arose from the Symposium on Deep Basement
Exc�vations held in Johannesburg in 1967. At that time a number of deep
basements, ranging from 15 to 3� metres in depth, were being excavated
in Johannesburg. It is believed that the Trust Bank, Carlton Centre and
Standard Bank Centre excavations were among the deepest in the world
at that time.
Twelve years after publication of the original Code, the Geotechnical
Division considered that the state-of-the-art had advanced so significantly,
particularly in the use of anchors for lateral support, that a revision of the
Code was necessary: It soon became clear that the chapters dealing with
foundation investigation, particularly for anchoring work, and design also
needed updating.
As before, the committee searched the world for a similar Code covering
all aspects of surface ·excavations and lateral support on which to model
their work. They found Codes of Practice dealing· ·with· anchors, and
publications dealing with diaphragm walling, piling and grouting, but
nowhere could they-find a Code of Practice· dealing--..vith the overall subject
of lateral support in surface excavations: -
This latest Code is therefore once again a u·nitjuely South· African
publication and will be of immense value to the civil engineering profession
for the years to come. The committee wh� have wo�ked on- it have been
drawn from all facets of the professi(?n; and include C(?nsulting engineers,
contractors specialising in lateral· support and_ c�vil engineers in the
academic field. This Code therefore represents the broadest possible
spectrum of civil engineering expertise in this field within South Africa. I
would like to take this opportunity on behalf of all civil engineers who may
use it and clients who may benefit from it, of thanking the committee and
in particular its Chairman, Mr Ross Parry-Davies, for five years of effort
in bringing this revision to an-eminently·satisfactory·conclusion·: , · · -·

CM McMILLAN
SAICE President, 1988 March 1989
 MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE

The Committee responsible for the production of this Code of Practice on

behalf of the Geotechnical Division of the South African Institution of Civil
Engineers:

Chairman R Parry-Davies: Pr.Eng; BSc Eng; MICE; FSAICE; MSAConsE; AAArb

Editor PF Savage; Prof Erner; Pr.Eng; BSc Eng; MSc Eng; MICE; FSAICE
Committee PW Day; Pr.Eng; MSc Eng; MSAICE; AMASCE
TR Giddings; Pr.Eng; BSc; MICE
W Heinz; Pr.Eng; Dr-Ing; MSc Ing; MBA; MSAICE; MASCE; FSAIMM
B Krone; Pr.Eng; BSc Eng; MSAICE
PA Loudon; Pr.Eng; BSc B Eng; PhD; MICE; MSAICE
ND McColl; Pr.Eng; MSAICE
M Montague.Jones; Pr.Eng; MA; MICE; MSAICE
GW Plant; Pr.Eng; B Eng; C Eng; PhD; MICE; MSAICE; MASCE
AW Rohde; Prof; Pr.Eng; BSc; BSc Eng; M Ing; FSAICE; MSAConsE
F Scheele; Dr-Ing

The Committee wishes to record its appreciation for invaluable assistance

rendered in the production of this Code of Pr�ctice in the legal, architectural
and insurance aspects by the following profe$sional _colleagues:

Mrs K Foul�es.Jones, BA, LLB

Mr HG Summerley, MArch, Dip TP, MIArch SA, RISA,
MRTPi, FIFire E
Mr A Wilkinson

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Extracts from the various acts of Parliament have been reproduced in

Appendix G, with the.permission of the Government Printer, Pretoria.
 FOREWORD TO THE 1972 EDITION OF THE CODE OF PRACTICE N
O
LATERAL SUPPORT IN SURFACE EXCAVA IO
T NS

By Mr. J.P. Kriel, PrEng, BScEng, MSAICE, MASCE.

President of the South African Institution of Civil Engineers.

During 1966, a group of individual engineers held discussions with the City Engineer
of Johannesburg with a view to clarifying problems related to the safety of excavations
tor deep basements.
Arising from these discussions, a symposium on deep basements, organised by
the Johannesburg Branch of the South African Institution of Civil Engineers in
association with the Structural Division, was held in August 1967. The symposium
aroused national interest and the proceedings were published.1
At the conclusion of the symposium it was suggested that a Committee be
established to draft a code of practice for lateral support which would be applicable
to the whole of the Republic.
2
The Committee consisted of members of the interested Technical Divisions of
the Institution, and was assisted by a practising barrister and by insurance brokers
and underwriters.
When it became apparent that the Committee could not hope to complete the
task in a reasonable period, a co-ordinating editor was appointed. 3 It is due to his
persistence that the code has seen the light of day.
It is not intended that this code be the final word on lateral support; rather that
it will be used, amended and updated by all engineers engaged in the design,
construction and monitoring of lateral support works. The Institution hopes it will
serve the purpose for which it was prepard, namely to provide safe and consistent
guidelines to engineers.
To the best of the Council's knowledge no similar specific code of practice relating
to lateral support exists anywhere in the world.

1. S.A.I.C.E. Johannesburg Branch. Symposium on Deep Basements, August 1967.

2. A.A. Heydenrych, PrEng, BSc(Eng}, AMSAICE, MIStructE, MSAConsE, MConsE (CA};
8. Isaacs , PrEng, BSc(Eng}, MSAICE, FICE, FIStrucE, MASCE, MSAConsE, MConsE (CA),
(Chairman}; Professor J.E.8. Jennings, PrEng, BSc(Eng), SM(Mll), MSAICE, FICE; Professor
K. Knight, PrEng, BSc(Eng}, PhD(Rand), MSAICE; E.L. Margo, PrEng, BSc(Eng), MSAICE,
FICE, FIStructE, AMSAIME; R. Parry-Davies, PrEng, BSc(Eng), MSAICE, MICE; W.K. Schutte,
PrEng, BSc(Eng), DipTP-(Rand}, MSAICE, MASCE; K.N. Soderlund, PrEng, BSc(Eng),
MSAICE, MICE, MlnstWPC; R. Stander, PrEng, BSc(Eng), MSAICE, MIStructE, MASCE,
MSAConsE.
3. M. Maltz, BSc(Eng), AMSAICE, MICE.
 CONTENTS.
P�e
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION........................................................ 1

1.1 SCOPE · · · · ···· ··· · ······ ··· · ········ · ······· · ···· ·· ······ · · · · · ····· 1

1.2 BASIC CONSIDERATIONS............................... 2

1.3 PRELIMINARY ACTION.................................... 3

1.3.1 Appointment of Engineer....................... 3

1.3.2 Legai requirements and precautions...... 3
1.3.3 Notifications........................................... 4
1.3.4 Insurances............................................. 4
1.3.5 Contractual aspects............................... 5

1.4 PLANNING, DESIGN AND EXECUTION........... 5

1.5 M�ASUREMENT ....................._.......................... 5.

CHAPTER·2: . Sl"!"E INVESTIG�TlpN..... ::�· .. ······:···--....................... 7

2.1
-
INTRODUCTION ...... :........................................
• • •: • •
7

2.2 OBJECTIVES- AND PLANNING......................... 7

2.3 DESK STUDY AND PRELIMINARY

FIELDWORK ...........................:.......................... 8

2.4 DETAILED FIELD AND LABORATORY

INVESTIGATION ..... :......................................... 9

2.4.1 Extent and inte·nsity................. . ............. 9

2.4.2 Methods of investigation........................ 11
2.4.3. Description of strata.............................. 11
2.4.4 Sampling ............................................... 11
2. 4.5 Laboratory testing .................................. 12
2.4.6 Field testing........................................... 12
2.4. 7 Investigation during construction........... 12
2.4.8 Adjacent activities.................................. 12
2.4.9 Monitoring.............................................. 13

2.5 EXISTING STRUCTURES AND SER VICES...... 13

 ............. 13
2.6 REPORTS ······················ ......................

2.6.1 Site investigation report......................... 13

2.6.2 Completion report............. •·....... •··········· 14

SYSTEM OF LATERAL
CHAPTER 3: SELECTION OF A ................. 15
SUPPORT................................................

3.1 INTRODUCTION ................ ··..··.. · ..........·······.... · 15

3.2 SITE CONDITIONS........................................... 15

3.3 PROPOSED DEVEL�:iPMENT; .. ····.................... 16

3.4 ADJACENT PROPERTY.................... ·.............. 17

3.5 CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS............................ 17

3.5.1 Construction within an open

unsupported exc_a�ation .... : .................... 17
3.5.2 Temporary support strutted against a
central duJ11pling.. �·..·········'.·········.. ··.!······· 18
3.5.3 Temporary support by fully.braced ..
trench .......- .............................................. 19
3.5.4 · Fully braced temporary support............. 19
�.5.5 . Perma,nent w�II cQnstruction prior to
excavation and braced from a central
permanent construction ......................... 20
3.5.6 Ground anchors..................................... 20
· 3.5.7 Soil nailing.... : ............. : .......................... 21
3.5.8 Rock bolts.......................... :··................ 22
3.5.9 Cantilever walls..................................... 23
3.5.1O Caissons................................................ 24
3.5.11 Concurrent upward and downward
construction ........................................... 25
3.5.12 Unconventional methods of support....... 26

3.6 DEWATERING AND LEACHING OF SOLIDS... 28

CHAPTER 4: EARTH PRESSURES ................................................ 31

4.1 INTRODUCTION............................................... 31

4.2 DESIGN PARAMETERS.................................... 31

 4.2.1 Soil strength parameters........................ 31
4.2.2 Wall friction and wall adhesion.............. 31
4.2.3 C->nfidence limits................................... 34

4.3 DEFINITION OF SYMBOLS.............................. 34

4.4 EFFECT OF MOVEMENT OF SUPPORT

SYSTEM ON EARTH PRESSURES.................. 35

4.4.1 . General.................................................. 35
4.4.2 Movements required to develop active
and passive earth pressures.................. 36

4.5 AT-REST EARTH PRESSURES........................ 38

4.6 ACTIVE AND PASSIVE PRESSURES............... 39

A.6.1 Active pressures -:-- general guidance... 42

4.6.2 Active pressures - minimum design
pressures............................................... 42
4.6.3 Passive pressures - general guidance. 44

4.7 RESTRICTED MOVEMENTS............................ 45

4.8 EMPIRICAL METHODS.......... :.......................... 45

4.9 SURCHARGE LOADING................................... 47

4.10 EFFECTS OF WATER PRESSURE................... 47

4.11 PRESSURE INDUCED BY BACKFILLING........ 47

4.12 RESTRAINT OF EXCAVATIONS IN ROCK ....... 48

4.12.1 General.................................................. 48
4.12.2 Failure mechanisms and methods of
analysis ................................................. 49

CHAPTER 5: DESIGN OF LATERAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS........... 53

5.1 INTRODUCTION............................................. 53

5.1.1 General................................................ 53
 5.1.2 Design objectives................................. 53
S.1.3 Deformations ....................... •............. .. 54
s.1.4 Factors of safety.................................. 54

5.2 DESIGN .CONSIDERATIONS........................... 56

.
5 . 2 1 General................................................ 56
s.2.2 cantilever wall systems....................... 58
5.2.3 Anchored wall sys tems........................ 58
5.2.4 Soil nailing........................................... 60
5.2.5 Strutted wall systems........................... 64
5.2.6 Underpinning ........... •• .... • .......... ••......... 65

5.3 OVERALL STABILITY..................................... 67

5.3.1 Methods of analysis............................. 67

· · 5.3.2 · Factor of safety.................................... 72
. .
5.4 STABILITY _OF EXCAVATED FLOOR.............. 72

5.5 DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS......... 73

5.5.1 General................................................ 73
5.5:2 ·. An�hors ............ ·:... :.·.�::.-........................ 74
5.5.3 �truts and rake rs................................. 75
·5. 5.4 Soldiers . . . .. ......... . . .......... . .. . ................. 76
5.5.5 Walers........... . . . . .............. .. ......... ......... 77
5.5.6 Lagging .... :........................................... 77
5 .5.7 Factors of_ safety................. :··.............. 79

5.6 MOVEMENTS................................................. 81

.5 .6.1 General................................................ 81
5.6.2 Effect of movement on adjacent
structures............................................. 81
5 .6.3 Effect of movement on buried services 83
5.6.4 Limiting deformations........................... 84

CHAPTER 6: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF

GROUND
ANCHORS............................................................... 85

6.1 INTRODUCTION .................. :.......................... 85

6.2 DUTIES OF THE VARIOUS.PARTIES............. 86

 6.3 ANCHOR TYPES............................................ 86

6.3.1 G 3rieral............. .................................. . 86

6.3.2 Untensioned anchors........................... 86
6.3.3 Tensioned anchors.............................. 87

6.4 FIXED ANCHOR DESIGN............................... 89

6.4.1 Fixed anchor design in rock................ 89

6.4.2 Fixed anchor design in cohesionless
soil....................................................... 89
6.4.3 Fixed anchor design in cohesive soil... 90
6.4.4 Internal design..................................... 90

6.5 ANCHOR ARRANGEMENT............................. 91

6.5.1 Anchor layout....................................... 91

6.5.2 Transfer of anchor forces against rock•
faces.................................................... 92
6.5.3 Transfer of anchor forces against soft
-ground:faces... :.................................... 92

6.6 CONSTRUCTION .... : ........:.. �........................... 92

6.6.1 Materials.:·............. :.............................. 94

6.6.2 Drilling ............. : .........·.......................... 96
6.6.3 Manufacture......................................... 98
6.6.4 Homing ..................... �.......................... 98
6.6.5 Grouting............................................... 98

6.7 ANCHOR STRESSING AND TESTING............. ·99

6.7.1 Stressing and testing............................. 99

6.7.2 Proving test anchors.............................. 99
6.7.3 Site suitability test anchors.................. 102
6.7.4 Working a�chors.................................. 103

CHAPTER 7: GROUND WATER CONTROL .................................. 107

7. 1 INTRODUCTION............................................. 107

7.2 GROUND WATER LOWERING ....................... 108

7.2.1 Pumping from open sumps.................. 108

 7_2_2 Pumping from well-points and deep
wells........................................ ............ 108
7.2.3 Electro-osmosis......••.. •......••..•••••.......... 109

7.3 AQUIFERS AND SETTLEMENT...................... 109

7.4 SPE CIAL CONSIDERATIONS......................... 112

WORKS, MONITO RING AND

CHAPTER 8: CONTROL OF THE
RECORDS ................·........··..···....···..···..·· .. ·····....····· 113

8.1 INTRODUCTION· .................. ; .......................... 113

8.2 CONTROL OF THE WORKS......................... ... 11 3

8.2.1 Extent of control measures.................. 113

8.2.2 General precautions............................. 113

8.3 MONITORING AND. RECORDS....................... 114

8.3.1 Site conditions ?nd stratigraphy.: ......... 115

8.3.2 Water regimes..................................... 115
8.3.3 Movements and controJ measurements 116
8.3.4 Forces in struts and props.................... 118
8.3.5 Forces in· anc�_ors...... �.; ....................... 118
8._3.6 Forces in soil n�ils·and bolts .....·.......... 119·

8.4 SURCHARGE LOADING........ ;........................ 119

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. STEP-BY-STEP GUIDELINES FOR
INVESTIGATION AND ACTION FOR LATERAL
SUPPORT OF A BUILDING BASEMENT.............. 123

B. LABORATORY AND FIELD TESTS...................... 127

C. FIELD DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK ......... 135

D. LEGAL ASPECTS OF LATERAL SUPPORT

FOR SURFACE EXCAVATIONS........................... 14 3
 E.
��MOVAL OF LATERAL SUPPORT RISKS·
NTRACTUAL ASPECT
S AND INSURANCE ..... 153
F. CASE HISTORIES OF
WALL MOVEMENTS......... 165
G. EXTRACTS FROM CERT
AIN RELEVANT
REGULATIONS AND ACTS
························ · · ········ 173
H. DRAFT SPECIFICATION FOR BLA
STiNG IN BUILT-
UP AREAS ....................-..............................
.......... 181
I. SUGGESTED METHODS OF MEASUREMENT
FOR LATERAL SUPPORT, EXCAVATION AND
ASSOCIATED WORKS········································· 187

J. DEFINITIONS OF SOME ANCHOR TERMS ......... 199

K. REFERENCES • • • � • • ••• • • • • ■ .... ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 205

TABLES
TABLE 1.1 Engineering an excavation .................................... 6
2.1 -investigation planning ....•....................................... 8
2.2 Factors to be investigated · during desk study and
preliminary field work .. : ............. ,:; ........................ . 9
4.1 Appropriate shear strength parameters for various
soil types..................... :......................................... 32
4.2 Wall movement {rotation about base of wall) required
to develop active and passive earth pressures...... 38
4.3 Coefficient of earth pressure at-rest (KJ................ 39
4.4 Equivalent fluid "densities" to be used in the
computation of minimum active thrust................... 43
4.5 Analysis methods for various failure modes........... 51
5.1 Th ickness of lagging........................................ ..... 79
5.2 Minimum safety factors recommended for design of
. ..
individual anchors ....................................... .... . ... 80
. 82
5.3 Permitted relative vertical movement.. ..................
6.1 Corrosion protection guide.................................... 93
Typical relaxation of stress in tendons.................. 94
6.2
.......... . 128
B.1 Laboratory tests on soils............................
·••············ 132
8.2 Field tests....................... •·•••••·••••·••·····•···
............. 134
8.3 Laboratory tests on rocks .........................
............... 136
C.1 Consistency of granular soils..................
 c.2 Consistency of cohesiv e soils....... ............ ............. 137
· ··
g: �=�!:i�:?; ;��?��-_-;.:.;d ;;;i��-;i;����-�;;;;;i��:
;:
C.S Grain si ze class1fIcatIon........................... .............. 140
C.6 Hardness........................................ ....................... 14
1
F.1 Movements of anchored walls (Peck).................... 167
F.2 Movements of anchored walls - South African case
histories ............ ••••••••••······················· ••·••••............. 170
H.1 . Maximum particle velocities (vibration).................. 184
H.2 Maximum charge levels......................................... 18S

FIGURES
FIGURE . 3.1 Construction within an open _unsupported
excavation............................... ....... ....... ........ 18
3.2 Temporary support strutteq against central
dumpling....................................................... 18
3.3 Temporary support by fully braced trench..... 19
3.4 Fully braced temporary support ..................... : 19
3.5 Permanent wall constructed prior to excavation
(Diaphragm or contiguous augered pile) and
braced for central permanent construction.... 20
3.6 Ground anchors............................·.................. 21
3.7 Soil nailing..................................... : .... :......... 22
3.8 Rock bolts...............=...................................... 22
3.9 Cantilever walls............................................. 24
3.10 Caissons ............................................. �......... 25
3.11 Concurrent upward and downward construction 26
3.12 Unconventional methods of support.............. 29

a) Unbraced peripheral walls constructed from

the top downwards (and stabilised by grout
jacking)
b) Chemical and cement grouts used to prov ide
lateral support
c) Examples of ground freezing
d) Examples of mix-in-place grouting

4.1 Schematic relationship between wall movement

and coefficient of earth pressure........... :....... 36
4.2 Lateral pressure distributions associated with
different wall movements............................... 37
4.3 Active and passive earth pressures for vertical
retaining walls with horizontal backfill assuming
no wall friction............................................... 40
4.4 Active and passive thrusts for granular backfill,
taking account of wall friction, wall inclination
and sloping backfill....................................... 41
·4.5 Terzaghi and Peck pressure diagrams.......... 46
4.6 Typical rock cut failure mechanism related to
stereo plots of discontinuities........................ 50
5.1 Simplified earth pressure distributions........... 60
5.2 Typical soil nails............................................ 61
a) Temporary application
b) Permanent application
5.3 Stability analysis of nailed soil structure........ 63
a) Single wedge analysis
b) Multiple wedge analysis
5.4 Examples of overall stability considerations.. 68
a) Anchored support system
b) Strutted support system
5.5 Forces acting in wedge mechanism of failure 69
5.6 Recommended location of an·chorage in soft_
ground .......................................................... 70
5.7 Sliding block method of analysis................... 71
5.8 Anchors at re-entrant corners........................ 75
a). Corner using cross-over anchors
b) Corner without cross-over anchor�
5.9 Recommended location of lagging boards for
king-post/soldier pile walls............................. 78
a) For king-post installed against excavated
face
b) For driven soldiers or soldiers cast into auger
holes

6.1 Ground anchor nomenclature........................ 85

6.2 Four main types of tensioned anchors.......... 88
6.3 Fixed anchor beyond critical failure plane..... 91
6.4 Typical detail for permanent bar anchor ........ 97
6.5 Typical detail for restressable permanent strand
anchors ......................................................... 97
6.6 Typical detail for non-restressable permanent
strand anchors.............................................. 97
6.7 Schematic stressing procedure for permanent
and temporary anchors .............. ................... 10
Typical methods of measuring tendon
0
6.8
displacement from a fixed datum..................
101
6.9 Test period versus loss of lock-off load.........
103
7.1 Aquifer beneath excavation level...................
110
7.2 Use of recharging to maintain the surface of
groundwater close to the original level.......... 1
1 1
F.1 Typical wall movements outside an excavation 166
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 SCOPE
This Code supersedes the 1972 Code of Practice on Lateral Support
as it is a complete redraft rather than a revision of the 1972 document.
The need for this redraft arose as a consequence of major techno­
logical advances which have taken place since 1972, particularly in
the State-of-the-Art on ground anchors, and it is therefore far more
comprehensive than the 1972 Code.
The chapters in this Code follow a logical sequence from Chapter
1 which introduces the entire subject, to the ·investigations, both
general and geotechnical in Chapter 2, and thence to the selection
of a system of lateral support in Chapter 3. This is followed by Chapter
4 which gives guidelines on the method of calculating earth pressures,
and Chapter 5 which uses the information ·obtained up until this stage
to design specific forms of lateral support.-- Chapter 6 deals with one
of the most commonly employed methods of lateral support, namely
ground anchors. 01apter 7 deals with the implications of the presence
of water. The Code is concluded by a chapter on recommended control
procedures and monitoring in Chapter 8. The chapters are supple­
mented by appendices which amplify specific aspects.
The Code represents a standard of good professional practice for
the provision of lateral support to surface excavations where the natural
· support has been removed. It takes the form of guidelines for use by
engineers, architects, owners and developers, and is neither intended
to take the place of a textbook nor a standard specification.
It should be noted that the liability of an owner who excavates on
, his own ground, thus removing the lateral support to his neighbour's
ground, is absolute. Furthermore, such lateral support which his land
affords to his neighbour's land is removed at the owner's peril. There
is still, however, argument as to whether the lateral support extends
to land in its natural state only, or to land, the burden of which has
been artificially increased by the erection of buildings or other
improvements. Appendix D covers the legal aspects of removal of
lateral support.
Definitions, field description of soils and roc�s. legal aspects of the
lateral support of excavation faces, 'removal of lateral support'
insurance, earth pressures as related to deformation, as well as certain
extracts from the National Building Regulations and Building Standards
1
 t e Machinery an� Occupatio nal Safety Act
Act (Act 103 of 1977) and � _
are cover ed m �ppen d,ces wh1c� form pa o! this Co d
·(Act 6 of 19a3) � e.
no circumstanc es will the South African lnst1t ut1o n of
Under Civil
Engine ers or any of the contribu to� t? or authors of the Code be liab
le
_
any claims of whatev er nature an�mg, whet�er directly or indirectly
for ,
,ts append ices.
from reliance on the Cod e and/or
Observance of the Code will not relieve a person from liability for
non-co mpliance with any relevant statutory or legal require ments or
contractual obligations.
The following exclusions are made:
(a) ·Excavations in areas of subsid�nce due to �ining or sinkholes,
_
and sinking of shafts both vertical and mchn�d are specifically
excluded.
(b) Slopes have not been dealt with because of .adequate · reference
to the subject elsewhere.
(c) Conventional gravity retaining walls (concret�,.masonry, composite
walls, etc.) have not been considered in deta/I in tryis.Coqe. Since
the construction of this type of wall necessitates either_ cutting back
the slope to a safe angle or providing some other form of temporary
lateral support in order to construct the walls, followed generally
by backfilling against them, they differ in certain respects from
the other forms. of lateral s.upport dealt with. 1n !hf s Code. '

1.2 BASIC CONSIDERATIONS

It is recommended that an investigation be ·c.arried out for any vertical
or near vertical sided excavation deeper than 1,5m, • to establish
whether lateral support to the excavation shoul� be provided or not.
A decision on this issue would .be dependent upon. a number of factors,
including, but not limited to, the nature of the material exposed in the
excavation face, the presence of water and-the water regime, and the
consequences to life and property of a failure of t. he excavation face.
Prior to the commencement of any excavation,· a detailed
programme of action covering the order-of excavation, the choice and
design of the system to be used for lateral support and also the timing
of the installation of the components of the system should be prepared.
The scope of the design and the investigations should be tailored to
suit the project and be commensurate with the magnitude and difficulty
of the proposed works.
Any perm�nent system of lateral support should be so designed that
future erection of structures typical of the area will not pro ve
unnecessarily difficult.
Where excavations are carried out, the lateral support previously
afford�d to adjoining properties and public ways. should ·be maintained.
Unavoidable movements, with their attendant effects on the land, and
2
 on structures and services thereon should be kept within acceptable
lim its. (See Appendix F.)
Exca�ation proce��res adopted should ensure that any running soils
_
are retained rn pos1t1on on adjoining sites. Any forms of dewatering
and th? effects thereof should be carefully considered.
The influence of anchors, soil nails or underpinning, whether of a
temporary or permanent nature which may extend into adjoining
property also should be considered.
Existing structures should be studied as an integral part of site
investigation (see Chapter 2) and, if and when necessary, underpinning
may have to be considered.
Control measurements · and monitoring of stress changes and
movements should form part of the overall planning and construction.

1.3 PRELIMINARY ACTION

_ ··i.3.1 . App�intment of: Engin�er
• The leader of the professional team, normally the Principal
Agent* of the owner, should inform the owner/developer that
the responsibility for the design .of any surface excavation
should vest in a professional engineer specialising in
geotechnics except in those cases where no danger to persons
or property can result from any failure of the excavation face.
All work to be carried out on or so near the site that it may affect
the safety of the excavation should be taken account · ' of by the
·engineer res·ponsible for the excavation.

1.3.2 Legal requirements and precautions-:.

All work must be executed in accordance with the Factories,
Machinery and Building Work Act (Act 22 of 1941), the
Explosives Regulations Act (Act 26 of 1956), the Mines and
Works Act (Act 27 of 1956), the National Building Regulations
and Building Standards Act, the Machinery and Occupational
Safety Act and any amendments or revisions to these Acts.
Some relevant extracts from the Acts are contained in Appendix
G.
In addition, a careful study should be made of all documents
in relation to title deeds, adjoining properties, foundation
investigation, etc., and the condition of municipal and
government services, adjacent roads, pavements, stormwater
gutters, and the like, to ensure that all rights, liens, limitations,
"The Principal Agent should preferably be a qualified person within his own profession, e.g.
a professional civil engineer registered In terms of Act No. 81 of 1968 or an architect registered
In terms of Act No. 35 of 1970.

3
 which may exist and which may in any
or anyother restrictions ns on the property are
way influence the proposed operatio
accounted for.
be made available to the
c ies of these records should
ed by the owner/developer in
insu��r. if required, and retain
perpetuity. .
careful note should be taken of any requireme nts or
reg ulations laid down by local authorities and applicable to the
area where excavation is to be exec uted. The consent of any
owner whose property will be encroached upon by ground
anchors or underpin ning must be obtained.
Where blasting may be required, Appendix H should be
referred to.

1.3.3 Notifications
Notification of intention to excavate, accompanied by details
of the proposed system for lateral support and for any
underpinning required, should be submitted as e�rly as possible
to:
(a) Adjoining property owners .
(b) The local authority or township board engineer
(c) Insurance companies covering the works
(d) The Government Mining Engineer, where relevant.

All necessary permits should be ·obtained in good time.

1.3.4 Insurances
Prior to the commencement of- any open excavation it 'is strongly
recommended that provision be made for insurance against
possible damage and liability. The following points are listed
for guidance:
a) A provisional sum should be allowed for in any Bill of
Quantities to adequatelycover all insurance relating to the
removal of lateral support risk, to remain in force up to the
end of the construction contract, including the maintenance
period. The attention of the owner/developer should also
be drawn to his risk exposure thereafter in order that he
mayconsider the need to arrange the appropriate insurance
cover after completion of the contract.
b) Instructions to effect such insurance should be given in clear
and precise terms and the responsibility of the respective
parties should be clearly defined. (See Appendix E.)
Consideration should be given to the suggestion that the
owner arrange this insurance.
4
 c) A phot?graphic record of exis
ting defects of adjoining
propert ies should be prepared and if possible, signed by
_
all partie s. (See Section 2.4.)
d) The terms, conditions and requirements (e.g. deductibles,
crack surveys, etc.) of the insurance should be agreed to
and understood by all interested parties, e.g. the owner,
con�ractors (including subcontractors), the geotechnical
engineer, professional team, etc., before the works are
commenced;
e) It may be necessary to provide insurers with full details of
the proposed method of lateral support, including, in the
case of major or complex basements, detailed drawings
showing adjacent properties or other relevant
features/photographs, etc.

1.3.5 Contractual aspects

In the case of an open excavation of significant magnitude
where lateral support is envisaged, serious consideration should
be given to the letting of a separate civil contract for the
excavation and support. Experience has shown that this offers
distinct advantages in terms of tender adjudication, administra­
tion of contract and avoidance of claims for delays under any
subsequent contract. Separate contracts promote direct
communication between the engineer and the excavation/lateral
support contractor and permit the appointment of a contractor
competent in this type of work.·

1.4 PLANNING, DESIGN AND EXECUTION

The design of a lateral support system and the execution of the works
is dealt with in detail in the chapters which follow. The activities listed
in Table 1.1 should aid the project engineer to plan and control
progress where excavation may require the installation of lateral
support.
Appendix A gives step-by-step guidance for the procedures in
planning and executing specifically building basements in built-up
areas. This appendix may be useful to members of the planning and
construction team.
1.5 MEASUREMENT
Appendix I has been included in this Code as a guide to the preparation
of a Bill of Quantities for measurement of the work involved in the
excavation and the provision of lateral support to a surface excavation.

5
 AN EXCAVATION
TABLE 1.1 ENGINEERING
Activity Considerations/Comment;-
Step
No.
Structure, size, depth
-
1 Select dimensions of requirements, depth to good
excavation
soil, depth to float structure
stability requirements

2 Investigate ground condition� Decide on appropriate

outside site/inclined borings 1f parameters
necessary (See Chapter 2)
3 Survey adjacent structures Size, type, age, location and
and services (See Section- condition
1.3.2)
4 Establish permissible
movements (See Sections
5.1.3, 5.6 and Appendix F)
5 Select propping/anchoring (if Local experience, cost, time
needed) and construction available, depth of wall, type
scheme _(See Chapter 3) of wall, type and spacing of
props/anchors,- dewatering
Note: This activity also applies e�cavation sequence,
where demolition of existing prestress of propping needed
basements is required. :- .
6 Predict movements caused by Assess stability of base of
excavation and dewatering .excavation and risk of local
(See Section 5.6) - failure

7 Compare predicted with

permissible movements (See
Section 5.6)
8 - Alter propping/anchoring and
construction scheme if needed -·
(See Chapter 5)
9 Determine division of
responsibility between all
members of the team for
design, supervision and
construction
10 Instrument and monitor
An essential step, e.g.
- Owner/Developer: Type of
contract
- Architect: Conceptual
design
- Engineer: Design of lateral
support
- Contractor: Construction
Consider a separate contract

--
construction and alter support for monitoring survey
as needed
(Based on Lambe (1970))
6
 CHAPTER 2
SITE INVESTIGATION
2.1 INTRODUCTION ·
Site in�estigations for projects requiring late
ral support differ from
others m that they are concerned largely with cond
itions beyond the
�ite b?un?aries and above the proposed founding level. The site
mvest1gat1on should strive to identify those features which will have
a marked effect on the design of the lateral support system including
the shear strength of the supported ground, geological discontinuities,
adverse jointing and the presence of perched and permanent water
tables. Some of the approaches described are applicable to major
projects and may be inappropriate for smaller works.
While the techniques used for the investigation are similar to those
used for foundation investigations, the emphasis is different. Since
the consequences of overlooking important features can be disastrous,
it is essential that the investigation be well planned and executed and
that allocation of funds for this work should be commensurate wi�h
the risks involved. Adequate reporting on the results of the investigation
is essential.

2.2 OBJECTIVES AND PLANNING

The investigation for a lateral support project should provide
information for the assessment of:
- the overall stability of the proposed work,
the most appropriate support system both temporary and
permanent,
- the magnitude of expected ground movements,
- the influence of groundwater,
the effect on adjacent development. . -.
In order to fulfill these objectives it is necessary to quantify the
relevant geotechnical parameters of both t�e supported materials ?nd
materials below the excavation floor, to define the groundwater regime
on and around the site and to assess the potential for damage to
adjacent development. . .
The inve stigation should be sufficiently exha_ust1ve to provide t�e
information required for the design and execution o� the works with
particular emphasis on the safety of any surrounding streets and
structures as detailed in Section 1.4.
7
 etrul: it is necessary to consider
Before planning the investigation in �
intera ctron with the relevant ?spec ts of
the nature of the site and its _ _
sed w orks . Tab le 2.1 ide ntifies some of these cons1derat1o ns.
the propo
ING
TABLE 2.1 INVESTIGATION PLANN

(a) General considerations:

- Nature and purpose of the proposed works
- Structural and architectural requirements
_ Nature and proximity of adjacent structures and services
- Site access and topography
- Site geology and hydrogeology
- Present and past site structures and usage

(b) Detailed considerations:

- Depth and extent of the proposed excavation
Type of temporary and permanent support envisaged
Constraints due to proposed construction programme
Incorporation of temporary support in permanent support system
Groundwater
Permissible movements of adjacent structures/services
Extent of monitoring requirements

The geotechnical investigation contract should normally be carried

out as a separate contract and use may be made of the Standard
Specification for Geotechnical Investigations issued by the National
Transport Commission, Directorate: Land Transport in August 1984.
The investigation may be conducted in a number of stages including
investigation planning, desk study and preliminary fieldwork, detailed
fieldwork and laboratory testing and further investigation during
construction.

2.3 DESK STUDY AND PRELIMINARY FIELDWORK

Before deciding on the investigation techniques to be used, all
available information on the site should be studied. For major projects,
this study may include an investigation of the aspects of the site as
liste d in Table 2.2.
:ield mapping of surface geology coupled with aerial photograph
�nter��eta�1on may be valuable in the planning of the investigation and
1dent1f1cat1on of potential problems.
For minor investiga�ions, many aspects of the above
. _ study may be
ma�propnate and the information required may be provided by a visit
to site and knowledge of local conditions
.
8
TABLE 2.2 FACTORS TO BE INVESTIGATED DUR NG
I DESK
STUDY AND PRELIMINARY FIELDWORK

(a) History of site:

- Over burden rem�ved, fill placed and previou� site terracing
_
- Previous excavations on or near the site'
- Positions and details of earlier structures and services
Mini ng activity below or near the site

(b) Information on existing structures and services: ·

- Dates of construction
- Type and depth_ of foundations and basements
Possible encroachment on site
Performance to date
Location of services re.lative to proposed excavation
Settlement tolerances of buildings, streets and ·services

(c) Surface features: .

- Topography, drainage paths, rock outcrops, vegetation and other
surface features

(d) Groundwater:
P·revious pumping/recharge of groundwater
- Evidence of shallo�/perched wate� table eg. marsh vegetation,
water seepage, t3t�.

(e) Engineering and geological information:

- Geological maps
Geotechnical reports on the site, on surrounding areas and on
structures on similar formations
Case histories of similar projects in the vicinity or similar ground
conditions (Extensive case histories are recorded by Brink
1979-1985)

INVESTIGATION
2.4 DETAILED FIELD AND LABORATORY
2.4.1 Extent and Intensity
extends well
In most cases the influence of the excavation izontally. It
and hor
beyond the excavation itself both vertically
igation _to cove� not
is therefore necessary to extend the invest unding retained
surro
only the site of the works, but also the
9
 . m te rial below the base of the excavation
material and the a ility of encountering unstable mat
. the possib erial�
Where. there IS particular attention
.
s h ou Id b .
e given to the
,·
on adJacent s tes ' · tes Wh ere gro un d anchors
. est1. gat·10 n on such adja cent si .
mv · ··
avio ur of the anc h or 1s sens1t 1ve to al
are emp I oyed , the beh • e strata deta1·1ed ·inve · g lot con
, sti a
ground cond·1 t,·ons and in vanabl o e ue account sh u d ibe
. or D o l
,s requir. ed 1- 0 the fixed anch z n 1.tin ·
taken °f ground disturbance
resu · g from mstaIIat,· on of
ta 1
b·1·t1 y o f the excavatio ·
se rvice s etc . on the ove rall s n or
behaviour of the anchors. . . rs .
. available . .
on a site for which little prevr ous data , a lr mtted
number of key boreholes or trial holes s � ould be su nk to
_
determine the stratigraphic sequence, the orientation of strata
and discontinuities and to identify those· strata of particular
significance either for anchor design or for overall stability.
These holes* may be located at th� site extremities and
conditions can initially be interpolated between holes. This
preliminary work can be followed by a more detailed phase of
the investigation which could include further holes and/or in situ
tests to confirm the predicted sequence and to obtain
representative information on strength and deformation
characteristics.
The investigation should ideally extend laterally a distance
equal to twice the d�pth of the excavation beyond the .
excavation perimeter and vertically either: • ! ..
(a) to a stable geological formation, or
(b) to a depth below which no underlying strata will affect the
design. (This may be as deep as one excavation width below
the base of the excavation.. )
Where rock is encountereq, it is· advisable to continue
investigation 3m or more into the rock to assess the ·degree of
weathering or jointing and to distinguish between boulders and
bedrock.
The number of holes depends on the variability of the strata,
!he area of t�e site and nature of the proposed works. Except
m the case of minor excavations in known conditions a
m1m . . mum of ,
three holes is recommended even on the smallest
?f sites In the absence of reliable previously record d
information : e
, a minimum of five holes is recommended for a
uniform site of 1 000m 2 and nine hole
recommendations are given for g ids for a 4 ooom2 site. These
bor�holes should be left to the disu ance and the spacing of
engineer or engineering geolo cretion of the geotechnical
gist.
• The term 'hole' is used In a
investigation and includes general :nse t o cover all type
test pits, uger h oles, and s of holes intended for subSurtace.
rotary core holes.
10
 Particular
_ sets care should be exercised where steeply dipping
.Joint
or bedding planes are present in the rock mass. In
Johann�sburg, for example, it is usually the northern faces of
excavations which_
_ prove the greatest risk due to the generally
southward dip of the strata. In Pretoria, the strata dip north and
the south face is at risk. (Rohde 1983)

2.4.2 Methods of investigation

The �o�t appropriate method of investigation will depend on
the findings of the desk study and preliminary fieldwork. In
_
particular, the methods used will depend on the proposed depth
of excavation, geological conditions, sampling and testing
programme, depth to water table and site access.
Among the methods which may be considered are rotary core
boreholes, large diameter·(750mm) auger holes, percussion
drilling, trial excavations, surface mapping and geophysical
methods. Static and Dynamic penetration tests or
L
pressuremeter tests may also-be used.
The techniques commonly employed for site investigation are
given in Appendix B.

2.4.3 Description of strata

Soil or rock strata as observed in situ should be described
according to Jennings et al (1973). Rock_ cores should be
described in accordance with the recommendations of the Core
Logging Committee of the SA Section of the Association of
Engineering Geologists (1976). Where appropriate, joint surveys
should be carried out on rock exposures to give more detailed
information on discontinuities including orientation, spacing,
continuity, roughness and joint filling.
All profile descriptions should be accompanied by details of
the drilling method (auger, diamond, percussion, etc.), hole size,
date drilled, date profiled, profiler's name and depth of water
table.
Tables summarising the descriptions used in soil and rock
profiling are given in Appendix C.

2.4.4 Sampling
In soils, the sample size and type will depend on the laboratory
tests envisaged, the type of material and method of
investigation. Various sampling techniques are described in
Giddings and Kantey (1979) and in BS 5930 (1981). As a guide,
where a continuous core is not recovered or the soil profile is
11
 . the maximum vertical sp acing be twe
not inspected in situ ' . . en
istu rbe d samp les should b e . 1, 5m with intermediat
und e
. turbed samples at 0,75m. In variable ground
d1s . conditio n s .
, 1n
uous core recovery 1s recom me n de
situ profiling or contin d.

2_4_5 Laboratory testing

The various laboratory tests used to provide design parameters
for lateral support works ar_e su�mar�sed in Tables B.1 (soils)
and B.2 (rocks) in Appendix B m which references are given
for further information. The geotechnical engineer must en sure
that the correct testing procedures are followed.

2.4.6 Field testing

Field tests are frequently used to provide a measure of the in
situ properties of the soil or rock mass. The vari9us methods
of testing are summarised in Table 8.3 of Appendix B and
references are given for further information. All field work should
be adequately supervised to ensure adherence to standard
methods.
Where ground anchors are likely to be used to provide the
lateral support and there is insufficient knowledge of the ground
conditions to establish the capacity of the anchors, proving test
anchors may be installed as part of the field testing programme
(see Section 6.7.2).

2.4.7 Investigation during construction·

Where excavation reveals conditions · different from those
predicted by the investigation or where the investigation shows
that ground conditions are liable to variations, it may be
desirable to carry out additional investigation during the contract
period making use of in situ or laboratory tests, additio nal
logging or joint mapping as the material is exposed . Such
investigations may have an effect on the construction
programme. Ideally excavation faces should be mapped as the
excavation proceeds. Any unexpected ground conditions
discovered during construction should be reported to the
engineer without delay.

2.4.8 Adjacent activities

Any activities on or near the site which may influence the
behaviour of the support system or the lateral pressures exerted
by the retained material should be monitored and their influenc e
assessed. Such activities include local excavation, groundwater
12
 lowe�ing. pile driving, blasting, ground
freezing and mining
subsidence.

2.4.9 Monitoring
The horizontal and vertical movements and water levels within
and around the excavation should be monitored during
construction as described in Chapter 8. It is essential that
accurate initial readings be taken for the monitoring programme
before any constru ction work begins. Any activities on or near
the site which may influence the lateral support system must
also be monitored as described in Chapter 8.

2-5 EXISTING STRUCTURES AND SERVICES

The investigation should establish whether underpinning of existing
structures is required and should also provide all relevant information
on existing works which may influence the planning of the lateral
support system. As accurate an assessment as possible should be
made of the ground movements which can be tolerated without
excessive deformations of the supported structures and services.
The location and levels of foundations of existing structures and
of services should be determined. Loading on foundations of adjacent
structures which may have bearing on the design of the lateral support
system must be obtained or estimated.
The condition of structures which may be affected by the excavation
works should be recorded. Dated photographs and suitably placed
telltales may prove of value in the event of dispute as to the causes
of damage. All relevant data must be recorded by the principle agent
appointed by the owner. Where there is the possibility of a contentious
issue arising an independent assessor jointly appointed by all parties
should be engaged.

2.6 REPORTS
2.6.1 Site investigation report
All investigations should be fully documented and all test results
should be reported so that the complete information on the tests
is available. Copies of these reports and data should be made
available to the engineer, tenderers. owner and architect. Where
relevant, the reports should be forwarded to the local data bank
and to any research organisation engaged in collection of data
or mapping of the area.
In the contract documents the engineer should not make
disclaimers about the validity of the geotechnical information
supplied.
13
 2.6.2· Completion report
At the end of the main contract, a completion report on the
lateral support should be prepared including actual geological
conditions encountered, results of any additional inves tigations
carried out, any changes to the latera l support system, typical
anchor records, results of monitoring surveys etc. This report
should be forwarded to the own�r, - local authority an<;t loca l data
bank.

14
 CHAPTER 3
SELECTION OF A SYSTEM
OF LATERAL· SUPPORT
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The selection of a lateral support system requires careful consideration
of all aspects of the proposed development, the site conditions and
adjacent structures. In most cases, these factors cannot be considered
in isolation and, together with economic considerations, interact to
yield an optimal solution to the satisfaction of the full professional team.
It is important that essential details of the proposed development
be established at a fairly early stage in the project. Such details include
geometry, depth of excavation relative to rockhead* and to the water
table, proximity to site boundaries and adjacent structures, intended
use of excavation, floor loading and permanence of lateral support,
amongst others. The acceptability of encroachment of temporary
structures or anchors beyond the site boundary must be considered
and permission obtained from adjacent land owners or the local
authority concerned. Changes to these essential details at a later stage
can significantly affect the suitability of the support system selected.
The systems of lateral support described below represent some of
the options available to the designer. Clearly, the nature of the
excavation will influence the extent and complexity of the support
measures required. For example, an excavation which is only 1,Sm
deep will hardly justify the use of some of the methods described below
or the detailed consideration given in this Code. Equally, the various
systems described in the remainder of this chapter and the
recommendations of this Code may be inadequate for very deep or
complex basements.

3.2 SITE CONDITIONS

The site conditions affect both the planning of the proposed
development and the selection of the system of lateral support. The
most important factors are the depth to rockhead and to the water
table, the founding characteristics of the underlying strata and the
nature of the supported soil.
The presence and extent of weathering of rock within the proposed

• 'Rockhead' In this context is taken to mean the upper surface of competent rpck.

15
 influence the support require ments, cost of
excavati..on d 8pth will · ·
nst1cs of the· excavat·10n fl oor. Special
excavatio n and founding characte . .
.. prox1m1ty• of mme work"mgs.
cond1t1ons m ay exist in the cons,·derat,· on. The presence
The depth of the water table is a maJor _
may affe ct the. supp ort requirem ents, cost of the
of groundwater
proJe. c,t stability of the excav· ation floor, wor k"mg cond"t· I ions during
any permanent structures.
construction and the design of
If groundwater lowering is carried out, great care should be taken
to ensure that adjacent structures are not adversely affected. In certain
cases, it may be necessary to install a system of rec�arge wells near
the adjacent structures to avoid damag�_. Further details on dewatering
are given in Chapter 7.
In the case of basement construction, the founding characteristics
of the underlying material will influence the minimum required depth
of excavation. Where there is no distinct founding stratum, it may be
possible to 'float' the proposed structure by excavating to the depth
where the mass of material removed exceeds the mass of the structure.
Where saturated sands or soft clays are to be supported, continuous
support is often required in the form of diaphragm walls, contiguous
or secant piles, sheet piles or caissons. Most other support systems
require the material to stand unsupported over limited areas for short
periods while lagging or shotcrete is applied to the face.
If ground anchors are considered, it may be advisable as part of
the site investigation, to carry out proving tests on anchors installed
as described in Section 6.7.2. The results obtained from these tests
should be made available to interested tenderers.

3.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

In most cases, the geometry of the ·proposed excavation is dictated
by the proposed development. Further constraints may be imposed
by the intended use of the structure.
The proximity of the excavation face to the site boundaries or to
adjacent buildings can have a significant effect on the cost of the lateral
support. Forms of lateral support which may otherwise have proved
�ccepta�le may not be possible due to the space required for
installation. In many cases where space is limited, it is advantageous
to choose a system of support which can be incorp
orated into the final
structure e.g. diaphragm walls installed hard again
st the boundary
may form the walls of a proposed bas
ement.
The acceptable degree of watertight
ness will influence the design
of the permanent structure and will
vary according to the proposed
use ?f �he structure. The major
. factors to be considered are the
possibility of damage to the stru
cture, appearance and finishes, nature
16
 of materials to be stored and the presence of electrical or mechanical
equipment.
The effects of uplift forces and water penetration on the completed
structure need to be considered. Water penetration can be dealt with
either by attempting to exclude water or by accepting seepage through
the outer walls and subfloors. If water is to be excluded, this may be
achieved by means of tanking, cut-off or intercepter drains.
(See SABS 021 (1973).)
If seepage through the ground slab and walls ls acceptable, a false
floor and walls may be necessary. Any water that seeps through is
channeled to a sump and pumped out. The detailed design of the slab
to resist uplift will depend largely on structural circumstances such
as its plan area and pressures to be resisted. If a thickened slab
becomes uneconomical, it may be advantageous to consider ground
anchors or anchor piles according to ground conditions, to tie the slab
down in order to resist uplift forces.

3.4 ADJACENT PROPERTY

No excavation can be made without causing some movement of the
surrounding ground. Because of the inevitability of such movements
and the difficulty of predicting or controlling their magnitude, it is of
great importance to ascertain the impact of movements on adjacent
structures likely to be affected by the works, and therefore their form
of construction, foundations and usage should be established.
Any method of construction that involves vibration, such as blasting
or piling, may cause damage to adjacent structures either arising
directly from the vibration or its effect on the underlying soils. (An
example of a specification for blasting in built-up areas appears in
Appendix H.) Care should be exercised where adjacent ground
consists of granular material, particularly if it is loose or saturated.
The ground below an existing structure may require to be grouted or
the structure underpinned.
Uplift caused by pressure grouting may also have to be taken into
account.

3.5 CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS

Each individual excavation project is unique, with possibly widely
varying ground conditions, and a combination of systems may well
provide the best overall solution. The major types of systems are as
follows:

3.5.1 Construction within an open unsupported excavation

(Figure 3.1)
For large excavations, this is a fast, cheap method and gives
17
 a completely accessible site. However, it is only practicable in
relatively stable soil and normally requires a large 'open field'
site. Dewatering is necessary if permeability and water table
are high. The main consideration in terms of design is one of
examining overall slope stability.

-I___-

I
FIGURE 3.1 CONSTRUCTION WITHIN AN OPEN UNSUPPORTED EXCAVATION

3.5.2 . Temporary support strutted ; against a central dumpling

(Figure 3.2)
··. ·_ An excavation may be supported by temporary bracing while
? conventional walling system . (e.g. reinforced concrete
·cantilever wall) is being constructed: This method is suitable
for large excavations in plan rather than in depth. It avoids
_groundwater problems only if sheet piling can produce an
effective seal in an underlying stratum. The disadvantages are
that it is slow and· constrains the programme and access.
Furthermore, the wall has to be self-supporting to withstand soil
pressure when the dumpling •is removed and the permanent
wall has _t� be boxed out for the bracing.

II
II Reinforced concrete or gravity wall
---- II
II

UMPLING
FIGURE 3;2 TEMPORARY SUPPORT STRUTTED AGAINST CENTRAL D
18
 3.�.3 Temporary support by fully braced trench (Figure 3.3)
This is suitable for excavations relatively large in area rather
than depth. Again the groundwater problem can be avoided if
sheet piling provides an effective seat in an underlying stratum.
This method is also slow and the wall has to be self supporting
when the base area is excavated. The wall also has to be boxed
out to allow for the bracing.

- .
FIGURE 3.3 TEMPORARY SUPPORT BY FULLY BRACED TRENCH

3.5.4 Fully braced temporary support (Figure 3.4) . '

This is a traditional method and suitable for deep excavations.
With the incorporation of jacks for pre-loading, the system can
be used where movements have to be restricted to the
minimum. However, it is relatively slow and costly for wide
excavations. Because of access difficulties and the nec·essity
for boxing out the permanent wall for bracing, the construction
programme is also constrained.

FIGURE 3.4 FULLY BRACED TEMPORARY SUPPORT

19
 n prior to excavation and braced
3 ·5 · 5 Permanent wall constructio
ruction (Figure 3.5)
from a central permanent const
a
Constructed prior to excavation, the wall m�y be a_diaphr gm
. 1s good for
wall or a series of contiguous augered piles It
relatively deep excavations provided that the distance of the
perimeter wall from the centre of constr uction is not too gre at.
Control over movements can be satisfactorily exercised with
pre-loading of shores. A disadvantage is that the perimeter berm
g lateral movement of the wall
· trainin
is not so effective in res · '
as a strut.

Permanent
retaining
---•
Temporary struts enable berm
wall to be removed before structural
frame is completed

·.

FIGURE 3.5 PERMANENT WALL CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO EXCAVATION (DIAPHRAGM OR

CONTIGUOUS AUGERED PILE) & BRACED FROM CENTRAL
.. PERMANENT
CONSTRUCTION

3.5.6 Ground anchors (Figure 3.6)

Anchors can be used with cantilever walls or on their own, using
soldiers an� lagging with ·or without walers or with separate
panels to transfer their load to the excavated faces. The
advantage of this system is that it provides an unobstructed
area for the basement construction. However, installation and
testing techniques have to ensure that undue movement of the
ground anchors, and hence of the wall does not take place.
When it is required to install steeply inclined anchors, a
vertical load component is introduced into the wall and therefore
adequate bearing capacity at the toe of the wall must be ensured
so that settlement does not occur, thereby reducing the
effectiveness of the anchors.
20
 The anchors should be destressed
. when they are no longer
required so that development on adja
cent sites is not
obstructed.

r---- Free anchor length

I
I

Assumed planar Fixed anchor length

failure surface

Wall member ----i I

I
Excavation
;-··.

FIGURE 3.6 GROUND ANCHORS

3.5. 7 Soil nailing (Figure 3. 7)

The supporting structure consists of a monolithic block of
natural ground reinforced with steel bars, which are installed
into the soil mass at the excavation face. The face in· turn is
stabilised by shotcrete.
This technique is successfully applied in tunnelling and
rockslope engineering and can be used in. excavation
construction for temporary �r permanent works, in cohesive and
cohesionless materials.
For short periods, the existing·soil must be able to provide
stable excavation faces for the application of mesh reinforced
shotcrete. The nails, placed in a dense pattern, are fully grouted.
Generally, a low tension is applied to the nails although they
act as ' p assive' anchorages, i.e. soil deformations within the
block mobilise the nail forces. After the nails have been firmly
anchored to the cladding, the next layer of soil can be excavated
immediately.
21
 FIGURE 3. 7 SOIL NAILING

3.5.8 Rock bolts (Figure 3.8)

Installation and tensioning of rock bolts improve the stability
of a rock mass. The technique has been applied successfully
to overlying rock masses as well as to vertical faces of exposed
rock. Rock bolts should be applied as soon as possible after
exposure of the rock face. The rock bolt pattern can be
optimised after analysing discontinuity orientation and
properties. Normally the shear pattern dictates the bolt length.
Rock bolts are very often used in conjunction with mesh
reinforced shotcrete.

Shotcrete- �. Mesh
..·.·=·· �
J

:► •. ,; :· •
tl·-r>::

Grout or mechanical
anchorage

FIGURE 3.8 ROCK BOLTS

22
.· 3.5.9 Cantilever walls (Figure 3.9)
A cantilever wall provides an unobstructed area for construction
but is generally only suitable for limited depths of excavation.
The cantilever wall can be installed relatively quickly as a
precontract. Cantilever walls are normally more expensive than
a simple strutted wall but this disadvantage can be balanced
against the probable savings in time and free access. If
deformations are to be minimised, or deep excavations are to
be carried out, then -these same walling systems may be
anchored or strutted as the excavation depth increases.
a) Sheet piling
There are many types of rolled steel sections available for
sheet piles, whose dimensions and properties can be
obtained from the manufacturers. In addition, prestressed
concrete sheet piles have found recent application. H-piles
with horizontal timber lagging are also commonly used.
Sheet piling cannot generally be used in coarse gravel and
in soil containing boulders. Attention should also be paid
to noise levels arid vibration effects durin·g driving and for
this re�son, their ·use· in: city ·centre developments, is
decreasing.
. Attention shoul� be paid to the design and position of the
clutches. In order to mobilise the full section modulus given
by the manufacturers of sheet piies with the clutches on the
neutral axis, it is necessary that shear .stresses can be
transferred via the clutches. In general this is not so, and·
it is thus sometimes necessary to weld the clutches of pairs
. of piles together in order to ensure this condition.
b) Diaphragm walls
Diaphragm walls are made by placing concrete in a trench
filled with a bentonite slurry. The trench is constructed by
excavating a series of short rectangular panels. Once
excavation is complete, stop-ends are inserted into the
excavation. The stop-end provides a former for the
subsequent concreting and also pro�ides a shE:�r .. key
between adjacent panels. Reinforcement· is· assembled
above ground and lowered to the desired level. Concrete
is placed in the panels through a tremie pipe and the rising
concrete displaces the slurry. Once the concreting operation
is complete, the stop-ends are removed after an initial set
has taken place. Good quality control of the bentonite slurry
is essential because the slurry becomes contaminated
during the excavation stage and requires de- sanding to
23
 n of contamination and usually
remove the coarse fractio .
tam!nate .1t. a .ty control
requires c ycloning to furt her �econ • uah
mp and
of the co ncrete is also required, particularly its slu
plumbing of the concrete level to ensure that the tremie pipe
is continually submerged in good concrete.

c) Concrete pile walls

_ A similar method to that of diaphragm walling is to construct
. the retaining wall as a series of augered or percussion bored
piles. Where the piles are placed in contact with one another,
the method is know n as the contiguous pile method and
where the piles intersect, as the secant piling method. Piles
may also be formed at intervals, with horizontal lagging of
timber, concrete or shotcrete_placed between them. In the
case of contiguous augered piles, alternate positions are
drilled using steel casing if necessary or bentonite slurry to
support the walls of the hole. After the concrete has
hardened sufficiently, the intermediate piles are constructed.
A facing wall is sometimes constructed on the inside face
of the piles for cosmetic reasons.

FIGURE 3.9 CANT

ILEVER WALLS

3.5.1 o Caissons
(Figure 3.10)
A caisson provides an u
e �a ation, but the sy nobstructed working face within the
stem is more suited to circular structures
�� ic � do not normally take the full adva
sit e. Extremely cautious ntage of the available
24 construction is required to achieve
 verticality of positioning and because boulders can retard
construction, a thorough site investigation is required.
A large basem,:nt structure, usually circular in plan, may
be constructed, U!)'ing the caisson technique of concreting at
ground level and allowing the structure to sink during
excavation within its confines. The sinking of such a mammoth
caisson may be controlled in the early stages by hydraulic
jacking and may be facilitated by lubricating the contact
surface with the earth by suitable means, such as a bentonite
slurry. In addition, it may be feasible, depending on the size
of the structure, to construct floors at ground level
monolithically with the peripheral wall. Support to floors could
be provided by introducing temporary trussed girders at
suitable stages. Where floors are incorporated, it may be
possible to depart from the circular form.

Ground level

Bentonite skin to
reduce friction

Cutting edge
Simultaneous basement excavation

FIGURE 3.10 CAISSONS

3.5.11 Concurrent upward and downward construction (Figure

3.11)
This is often employed for deep excavations as it enables the
construction of the superstructure to commence at an earlier
stage. The principle disadvantage is that the excavation and
removal of spoil from the enclosed area are relatively difficult.
25
 Plates for supporting floor slabs

Cylinder belled out to form . In situ column cast

final foundation base in cylinder shaft ----.t

Foundations to central area

Superstructure in progress"""T,'"'\. :
.. _ . ...lLl.JL---�JL-�-�-JL 11
___ ...JL ... �- G
Concurrently. -,r :- - --,r-----,r----,r-

-3
-4

FIGURE 3.11 CONCURRENT UPWARD & DOWNWARD CONSTRUCTION

3.5.12 Unconventional methods of support (Figure 3.12)

Numerous unconventional methods of providing lateral
support have been used and the following are some which
have been cost effective under the particular conditions
pertaining on site.
a) Unbraced peripheral walls constructed from the top
downwards (Figure 3.12.(a))
On the site of the Trust Bank in Johannesburg a
technique using cement grout as a jacking medium to
induce restraining forces was successfully applied in 1967-
The square site covered a city block 60m x 60m in pl�n
and was excavated in a form approaching circular, b�t in
fact four flat arches were formed tangential to the sides
26

1
 of the site, joined by four small radius arches near the
corners of the city block, referred to as abutment arches.
Suitable voic s were created behind the abutment arches
to enable cem\1nt grout to fill the zone behind them and
suitable grout stops were built- in to confine the grout to
these zones. The voids behind these abutment arches were
filled with cement grout and pressurised to induce an
inward deflection of these abutment arches and thus induce
an outward thrust in the flat arches that was greater than
the disturbing forces.
The site was excavated in successive stages of 6m and
each stage pressured as indicated above until the full depth
of approximately 30m was completed..
This method requires specialised knowledge and
techniques.by both designers and contractors, as well as
very careful monitoring.

b) Chemical and cement grout (Figure 3.12.(b))

Chemical and cementitious grouts have been utilised to
provide lateral support. These techniques provide lateral
support in formations where voids (fissures, pores, cavities)
are of such a nature that the strength parameters of the
formation can be increased significantly by injecting grout
at low or high pressures. The support structure usually
takes the shape of a monolithic gravity type wall which can
also be used successfully for underpinning.

c) Ground freezing (Figure 3.12.(c))

In formations where excavation is difficult owing to the
presence of water, freezing of a part of the formation which
can act as a supporting structure has been used
economically. An· example was excavating in a coarse
alluvial river bed to foundation rock by freezing a circular
support structure with subsequent excavation of the interior
part to bed rock. This also facilitated inspection and
possible testing of the foundation rock.

d) Mix-in-place grouting (Figure 3.12.(d))

Mix-in-place grouting techniques are processes whereby
grout is injected at low or high pressures to create in situ
soil cement mixtures by utilising augers or similar devices
or high pressure jets. The resultant column has a high
strength can be executed at various angles and, in general,
27
 has no steel reinforcement which limits its usage where
bending moments are required. Particularty successful has
been the jet grouting process whereby the cement is
introduced into the ground by high pressure jets, using
specially designed double tube drill rod systems. The
technique has been successfully used to stabilise fine to
coarse alluvium in river beds to enable excavation to
foundation depth and also for underpinning in urban areas.

3.6 DEWATERING AND LEACHING OF SOLIDS

Where dewatering (See also Chapter 7) of the surrounding sites is
likely to take place during excavation of the site, a properly designed
filter system must be designed by the engineer to ensure that leaching,
which may have an undesirable effect on adjacent properties, does
not occur. The use of geofabrics or filter layers must be according
to a specialist's requirements. The legal aspects are covered in
Appendix D.

28
 Abutme nt arch formed by
gunite backing to soil and
voidage for grout entry -�
created before concreting
I
I
I

I
I
I
L---­
__ .J c.:;;,---

Pressure grouting behind
abutment arches induced
inward thrust thus causing
outward thrust on flat arches
_____)
Chemical or cement grouts _
injected Into ground to form
__,,__-r--­
monolithic gravity type wall
to act both as underpinning to
existing structure and also form
stable material to excavation face

(a) UNBRACED PERIPHERAL WALLS CONSTRUCTED FROM (b) CHEMICAL AND CEMENT GROUTS USED TO
THE TOP DOWNWARDS (& STABILISED BY GROUT JACKING) PROVIDE LATERAL SUPPORT

Water table

Freezing lance

Water in ground frozen to create watertight

ice wall thus enabling excavation to be taken
down safely below water table

(c) EXAMPLES OF GROUND FREEZING

Existing ground level

Foundation of
existing building
Grout mixed with natural
ground In place either
through auger holes or
jet
gr?� tubes both to underpin In situ grouted ground in river bed
exist1ng building and to form both stable excavation face
to
supp0rt excavation fac and safe foundation for bridge pier
e
· Excavation level

EXAMPLE IN BUI BRIDGE PIER EXAMPLE

LDIN G WORKS

(d) EXAMPLES OF MIX-IN-PLACE GROUTING

FIGURE 3.12 UNCONVENTIONAL METHODS OF SUPPORT

29
 CHAPTER 4
EARTH PRESSURES
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter deals with the determination of the pressures exerted
on the support system by the supported material. These earth
pressures are dependent on the properties of the soil or rock that is
being supported, movements of the support system, inclination of the
-wall, surcharge loading and level of the water table. Significant
pressures may also be induced by compaction of backfill behind
retaining walls or other supporting structures, water pressure and
surcharge loading.
The purpose of this chapter is to make the designer aware of the
factors influencing earth pressures but not to prescribe methods of
calculation. Although some basic equations are given, it is suggested
that the designer refer to the literature on the subject for details.

4.2 DESIGN PARAMETERS

. 4.2. 1 Soil strength parameters
Calculatior:is of earth pressure and the assessment of the overall
stability of an excavation must be based on the most appropriate
soil strength parameters. The selection of these parameters
depends mainly on the type of soil, in-situ moisture content and
rate of loading. Different parameters may have to be considered
for short�tei-m and long-term stability. . .
Table 4.1 lists the appropriate streng�h parameter applicable
to various situations and suggests testing procedures for the
determination of these parameters.
Effective stress parameters are used in most design situations
where long-term stability is considered. Short-term (undrained)
stability in saturated cohesive soils is analysed in terms of total
stress.

4.2.2 Wall friction and wall adhesion

The friction between the back of a retaining wall (or other
supporting structure) and the soil can have a marked effect on
the earth pressure exerted on the wall. This friction is generally
expressed in terms of a wall friction angle (o) which may be
positive, zero or negative depending - on the direction of
31
TABLE 4.1 APPROPRIATE SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR VARIOUS SOIL TYPES

MATERIAL RELEVANT STRENGTH TEST REMARKS

PARAMETER (SEE APPENDIX B)

Dry sand (cohesionless).
Moist or saturated sand
(cohesionless).
Total stress; angle of friction.
Effective stress; angle of friction.
Shear box test. Test performed dry with sand
compacted to field density.
Drained shear box test. Test performed saturated with sand
compacted to field density. The
time to failure should exceed 10
min. to allow drainage.

Penetration resistance. SPT/CPT. In-situ tests in which penetration

Clayey sands/sandy clays/silts.
Effective stress; cohesion and angle Drained shear box test,
of friction. consolidated drained triaxial or
consolidated undrained triaxial with
p.w.p. * measurements.
resistance can be correllated with
shear strength.
Test performed on saturated
undisturbed samples. Test at a slow
rate to ensure at least 950/o
dissipation of induced p.w.p. *

Penetration resistance. SPT/CPT. In-situ tests in which penetration

Normally consolidated saturated
clays.
Short term stability; Total stress;
cohesion (apparent friction angle
equal to zero).
Quick unconsolidated undrained
triaxial test.
resistance can be correllated with
shear strength.
Test performed on saturated
undisturbed samples with no
drainage.

Vane shear test. Performed in situ.

Long term stability; Effective stress;
failure taken as 10% strain in the
absence of a clearly defined peak
shear stress.
Consolidated undrained triaxial test
with pore water pre�sure
measurements or consolidated
drained triaxial test. Soaked drained
shear box test.
Test performed on saturated
undisturbed samples with no
drainage. Rate of testing sufficiently
slow to allow 95% p.w.p. *
equalisation during test 1

• p.w.p. - porewater pressure

TABLE 4.1 APPROPRIATE SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR VARIOUS SOIL TYPES Continued
I
MATERIAL RELEVANT STRENGTH TEST REMARKS
PARAMETER (SEE APPENDIX B)

Fissured clay and over-consolidated Short term stability; Total stress; Quick unconsolidated undrained Test performed on saturated
materials. cohesion and friction angle at peak triaxial test. undisturbed samples with no
and residual strength. drainage.

Vane shear test. Performed in situ·.

Long term stability; Effective stress; Consolidated drained triaxial test, Test performed on undisturbed
cohesion and friction angle at peak drained shear box test or sample. Test at slow rate to allow
and residual strength. consolidated undrained triaxial test 95% dissipation of induced p.w.p. *
with p.w.p. * measurements.

Soaked drained shear box test with Residual strengtl] generally gives a
residual strength measurements. lower bound to the strength of
Ring shear apparatus. fissured or slickensided materials.

Partially saturated clays. Effective stress; cohesion and angle Consolidated undrained triaxial test Test performed on saturated
of friction. with p.w.p. * measurements. undisturbed samples. Test at slow
rate to allow 950/o dissipation of
induced p.w.p. *

Soaked drained shear box test. This will yield conservative results.

Should the designer wish to take

advantage of negative p.w.p. *
arising from partial saturation, this
will require specialised testing and
a conservative estimate of the most
adverse degree of saturation likely
to occur during the design life of
the support system .

* p.w.p. = porewater pressure

 to the retaining wall. Where !he
movemen t of the soil relative
l, the earth pressure acting
retam· ed soil settles relative to the wal
a II .1s sub.Ject to an
the wall is reduced. However, th e w
?"creased vertical load for which it must be designed.
e to the retained soil
�onversely, settlement of the wall relativ
ll.
will increase the pressures on the wa
In cases where vibration or intermittent shock loads oc cur,
n
any advantage gained due to wall friction should_ be ig �red.
This applies particularly to structures such as railway bridge
abutments. However, the designer should still take account of
wall friction where this has an adverse effect.
The effects of wall adhesion, i.e. a cohesive stress between
the wall and the soil, are not considered in this Code. This is
due to the low degree of confidence that the designer normally
places in the action of wall adhesion. It may however be
necessary to consider the effects of wall adhesion where these
are adverse.

4.2.3 Confidence limits

In the selection of design strength parameters, due account
should be taken of the variation in strength parameters and the
degree to which the samples tested are representative of the
strength of the soil mass or rock mass.
While the coefficient of variation on the friction angle is likely
to be less than 15%, the coefficient of variation on cohesion
or unconfined compressive strength can be as high as 40-50%
(Harr, 1977). Furthermore, shear strength tests are generally
performed on small, intact soil specimens and thus tend to
overestimate the strength of a jointed soil mass This applies
particularly to the cohesive compor:ient of shear. strength.
For this reason, the value of the cohesive strength used in
the design of lateral support should be chosen with caution. Due
account should be taken of any possible softening or reworking
of the clay. The cohesion in terms of effective stress (c') should
be taken as zero unless it can be established that the material
is intact and not fissured. A non-zero value of c' should be
suppo rted by an appropriate testing programme taking due
account of the jointing, fissuring or slickensiding of the soil mass
or rock mass.

4.3 DEFINITION OF SYMBOL

S'
c = cohesion of soil
C' = coh esion 0f
soi·1 in
· terms of effective stress
Cu = undrain
.
ed shear strength (9t = o
)
34
 He = depth of tension crack
Ka = coefficient of active earth Pres
sure
Ko = coeff"�c�. en t of earth pressu
re at-rest
KP = coeff1c1ent of passive earth P
. ressure
P a = active ea_rth pressure
P a = active force
P p = passive earth pressure
P P = passive force
Kah• Kph• pa�, P P h• Pah• Pp h = horizontal components of above
parameters
� = angle of shearing resistance
f = an�le of_ shearing resistance in terms of effective stress
'Y = un�t we�ght of soil (including weight of porewater)
'Yw = umt weight of water
o = angle of wall friction
... . -- -·
4.4 EFFECT OF MOVEMENT OF SUPPORT SYSTEM - ON EARTH
PRESSURES
4.4.1 General
The earth pressure exerted by the retained material is a function
of the shear strength of the retained material and the movement
of the support system. Shear strain must.occur, ·generally as
a result of movement of the support system, in order to·mobilfse
shear stresses in the retained material. As the movement
increases so the shear stresses build up to a limiting value,
namely the shear strength of the retained material.
The amount of movement which takes place is dependent
on the time interval between excavation and the installation of
the support system, gaps between the retained material and
the _support and the rigidity of the support. Movements can also
result from changes in moisture content or alteration of a water
table.
Movement may occur towards or away from the excavation.
With movement towards the excavation, the shear stress
mobilised within the retained material results in a reduction in
the earth pressure exerted on the support system. Once
sufficient movement has taken place to mobilise the shear
strength of the retained material, the earth pressure remains
constant at a limiting value known as the active earth pressure.
(See Figure 4.1.) Similarly, movement away from the excavation,
i.e. into the retained soil, results in an increase in the earth
pressure to a limiting value known as the passive earth
pressure. If no movement were to take place, the earth pressure
35
 K

,� T
I
I \
\ I
I \
/
I I
I \
I
I
I PASSIVE ACTIVE w�
I
I
I
Kp
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I �a
I
0

�p �a

FIGURE 4.1 SCHEMATIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WALL MOVEMENT AND COEFFICIENT OF

EARTH PRESSURE [after Wlnterkorn & Fang (1975)]

exerted against a vertical face is equal to the horizonta l stress

in the ground prior to excavation. This pressure is known as
the earth pressure at-rest.

4.4.2 Movements required to develop activ� and passive earth

pressures
The movements required to-develop active or passive earth
pressure depend on the material type, material properties and
nature of the movement, i.e. whether translation, rotation about
the top of the wall or rotation about the base of the wall. (See
Figure 4.2.)
Various references give widely varying estimates for _th�
movements required to achieve the active and passive 1rmrt
states. Table 4.2 gives a range of va lues for various soil types:
Further information can be gained from Fang and Ishibashi
(1986), Harr (1966), Lambe an d Whitman (1969) and th8
Canadian Geotechnical Society (1978).
36
 MOVEMENT STRESS DISTRIBUTION

No wall movements

(a) FIXED RIGID WALL

Active
H

Ka "I H

(bl RIGID WALL FREE TO ROT�TE ABOUT BASE

I At-rest
H I
I Active
I

[c) RIGID WALL FREE TO ROTATE ABOUT TOP

At-rest

H Active

(ci) RIGID WALL FREE TO TRANSLATE NT WALL

N S AS SO CIATED WITH DIFFERE
FIGURE TRIBUTIO
RAL PRESSURE DIS
Mov:: LATE 37
ENTS [after Mc Gown et al (1987)]
TABLE 4 ENT (ROTATION ABOUT BASE OF
TIVE AND.
.2 ::tt)��:�RED TO DEVELOP AC
PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURES
ROTATION A/H
SOIL TYPE
ACTIVE PASSIVE
0,0005 - 0,001 0,002 0,02
Dense non-cohesive 0,006 - 0,15
Loose non-cohesive 0,002 - 0,005
Stiff cohesive 0,002 - 0,01 0,01 - 0,02
Soft cohesive 0,005 - 0,02 0,02 - 0,04

A = horizontal displacement of top of wall

H = height of wall

The magnitude of parallel translation required to develop ac.tive

conditions is approximately 2 to 3 times the movement required
in the case of rotation about the base. (See TGL 11464/03
(1979).) Rotation about the top of the wall will require up to 5
times the rotation about the base to develop active conditions.
(See also NAVFAC DM-7.2 (1982) for further information.)

4.5 AT-REST EARTH PRESSURES

Where the movement of the support system is negligible compared
to the strains required to reach the active or passive states, the stress
in the ground remains unchanged. In such cases, the earth pressure
exerted on the support system is the earth pressure at-rest. However,
it should be noted that few support systems are sufficiently rigid to
prevent all movement.
In the at-rest condition, the ratio between the (horizontal) earth
pressure exerted on the support system and the vertical overburden
stress is known as the coefficient of earth pressure at-rest, Ko- This
coefficient cannot be calculated from basic principles but must be
determined by sophisticated triaxial testing or by means of dilatometer
or selfboring pressure meter tests in the field.
Table 4.3 gives typical values of Ko for normally con
solidated soils.
Jaky (1944) suggested the following empirica
l approximation for
normally consolidated soils:
K0 = 1- sin ,f/
For overconsolida�ed soils, the value
of K0 may be as high as 2,5.
(See Lambe and Whitman 1969.) Des
, iccated hea ving clays can exert
later�I pressures equal to the swe
lling pressure of the clay or the
passive pressure when subject
to wetting.
38
TABLE 4.3 COEFFICIENT OF EARTH PRESSUR
E AT-REST (Ko)
TYPICAL VALUES

VALUES OF K0 CONDITION AND DESCRIPTIO

N OF MATERIAL
0,35 Dense sands
0,45 Loose sands
0,5 Normally consol�dated saturated inactive clay
s
0,7 Normally consolidated active clays

At-rest conditi�n� are seldom realised in practice except in

·the case where n91d structures are constructed against loose
sand .or soft clay.
Further guidance may be obtained from Lambe and Whitman
(1969), Winterkorn and Fang (1975),· Holtz and Kovacs (1981 ):
Ladd (1971) and Mayne and Kulhawy (1982).

4.6 ACTIVE AND PASSIVE PRESSURES

Most retaining structures deform sufficiently to mobilise some or all
of the shear resistance of the retained material. In general, such
structures deform to the point where a balance is achieved between
the applied earth pressures and the resistance_ of th� support system.
For a retaining structure, the design of the support system will normally
prove satisfactory if the system is capable of ·resisting the active
pressure with a suitable margin of safety. In the case of soil loading
(passive condition) the passive resistance of the soil should exceed
the applied pressures by a suitable margin in order to achieve an
acceptable design. In both cases, the resultant deformations must be
within the capabilities of the structure and acceptable to the designer.
Two theories of earth pressure, namely the Rankine and Coulomb
Theories, are generally used for calculating ea�h pressures. For further
guidance reference may be made to Winterkorn and Fang (1975),
Lambe and Whitman (1969) or other text books on soil mechanics.
In the case of vertical retaining walls with a horizontal surface to
the retained material, ·equations for the calculation of active and
passive pressures are given in Figure 4.3. General equations for Kah
and Koh based on Coulomb Theory are given in Figure 4.4. These
equ ations take account of wall inclination, sloping backfill and wall
frictio n. The equations for active and passive thrusts are given in a
form which applies to granular soils only.

39
 Surcharge q

p ah = 0z + q) Kah . 2c Kah J
2
p h=
a
{122 + qz) Kah· 2c �Kahz

Pah Kah = tan (45 ·

2 °
J)
Note: Ignore negative value of
pah
If pah <0 tension cracks develop
See 4.6.1 (c)

qKah - 2c J Kah � ' I \ zKah�

Pah

(a) ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE

Pph = (12 + q) Kph + 2c JKph

z
<2
2
Pph = ,r + qz) Kph + 2c JKphZ

z Kph = tan2 (45 ° + !)

• I • 2c )Kph I• 1zKph

Pph :\
(b) PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE

FIGURE 4.3 ACTIVE AND PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURES FOR VERTICAL RETAINING WALLS
WITH HORIZONTAL BACKFILL ASSUMING NO WALL FRICTION (o = 0)
40
 SIGN CONVENTION

ACTIVE CASE
PASSIVE CASE

z2
Pah = -1Ka h
2

1
p ah
cos ( ex -o ) p -P _1__
p - ph cos ( ex • 0 )

cos2 (0 + oc)
2
sin (0 + ,5 ) • sin (0 . /3 )
]
cos ( oc • ,5 ) . cos ( oc + /3 )

cos2 (0 -oc )

sin (0 + ,5 ) • sin (0 + f3 ) j2
cos ( oc + ,5 ) . cos ( (X + /3 �

TAKING ACCOUNT OF
FIGURE4
4 SSIV TH RUSTS FO R GRANULAR BACKFILL
TIVE AND PA
WALL' FR�TIO E ING BACKFILL
N, WALL INCLINATION AND SLOP 41
4.6.1 Active pressures - general guidance
The followin g guidelines may be applied to the calculation of
active pressure:

(a) Where downwa rd movement of the supporting structure is

prevented by the rigidity of the founding stratum, wall friction
can reduce the lateral pressure on the support system.
However, even small downward movements of the wall can
negate the stabilising effect of wall friction.
Where the wall is subject to applied vertical loads other
than those arising from the pressure of the retained material,
downward movement of the wall relative to the retained
material can occur. This causes wall friction and adhesion
forces to act upwards thereby increasing the lateral
pressures on the supporting structure.

(b) Stiff fissured clays generally reduce in strength as a result

of swelling on release of in situ lateral stress. Due allowance
should be made for any long term softening which can
occur.

(c) Where negative pressure results from the application of the

active pressure equations, tension cracks may occur.
Negative pressure should thus be set equal to zero. The
possibility of these tension cracks filling with water should
be considered. The depth of the tension crack (H e) may be
calculated from the equation:

Where c' is the cohesion of the soil within the depth H e

and 'Y is the unit weight of the soil. If the unit weight can
vary during the life of the structure owing to changes in
moisture content, the lowest reasonable value of the unit
weight should be assumed in the calculation.

(d) Where service trenches excavated in the retained soil are

backfilled with a permeable backfill, these may also become
filled with water. The resulting water pressures should be
taken into account in the design.

4.6.2 Active pressures - minimum design pressures

Irrespective of the results of active pressure calculations in
42
 �ccor�ance with the above clauses, the minimum total thrust
(1.e. sod plus w�ter pr�ss�re, if any) for which the support system
�hould be de�1gned 1s given in Table 4.4. This minimum thrust
1s expr�ssed '" tern:1s of the force exerted by a depth of fluid
o� the given unit. weight equal to the height of the excavation.

TABLE 4.4 EQUIVALENT FLUID "DENSITIES" TO BE USED IN

THE COMPUTATION OF MINIMUM ACTIVE THRUST

EQUIVALENT
DESIGN SITUATION . FLUID UNIT
WEIGHT (kN/m3)
(a) Where adequate measures are taken to
ensure no water pressures can act on the
structure or on the soil within the zone
affecting the structure, and provision is made
for immediate detection of any water pressure
build up . . ._ . 4,8

(b) Where a high water table exists in a free

draining soil but the water table is drawn down
below the zone affecting the structure , • I.,.. ,.
7,2

(c) Where drainage is slow, or no measures are :·

taken to lower the water table, or no
measurements of water pressure are made,
or the designer is not satisfied that water
pressures can be adequately controlled 11,5

If the wall is permitted to rotate about its base to the extent

that fully active conditions are mobilised (see Section 4.4.2),
the pressure distribution may be assumed to be triangular. The
resulting active thrust is applied at a third of the height from
the bottom of the excavation. If insufficient movement is
permitted to ensure active conditions, or if the wall translates
or rotates about the top, the pressure distribution may be
assumed to be parabolic with a maximum at mid-height of the
wall and zero at top and bottom. The resultant thrust therefore
acts at mic;t-height of the wall.
It should be noted that the thrusts calculated above are
minimum design values and do not take precedence over
calculated thrusts of a greater magnitude. The requirement of
'Design Situation (a)' in the Table 4.4 should only be applied
43
 '.f both the vertical and horiz. ontal mo vements of the wan a e
. r
monitored in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 8
of this Code.
If the retained material is a rock or stiff jointed soil, failu e
is controlled by the orientation of joints and discontinuitie s rathr r
than by the strength of the intact material. Active pressures le:
than those resulting f rom a fl�id with an equivalent unit weigh�
of 4,8kN/m3 may be u_sed provi�ed a�equate joint surveys are
carried out to determine the orientation of preferred planes of
f ailure and the active pressure determined accordingly. (See
White side, 1985). Adequate precautions should be taken to
control and measure water pressures.
. Due account should be taken of the possibility of sealing the
face by the application of shotcrete or other facings and the
effects which this will have on the drainage of the retained
ground.
Irrespective of the properties of the retained mate rial, the
active pressure should not be taken as less than that which
would be exerted by material having strength parameters f =
40 degrees and c' = O.

4.6.3 Passive pressures - - general guidance

The following guidelines may be applied to the calculation of
passive pressures where relevant:

(a) Where a wall is so supported that it cannot move downwards

relative to the soil, tht:! angle of wall friction should be taken
as no more than half that which would be used in the
calculation of active pressures.

(b) Where downward movement of the wall relative to the soil

can occur, the full value of .the angle of wall friction may
be used in design.

(c) Adequate account should be taken of any softening of th.0

soil during the installation of the retaining structure. This
applies particularly to stiff, fissured clays.

(d) The passive resist ance �an be significantly reduced _by

excavati on of trenches in front of the wall or the remov� ng
or battering of the soil within the passive zone. The des:9;.
should take adequate cognizance of any such removathe
soil by assuming an appropriate surface geometry for
calculation of passive pressures.
44
4. 7 RESTRICTED MOVEMENTS
Where the movements of the wall are less than those given in Secti on
4.4 .2, the pressures exerted will lie at som e point between the at-rest
pressure and the active or passive earth pressures as the case may
be. Depending on the direction, nature and magnitude of the permitted
movement such increased_ active or reduced passive pressures must
be taken into account in the design of the supporting system. The
approximate relationship between earth pressure coefficients and wall
movement is shown in Figure 4.1.
As is the case with the movements required to mobilise active or
passive c onditions, the relationship between earth pressure and wall
movements is dependent on s oil type. For further information, the
designer is referred to Fang and I shibashi (1986), Winterkorn and Fang
(1975), Lambe and Whitman (1969), Harr (1966) and Canadian
Geotechnical Society (1978). Parallel translation and rotation about
the top of the wall require considerably more movement for the
mobilisation of active conditions than rotation about the base of the
wall. However, under thes e conditions, an 'arching active' pressure
distribution develops with movements substantially lower than those
required for the active cas e. Under this arching active condition, a
force approaching the active thrust in magnitude will be developed
but the resultant of this force acts at approximately mid-height of the
wall.

4.8 EMPIRICAL METHODS

. Numerous empirical pres sure distributions have been proposed for
braced or anchored walls.
Envelopes of maximum active earth pressure proposed by Terzaghi
and Peck are given in Figure 4 .5 (ferzaghi and Peck, 1967). These
diagrams do not represent actual pressure distributions but are
hypothetical pressure envelopes from �hich �nchor forces ?r strut
loads which are unlikely to be exceeded m practice may be estimated.
These diagrams assume that the water table is_ below the base of the
excavation and water pressures are not considered.
In the calculation of the stability number (N), the undrained shear
strength (cu) should be representative of the stren�th of_ the clay
adjacent to and below the excavation, i.e. that material wh1ch_would
be involved in an overall shear failure of the supporte? soil. The
er value
maximum value of m should be taken as 0, 4 unless a high
can be substantiated. .
6, both envelope s apphcab l? to c1 ay shouId
For values of N from 4 to .
be a pplied and the higher pressure adopted for design. d ed
be use d prov,
For stiff fissured clay s the lower N value ma� .
struction period ,s short.
movements are limited a�d the con
45
 SAND
Supports

0,65 Ka1H
� ...1
Ka = tan2 (45 ° - !)
CLAY �, H
STABILITY NUMBER N =
Cu
(a) N>6 (b) N<4

Supports
�, 25H

DO. SH
H

0,?5H

V0, 2 1 H to
0.25H

I- 0,41H
--1

FIGURE 4.5 TERZAGHI & PECK (1967) PRESSURE DIAGRAMS

46
4.9 SURCHARGE LOADING
Surcharge loads on the surface of the retained material increase
the
earth pressure on the support system.
A uniform surcharge over a large area results in a uniform increment
in the �ertical stress within a retained homogeneous material. This
gives rise to a uniform increase in the lateral earth pressure over the
full height of the wall. (See Figure 4.3.) Point loads and line loads result
in non-uniform lateral pressure distributions. Reference should be
made to Terzaghi (1954).

4.10 EFFECTS OF WATER PRESSURE

In the case of an impermeable support system, e.g. a watertight
basement retaining wall, a water table may develop in the retained
material. In this case, the effect of-the water pressure is two-fold.
Firstly, the density of the material below the water table is reduced
to the buoyant density thereby reducing the pressure exerted by this
material on the wall. Secondly, the water exerts a hydrostatic pressure
against the wall below the water table.These combined effects result
in an increase in the lateral pressure on the retaining wall below_ the
water table.
Most retaining walls are provided with weepholes and in many
cases drains are provided in the retained material _or at the back of
the wall. This· results in a significant reduction in the water pressure
exerted on the wall itself. However, water pressures may still be
present within the active zone in the· retained material.'The magnitude
of the pore water pressures on the·poteritial failure· plane may be
determined using a flow net and should be taken into account in the
calculation of earth pressures. (See Lambe and Whitman, 1969). As
long as the phreatic surface· encroaches on the active zone within
the retained material, an �increase ·in earth pressure will be
experienced. This is true even if the water pre�s�re against the back
of the wall is reduced to zero by means-of-adequate drainage.
· 1n the case of seepage under the wall, a decrease in passive earth
, '
pressure in front of the wall results. ·
Tension cracks within the retained material or services trenches
backfilled with permeable material can ·readily become filled with
surface·water. The hydrostatic pressure exerted m�st be taken into
account in the design of the support system.

4.11 PRESSURE INDUCED ·ev BACKFILLING_

The compaction effort applied to backfilling behind a retaining wall
increases the lateral pressure. Some guidelines for the estimation
of the lateral pressures due to compaction are given below:
47
 {a) Where backfilling is by means of end tipping with no compaction
the pressures approximate to those of active pressure conditions.
The cohesive strength of the backfill should be taken as zero.

{b) Where backfilling is accompanied by light hand tamping or

ramming, conditions of earth pressure at-rest should be assumed.

{c) With an unyielding support system, mechanical compaction can

produce pressures as high as the passive earth pressure. Any
yield of the support system will reduce this pressure.
Nevertheless, the earth pressure coefficient to be used in design
should not be less than 2,0.

{d) Clayey materials used for backfilling will produce higher

pressures than will sandy materials. Therefore, sandy materials
should be used to limit lateral pressures on the support system,
and clayey materials used to provide resistance to movement.

Further guidance may be obtained from Duncan and Seed {1986) and
Ingold {1979).

4.12 RESTRAINT OF EXCAVATIONS IN ROCK

4. 12.1 General
The principles involved in the support of excavations in rock
are essentially similar to those for excavations in soil.
However, the geometry of the failure surface, and hence the
most likely failure mechanism, is usually controlled by joints
or other discontinuities in the rockmass. The properties of
the rock material are often of less importance than the
properties of the joints. Groundwater also plays a major role
in the behaviour of the rockmass.
In view of the variation in joint properties within the
rockmass, the analysis of excavations in rock is often based
on probability theory in which the risk of failure, rather than
the factor of safety, is assessed.
The accuracy of the analysis is dependent on the adequacy
of the available data. This data includes:

* Orientation, spacing, continuity, roughness and shear

strength of discontinuities.
* Stress/deformation characteristics of the rockmass.
* Influence of blasting or other excavation methods on the
rockmass.
48
 Information on the orientation of discontinuities in the
rockmass is usually presented by plotting the data on a stereo
net. Contouring of the plotted data can assist in the
identification of joint sets.

4.12.2 Failure mechanisms and methods of analysis

The possibility of a particular failure mechanism developing
depends on the relative orientations of the major joint sets
and the face of the excavation. Figure 4.6 illustrates the use
of stereoplots for the determination of the most likely failure
mechanisms for particular joint set orientations. Reference
should be made to Hoek and Bray (1977) for details of this
technique.
The most common failure mechanisms and appropriate
methods of analysis for each mechanism are summarised
in Table 4.5
All analyses should be carried out in terms of effective
stress after a careful assessment of the likely groundwater
conditions and the effect of drainage measures.
In analysing excavations in rock, time dependent effects
exhibited by the rockmass should be considered including
weathering, loss of strength due to dilation or stress relief
and the possibility of progressive failure of the rockmass.
The shear strength of rock joints is usually determined by
the shear strength of the gouge material on the joint. In
addition, the shear strength envelope may be non-linear
giving rise to parameters which are stress dependent (Hoek
& Bray, 1977). Parameters must therefore be determined for
the appropriate stress range.

49
 N

Great circle
representing·
slope face

(a) CIRCULAR FAILURE IN OVERBURDEN SOIL, WASTE ROCK OR HEAVILY FRACTURED

ROCK WITH NO IDENTIFIABLE STRUCTURAL PATTERN
N
Crest of slope �---..L.'71_\
Great circle
representing
slope face
Direction of
sliding
Great circle representing ----.--­
planes corresponding to
· centre of pole concentration
. ·'
(b) PLANE FAILURE IN ROCK WITH HIGHLY ORDERED STRUCTURE ' SUCH
. .
AS SL.ATE

N
Crest of slope
Great circle
representing
slope face
Direction of
sliding
Great circle representing
planes corresponding to
. -. ,� centre of pole concentration --=::.._�-.:::--4�

(c) WEDGE FAILURE ON TWO INTERSECTING DISCONTINUITIES� .

N
Crest of slope

Great circle
representing
slope face

Great circle representing

planes corresponding to
centre of pole concentration

(d) TOPPLING FAILURE IN HARD ROCK WHICH CAN FORM COLUMNAR STRUCTURE
SEPARATED BY STEEPLY DIPPING DISCONTINUITIES

FIGURE 4.6 TYPICAL ROCK CUT FAILURE MECHANISMS RELATED TO STEREOPLOTS Of

DISCONTINUITIES (after Hoek and Bray (1977)]
50
TABLE 4.5 ANALYSIS METHODS FOR VARIOUS FAILURE MODES

FAILURE MODE ROCK CONDITION ANALYSIS METHODS REFERENCES

Rotational Failure Waste rock, heavily jointed Circular Slips:
rock masses, weak rock, Method of slices Bishop (1954)
soils Bishop (1955)
Stability Charts Bishop et al (1960)

Non-circular slips: Janbu (1977)

Morgenstern & Price {1965)
Plane Failure Well bedded or jointed Planar analysis Kovari & Fritz (1976)
rockmass dipping towards Hoek & Bray (1977)
excavation Earth pressure theory Whiteside (1985)
Wedge Failure Two intersecting joints
dipping towards and Wedge analysis using Kovari & Fritz (1976)
daylighting in the stereographic projections Hoek & Bray {1977)
excavation
Topping Failure Columnar structure with Limiting equilibrium Hoek & Bray (1977)
steeply dipping
discontinuities '
 CHAPTER 5
DESIGN OF LATERAL
SUPPORT SYSTEMS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.1.1 General
A wide variety of temporary and permanent earth support
systems have been developed for surface excavations. (See
also Section 3.5.)
Wall type systems including structural components,
construction materials and installation techniques must be
chosen on the basis of the structural requirements, soil
conditions and the nature of the adjacent development.
The following aspects should be considered in the selection
process:
Dimensions of excavation
Soil properties and water table
· Proximity of existing buildings
Wall rigidity and movements
Construction method of support system
Excavation and strutting/anchoring sequence
Temporary works and re-usability of components
Incorporation of wall into permanent structure
Long term monitoring and supervision.

5.1.2 Design objectives

The principle aim of design is to ensure stability of the
supporting structure and the retained material, including any
adjacent structures and services on the surface or buried within
the soil affected.
It is not possible to make an excavation, however well
supported, without causing ground movements. Nevertheless
the design should aim to achieve stability with the minimum
of movement of the support system itself as well as of the
ground adjacent to the excavation.
Stability is defined as the equilibrium between the activating
and restraining forces or moments. In order to achieve a suitable
margin of safety, a factor of safety is applied� (See Section
5.1.4.)
53
 The stability of each part and of the whole of any support
system, together with any material which is so placed that it
will move as if it were part of the support system, should be
investigated under all loading conditions.
Probabilistic· design methods which examine the reliability
of the supporting structure are gaining popularity. The analysis
is based on known or assumed probability distributions for the
various input parameters. These methods overcome difficulties
with the definition and non-linearity of the factor of safety.
Further guidance may be obtained from Harr (1987).

· 5.1.3 Deformations .
In the design of retaining structures, it may be important to
predict the deformations, wall deflections and ground
movements.
In general, deformations depend on a variety of parameters
such as the soil properties and conditions, construction method,
system of the structural support, its components and installation
· sequence, environmental . influences and = the time period
involved.
There are a number of numerical methods available to
calculate the deformations. ·. . -. •. : ·
Deformations can be predicted by applying finite element
methods with a minimum of simplifying assumptions. However,'
these are subject: to limitations arising from the inability to
quantify accurately the constitutive behaviour of the retained
material.' Numerous solutions . to practical · problems are
documented and may be referred to; i.e. Simpson et al (1979),
Clough (1975), etc: Subgrade reaction methods may be applied
for prediction of deformations taking account of the flexibility
of the structure and soil stiffness.· No information on surface
movements behind or in front of the structure can be provided
by this method. The Coulomb and Rankin·e theory, being a limit
_
analysis approach, cannot ·predict deformations.
Recommendations on allowable deformations and effects on
adjacent structures can be based on .case histories. (See
Section 5.6 and Appendix· F.) .. - . ,

5.1.4 Factors of safety

a) Definition
Th� �actor of safety (S,) is defined
as the ratio between
resisting forces (or moments) and acti
vating/disturbing forces
(or moments). This ratio should nat
urally be greater than 1,0
54
 to maintain stability. All forces or mo
ments acting on the
system must be taken into account.

b) Resisting and activating forces

Activating/disturbing forces include the weig
ht of the
�upported material, water pressure, surcharge loading,
induced loading, seismic forces, etc. These forces generally
have a component acting towards the excavation.
· Resisting force s include any guara nteed passive
resistance, resistance of the retaining structure, strut loads
and shear resistance within the supported material.
The resistance used in the calculation of the factor of safety
is taken as the ultimate resistance which is mobilised by the
failure mechanism under consideration.
Where anchors form part of the system, the design working
load of the anchor (and not the ultimate strength of the
anchor) is taken into account. The reason is that in many
· situations, little additional anchor load is mobilised without
large deformations. The anchor force is usually regarded as
a negative activating force whereas any additional shear
resistance mobilised on the potential failure plane as a result
of the anchor force is regarded as a resisting force.
The sh.ear resistance within the supported material should
be based on laboratory proven properties in accordance with
Section 4.2. In the absence of such test results, conservative
assumptions should be made (e.g. c' = o for drained
con.ditions or rf> = 0 for undrained conditions). Assumed
properties should be used only in the �ase of minor works
where the consequences of failure are small.
It is not always possible to distinguish clearly between
activating and resisting ·forces. This results in ambiguities
in the definition of the factor of safety. For example, the
weight of the retained material may act as an activating force
over much of a failure surface but could constitute a resisting
force near the toe of the slope where the inclination of the
· failure surface is reduced. The most common approach to
this problem is to regard the net effect· of such loading as
either an act�ating or resisting force.

c) Design of support systems

Retaining structures should be designed to resist the forces
acting on the structure. The safety of the structure and the
prevention of failure within the supported material are
generally accommodated by the factors of safety provided
55
 for in the design codes applicable to the structural desig
Where anchors are employed, a suitable _ factor of safe;
o
against failure within the supp rt �e mater ial must be ensured
by providing an adequate working load capacity of th
anchors. The anchors themselves should be designed usine
a factor of safety sufficient to ensure that the working loa�
requirements can be met.
In the case of either over�I_I stability or sliding failure, th
internal strength of any retammg structure contain ed entireley
within the failing mass is not taken into account.

d) Appropriate values
In deciding on an appropriate factor of safety, the foll owing
considerations should be taken into account:
- the method by which the factor of safety is incorporated
into the design calculation,
- the degree of confidence in the input parameters,
- the permanence of the structure,
- the consequences of failure.
No single design method is recommended in this Code as
it is always advisable that the result of any method employed
be checked against that of other methods.
It may be necessary to provide more lateral support than is
required to ensure an adequate factor of safety in order to meet
serviceability requirements such as the control of ground
movements.
Guidance is given in Sections 5.3.2 and 5.5.7 as to the
minimum factors of safety recommended for various design
situations. These guidelines make no allowance for exceptional
conditions resulting from excessive shocks, explosions,
seismicity, etc. which the designer should take into acc ount in
his design.
It may be necessary to reassess the factor of safety during
the construction period as further information on site conditions
becomes available.
5.2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
5.2.1 General
Conventional design methods are usually based on the
evaluation of forces exerted by the supported material on the
structure. Generally, earth pressure theories and/or slop
e

stability analyses are applied .

56
 In cases where heterogeneous and difficult subsoil conditions
are envisaged, a semi-empirical design approach is
recommended.
Detailed design ot supporting structures should be related to
the extent of control measures to be adopted. (See Chapter 8.)
The design is confirmed by control measurements and thus
should include provision for changes during construction of the
support system.
The design of cantilevered or strutted/anchored walls
proceeds along the following fundamental steps:

(a) Evaluation of lateral pressures exerted on the wall by

retained material, groundwater, traffic loads, etc.
Allowance for exceptional loading conditions should be
made by the designer if appropriate. Specific care should
be taken in the choice of earth pressure distributions. It
should be kept in mind that classical pressure distribution
can only be expected under certain circumstances. (See
Sections 4.6, 4.7 and 5.2.3.)
Recommendations with regard to redistributed stress
assumptions behind supported walls may be obtained from
Hanna (1982) or Weissenbach (1982).

(b) Check of the equilibrium of horizontal forces, e.g. those

acting over the length of embedment of soldier piles. The
base of the wall arid excavation should be stable at all times.

(c) Check of the equilibrium of the vertical forces induced into

the wall structure by the soil, structural members (anchors,
rakers) and surface loading at the top edge of the wall. Note
that this is an important consideration and the assumptions
made with regard to wall friction must be substantiated.

(d) Check of moment equilibrium of the complete structure.

(e) Computation of shear and bending moments due to the

applied pressures for all construction stages, particularly
where no or only partial support may exist. It should be noted
that critical stages may occur during demolition of the wall.
(f) Design of the structural members and elements based on
the relevant forces and moments.

(g) Design of the anchor if used. The recommendations given

in Section 5.5.2 should be taken into account to obviate any
57
 tw
· interaction between fixed anchors in a group and be een
fixed anchors and existing structures.
liding block failure.
(h) Evaluation of stability against wedge or s
(See· Section 5.3.)

(i) Assessment of overall stability. (See Section 5.3.)

5.2.2 Cantilever wall systems

Cantilever walls generally take the form of soldier piles, sheet
piles, diaphragm Vt'alls or similar which rely on the resistance
generated by embedment to provide the required support.
Stresses should be checked for various stages of construction.
The wall members should be placed before excavation
commences and should remain in contact with the soil at all
times. Any excavation either behind or in _front of the piles should
be taken into account in the design.
Various types of piles may be used as soldiers. Prefabricated
soldiers may be installed in augered holes, which must be
prevented from . sloughing or caving in·. Immediately after
installation of the soldier, the hole should be backfilled with a
suitable concrete. If vertical forces need to be transferred into
the ground at the tip of the soldier pile, the base support should
be improved by means of a base plate and/or concrete
embedment. Soldiers may also be· · driven or vibrated into
position. · ·
For the design of so!�iers, refer to Section 5.5.4. In sizing the
section based on the· maximum . ·IT! oment generated, it is
. important to note thaf wall members should .not only possess
sufficient strength but that their deflections should also be
acceptable.
The design of cantilever walls is usually done using the fixed
earth approach. (Refer to Winter_korn and Fang (1975) or Lambe
and Whitman (1969).)"
As a general guid�, the '!)inimum length of embedment of any
cantilever pile below the floor of the excavation should be two­
thirds of the length �f th� cantilever portion of the pile where
. the embedment is in soil of the same quality as the soil abov�.
Note that the excavation of trenches or battering of groun� m
ffo�t of the toe of the �all can significantly reduce the passive
resistance. (See_ Section 4.6.3 _(d).)
• 5.2.3 Anchored wall systems
The mechanism by which an anchor supported system resists
58
 �oil forces is complex since the soil, the wall and the free and
fixed anchor lengthf. all interact to resist earth pressures which
are developed duri 19 and after construction.
The �eformation 'Jf the wall depends largely on the elastic
elongation of the free length and the wall stiffness. The strains
required to mobilize the shear strength along the fixed anchor
length are small.
Prestress loads in the anchors minimize the deformation at
the levels of the anchors or supports, while the unsupported
lengths of the wall deflect according to the wall stiffness.
The restricted wall movement is often insufficient to mobilise
the full shear strength of the material. The earth pressure acting
on the wall will exceed the active pressure in such cases. This
resulting force can be as high as at-rest thrust in the case of
multiple level supported walls if the supports are prestressed
with 100% of the working load.
Earth pressure distributions behind prestressed walls deviate
significantly from the classica_l _distributions (shown in_ Figure 4.2)
and are particularly influEmced by the wall system, the number,
type and arrangement of supports, their prestress loads, the soil
type and the excavation process.
In general, an increase in earth pressur� occurs af the
supports and a r�duction occurs between supports. This may
result in a relocation of the resultant thrust towards (and in
extreme situations, above) the mid-�eight of the wall.
Unless accurate pressure distributions are known, simple
geometrically shaped distributions (rectangle, trapezoid and
tr'iangle), identical in magnitude tq the calculated theoretical
distributions should be adopted for the de�ign of the support
system.
For single and double level supported walls, the most
commonly applied pressure di�tributions are shown in Figure
5.1. (In the case of a soldier pile wall H' = H because an active
earth pressure is only exerted on the support structure above
the level of the bottom of the excavation.)
It should be noted that these shapes only hold where the
ground surface is horizontal, the stiffness of the wall and the
soil allows redistribution of earth pressure, the supports are
prestressed and the excavation depth prior to installation of the
support systems is in accordance with good practice.
The location of the support and the degree of restraint applied
to the wall at the supports play a decisive role in choosing the
appropriate shape of pressure distribution for �esign.
A further generalisation which has become widely accepted
is the assumption of a rectangular shaped earth pressure
59
 redistribution behind any type of supported structure with follow
up correction to anchor loads and maximum bending moments
Further guidance is provided by Weissenbach (1982).

Example of a Rectangular Trapezoidal Triangular

theoretical earth Approximation Approximation Approximation
pressure distribution

FIGURE 5.1 SIMPLIFIED EARTH PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONS

(For single and double level supported wall)

Rowe's reduction method (1952) for single anchored sheet

pile wal ls does not require the consideration of redistributions
since the relative stiffness of the soil and the wall members are
taken· into account explicitly.
For three or more level anchored support systems, the
application of Terzaghi and Peck's (1967) pressure diagrams
are recommended. (See Section 4.8.) It should be noted that
here the wall is no longer considered as a continuous beam but
as a hinged support beam.
The effect of load redistribution with respect to the wall
deflection may be estimated by using a beam on an elastic
subgrade approach in which the elastic subgrade is assumed
to generate a reactive pressure proportional to the deflection.
When the upper rows of anchors are being stressed, care
should be ex·ercised not to induce passive failure near the top
of the wall.
t
The overall stability of an anchor supported structure muS
be checked in accordance with Section 5.3.

5.2.4 Soil nailing

Soil nailing is a practical and proven technique in excavatio�
construction (Bruce and Jewell (1986, 1987); Schwartz an
Friedlaender (1989)).
60
 The support is provided by creating a monolithic 'nailed- soil'
unit of increased shear and tensile strength by reinforcing the
in situ ground with relatively small, fully bonded high yield steel
bars (nails). The excavation face is covered with mesh reinforced
shotcrete of thickness in the range of 70mm to 250mm. No
penetration of the face into the base of . the excavation is
required.
The technique is applicable in rock, cohesionless and
cohesive soils with the exception of soft clays. Excavation,
shotcreting and nailing operations are carried out in stages. The
excavation depth per stage is generally 1,0m to 1,Sm and
depends on the properties of the soil. In general, a nominal
tension is applied to the nails by torquing up the nuts against
the face plates.
Figure 5.2 gives guidelines with respect to the arrangement
of the components of typical soil nails used in present day
practice.
Shotcrete -----,
Nail Reinjection tube

Nut----...._

Face plate

Cement grout Spacer

Reinforcement mesh

(a) TEMPORARY APPLICATION

Shotcrete --� Reinjection tube

PVC-sheath

Nut---...._

Face plate

Reinforcement mesh

(b) PERMANENT APPLICATION

FIGURE 5.2 TYPICAL SOIL NAILS

61
 A distinction is made between nails for temporary and
permanent applications. (Compare Figure 5.2(a) and (b).) Fo
permanent works, increased corrosion protection is requiredr
(See also Section 6.6.)
The nails may be installed horizontally or subhorizontally and
an inclination of 1O to 15 degrees is common. The maximum
spacing of the nails should be limited to 1,5m, both in horizontal
and vertical direction. The length of the nails should be in
accordance with the recommended design procedures, and
generally, depending on the type of soil, a length of about o 5
to 0,7H, where H is the wall height, is normal. Wall syste�s
containing nails of equal length and inclination are advantageous
with respect to installation and design.
As in the design of gravity and composite walls, the overall,
external and internal stability must be checked.
Considering the nailed soil mass as a monolithic unit, the
structure must be able to resist sliding and tilting; no bearing
failure should occur and the overall stability must be ensured.
Based on current knowledge, a conventional stability analysis
considering sliding wedges for each of the various construction
stages as well as the final stage is recommended. The factor
of safety is calculated by comparing the required with the actual
nail forces in the soil. (See Figure 5.3.)
A more recent design approach takes the kinematics of the
sliding wedges into account (Gassler and Gudehus, 1981).
However, the practicality of this approach as a routine design
method has yet to be demonstrated.
Prior to the design of a soil nailed structure, proving tests to
destruction should be performed on an appropriate number of
nails of suitable length in order to obtain the parameters on
which the final design may be based. (In Europe, the practice
is to test 3 to 5 percent of the number of nails envisaged in th e
preliminary design.)
The internal stability of the structure depends largely on the
tensile strength of the nail and the thickness of the shotcrete
at the face of the excavation and is an important part of t� e
design. A reduced active earth pressure is commonly used m
the design of the cladding. Accordingly, the possibility_ of :e
nail heads punching through the cladding has to be consider ·
A build up of water pressure behind the cladding should b e
prevented by means of an effective draina ge system_.
5oil
It should be emphasiz ed that the design of �ail�.d or
structures is difficult especially if seepage, discon�mu1t 'i9�ion
weathered zones exist in the soil mass. Careful 1nst8 , a
62
 Q

0 _is the surcharge on wedge,

W �s the weig�t of the sliding wedge,
R !s the reaction force in the failure plane
8 ,s the angle of inclination of the failure ,
· ·
�an�
,:,' is the angle of shearing resistance of soil.

(a) SINGLE WEDGE ANALYSIS

(b) MULTIPLE WEDGE ANALYSIS

F
actor of safety sf = ,=-
FNact

Nreq
�2. 0

(� 1,5 during construction)

T n·
with 1
sum of actual nail forces FNacl = � s
L_ 1
h I= 1
per metre nail length,
where Tm Is the mean nail force
sh Is the horizontal spacing,
1 failure plane,
; is the length of nails beyond the
and sum of required nail forces FNreq .

IL smuCTURE (c = 0)
FIGURE 5.3 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF NAILED SO
63
 carried out by a contractor experienced in soil nai
ling 1s a
fundamental requirement.

5.2.5 Strutted wall systems

A strut supported structure can generally be consid
having smaller deformations at the support points :ed as
anchor supported system, since there is no direct in an _an
teractio
between soil and strut. n
For single level strutted systems, the strut loads m be
a
evaluated using the Coulomb wedge theory (1 na). InY ·
calculation, the stability �long the critical plane of failure s th
h
have an adequate margin of safety. The maximum value ofou!�
th
req�ire_d st_abilising fore� should be found by varying the ang
l:
of inchnat1�n of the trial plane. of failu�� and calculating
corresponding values of the required stabilising force.
As with anchored structures, props, shores or struts may be
prestressed members or may be preloaded by jacking.
Preloaded struts provide an increased active earth pressure
behind the wall, which can be as high as the at-rest value where
50 percent or more of the working strut load is applied. The
recommended pressure diagrams in Section 5.2.3 (Figure 5.1)
showing redistributions of the earth pressure are equally
applicable to strutted walls.
In the case of multiple level strut supported wall systems, it
is recommended that the strut/shore forces be calculated on
the basis of Terzaghi and Peck's (1967) lateral pressure
diagrams. (See Figure 4.5.) The support forces should be
determined in accordance with the conditions app ropriate to
each particular situation.
The total strut/shore forces should not be less than th�se
n
determined using the Equivalent Fluid Method. (See Sectio
4.6.2.)
u ua Uy
Th e overall stability of strut supported structures s
.
requires to be checked only in difficult situations, e.g
wall
- (a) heavy surface loads adjacent to the top of th e
s near
.
(b) irregular slopes which induce high lateral p ressure
.
the top of the wall
pport forces
. th e su
(c) struts/shores which act as rakers .mducmg
onto the base of the excavation.
. of the exposed face rnaY occ
ur

Wherever spalling or deformation

64

1
 regular checks should be made and the required add
itional
supp�rt measures provided. This is most important for the
material above the uppermost level of struts.

5.2.6 Underpinning
Underpinning may be required in the following situations
associated with open excavations:

(a) The reduction or removal of lateral support to the material

under existing foundations.
(b) A change in the water table having such effects on the
strength or the compressibility of soil under existing
foundations that may lead to unacceptable settlements.
(c) The possibility · of settlements of structures due to
unde_rground excavations or vibration caused by blasting,
pile driving, etc.
The procedures currently available for underpinning are many
and varied. A suitable procedure or combination of procedures
can only be decided on in relation to the conditions applicable
to any particular situation. For thi_s reason, techniques are not
presented in any detail but a few guidelines follow.
All foundations to underpinning works should be so designed
that settlements of the structure, including unavoidable
· settlements associated with the execution oft he underpinning
works, are kept within acceptable limits.
All work to be underpinned should be structurally sound and
if not, measures must be taken to render it sound. Loose
masonry may be bonded by shotcrete and suitably placed
reinforcement. Structural steel members can be bedded against
the · sides or under foundations, for the transfer of load to
temporary shores.
Due caution should be observed in the removal of lateral
support to material under foundations and in the removal of
founding material. At any stage, only part of the material
supporting any particular foundation may be removed.
Underpins and struts should be constructed or inserted, suitably
stabilised and wedged and/or grouted as expeditiously as
possible. The whole operation should be so planned and
executed that the time during which any foundation is
unsupported is minimised.
The location of shores should take account of new works
which may have to be completed before removal of the shores.
65
 Removal of shores may be effected through suitably placed
holes in the new works. Where suit�ble, parts of the new work
may be incorporated into the �ho�mg system.
Where a berm is left to mamtam lateral support, it should
generally not be less than 1 ,5m wide at t�e crest: Narrow vertical
slots may be cut into the berm for the installation of a shorin
't" g
system where required or for access t.o. pos1 ions of underpinning
works. Shoring units should be sufficiently close to enable the
material between them to be re!'"oved for the construction of
the underpinning works. The sides of slots may have to be
braced. The width of slots should normally not exceed 1 ,2m.
Holes may be sunk or bored alongside the existing structure.
Excavation for the underpinning works may then be carried out
by cutting vertical slots into the face of these holes below the
structure to be underpinned. This procedure may be repeated
as often as necessary and may be u sed to effect continuous
and interconnected underpinning where required.
It is preferable to separate underpinning works on an adjoining
.site from the new structure. Where this is not done, the design
should generally allow for complete removal of the underpinning
works without adverse effect on the new work. This may be
required in the event of a later excavation on the adjoining site.
. Every reasonable procedure should be ·applied to restore
lateral support lost as a result of excavation carried out for the
execution of underpinning works. Materials used for backfilling
,,behind underpinning �orks should be sensibly incompressible
or be properly compacted. Such backfilling will generally be
needed whenever precast or fabricated units are used as
components of the underpinning system ..
The un derpinning should be designed to cater for the
associated lateral pressures in addition to.the vertical loading
from the existing structure. Regardless ·of the ·resistance to
lateral pressure provided by underpinning works, the new
structure should be designed to at least cater for lateral pressure
due to retained material up to ground level together with a
surcharge of 1 O kPa.
Specialised techniques may prove of value in appropriate
circumstanc es. Examples are:

Brackets fr�m the heads of pil'es;

Jacked piles;
Ground freezing;
Chemical stabilisation;
Pre��ure grouting..
66
 Uoderpin�ing at intervals may.be
acceptable provided the
structure being underpinned is able to spa
n between supported
points.

5.3 OVERALL STABILITY

5.3.1 Methods of analysis
Assessment of overall stab1l1ty should consider the inter
action
between the ground, structure and struts/anchors as a complete
system.
Two distinct modes of failure should be considered.

{a) Circular slip failure

The system containing the wall, supports and soil bounded
by a continuous curved failure surface rotates and slides
into the excavation. {See Figure 5.4.)" An analysis of a curved
failure surface is strongly recommended for high walls
supported by more than one level of struts or anchors and
in soils of low shear strength or where high surface loads
are located adjacent to the excavation.
Bishop's (1954) simplified method of slices is commonly
used for such an analysis. ·Alternatively, the method as
modified by Janbu (1954) may be used for circular and non­
circular failure surfaces.
The basis of these methods is that the ratio of the resisting
forces which can be developed to the activating forces is
calculated thereby providing the factor of safety for the
surface analysed. Several slip surfaces should always be
investigated so as to determine the least value of the factor
of safety.
The strength parameters used in the analysis should
accord with the recommendations of Section 4.2.1.
The following additional factors should be taken into
account in the calculations:

i) For permanent stability, the predicted final position of

the water table should be used as well as other possible
positions of temporary water table that ·may produce
critical failure conditions.

ii) Allowance should be made for tension cracks at the top

end of the failure surface. (See Section 4.6.1 (c).)

iii) Where live loads or additi�nal loads ca� �e appli�d to

the surface of the soil behind the wall, within the failure
67
 surface, the disturbing m�ments produ�ed by these
loads should be included m the calculations.

(�) ANCHORED SUPPORT SYSTEM

NOTE: Failure surfaces may be circuar,

log spiral or irregular.

(b) STRUTTED SUPPORT SYSTEM

FIGURE 5.4 EXAMPLES OF OVERALL STABILITY CONSIDERATIONS

(b) Wedge failure

This failure mechanism applies only to excavated faces
supported by anchorages, where either a planar we dg e or
a block of soil is being considered. A planar or sing le wed��
failure surface may be assumed for a single anchored wa
T he design method is based on the sliding wedge theoh��
Particular attention should be given to the role of the anc of
force (see Figure 5.5) in the determination of the factor
safety.
68
 p

I I I J I I I Where:

Known
P is the surcharge;
W is the weight of sliding wedge = !, 1H 2 cotB;
T 1 is the density of wedge;
H is the depth of excavation;
A� S is the shear resistance of retained material
along plane of rupture (S = (c'H /sinB) + N tan a)');
A is the angle of inclination of anchor;
H 0· is the angle of shearing resistance of ground; ·
. c' is the cohesion of retained material.

Unknown
B is the angle of inclination of potential plane
Potential plane of rupture (B should be varied and plotted
against values of T);
of rupture
T is ttie anchor force.

T=
(P + 1 H/2) H cosB (Sf - cotB tan af) - c' H /sin� � ·.
sin (A+ B) tan(l)' + Sf cos (A+ B) ·, ·.: '. ·
' .
'
. \.... ' � :
. J

c'H/sinB + [(P + 1H/2) H cosB cotB +·r sin (A+ B)) tan 0·
I '

=
sf
(P + 1H/2) H cosB -T_cos (A+ 8)···
where

S is the factor of safety required;

N is the normal force on wedge ( N = (P + ,yH/2) H cosB cot8 + T sin (A + 8))
T should not exceed the working stress of the tendon.
FIGURE 5.5 FORCES ACTING IN WEDGE MECHANISM OF FAILURE [after BS 8081 (1989))
 An empirical met hod may be used t? determine the
approximate location of a deadma n or the fixed anchor zon8
of a grouted anchor (See Figure 5.6.)
The posi tion of shallow a�c hor�ges (wall, plate,_ deadman)
is determined �y the pass!ve failure wedg_e, which should
not interfere with the active wedge behind the support
system.
Except for shallow excavations of minor importance or
where rock anchors as opposed to soil anchors are used
the fixed anchor zone should generally be embedded mor�
· than 4m below the ground surface, located close to a
fictitious slope at the angle of repose in which full resi stance
can be developed, with a free anchor length of at least sm.
(See Figure 5.6.)
Coulomb failure planes

:�r:::.� .::::.-:>_.._..... .-.-:.-:.:.:..-.:.:.:.:.-:.-:.:.-. .......... :.;.;.;.;.;.:.:.. ..;;

Zone for shallow
Active Passive deadmen or plates

· =·
0 • - 25 • I . ·-=·= =·:=::: : ..:. •.
'Q· 4m

✓•
·

·f......:.........·....:"......... ..........................;)?• ·. ::.-• ::::• :<:. ::::;::/:\�

�.·. ·.·.·.
.
°-¼i-)l"'1v;;;-;....._ �·
.. ... . •·...
............. ·•.· ·· ............................._. ............��:°::::t°:"..,,.. ::. . .. -�
.,,� I
,:::: =
l0 :-/ ·
---r:... :,:...
7 s,,, Or�...¼
1101" �eec1� ../.. �
N 0.
resistance
-
�Cl}. ::.-:::
--::::::::� �·Zoneforfrxed '

,.-�·..·.. ......... . � � a.nchor length

_-1-I-(I �r
7 ... --.....-.. ... �-

/ f �
/J"I .
I . Full resistance •.•

FIGURE 5.6 REC

OMMENDE D . LOCA
TION OF ANCHORAGE IN SOFT GRO
· UND
A block failure is
creatin a t . caused by the movement of an anchor
plane Which extends to the base of the wall.
Over�II s�:��� nd
a anchor l ength are calculated on the
basis of the slid"i tyg
(1977) mod'f• n block method (Kranz 1953) Ostermayer
1 •ed the n
safe ty factors a alysi5 bY intr · (maten·al)
· oduci' g partial
n
(F re 5 7 _
effectivenes s :�� t on the
70 of 15 de5._ ).n bu information is lacking
,g methOd. Multiple level anchored
 ·P
·----- p
Rankine active zone ---1-,-.
w R

p
p

Equally spaced

W is t�e weight of the sliding block,

P is the active thrust on the block,
Assumed pin point Pp is the passive thrust on the wall,
(point of zero shear) R is the reaction force in the failure
plane,
tan0' 0 is the angle of wall friction,
Factor of Safety (S ) is given by : Sf = > 1,2
tan 0, <1l is the shearing resistance of the soil.
1 n
Where 0' n is the nominal or mobilised angle of shearing resistance of t.he soil.

j FIGURE 5. 7 SLIDING BLOCK METHOD OF ANALYSIS. [OSTERMAYER (1977)] (after BS 8081 (1989)]
 or l, pp y g the
walls should be checked for each an�h leve a l in be
t he design procedure may
same procedure. Detailsdof ster
ob tained from Ranke an O mayer (1968) and Bureau
Securit as (1977).
Particul ar considerations �p�ly to �ed ge failures in rock,
th y ge. he
especially if a discont inuity 1s filled wi claye gou T f
strength of the rock mass is controlled by the strength o
the filling material. See Hoek and Bra� �1977), Hobst (1965)
and Hobst and Zajic (1982) for stabil ity analyses of rock
wedges.

5.3.2 Factor of safety

With regard to overall stability, drcular slip failure or wedge
(composite) type of failure, the lowest factor of safety should
be found. It is generally accepted that the factor of safety should
not be less than 1 ,5-for permanent work and not less than 1,25
for temporary work. As in all designs, the choice is based on
how accurately the relevant characteristics are known, whether
the system is temporary or permanent and t�e consequences
of failure.
In all cases, care should be taken to determine the factor of
safety for the most severe pore pressure condition expected,
having due regard to the speed of excavation and the rate of
pore pressure dissipation.
5.4 STABILITY OF EXCAVATED FLOOR
In soft clayey soils, the stability of the fl oor of the excavation should
be investigated. In situations where the supporting system has no, or
little, penetrat ion into the fl�or, a bearing capacity failure can arise,
the �etained soil act_ing as a terrace loading. This check is particularly
ap�hc�ble to the stability at the end of construction. The stability factor
N 1s grven by

N = ,.. .H
Cu
w here 'Y.H is the terr ace load and c
strength of the soil be Io ' u the quick undrained shear
w the excavation floor as measured under the
tota I overburden press
ure of:
Po = 1,25 'Y.H
If N < 3 0 no Si
'f•cant deformations are expecte
If N > 6 ,'0' 1 arge gnr
mo vements will occur and d. re
exists. ' the probab ility of failu
72
 A wide and long exc�vatio
n is more susceptible
than a narr�w and relatively short one. to a floor failure
For excavations which ha
a bottom width between faces greater th ve
an H/2 and length of fac
greater than H , N should not exceed 5,0 e
. The value of N ma be
increased to 6,0 in special cases i.e., wher Y
e:
a) exce ptional care is exercised in the explor
ation and in the testing;
b) rebound of the excavation floor and d eforma
tions of the supporting
system components are carefully me
asured , provid ed the
requirements of Section 8.3.3 are fully com
plied with,
c) provision is made for suitable augmentation
of th e supporting
system where the field observations ind icate this
requirement.
The strengthening of the supporting system in this case
should
include heavy strutting and/or the use of anchors near the
bottom of
the face so as to arrest lateral movement of the supported material
towards the excavation. Replacem ent of material to form a berm
against the supporting structure may also be required . ·
For excavations having a bottom wid th between faces of less than
H/2 and/or length of face less than H , th e above requirements may
b e relaxed slightly but due·caution must still be observed.
In cohesionless soils, especially in fine grained materials subject
to a high water head, instability of the floor of the excavation ta��s
the form of piping or heave associated with ground water flow. �tab1hty
against piping should therefore be consid ered . (See also Section 7.3.)

5.5 DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

5.5.1 General
Structural members and elements should be d�signed _ for all
possible load combinations. The effects of combined axial ��d
flexural loading, unsupported span lengths and l�teral stability
of the members must be considered in the d esign.
Drawings should show appr�pna . t ans for positioning of
vertical
struts/anchors and walers, lacin 0 ts;:ts in both the
stiffeners,
and the horizontal �l� ne, we ; d connection
brackets , and prov1s1ons for :dging and jacking of
. . . vement .
struts/anchors to minimise horizontal mo
Adequate detaili�� of structura I compon ents is vital for the
h ods and sequence of
safety of earth retaini ng structur s. Met
� cture should be fully
installation of all ele ments_ of t 8 stru
be given to procedures
described. Particular attent,o� s h uld
we d gi!'.1 9, or Ja c mg
k? to maintain tight contact
for prestressing,
73
 and to provide for uniformity o
for all bracing members f
n of load s to stru ts/a nch ors and wal er s.
distributio

5.5.2 Anchors
In the design of anchors, the.cross-sectional area of the tendo
and the fixed anchor length for _tt1e applied load have to b�
provided with an adequate margin �f safety. The total anchor
length should be in accordance_ with the block and overall
stab ility requirements. (See Section 5.3.)
Details on anchor construction, installation and testing are
provided in Chapter 6.
The positioning of the anchor heads at the. face of a wall is
often a function of constraints, imposed by the geometry of the
permanent structure.
Where the angle of inclination to the horizontal of an anchor
exceeds 20 degrees it will normally be necessary to consider
the need for vertical support at the excavation face; where this
angle of inclination exceeds 30 degrees, it will seldom be
feasible to dispense with such.vertical support. (Compare step
(c) in Section 5.2.1.) .
In the upper level of excavations; the maximum force in any
support or group of supports should not exc�ed the safe passive
resistance of the retained material. Account should be taken
of the t�mporary increase of force used for testing of anchors
·:.
(Section 6.7).
Load capacity and movement of each anchor within a group
arrangement depend on the location and spacing of the fixed
anchor zones.
Some general design recommendations on anchors are given
below. In rock, these measures may be relaxed depending on
the quality_ of the rock mass.

(a) A minimum free anchor length of Sm is recommended.

(b) Fixed anchor zones should not be located at geological

contacts or discontinuities in the soil and should never be
less than 3m in length.

(c) Fixed anchor zones should be located at a distance of 8t

least 3m from existing foundations or sensitive servic :
:
unless there are good reasons for the contrary. T 1
restriction does not apply to the free length.

(d) Spacing of anchors should g enerally n ot be less than 1, 5m -

74
 (e) Fixed anchor zones sho fd
u Qeneralfy be embedded more
than 4m befow the ground su
rface.
(f) Particufar design arrangement .
,s warranted at re-entrant
corners of deep excavations (F' r
the anchors may be tied togeth,geu �i S.8). fn difficuft cases,
r nto a vertical shaft.

,,,------------:-1
·
.
-- Extent of zone of influence
_

Tie

.
(a) CORNER USING CROSS-OVER ANCHORS
.
Alternate fixed anchors in
differing horizontal zones
if spacing restricted

-- Extent of zone of influence

(b) CORNER WITHOUT CROSS-OVER ANCHORS

FIGURE 5.8 ANCHORS AT RE-ENTRANT CORNERS [after BS 8081 (1989)]

5.5.3 Struts and rakers

, are
Horizontal struts, generally I or H structural steel sections
sinc e
the most vulnerable elements of a supporting structure
l loads
they are often unintentionally subjected to exceptiona
such as temperature effects, impact readings, tempora
ry crane
ed in their
for
loads, etc. Generally, these are not always account
design.
75
 Strut design should include the consideration of axial load
and bending moments due to self-weight and traffic load (1 kN/�
as a minimum) assuming a hinge at each end.
For long struts an allowance for large temperature-induced
stresses may be necessary. It should be noted that an
y
deflection of the wall may considerably increase axial and
bending stress in the strut.
Vertical supports at the excavation face will be needed if the
struts/shores are inclined at an angle of more than 20 degrees
to the horizontal.
For large excavations, provision should be made to reduce
the buckling lengths of the struts. Strut connections may be
secured by structural means to prevent movements or rotations
in any direction.
It may not be practical to permit horizontal struts to extend
completely across the excavation. In such cases, it is
recommended that rakers be used to support walers against
footings or an earth berm.
Rakers and their connections should be designed in the same
way as struts. Raker footings should be sized in accordance
with the design principles for shallow foundations subjected to
inclined loading. The vertical force component introduced into
the wall structure by the raker must also be considered in the
· design.
Raker footings adjacent to soldier pile waifs should be located
at a distance of not less than 1,5 t from the piles, where t is the
depth of penetration of the piles below the base of the
excavation.
No excavation should be made within two footing widths or
twice the depth of founding of the raker footings, which ever
is the greater.
Foundation material should be protected from deterioration.

5.5.4 Soldiers
In the design of soldier piles, the maximum axial and bending
stresses should be considered. Generally, self-weight of the
member and the timber lagging may be ignored, but the axial
force induced by the earth pressure on the wall should be
included.
A n important design aspect is a check of shear stresses at
the location of the supports. In particular situations,considerable
shear forces are induced which require specific design
considerations.
Any reduction of the cross-sectional area of the pile such as
76
 holes for anchors, fixing bolts or even corrosion in the case of
regained soldiers has to be taken into account.
A�count should be taken of stresses induced during handling,
particularly where long pile members are concerned.
Where site welding is used, the designer's expectations of
the quality of such welding must be reasonable and compatible
with the conditions under which such welding will be executed.
Structural continuity of the piles cannot normally be achieved
with site welding as opposed to shop welding.
Piles consisting of two structural steel sections such as
channels with their webs back to back must be connected at
both flanges with a sufficient number of tie plates spaced not
more than 1,5m apart.
Stresses and moments are usually calculated on the basis
of the theory of elasticity. In certain instances, soldiers need only
act as bearing members transferring the anchor load to the
supported face.
Care should be taken not to exceed the bearing capacity of
the supported soil.
Plastic design methods may -be used, provided the
assumptions made in the analysis of stability are fulfilled.
In the assessment of bending moments to be resisted by
soldier and sheet pile walls , considerable saving can be
achieved by taking account of the relative stiffness of the soil
and the wall members and its effect on the stress distribution
in the retained material behind the wall. Rowe's reduction
method (1952) which takes account of the flex!bility of the wall
for single anchored walls may be applied.

5.5.5 Walers
The waler; typically a channel section or double I section, should
be considered as a continuous beam subjected to point loads
in the case of a soldier pile system and to a uniformly distributed
load in the case of a sheet type wall structure. Walers may be
subjected to axial loading which should be included in the
design.
It is recommended that the waler length be selected such that
the mid-span moment is equal to the moment at the supports.

5.5.6 Lagging
Lagging is installed by hand after a depth of up to 1,25m has
been excavated. The boards are placed horizontally (see Figure
5.9) and normally wedged tightly behind the face flange of each
soldier pile against the soil. The depth of excavation before a
77
 section of lagging is installed depends on the soil characteristics.
In cohesionless soils it should not be more than 1,0m and in
loose materials and fill, it may have to be limited to the. width
of a plank. Under certain conditions, other techniques can be
applied (vertical lagging, shotcrete, etc.). When the excavation
exceeds 3m in depth, the top metre should always be lagged.
The voids behind the lagging should be backfilled with granular
material to assist free drainage of the soil; a suitable packing
should be placed behind the lowest plank to avoid a loss of
ground into the lower excavation. In some extreme cases, grout,
mortar or concrete packing may be necessary.

(a) FOR KING-POST INSTALLED AGAINST EXCAVATED FACE

�oil

� �.�itf ' ?'�(

. 1�edge�
s0� ��:Lagging board

(b) FOR DRIVEN SOLDIERS OR SOLDIERS CAST INTO AUGER HOLES

FIGURE 5.9 RECOMMENDED LOCATION OF LAGGING BOARDS FOR KING-POST/

SOLDIER PILE WALLS

In common practice, the thickness of timber lagging of 50 to

70mm is satisfactory for excavation depths of up to Sm, provided
the soil conditions are favourable, there are no surface loads
and the span is no greater than 2,5m. For design of lagging a
rectangularly distributed active earth pressure is generally
accepted. The dimensions, thickness and width of the lagging
then become a function of the length of the board. and the timber
quality. In practice, the following thicknesses (width 225mm) are
common to 8m depth in soils with some cohesion (Table 5.1):
78
TABLE 5.1 THICKNESS OF LAGGING

Spacing of soldier piles Thickness of lagging

less than 2m 37,5 to 50mm
2,0 to 2,5m 50 to 75mm
2,5 to 3,0m 75 to 100mm

5.5.7 Factors of safety

(i) Anchors I

In principle, a structural failure of the steel tendon or anchor

head connection and a failure of the fixed anchor, regardless
of the interface involved, should be considered:
To prevent tensile failure, the test load applied should
never exceed 80 percent of the characteristic strength of ..
the anchor tendon.
The factors of safety with respect to a failure of the fixed ..
anchor should be chosen with regard to how accura!ely the -�·
relevant characteristics are known. The factor of safety
should also take into account the perman_e!lc� of the
structure and the consequences of failure. A period of two
years is considered appropriate in order to define a time
limit for classification of temporary anchorages. (See
Appendix J.)
The safety factor of the anchor is.the ratio of the ultimate
load holding capacity to the working load, while the proof
load factor relates the proof load to the working load.
The ultimate load-holding capacity of the anchor is the
maximum load which can be maintained without excessive
creep movements or failure of the tendon.
The anchor categories listed. in Table 5.2 give guidance
with regard to the minimum safety factor to be usually
employed.
It is not the intention to stipulate safety factors and the
designer should judge on the basis of the data presented
in each case, what safety factor is prudent for the
circumstances.
In the case of permanent anchors installed in ground
liable to creep, it may be necessary to increase the safety
factor of the fixed anchor in order to keep long term
prestress losses within tolerable limits.
A design objective for individual anchors is to ensure
compliance with the field performance criteria
recommended under Anchor Stressing and Testing. (See
Section 6.7.)
79
 TABLE 5.2 MINIMUM SAFETY FACTORS RECOMMENDED FOR DESIGN OF INDIVIDUAL ANCHORS
CX>

Minimum safety factor

Tendon Ground/grout Grout/tendon Proof
Anchor category interface or load
grout/ factor
encapsula..
Uon interface
Temporary anchorage where a service life is less than six
months and failure would have no serious consequences and
would not endanger public safety, e.g. shortterm pile test
loading using anchorages as a reaction system.. . 1,4 2,0 2,0 1,1
Temporary anchorages with a service life up to two years where,
although the consequences of failure are quite serious, there is
no danger to public safety without adequate warning, e.g. *
retaining wall anchor. . 1 1,6 2,5** 2,5* 1,25
Permanent anchorages and temporary anchorages where
corrosion risk is high and/or the consequences of failure are
serious, e.g. main cables of a suspension bridge or as a·
reaction for lifting heavy structural members. 2,0 3,0* 3,0** 1,5

*May need to be raised to 4,0 to limit ground creep.

* *Minimum value of 2,0 may be used if full scale field tests are available.
NOTE 1 : This table above defines minimum safety factors at all the major component interfaces of an anchorage system.
NOTE 2 : Minimum safety factors for the ground/grout Interface generally lie between 3,0 and 4,0. However, it is permissible to vary these, should
full scale field tests (trial anchorage tests} provide sufficient additional information to permit a reduction.
NOTE 3 : The safety factors applied to the ground/grout interface are invariably higher compared with the tendon values, the additional magnitude
representing a margin of uncertainty.

(After BS 8081 (1989))

_ �
 (ii) Struts, rakers, soldiers, walers
Steel �nd timber structural members should be designed
_
to resist the design force at working load level without
exceeding the permissible stresses in the case of a
permanent lateral support system and 1,25 times these
stresses in the case of a temporary system. Reinforced
concrete members should be designed for the ultimate limit
state. Due allowance should be made in the case of
temporary systems by using the appropriate load factors:

(iii) Lagging
In most practical cases, the timber sizes recommended in
Se�tion 5.5.6 should be used for installation.
The effect of arching in terms of a reduced moment acting
along the lagging _may be considered, except where the
material around the soldier is disturbed.
The design stress should not exceed the permissible
stresses of . the appropriate lagg[ng material (timber,
shotcrete, concrete or steel).

5.6 MOVEMENTS
5.6.1 General
The prediction of movement caused by excavation and
dewatering is difficult, but the essential point is that no
excavation, however well supported, can be ·made without
causing some ground movement. An !3Cceptable degree of
movement should therefore be aimed at in all design.· (See
Append��)
Limit values ·of force on support systems (active or· passive
pressures) should only be assumed to apply where sufficient
movements of the material will occur. (See Table 4.2.)
5.6.2 Effect of movement on adjacent structures
The effects of movement on all structures and services in the
vicinity of the excavation should be investigated. In every case,
the deformations which may be produced by the movements
should not exceed those which can be tolerated by that particular
structure or service without adverse effects. The movements
of supported material may therefore require to be limited. Where
the permissible movements are less than would be required to
ensure that fully active pressures only are imposed on the
supporting system, the increased loading associated with such
restricted movements should be provided for.
. 81
 Where granular materials are to be supported, it may generally
be assumed that no movement will take place beyond a distance
equal to twice the excavation depth measured horizontally from
the face of the excavation. However, in the assessment of
horizontal ground strains near excavation faces, a li near
reduction of ground strain from a maximum at the face to zero
. at a distance of twice the excavation depth from the face should
not be assumed. The distance of twice the excavation depth
may be conservative and could lead to underestimates of
horizontal ground strain near excavation faces.
Where clays are supported, movements may well occur at
distances greater than twice the excavation ·depth from the face
of the excavation.
Effects of movements on a building should be considered with
respect to the performance of the com·plete structure, the
structural framework, if any, walls· and other structural elements
and all finishes.
The tolerance of buildings and building elements to
deformations is a highly complex matter; empirical guides may
have to be accepted in practice. ·
In the absence of special investigations, Table 5.3 may be used
to assess the maximum relative vertical movement, which is
permissible in typical building frames or walls, of two· footings
or points on the same footing, a distance L apart.
Additional guidance on the effect of movements on buildings
and structures has been provided by Burland et al (1977),
. Burland et al (1979) and Wahls (1981).
TABLE 5.3 PERMITTED RELATIVE VERTICAL MOVEMENT

Type of structure .. Maximum permitted relative

vertical movement
Open steel framework Wide range depending on type
and usage USOO - U100
Open _reinforced concrete
frameworks:
(a) relatively stiff framework U500
(b) flexible framework U300
Framework with brick infilling or
cladding U1000

Brick-walled building of single U1000 - articulated

storey height U3500 - solid brickwork
82
5.6.3 Effect of movement on buried services
For �nvestigations �f the effects of movements,
_ underground
services may be d1v1d ed into the three categories listed below.
Connections of services to nearby structures must be inclu
ded
in the investigations '(Section 2.4).

(a) Services which are unlikely to suffer damage and which will
not endanger the excavation if damaged, e.g. electric cables,
telephone cables. Normally, no special precautions are
required for these services.

(b) Services which niay ·suffer damage but. will ·not endanger
the excavation if damage�. e.g. · gas· pipes; gas-filled
telepryone cables. Wherever the possibility of damage to
such services exists and more particularly when. there could
be consequential damage to life, limb or property,
precautions should be taken in good time to detect and avoid
such damage. Limitation of movements of supported
material or other precautions such as rerouting in order to
prevent damage to such services · may be warranted on
economic grounds. :· · ·

. (c) Services which may suffer damage arid will endanger the
excavation if damaged, e.g.· water mairis, stormwater drains,
sewers. Such services may permit leakage of water prior
to commencement of excavatio·n and require special
attention. Possible courses of action to minimise the
possibility of leakage in the vicinity of the excavation include
rerouting or replacement by a more flexible conduit.
Examples of relatively flexible conduits include pipes with
rubber ring joints, small diameter steel pipes and PVC pipes.
Determination of the maximum curvature of a pipe as a result
of earth movement should be based on the probable plan
shape of the distorted face of the excavation, combined with
reasonable allowances for associated vertical movement.
For a pipe with rigid joints, the investigation should cover
the possibility of failure of the joints or of the pipe itself. In
brittle materials, e.g. plain concrete, earthenware, asbestos
cement, the maximum permissible tensile st�ess should not
exceed one-third of the tensile strength of the material. In
ductile materials, e.g. steel, reinforced concrete, the stresses
due to distortion combined with stresses due to all other
causes should not exceed the values usually specified for
the material considered.
83
 For a pipe with flexible joints such as rubber ring joints
t angular rotation at any joint produced by earth movement
he
together with the deviation from the straight which m ay have
been allowed at the time of laying of the pipe should not
exceed the angular deviation from the straight recommend8Cf
by the manufacturer. Note that certain rubber ring joints
become hardened with age and may not retain their original
flexibility. For further guidance see Attewell et al (1976).

5.6.4 Limiting deformations

Notwithstanding compliance with all the recommend ati ons of
this chapter, the recommended maximum horizontal movement
at the top of the excavation is 35mm in an urban area and
100mm in a non-urban area.
_ (See Section 8.3.3 �m movement control measure ments and
Appendix F for case histories.)

84
 CHAPTER 6
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
OF -GROUND ANCHORS

6.1 INTRODUCTION
This Chapter gives guidelines on the design and practical applications
of ground anchors for lateral support. The word 'ground anchor' is
a generic term covering all types of ground anchors which are generally
sub-divided into rock anchors, and soft ground (soil) anchors.
Anchors may be used as a method of support for vertical or near
vertical faces of surface excavations and can be used as permanent
or as temporary support. (For definitions of permanent and temporary
anchors and other related terms, see Appendix J.)
Anchors are formed by drilling holes from the excavation, generally
at an angle approaching normal to the face. Suitable tendons are then
installed and a fixed anchorage is formed at the.far (distal) end, beyond
any potential failure surface. The near (proximal) end of the anchor
at the excavated face is provided with a suitable anchor head to enable
the anchor force to be applied to the face of the supported material.
(See Figure 6.1 for basic nomenclature.)

Anchor head
Empty hole

Secondary grout

Distal end

Free anchor length (Lf)

Fixed anchor length (La)

FIGURE 6.1 GROUND ANCHOR NOMENCLATURE

85
 S PARTIES
6_2 DUTIES OF THE VARIOU
systems, it is common practice
In view of the variety of proprietary
anc hor age length of the ground
for the contractor to design the fixed
ection to meet the requirements
anchor, and to propose corrosion prot
specified by the design engineer. . ...
b1ht1es of the contractor in
The contract should define the respons1
, the materials used, the
terms of performance of the anchor parts
testing. Normally the.
transfer of the anchor force into the g round, and
r
work is executed by a specialist geotechnical contracto .
The design engineer determines the perma nence of the anchors,
required anchor forces, minimum free length, anchor inclination and
position, permissible deformations, testing requirements and
performance and monitoring.
· The above roles are not mandatory and can be varied. (For insura nc e
implications, refer to Appendix EB.)

6.3 ANCHOR TYPES

6.3.1 General .
Both tensioned anchors and fully bonded anchors with little or
no applied tension are commonly used. When the suitability
of either type is being determined the stress/deformation
characteristics of the anchor in relation to the strength/
deformation behaviour of the rock or soil mass ·should be
carefully assessed.
In broad terms, anchors with remote anchorages will normally
be ·tensioned and may subsequently be fully bonded for
permanence and to limit rock movement; whilst short anchors
(3-6m) are normally fully bonded and can be either tensioned
or untensioned.
The development of two speed resin systems provides the
facility for locking tension into the free length, as required, and
then fully bonding the anchor in one operation.
Anc�ors are also normally classified as either rock anchors
or soft ground anchors, depending on the material into which
the fixed anchorage is installed.

6.3.2 Untensloned anchors

Untensio�ed anchors in rock normally take the form of gro uted
dowels wit!' faceplates, or rock bolts with only nom al amount
_ a in
of tension introduced either by initial stressing or by deformation
of the ground mass.
8?il nails (see Section 5.2.4) are
untensioned anchors
designed to give stability to an exc
avated face in soils.
86
 Untensioned anchors are.often used
_ either to hold back a
remfo�ced shotcrete membrane which in its
turn retains the
material between the anchors, or to retain isola
ted blocks of
rock on an otherwise basically stable excavation face
.
The �recautions required for tensioned tendons conc
_ ernin
protection against corr?sion, tolerances, cover and routi g
g ng ,
apply equally to untens1oned tendons which are normally fully
grouted. _ ·

. 6.3.3 Tensioned anchors

Tensioned anchors are formed from tendons which usually
_
consist of bar, strand or wire, either sing ly or in g roups. Where
appropriate, the individual tendons may be provided with a
protective covering such as g rease (see Section 6.6.1) and a
plastic sheath. Development work with new materials and
material forms is constantly being done and, subject to
satisfactory acceptance tests, these may be incorporated into
g round anchors. ·.·
· Anchor pull-out-capacity for-a given · g round condition is to
a large extent dictated by the anchor g eometry.
The transfer of ··stresses from· the fixed anchor to the
surrounding g round is g reatly influenced by the construction
technique, including grouting , drilling and flushing methods.
There is a wide variety-of anchorage alternatives for tensioned
anchors, but the majority can b_e simplified and classified into
four main types as illustrated in Fi g ure 6.2. (See also Section
6. 7 for a further categorising of anchors for stressing purposes.)

Type A Straight shafted anchors

Anchors are gravity grouted into straight shafted boreholes
which may be lined or unlined, depending on hole stability.
This type is most commonly employed in ro�k arid very stiff
cohesive deposits. Resistance to withdrawal is g enerally
dependent on the shear stress at the ground/g rout interface,
as the shear streng th of the grout/tendon interface is usually
greater.

Type B Low pressure anchors

Anchors are g routed under low pressure (up to 1000 kPa) into
straight shafted boreholes using a linin� tube or an i� �itu packer
so that the effective diameter of the fixed anchor 1s increased
with minimal disturbance as the grout permeates throug h the
pores or natural fissures in the ground.
87
 This type is most commonly employed in soft fissured rocks
and coarse alluvium, but the method is also often used in fine
grained cohesionless soils. Resistance to withdrawal is
dependent primarily on side shear in practice, but an end
bearing component may be included when the pull-out capacity
is being calculated. .
Type C High pressure anchors
Anchors are gravity grouted into straight shafted boreholes, and
then post-grouted under high pressure (greater than 1000 kPa)
using a lining tube or an in situ packer so that the grout ed fixed
anchor is enlarged (e.g. by hydrofracturing or compaction of
the ground).
Where multi sequence grouting along the fixed anchor or
regrouting is envisaged; a tube-a-manchette system can be
incorporated.
This anchor type is e'!)ployed primarily in cohesionless soils
although some success has also been achieved in cohesive
deposits. Design is based on the assumption of uniform
empirically derived shear along ·the fixed anchor or on the
results of proving test.anchors.

�. .I
STRAIGHT SHAFTED UNDERREAMED
I
Gravity
I
Low pressure
I
High pressure · Gravity
grouted grouted grouted grouted

FIGURE 6.2 FOUR MAIN TYPE

S OF TENSIONED ANCHORS
88
 Type D Underreamed anchors
Anchors are installnd in gravity grouted boreholes in which a
series of enlargem1 ,nts (bells or underreams) have previously
been mechanically �ormed.
This type is most commonly employed in stiff to very stiff
cohesive deposits. Resistance to withdrawal is dependent
primarily on side shear with an end bearing component,
although for simple or widely spaced underreams the ground
- restraint may be mobilised primarily by end bearing. (See
Appendix J for definitions of some anchor terms.)

6.4 FIXED ANCHOR DESIGN

General guidelines only are given here and the user of this Code can
consult a number of references for more detailed guidance: see
Littlejohn (1979), Littlejohn (1977), Littlejohn and Bruce (1975/1976)
and Ostermayer (1977).
6.4. 1 Fixed anchor design in rock'
The assumption of a uniformly distributed stress along the fixed
anchor may require careful consideration in terms of the likely
stress concentrations at the proximal end of the fixed anchor.
In weak, deformable rock, as a result of stress concentrations,
failure may be initiated even though average stress/strength
conditions have been satisfied. Under such conditions, it may
be necessary to base the design dire_ctly on prototype test
results.
The fixed anchor length should not normally be less than 3m
nor more than 1 Om. Under certain conditions, it is recognised
that much shorter lengths than 3m would suffice, even after
the application of a generous factor of s�fety. However, for a
very short fixed anchor, any sudden drop in rock quality along
the fixed anchor length and/or construction errors or
inefficiencies can induce a serious decrease in pull-out capacity.
Unless full scale tests confirm satisfactory performance at
higher loads, fixed anchor lengths shorter than 3m should only
be permitted on low capacity rock bolts.

6.4.2 Fixed anchor design In coheslonless sons

Both low pressure and high pressure anchors are suitable for
use in cohesionless soils.
Low pressure anchors are generally designed on the basis
of pile design concepts, using the strength properties of the soil.
High pressure anchors are designed on the basis of either
empirical data created from past field experience or the results
89
 etical equations based
of proving test anchors rather than th�or
on the strength properties of the soils.
The fixed anchor length should normally not be less than 3rn
nor more than am.

6.4.3 Fixed anchor design In cohesive soils

All four types of tensioned anchors are used in cohesive soils.
Straight shafted anchors are normally used for low stress
application. Design rules developed for auger piles apply and
undrained shear strengths generally govern the design.
Low and high pressure anchors are used extensively in
cohesive soils and the same design criteria apply as indicated
in Section 6.4.2 for cohesionless soils.
The design of multi-underreamed anchors has been
developed from that of multi-underreamed piles, cognizance
being faken of the spacing of the underreams.
In the absence of results from test anchors in the field,
reduction coefficients ranging from 0, 75 to 0,95 are commonly
applied to the side shear and end bearing components, to allow
for disturbance and softening of the soil which may occur during
construction.
Underreaming is ideally suited to clays of Cu greater than 90
·kPa, and some difficulties in the form of local collapse or
breakdown of the neck portion between the underreams should
be expected where c0 values of 60 kPa to 70 kPa are
recorded. Underreaming is virtually impracticable below a Cu
of 50 kPa, ·and it is difficult in soils having a plasticity index lower
than 20.
Of vital im·portance in cohesive deposits is the length of time
during which �rilling, underreaming and grouting are to take
place. This should be kept to a minimum in view of the softening
effect of water on the clay. The consequences of delays of only
a few hours include reduced load holding capacity and
significant short term losses of prestress.
The fixed anchor length should normally not be less than Sm
nor more than 1 Om.

6.4.4 Internal design

The transfer of load from the tendon to the grout must be
considered and can be done in two ways:

(a) Generally, load is transferred in the form of bond along the

anchorage length of the tendon. This induces tension in the
grout and can lead to discing of the grout, occasionally
90
 causing problems with progressive anchorage failure, and
sometimes corrosion in permanent anchors, where these
anchors are no: encapsulated.

{b) The tendon can pass through the grout body in sheathing
and be attached to a plate at the distal end, which bears
on the grout transferring the load to the grout in
compression. This latter system is seldom used.

6.5 ANCHOR ARRANGEMENT

6.5.1 Anchor layout
The arrangement or layout of anchors wili be based on the
geological structure, but a uniform distribution is generally
adopted. Where ·a critical failure plane exists within the slope,
the fixed anchor length should be located beyond this plane.
{See Figure 6.3.) (Furth�r guidance is given in Section 5.5.2.)
Where the free length of an anchor is short, a relatively large
reduction in load arises from a small movement and it is
therefore recommended that the minimum free length specified
be Sm.

�
I
.l �
Horizontal spaci�g �
Fixed anchor length
�

Vertical spacing

FIGURE 6.3 FIXED ANCHOR BEYOND CRITICAL FAILURE PLANE

91
 rock faces
6.5.2 Transfer of anchor force against
When anchors are used on rock faces, it is not usual to utilize
a face support system other than the bearing plate_ itself, owing
to the intrinsic strength of most rocks. Shotcrete, with or without
mesh reinforcement, may be used to control spalling or minor
rockfalls.
It is sometimes necessary to install drainage facilities in
conjunction with the anchors.
In intensely jointed rocks, short anchors or rock bolts may
be used to provide near surface reinforcement of the rock mass
and prevent ravelling. For lengths below 4,5m, rock bolts will
probably be more economical than anchors and can then be
placed at smaller centres. Normally, these bolts or anchors
should be used with a rock retention system such as wire mesh
with or without shotcrete.
Longer tensioned anchors are often used together with short
anchors or rock bolts and faceplates where overall stability (i.e.
deep-seated failure) as well as the rock surface is a problem.

6.5.3 Transfer of anchor force against soft ground faces

The transfer of anchor force against soft ground faces can be
achieved through a diaphragm wall, soldier piles, or soldiers
installed hand-over-hand progressively as the excavation
proceeds, or through wafers, sheet piling, etc. For discontinuous
supports, such as soldiers, care should be exercised to avoid
exceeding the bearing capacity of the soil. In this respect, refer
to Section 5.5.4.

c;.6 CONSTRUCTION
Reference is made throughout this Code to permanent anchors and
temporary anchors both in respect of the testing necessary to enable
the performance of the anchors to be relied upon during their life, and
in respect of corrosion protection to ensure that the anchors do not
fail during their life because of corrosion.
Table 6.1 attempts to classify anchors into categories based on the
ground conditions and the service conditions to enable some idea of
the necessary corrosion protection requirement to be given.
No two sets of anchors are installed under identical conditions or
for exactly the same purpose. Thus, it has been necessary to group
together a wide variety of ground anchors and service conditions to
limit the number of categories in table 6.1. Other factors not mentioned
in this table, such as stray currents, should also receive attention.
In practice, all the relevant conditions should be noted and taken
92
 I CONDITIONS PERTAINING \
I SERVICE UFE CONSEQUENCE OF
FAILURE
CORROSION
ENVIRONMENT
a
MATERIAL AROUND FREE
LENGTH
LATER ACCESS
\
TEMPORARY RATING RATING RATING RATING RATING
Not serious 0 Non-corrosive 0 Rock A Needed/Restressable
m Up to six months 0
anchor X
r-
m
.....
Six months to two Not needed/non-
0) years 1 Serious 1 Corrosive 1 Sand B restressable anchor y
PERMANENT
Over two years. 2 Catastrophic 2 Very corrosive ·2 Clay C
0
::D
::D TOTAL THE SCORES IN THE COLUMNS-AND REFER TO THE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVE TYPE CODE BELOW
0
�
0
z
PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES

-0 FIXED ANCHOR LENGTH FREE LENGTH HEAD AND UPPER PART OF TENDON
::D
Type Code Treatment Type Code · Treatment Type Code Treatment
0-1, ABC,XY Tendon grouted bare o;AXY Bare tendon empty hole 0-1, ABC, XV Bare head
0-6,AY
0
z
2-3, ABC, XY Tendon epoxy coated 1-6, AY " Bare tendon grouted in hole 2,ABC,XY Painted head

-
C) 4-5, ABC, XV Tendon grouted into 0, BC, XV. Sheathed tendon in empty
C: corrugated sheath while 1,A, XY hole 3-4,ABC,X Epoxy coated head
grouting anchor
C
m 1, BC, XV Sheathed tendon in' grouted 2-6,ABC,X Head covered with cap filled
hole '· with grease
5-6, ABC, XV Tendon pregrouted in
corrugated sheath before 2,ABC,XV Greased and sheathed tendon 5-6,ABC, V Head concreted or grouted Into
homing . in empty hole boxout
3-6,ABC,XV Greased and sheathed tendon
In grouted hole
5-6,ABC,XV Greased and sheathed tendon
in common sheath in grouted
hole (double corrosion
<O protection)
ti)
FOR EXAMPLE: Temporary anchors are required for up to 4 months in very corrosive conditions to support a face where failure could have serious consequences in sand,
and which must be tested at one. month intervals. Score O + 1 + 2 • 3BX
SUGGESTED CORROSION PROTECTION : FIXED ANCHOR LENGTH : Tendon epoxy coated before grouting into holes
FREE LENGTH : Tendon greased and sheathed before grouting into hole
HEAD ANO UPPER TENDONS : Head epoxy coated
 to ?c co un t, Ta bl 6 1 being used only as a guide to assist.decision
in tection and not rigidly adhered to
making on corros?,on. pro
6.6.1 Materials
uf t�red from high carbon or
Steel tendons are normally man ac
ds sU1table for prestressing.
alloy steel bars, wires or stran h c rbon or alloy steel
Bars are generally cold worked hig a
te and as a minimum
suitable for post-tensioned concre ,
r ents of BS 4486
standard, should comply with the requi em
(1980).
Wires or multiple wire strands are manufactured to various
o
stress and relaxation criteria in line with the requirements f
BS 5896 (1980) and ASTM A416 (1987), A421 (1980) and Ang
(1980). These criteria can be obtained from the specialist
manufacturers.
Permissible stress should be in accordance with the
manufacturer's recommendations. However, the permissible
stress of the tendon when locked off should normally not exceed
700/o of characteristic strength for strand or bars. For short
periods d'-:'ring testing, the stresses should not exceed 80
percent of characteristic strength with due regard to safety and
the stress/strain characteristics of the steel used. For long term
permanent anchors, the permissible stresses are sometimes
reduced.
Note that strand manufacturers supply load/elongation curves
with each batch of strand delivered.
· Both normal relaxation and low relaxation wire and strand
are available. Typical relaxation of stress (as percentage of initial
stress) from an initial stress of 70 percent of specified
characteristic strength at a temperature of 20 ° C appears in
Table 6.2.
TABLE 6.2 TYPICAL RELAXATION OF STRESS IN TENDONS (AT
INITIAL STRESS OF APPROXIMATELy 70% OF
CHARACTERl�TIC STRENGTH AT 20 ° C)

TYPICAL RELAXATION OF STRESS(%}

TENDON CLASS OF ELAPSED TIME : (h = hours)
RELAXATION
0,1h 1,0h 10h 100h 500h 1 oooh

Seit-
straightening Normal 0,0-0,1 0,fHl,8 1,5-2,2 2,3-4,3 4,0-6,5 4,5-7,5
wire and 7 wire
strand Low 0,0-0,1 1,1•2,2
0,2-0,3 0,5-0,7 0,7-1,0 1,0-1,5

94
 Protection against corrosion may be achieved by cement or
other grouts or by sheathing, generally with grease in the
annulus between the sheathing, and the steel. One of the
approved techniques for corrosion protection of the fixed
anchorage length for permanent cables, using the above
materials, is referred to as encapsulation. (See Appendix J.)

Stainless steel
At present there is no prestressing steel specification or code
covering stainless steel wire, bar and stainless clad bar. The
preferred composition of the stainless steel is Type 316S16 in
line with BS 1501: Part 3 (1973).

Sheathing
. Care_ shouid be exercised to ensure that the proximal end of
the grouted fixed anchor length canno� encroach within the
theoretical slip surface and, to achieve this it is recommended
that �he free length of the anchorage be sheathed. Where
permanent anchors are sheathed, the annulus between the
· tendon and the sheathing. should be completely filled with a
grease, resin or cementitious material.
High density polyethylene or polypropylene sheath� with a
minimum wall thickness
-- .
of 1 mm are recommended and should
be applied under factory conditions. Heat shrink tubing·may
also be used. ·.

Grease
- -
. Rust inhibiting grease is a compound with the consistency of
gre�se and should contain_ no sulphides, nitrates or chlorides.
Guidance to selection of suitable greases is given in Section
K3 of BS 8081 (1989) (Grease).
(Note: 'grease' as supplied by a motor dealer or oil company
is normally unsuitable for this purpose and details of any grease
proposed should be checked with the supplier against the
above reference and only used if suitable).

Corrugated sheathing
Where double corrosion protection is recommended for the fixed
anchorage length, the corrugated tubing should be high density
polyethylene, polypropylene or similar non-corrosive material
with a minimum wall thickness of 1 mm. (The amplitude, pitch
and profile of corrugations have been specified in BS 8081
(1989) but different profiles, amplitudes and pitches have been
95
 a and field trials should be usect
used successfully in South Afric
in cases of doubt.)

Anchor heads
t gri� the tendon,
The upper anchorage consists of a device �
e which Is _capable of
bearing against a suitable bearing plat
e atio f ce v a
distributing the load from the tendon to the xcav n a v id
p
steel soldiers, piles, thrust blocks, walings or other ap ro e
methods. (See Chapter 5 and Figures 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6.)
Anchor heads for strand, or locking nuts f or bar tendo ns with
their bearing plates, must be of an approved design capable
of sustaining twice the working load with an angular deviation
of not more than 5 degrees from the tendon axis and without
excessive distortion. For permanent anchors, an adequate
corrosion protection system must be provided encapsulating
the entire anchor head down to the sheathed strand behi nd the
head, including the junction between the bared steel of the
tendon and the gripper- mechanism. Where anchors are not
required to be retensioned, this encapsulation is frequently
made from cement grout, but for restressable anchors the filling
material is usually a grease or pl�stic resin. (See Table 6.1)
6.6.2 Drilling
Drilling methods may be rotary, percussive, rotary- percussive
or vibratory and should be chosen to give the minimum
disturbance to the surrounding ground. The drilling fluid should
have no deleterious effect on the ground, the tendon or the
grout.. Hole stability �� critical and special care is required to
ensure that the drilling or flushing method does not give rise
to excessive loss of ground. Holes for ground ancho rages
should generally be drilled to within the following tolerances:

Minimum diameter 10mm cover over maximum diameter

of the ·tendon.·
Collaring of hole - 75mm
Inclination - Setting up of drill hole at collaring to
within 2,5 degrees of specifie d
inclination.
Length - Desig ned anch or lengt h plus a
minimum of 0,3m (to contain any non·
flushed out cuttings).
O completion of drilling the ho:le, it must be flushe
t e �ottom to remove all cuttings or debris.
h d out thoroughly from
When the fixed anchorage
96
 NOTE: ALL EXPOSED STEEL COMPONENTS
COATED WITH 2 COATS OF EPOXY TAR

sealing nut
Corrugated plastic tube
Sealing cap
over whole tendon
Grease
Locknut

Bearing plate Primary grout

_,.
concrete or mortar ___
-�
Retaining wan-------
/. Threaded bar pre-grouted
Into corrugated tube
. _
FIGURE 6.4 TYPICAL DETAIL FOR PERMANENT BAR ANCHOR
Top of anchorage

Strands long NOTE: ALL EXPOSED STEEL COMPONENTS

enough for COATED WITH 2 COATS OF EPOXY TAR
restressing
Empty hole or secondary grout

Central grout tube

Anti corrosion grease $heated and greased

strand in free length
Concrete or mortar ____,
Primary cement grout not in
I, - · contact with back of structure

FIGURE 6.5 TYPICAL DETAIL FOR RESTRESSABLE PERMANENT STRAND ANCHORS

Bleed passage
for secondary NOTE: ALL EXPOSED STEEL COMPONENTS
grout COATED WITH 2 COATS OF EPOXY TAR
Plastic or painted
steel cap to contain Grout injection tube for
grout-------.11 secondary grout
-- Secondary cement grout after stressing
8!eed and grout Prestressing strand either sheathed
pipes for tertiary
or bare in free length
grouting of head

Anchorhead---­
Palnted steel thrust
plate _____,,,,.

Conrete or mortar ___,..

Steel riner In concret

e ____,
Retaining wan ______.,,,,. Prestresslng strand
sheathing removed In anchorage

FIGURE 6.6 TYPICAL DETAIL FOR NON-RESTRESSABLE PERMANENT STRAND ANCHOR

97
 ial easures may be required to remove
length is underreamed, spec m
cuttings from the underream. o e should be tested for
For permanent anchors in rock, the h l
eco mm�n ds that th� hole ?e waterproof
watertightness. BS 8081 (1989) r f nutes m the anch
grouted when the water loss over a period o 10 mi or
ion exce eds 3f/m i n at 100 kP a pressure at the collar of the hole.
sect
For temporary anchors which are grouted_ through a tremie pipe, it is
a er c u s durin
not normal to waterproof grout unless excessive w t loss o c r g
the drilling, flushing or cleaning of the hole.

6.6.3 Manufacture
Permanent anchors should be fabricated in a workshop or under
cover on site by experienced personnel under adequate
supervision. However, temporary anchors are frequently
manufactured in the open. During manufacture, handling and
storage, the anchors should be kept dry, clean and free from
excessive rust. (Loose, easily removable surface rust is
acceptable, but pitting is not p'ermitted).
Anchors composed of plastic sheathed greased strand should
have the exposed strand in -the fixed anchorage zone thoroughly
cleaned and degreased, using steam or solvents, after unlaying
of the strand.
Centralisers and cover spacers which should preferably be
of plastic or non-metal manufacture must be firmly attached to
the tendon at a maximum spacing of 1,Sm to ensure central
location in the borehole, with a minimum cover of 10mm.
- -

6.6.4 Homing
Tendon installation and grouting should be carried out as soon
as practicable after the drilling of the fixed anchor length and
preferably within 2 to 4 days. Homing should be carried out at
a steady controlled rate, where the anchor is homed into a grout
filled hole.

6.6.5 Grouting
Grouting is required to bond the anchor to the ground o d
,b n
the te�don to the capsule and to pro
tect the tendon again5t
corrosion.

Cement grout
Cement �rou� sho�ld be thoroughly mi�ed (a colloidal hi�h
speed mixer IS suitable) usi
_ ng portfand cement (OPC/rapid
hardenmg/sulphate resisting) and p a l
ot b e water with a
98
 water/cement ra�i? ranging fron:, 0
,35 to 0,5, depending upon
the ground con d1t1ons. Unless there is esta
blished information
of rate of strength gain of grouts made from
the particular
cement bein g used, tield tests should be done to
establish this
i�f�rmation, and it is recommended that anchors not
be stressed
until the grout has attained a crushing strength of at least 25
MPa. ·
Admixtures should only be used if it can be established that
they have no Ufldesirabl� effects on corrosion, setting times and
�ren�h. .

Resin grout
Resin grouts. may be used under the reco�mendation gi�en
in BS 8081 (1989).' - ·

Injection of grout
The grout should be injected at the bottom of the h�!e, through
a tremie tube. This may be dol"!e either prior to homing.of the
anchor or after homing, but in the latter case, the tremie tube
should be built into the anchor in the course of manufacture.
Where a tendon is decoupled in the free length, it is important
that the column of injected grout does not extend to the structure
being anchored prior to stressing.

6. 7 ANCHOR STRESSING AND TESTING

6. 7.1 Stressing and testl�g
_ For the purposes of stres�ing and testing, a dist!n�tion is made
between temporary and permanent anchors: , and a further
distinction is made between working anchors and test anchors
(proving I and site suitability). A schematic stressing and testing
procedure f(?r all anchors is shown on Figure 6.7.

. 6. 7 .2 Proving test anchors

Before the commencement of any anchor design for lateral
support, if there is insufficient knowledge of the ground
conditions into which anchors will be installed, proving tests
should be carried out to.substantiate that the ground conditions
are suitable for the installation of anchors. These proving tests
may be regarded as an extension of the site investigation and
may form the basis of the design or the redesign, if necessary,
of the lateral support system. These anchors, for purposes of
proving tests, should generally be not less than three for each
99
 Theoretical elastic extension

'
1
LoadT Load T
s s = additional extension
Tp ==
1,5Tw
Tp =
1,25Tw
I -I � -I � lock-off

- -f./ I- X Y
d
,...lo_a__
Lock-off
--r__________
Anchor test
1,1Tw -1, 1Tw o
I 1--p_ _in_t-+-----------.1
X Routine acceptance - temporary
Routine acceptance - permanent
l:::..TS y
0,25Tw Site suitability temporary and
and }
Proving test
permanent
0
Total elastic Tp Lt
«)
?.:- extension d = ET"
«)

where T P = proof load

Cl) 0

I
C:
E 0...
a. (/)
E
«)

Lf = free anchor length

-...
- .c
Cl)
Q)
a.
... 0

I E = Young's modulus of tendon

0 C:
«)
Q)
Cl) ro A = cross-sectional area of tendon
13
--I
(/)

---
(/)

Ti
I lnitialload T1 ::;: 0, 1Tw to 0,25Tw
-,- � d--t Extension

FIGURE 6. 7 SCHEMATIC STRESSING PROCEDURE FOR PERMANENT AND

TEMPORARY ANCHORS

different type of ground condition on site. If, however, there is

sufficient knowledge of the ground conditions into which
anchors will be installed, and the behaviour of the anchors can
be predicted with confidence, proving tests need not be carried
out.
Proving tests, if executed, will be carried out by stressing the
anchors and plotting load/extension data continuously over the
range of 25% Tw to 125% Tw for temporary anchors and 1500/o
Tw for permanent anchors, Tw being the working load on the
anchors. (See Figure 6.7.) Load increments of not more than
25% Tw should be used. The extensions should be measured
relative to a fixed datum where necessary. (See Figure 6.8.)
Each load increment should be held for a minimum period of
one minute with the exception of the proof load (i.e. 1250/o Tw
or 150% Tw) which should be held for a minimum period of
15 minutes.
The additional extension over the period of 15 minutes should
100
 . not exceed 5% of the tota
li:1ast1c extensi on
If the additional extension at the proof l oad.
g reate� than 5% this
to bedding in of the ancho ra may be due
t e ther end. If this is not d e
to bedding in the capacity of�h: , u
a� � ors_ may have to be re­
evaluated as this could be an earl �
Y '" icatio n of_problems with
the long term performance. _
The . anchor should then be unload
ed to , 25% Tw while
extensions at not less than 3 equal Ioad
d ecrements are
measured and plotted. Following the first loading cycl
e the free
leng�h of the anchor should be checked. (See not� 2 afte
r
Section 6.7.4.)
The first cycle of_ load!ng and unloading should be repeated
as a secon� cycle, 1dent1cal to the first cycle, and again plotted.
On completion of the second load cycle, re-load in one operation
and lock off at � 10% Tw. Carry out a liftoff test immediately
after lock-off to establish the initial residual load and if this is
below 110% Tw, repack the anchor to 110% Tw.
Liftoff tests should be carried out at 24 hours, 3 days, and
10 days after the initial tensioning, the zero time being regarded
as the stage at which the liftoff test immediately after initial
tensioning has reflected a residual load in the anchor of 110%
Tw. The loss of tensio n in the ancho r should not exceed 6%
Tw at 24 hours, 7% Tw at 3 days, and 8% Tw at 1 O days
tests,
respectively. (See Figure 6.9.) If, during any of these liftoff
ified above, the
ttie loss of tension exceeds the amounts spec
cribed for the initial
anchor should again_ be ·tensioned. as des
.
tensioning and locked off �t 1100/o Tw

(2) Sight with a remote

instrument on a measuring
rule fixed to head

------
Anchor
(1) Dial gauge on tripod

FR M A AXED DATUM
ENDO DISPLACEMENT O
M RING T N
FIGURE 6.8 TYPICAL METHODS OF EASU 101
 The liftoff tests should then be repeated at 24 hours, 3 da
and 10 days as previously described, after relocking the anchYs
at 1100/o Tw. If, after such re-tensioning to 110% Tw, the anchor
fails to comply with the maximum permissible losses in tensii
r

indicated above, either further pr oving test anchors should bn

8
installed or consideration given to reducing the capacity of th
proposed working a nchors. If, however, the losses in tensio�
do not exceed the percentages spe cified above at 24 hours
3 days and 10 days, the proving test anchor may be considered
acceptable and the working anchors d esigned accordingly.
On completion of acceptable proving t est anchors, they may
be tested - to destruction if · it is desired to obtain further
information on the ultimate capacity of the anchors, and the
safety factors established at-failure. In this case, extra strand
should have been incorporated into the anchor in order to
facilitate failure of the fixed anchorage rather than of the tendon.
An alternative in order to obtain further information on the fixed
anchorage is to install some proving test anchors with shorter
fixed anchorage lengths.

. • . _6.7 .3 Site suitability test anchors.

(a) General
Site suitability tests should be carried out on every contract
and will generally be executed at the commencement of
the contract unless proving tesf anchors have already been
tested which could take the· place of site suitability test
anchors. Site suitability anchors will generally consist of at
least three anchors for each type of ground condition
expected on site and these can either be working anchors
or anchors installed separately from working anchors. They
should be treated in exactly the same way as described
above for proving test anchors and these site suitability test
anchors should be considered the models against which
working anchors will be measured, since working anchors
will be expected to behave in a manner similar to that of
the initial site suitability test anchors.

(b) Permanent anchors

Site suitability · tests for permanent anchors should �e
carried out as described in section 6. 7 .2 above. The site
suitability tests should be continued for a period of 10 days
and loss of load, after making allowance for temperaturfd
structural movement and relaxation of the tendon, shoU
1 02
 15 min

% lock.off NOTE: Hatched area of graph only

__ to be used if load cells w·th
1 reI at·1ve accuracy of 0,5%
load are left on the anchor for the full
period to simulate a 24 hour test
(see note 1
· below) and readings taken at
15 min and 50 min after locking off
at 1, 1 Tw·

FIGURE 6.9_ TEST PERIOD VERSUS LOSS OF LOC

K-OFF LOAD [after BS 8081 (1989)]

not exceed _6% Tw ·at 1 day, 7% Tw at 3 days and 8% Tw

at 1 O days. If losses exceed these figures, the site suitabi l ity
·test ·anchors should be deemed not to be in accordance
with this c_lause and the cause should be diagnosed and
other site suitability test anchors installed to function as
mqdels against which the working anchors will b�
monitored.

(c) Temporary anchors

The site suitability tests for tempora:ry �nchors shou l � be
performed in exactly the same manner as that describe_d
for permanent anchors in (b) above, except that they will
be loaded to 1250/o Tw only.

6. 7 .4 Working Anchors
-(a) General
. _to routine
The working an� hors hould all be subjected
pared with the
acceptance test1_ng w��1ch -�.1II then be com
h ors before bein g
results of the site suitabiht test anc
� nchor should al so be
accepted. The free length 0 the a
checked. (See � 0t? 2 � l�W -�c
I n some app l1cat1ons it is
n essary for the anchors to
ore being fu l ly
be left on parti�I �tress fo�=� me timedbef h proo test
ib·le to o t e f
stressed and it is not P
103
 immediately. In such cases, the partial working load should
be assumed to be Tl (See _Figure 6. 7), for the �urpos8 f
O
the routine acceptance testing when the anchor 1s stressec1
to full load.
When assessing working anchors which may have liftott
loads slightly lower than specified and where it is believed
that this may be due to excess movement at either
anchorage in 'bedding in', the test should be repeated and
re-assessed.
(b) Permanent anchors
Every working anchor should be subjected to the loading
cycles as described in Section 6.7.3(b}. If at 24 hours after
lock-off, the loss of load does not exceed 6% Tw, and at
3 days after lock-off, the loss of load does not exce ed 7%
Tw, the anchor should be deemed to be in accordance with
this clause and no further testing will be required. If
protection against corrosion of the free length is to be
provided by cement grouting, the anchor may be grouted
along its free length at any time after this second liftoff test,
but should preferably be done within 10 days of completion
of the tests. If protection of the free length against corrosion
is by means of sheathing, any further testing called for may
be considered as �nly long term monitoring of the structure.
(See Chapter 8 for Monitoring.) If at the 24-hour liftoff test
or· at the 3 day liftoff test the loss of prestress exceeds the
allowable (6% ) 7% Tw respectively}, the anchor should
again be locked off at 1_ 10% Tw and subjected to further
tests at 24 hours and 3 days. If after either the second 24
hour or 3 day re-test, the loss of prestress is still greater
than the allowable, an investigation as to the cause of failure
should be carried out, and · dependent upon the
circumstances, the anchor should be:
(i} abandoned and replaced
or (ii) reduced in capacity
or (iii) subjected to a remedial restressing and testing
programme.

(c) Temporary anchors

Every working anchor should be subjected to the first
loading cycle as described in Section 6.7.3(c) and s hown
on Figure 6. 7 and locked off at 110% Tw either during
unloading or by destressing to Ti and reloading to 1100/o
Tw. If the ground or other conditions indicate the desirability
104
 of loading the anchor to T
P and �nl_oading prior to
com mencing th e first loadi �ycle
this is permissible.
Immediately after lock-off; h off test
should be done to
ens ure that the anchor is in f � k
off at not less than
110 % Tw, and if less than 11��,/4 � w �i
e anchor �h ould be
rep acked and locked off at 11 oo; r, w T he behav,ou
. · r of the
anchor �houl� b��orntored against the load/extensio
n data
of th_ e site s_ u 1tab1hty test anchors on the first loading cycle
and ,t_th�re is not conformity, the cause should be examined
and diagnosed. Twenty-four hours after lock-off a liftoff test
should be done and if loss of load does not exc�ed 6% Tw
the anchor may be considered to be in accordance wit h thi�
claus� an� no further testing need be done, except th at
described in Section 8.2. If th e loss of load does exceed
6% Tw, the anchor should again be locked off at 110% Tw
and subjected to a further test after 24 hours. If after the
second 24 hour re-test the loss of load is still greater than
6% Tw, an investigation as to th e cause of failure should
be carried out, and dependent upon the circumstances, the
anchor should be:
(i) abandoned and replaced,
or (ii) reduced in capacity,
or (iii) subjected to a remedial restressing and testing
programme.

NOTE:
1. Where it is possible, using load cells accurate to within 0,5%, to simulate
a 24 hour test in 50 minutes (See Figure 6.9 and refer to Littlejohn
.
{1981 )), this may be accepted in lieu of th e 24 hour test described above
ld
2. In all th e foregoing tests, th e apparent free length of the anchor shou
turer's
be calculated from the load/extension curve, using the manufac
of temperature,
values of Young's modulus and allo wing for the effects
ements. T he
bedding in of t h e anchor head and other extraneous mov
curv over e
e t
analysis should be carried out on th e load/extension
h
horages. T he
range 25% Tw to 125% Tw or 150% Tw for all anc
of th e designed
apparent anchor free length sh ould not be less than 90%
of the
free length, nor more th an the intended free length plus 50%
ld fall outside
designed fixed anchorage length. If th e free length shou
ed before any
these limits the full implications of this sh ould be examin
further action is taken.

10 5
 CHAPTER 7
GROUNDWATER CONTROL

7.1 INTRODUCTION
The impact of groundwater on the excavation and the lateral support
system can be significant. Water affects the design, the construction
procedures and the overall cost.
Three important factors to be consi.dered are how water moves
through the soil, the effect of water on the engineering properties of
the soil, and the pressures exerted by water on the support system.
Hence it is important to understand the stratigraphy of the site and
the permeability of the various soil �orizons. {See Section 2.2).
There are three basic methods of ·controlling groundwater during
construction, namely: to exclude it, to reduce its flow or to lower the
surface level. If the groundwater is to be cut off then the consequences
of full groundwater pressures must be considered in the design. The
method of control chosen depends on:

size and depth of the excavation

- depth to water table
- nature of the soil
geohydrology
- proposed methods of excavation and support
- proximity of existing structures
type of foundation
design and function of the structure to be built
- construction programme

Distinction should be made between casual water removal (i.e.

removal of surface water from the excavation) and prescribed
dewatering. Normally the protection of the works from stormwater and
its removal from the works is the responsibility of the contractor, the
cost of which is deemed to be included in his rates. However, because
107
 of the cost implications ass?ciated w ith prescribe? dewaterin
g,
adequate facility should be given to the contractor in the form of
additional pay items so that he can make the necessary allowances.

7.2 GROUNDWATER LOWERING

The methods of groundwater lowering are as follows:

7 .2.1 Pumping from open sumps

Where the site permits the excavation to be cut back to stable
slopes and there are no important structures that might be
damaged by settlement, pumping from open sumps can be
used in most ground conditions. This method is the most widely
used in groundwater lowering and the cost of installing and
maintaining the plant is comparatively low. A disadvantage of
the system is that groundwater flows into the excavation and
with a high head or steep slope, there is a risk of collapse of
the sides and a softening of the floor. The greatest depth to
which the water table may be lowered by the _open sump method
is limited by the suction head which is approximately 6m below
the pump, depending on the pump type and mechanical
efficiency.

7 .2.2 Pumping from well-points and deep wells

The well-point system of groundwater lowering involves the
installation of a number of filter wells outside of the excavation.
These are connected by vertical riser pipes to a header main
at ground level which is under vacuum from a pumping unit.
The water flows by gravity to the well-point, is drawn up by the
vacuum pump to the header main and is discharged through
the pump. The well-point system has the advantage that water
is drawn away from the excavation face thus stabilising the sides
and permitting steep slopes. In the right ground conditions, i.e.
generally permeable non-cohesive soils, the installation is very
rapid and the equipment is reasonably simple and cheap. There
is the advantage that the water is filtered as it is removed from
the ground and carries few or no soil particles. Thus the danger
of subsidence of the surrounding ground owing to loss of ground
is less than with open sump pump.ing. Well-points are most
effective in sands and in sandy gravel of moderate permeability.
The drawdown is slow in silty sands but these soils can be
effectively drained. A disadvantage of the system is its limited
suction lift. A lowering of about Sm below the top of the riser
pipe is generally regarded as a practical limit and this means
108
 !hat for deepe r excavations the well- points have to be installed
m two or· more stages. A greater efficiency of low ing can
er
generally be achieved by using v acuum well-points in which
the v�cuum pum� is connected directly to the casing, effectively
creating a negative head within the soil and leading to more
efficient abstraction of water.
For greater depth of dewatering it is necessary to install a
pump at a lower level or to use a submersible deep-well pump
lowered down a perforated tube usually with an appropriate filter
surrounding the tube.
The deep well system as described above overcomes the
disadvantage of the limited lift of the well-point systel)'l.
Submersible pumps are lowered to the bottom of the deep wells
and are capable of lifting the water to surface in a single stage,
thus obviating the necessity for multistage installations. A variety
of submersible pumps is available on the market, ranging from
electrically driven borehole pumps where the entire motor and
pump are lowered down the hole, to rotary screw type pumps
where the motor is installed at the top of the hole and the pump
is driven via a shaft down the centre of the riser pipe to the
ejector pump. The ejector pump has no moving parts as the
water entering the deep well is ejected by means of Venturi
action.

7 .2.3 Electro-osmosis
In very fine grained soils, the capillary f_orces acting on the
porewater prevent free flow under gravity to_ a filter well or sump.
In the electro-osmosis system,_ direct_ current is made to flow
from anodes which are steel ro_ds driven into the soil to filter
wells forming cathodes. The positively charged p�rticles of
water flow through the pores in the soil and collect at the
cathodes where the water is pumped to the surface. Owing to
high cost, this method is only employed as a remedy in very
difficult situations and is not used as a common construction
technique.

7.3 AQUIFERS AND SETTLEMENT

Two design considerations which are particularly worthy of note under
the general heading of groundwater control are firstly the pr�sence
of an aquifer beneath the excavation level and secondly, the avoidance
of settlement occurring because of groundwater lowering.
109
 o a deep excavation is affected
(a) The stability of the toe of the wall f
by the permeability of the soil at
below the greatest depth of ?r
ation of the cut-off can materially
excavation. The depth of penetr
li of seepage pressures
change the rate of seepage and the up ft
f the excavation. It is not
that cause the instability of the base o
ion to be within a soil of
uncommon for the base of the excavat
cavation there is a
low permeability while a little below the ex
ead of water. (See Figure
horizon of sand or gravel under a large h
o to
7.1.) Hence the importanc e of a competent s il investiga i n
i s
including borehole�, permeability testing and pump ng test .

r
Standpipe plezometer

Lossof head arisivJ

from son resfstaite

-· _ ·- _, l--·
to seepage
Clay

. .. .. . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ..
-:_ · -·� ·- · r
.. ... . . .. ... .. . . .. .. . . . '•. . . . . . . . .
.. .. .. ... �. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ..
Support
Sand
.
.. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
·
syste111 Slow
Uplift head

Clay

Sand
--
-------
------ --------------
-------..i------
----------
------------ ----
-----
:.• • • • • • • • • • • !. _: I

-----
-- - ----
------
---- - -------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
- -------------------- -----
Clay -------------------
----- -------- - - -- ---
----- - -- - - - - -- - -- -.----
---------------------
FIGURE 7.1 AQUIFER BENEATH EXCAVATION LEVEL

(b) The second important design consideration is dealing with

problems of settlement of the ground. adjacent to excavations.
Settlement caused by dewatering occurs as a result of an increase
in the effective stress in the ground. To quantify the problem, it
is necessary to know the drawdown profile outside the excavation
and the compressibility of the soil. Although reasonable estimates
of the compressibility can be made from in situ penetration tests,
laboratory tests and experience with foundation settlements,
estimating the drawdown profile is rather more difficult. Much
depends on the local permeability profile and geological variations.
110
 In order to quantify drawdown, parametric studies can be carried
out assuming various conditions of permeability, profile and cutoff.
To limit dewatering settlements, a groundwater recharge system
can be installed in order to maintain the head behind the wall and
thus control drawdown beneath adjacent buildings. (See Figure
7.2.) It should be noted that the above technique must be
monitored very carefully and ctue consideration should be given
to the following:

1. An in�rease in hydrostatic pressure acting on the retaining wall

may occur due to excessive recharging.

2. The effects of water flow ii"! the retained ma�erial m�y be

.
det�imental to overall stability. (eg. leaching) _ ..

·3. 'The passive resista�ce of _the ret�ined �aterial may be reduced

as a result of a rise in the water ta�le. , .
0 ' •
I • f T • •6 •

4. There may be_ a reduction in passiye resisJa_nce._a� the toe of

••

the wall d�e to seepage _for(?e� .. ;� :./ ,• ....

lncrea·�ed head arising ._

from excessive recharging

·. ••
��-w"l
Sup�rt · :/

t-���/n 1··: /
Original gr�� nci _ 1ev_e1 ✓ system / . , •.
7 ��rigl�g
m��-
�

T
·: wat�r surface

Excavation level
Surface of ground­
water If rechargi ng
not adopted

ACE OF GROUNDWATER CLOSE TO

FIGURE 7.2 USE OF RE-CHARGING TO MAINTAIN THE SURF
THE ORIGINAL LEVEL
111
7 .4 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Wherever the water table is likely to be lowered as a result of the
excavation, detailed records should be made of the water table levels
Standpipes remote from the dewatering points will generally b�
required for this purpose.
Dewatering can be achieved by lowering the water table beforehand
by means of boreholes; however if water occurs in cracks and joints
in rock formation, the pumping of free water from the open excavation
may be preferable.
If practicable, the discharge of pumped groundwater should be at
a point at least three times the depth of the excavation away from the
edge of the excavation. The discharged water must flow away from
the excavation. (See Section 3.6 on leaching of solids.}
Where grouting is used to control seepage or for other purposes,
precautions should be taken to observe and, if necessary, to remedy
the leakage of grout into existing sewer or drainage pipes and
channels, and account should be taken of any change in porewater
pressure occasioned by the grouting.
Where, as a consequ·ence of the excavation, the water table is drawn
down, provision should be made for measuring the levels of the water
table in adjacent areas. Detailed recommendations for these
measurements are listed in Section 8.3.2.
Great care should be taken to ensure that surface water can drain
readily from the area surrounding the excavation. The area should
be free from any obstructions which could obscure signs of cracking
of the material. Daily examination of surrounding streets and other
ground surfaces should be carried out to locate cracks. C�acks should
be sealed or drained without delay in order to prevent water from
entering or being contained therein and any damage to water bearing
services should be repaired without delay.
The water table should not be lowered significantly below the level
provided for in the design of the system for lateral support.
Further information relating to the estimation of seepage !lows may
P 418.
be obtained from Harr (1962), Cedergren (1977}, NAVFAC
(1983), NAVFAC DM 7.2 (1982) and Somerville SH (1986).

112
 CHAPTER 8
CONTROL OF THE WORKS
MONITORING AND RECORDS
8.1 INTRODUCTION
All civil engineering structures are mo
nitored as� matter of routine.
The purpose of monitoring is to verify the
stability of the lateral support
system and to provide warning <?f untowa
rd developments.
8.2 CONTROL OF THE WORKS
8.2.1 Extent of control measures
The extent of measures to be exercised for the control of any
excavation should be decided by the design engineer
responsible for the planning of the lateral support system. In
resolving decisions on the· scope of control measures
appropriate to the scale, difficulty and permanence of the
proposed works, the engineer should bear in mind the possibility
of loss of life or limb and of damage to property.
The duration and intensity of the monitoring should be
commensurate with the permanence of the works and the
experience with the type of lateral support system used.
Distinction should be made between observations requiring
the services · of a qualified land surveyor and on-site
observations such as piano. wire measurements, normally
carried out by the contractor. Sho�ld the former be necessary
consideration should be given to appointing a profession�! land
surveyor to carry out this survey under a separate contract with
the owner.

8.2.2 General precautions

(a) Suitable warning notices, ba�ric�des and safety appliances
should be provided and mamtamed.
ided to d�al
(b) Standby pumping equipment should be prov
t er- arry1�g
with the effects of rainstorms or of burs wat �
. ning this
services. Provision should be made . for man
· s1·te
brea ks m
equipment at all times, including durmg
operations.
113
 (c) Construction equipment and materials for dealing with local
spalling and with adverse unexpected conditions should be
readily available on site.

(d) Great care should be observed to ensure that surface water

can drain readily from the area surrounding the excavation.
The area should be free from any obstructions which could
obscure signs of cracking of the material. Daily examination
of surrounding streets and other ground surfaces should
be carried out to locate cracks. Cracks should be sealed
or drained without delay in order to prevent water from
entering or being contained therein.

(e) Except in those cases where due account of the effects of

weathering has been taken, excavation faces should be left
open for the minimum possible period. Permanent
construction intended to provide lateral support should be
completed as expeditiously as possible.

(f) Due attention should be paid to the effects of noise,

vibration, dust and the control thereof. (See Appendix A -
Step 13.)

8.3 MONITORING AND RECORDS

Both prior to and during construction regular monitoring should be
done and records kept of at least the following:

a) Site conditions �nd variances in ground conditions

b) Water regime
c) Movements of ground, existing structures, and adjacent activities.
(See Section 2.4.8.}
d} Forces in supporting systems
e} Installation, stressing and testing of anchors.

Important aspects of testing and monitoring prior to and during

construction are suggested below in respect of the above items.
All calculations relating to monitoring should be performed, recorded
and distributed with minimum delay to allow precautionary measures
to be taken promptly, if appropriate. In some instances, it is advisable
to predict horizontal and vertical movements, heave, the effects of
changes in water regime, etc., prior to commencement of the works,
to avoid unnecessary reaction to recorded results at a late r date.
The·recorded results of any monitoring should be freely available
to all parties concerned, and at least one copy should be retained on
114
site. On completion of the project all re rd sho
uld be bound into
a report, copies of which should b'e lad �� �1th the
� owner, the local
authority and t h e data bank (if applicabl: It is stron ly rec
� ommended
that all records be retained by the owner:in pe rpetuity . (See Sections
1.2, 2.5.6 and 2.7.4)

8.3.1 Site conditions and stratigraphy

With reference to the investigations of exis
. t·mg structures and
•
services .
detailed .
in Section 2.4, regular inspection of the
telltales and further photographs may be advantageous.
M ovements of str�ctural components or of services should also
be regularly monitored.
Continuous comparison should be made between the
expected gr�und conditions �nd the features revealed during
the excavation works and the information obtained as
rec�mmended in Section 2.7.1. Should differences be observed
during the excavation work, modifications to the lateral support
system may be required. . ;

8.3.2 Water. regimes

The depth of the water table should be established during the
site investigation and an assessment made whether this water
table is likely to vary during the course of-excavation. Changes
in the level of the water table du ring construction can be
monitored by the installation of piezometers.
If the water table is close to the surface and likely to remain
so during the course of excavation, full allowance for the high
water table should be made in the design of the lateral support
system. Under these circumstances, the installation of
piezometers may be unnecessary, or a limited number may be
installed to monitor possible draw down of the water table,
particularly· where this may have an effect on any adjacent
structures.
If the water table is located at a depth greater than the
proposed depth of excavation, cognizance should be taken in
the design of the effects of possible perched water tables
caused by burst water mains or other services. Under these
of
circumstances it is recommended that a limited number
site to
piezometers be installed around the perimeter of the
e.
provide an early warning of any rise in the water tabl
her than
In general, piezometers should not be spaced furt
pi zometers,
50m apart. In most cases, the installation of four �
tion, should
one near the middle of each face of the excava
intervals and a
suffice. Piezometers should be read at weekly
115
 ny variation in the level of the
record kept of such readings. A .
water table should be reported to the engin . eer wit h out delay
e
t o enable an assessment to be made of the effect on the d sign
of ·the lateral support system.
Where ground conditions are variable and water tables are
present at different levels in various parts of the site, additional
piezometers may be require d. In addition, if the draw down
profile adjacent to the excavation is of importance, a number
of piezometers may be required at various distances from the
excavation face.

8.3.3 Movements and control measurements

a) General
Regular measurements of horizontal and vertical ground
movements should be taken and systematically recorded.
All pegs, instrumentation and observation points for
monitoring should be established as soon as possible.
Measurements should commence prior to starting the
excavation and be concluded only after the works have been
completed. (See Table 2.1 (b)). Such monitoring devices
should be protected against damage and should remain
accessible during the period of monitoring. On-going
monitoring of permanent structures may be required. These
measurements of movements should be continually
compared with an assessment of acceptable movements.
(See Chapter 5).
It is important to record associated details during all
monitoring processes, viz. weather conditions, state of
excavation when movements are recorded, pumping of
water, etc.
The degree of accuracy to which measurements should
be made and the frequency thereof should be decided by
the engineer in charge of the excavation. It is recommended
that a regular daily visual inspection be made of the faces
and the ground behind the faces, and observations recorded
also on a daily basis. Particular attention should be given
to any abrupt or accelerating changes in ground profile or
movements whether horizontal or vertical. Should such
abrupt or accelerating changes be noted, more accurate
measurements should be implemented forthwith to establish
the precise nature of the movement.
116
b) Horizontal movements
Measurements of horizontal movements at
excavation faces
should be taken frequently at first and then
at least weekly
thereafter. For basements no deeper than 6m g
enera 11 y on 1y
measurements of hon. �ontal movements need be
taken at
the top of the excavat,_on. However, for basements whic
h
are deeper than 6m, 1t may be necessary to take these
measurements at the bottom and mid•depth of the faces.
Where the expected movements are exceeded the
frequency of observation should be increased.' The
horizontal spacing of points at which measurements are
taken_ should not exceed the lesser of 15m or one-quarter
of the length of the face. Horizontal surface movements over
a distance at least equivalent to the depth of the excavation,
measured from the face, should be taken at least monthly
and also when untoward horizontal movements have been
detected at the face. The points at which these movements
are to be observed should be sufficiently closely spaced so
that any abrupt change in horizontal strain of the ground
can be detected. The accuracy of measurement of any
horizontal movement should be ten percent or better of the
maximum expected movement of that point. -The method
of taking these measurements should be decided by the
engineer, but as a guide ·for most normal excavations, a
simple piano wire stretched from corner to corner of the
excavation has been found satisfactory for daily monitoring,
with a survey check of the corner points at weekly or
fortnightly intervals to ensure that no untoward movement
of the ends of the piano wires has occurred. Under certain
circumstances, the use of inclinometers to record horizontal
movement may be appropriate.

c) Vertical movements
Measurements of vertical movements of the _surface should
be taken, frequently at first and then at l�ast �eekly, over
a distance from the face of the excavation not less than the
depth of the completed excavation. Measurements should
also be taken whenever untoward horizontal movem ents
t
have been detected at the face. The points of measuremen
loca l
should be sufficiently closely spaced to detect
t of
differential settlements. The accuracy of measuremen
vertical movements should be 1, 0mm .
117
 d) Rebound of floor of excavation
Rebound of the floor of the excavation should be measured
and taken into account in so far as it may affect falsework
or other supports or give warning of untoward movement
of supported material.

e) Settlement of floor of excavation

Settlement of the floor of the excavation should be measured
on re-loading of the whole or part of the site and taken into
account insofar as it may affect falsework or other supports.

f) Records of installation, stressing and testing of anchors

Full records should be kept.during construction on all facets
of the installation of the anchors, including grout takes,
pressures at which grout is injected, water testing (if carried
out) and stressing and testing.

8.3.4 Forces in struts and props

Certain supporting systems for excavations incorporate
components in which strai n, stress or force can be measured,
e.g. the pressures in hydraulic jacks, etc. In such cases, the
strains, stresses or forces should be measured 24/48 hours after
installation, seven days after installation, and monthly thereafter.
However, if untoward horizontal or vertical ground movements
have been detected, or abrupt changes in the measured strains,
stresses or forces have taken place, the frequency of
measurement should be increased.

8.3.5 Forces in anchors

In common with other civil engineering structures anchors,
whether temporary or permanent should be monitored in
addition to the testing procedure described in Chapter 6. In the
case of temporary anchors, it is recommended that 10% of the
working anchors (but representative of each category or sub­
category of anchor) be monitored over the duration of their
effective life after the 24 hour test. If any untoward observations
are noted during this monitoring, it may be necessary,
depending upon the degree of abnormality observ ed or the
degree of risk, to carry out further monitoring. The results of
such additional monitoring should be taken into account when
a decision is made with regard to the course of action to take.
In the case of permanent anchors which are not fully grouted
in over their free length, it may be considered prudent to carry
118
 out monitoring of 10 percent of the anchors over the first year
of their effective life, followed by a further 1 o percent at the end
of another year, after which the degree of monitoring should
_
be determined by the effects of the risk arising from failure of
any of the anchors. Should prestress gains be recorded at any
stage of the liftoff tests, monitoring should continue to ensure
stabilisation of prestress within a load increment of 1 o percent
above working load. Should the gain exceed 1 o percent of
working load a careful diagnosis is required to ascertain the
cause. It would then be prudent to monitor the overall system.

8.3.6 _Forces in soil nails and bolts

In the case of nailed or bolted structures of significant
magnitude, the movements of the excavation face as well as
forces in the nails or bolts should be monitored. In conjunction,
these measurements assist in early identification of instability
and can result in significant reduction in risk.

Selected nails or bolts may-be equipped with force measurement

devices (load cells, etc.) enabling monitoring during and after
construction. It is recommended that monitoring continue until stability
has been achieved.

8.4 SURCHARGE LOADING

During the design of the lateral support system for any excavation,
cognizance is taken of surcharge loading conditions around the
excavated faces. During the construction and while the lateral support
system is operative, the perimeter of the excavation must be monitored
to ensure that any surcharge loadings placed adjacent to the
excavation are kept within the limits on which the design of the lateral
support system has been based.

119
 APPENDICES

A - STEP-BY-STEP GUIDELINES FOR INVESTIGATION AND ACTION

FOR LATERAL SUPPORT OF A BUILDING BASEMENT

B :-- LABORATORY AND FIELD TESTS

. C - FIELD DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK

D - LEGAL ASPECTS OF LATERAL SUPPORT·FOR SURFACE

EXCAVATIONS

E - REMOVAL OF LATERAL SUPPORT RISKS: CONTRACTUAL

ASPECTS AND INSURANCE

F - CASE HISTORIES OF WALL MOVEMENTS

G - EXTRACTS FROM CERTAIN RELEVANT REGULATIONS AND

ACTS

H - BLASTING IN BUilT-UP AREAS

I - SUGGESTED METHODS OF MEASUREMENT FOR LATERAL

SUPPORT, EXCAVATION AND ASSOCIATED WORKS
J - DEFINITIONS OF SOME ANCHOR TERMS

K - REFERENCES

121
 APPENDIX A
STEP-BY-STEP GUIDELIN
ES
·FOR INVESTIGATION AND
. ACTION. FOR LATERAL
�UPPORT OF A BUILDING
BASEMENT
Step 1:
Activity: Examine the title deeds ..
Considerations: The extent of the site, rights of way or servitudes, and
restrictions imposed by mining conditions or environmental conditions.
Limitations under Town Planning Regulations .
.••
Step 2:
Activity: Examine l�nd surveyor's diagram
Considerations: Compare -land surveyor's diagram •in the·title deeds.
Ascertain if surveyor's pegs or location� of boundaries are clearly indicated
on site. If so, and there is certainty that pegs have not been displaced,
arrange for offset pegs to· be established so that should the original
surveyor's pegs be disturbed during excavation, they can be re-established
with accuracy. Ensure there are no encroachments from adjoining
structures. If encroachments do exist, ascertain if the owner is aware of
the extent of the encroachment.

Step 3:
Activity: Examine information on the site provided by owner or his
principal agent
Considerations: The engineer should acquaint himself with the a�c�itect's
conception and his proposals with regar d to the means of retaining. the
adjoining buildings by lateral support, under pinnin� or tempo�ary sho�ing.
_
Examine any test holes already completed and obtain inform�t,?n provi�ed
by the owners or consultants for adjoining buildings. Obtain mform�t,on
if available, from principal agent on the location and depth of all serv,�es,
including water supply mains, stormwater drains, sewers, gas mains,
123
 f not available,
. . J Post Office telephone ins tallations. I
electr_icity cab · es and
seek mf orm a t °
,on n t hese se rvices from Local Authority and government
departments.
(See Table 1.1.)

Step 4:
Activity: Initial desk and field study
structures and examine all
Considerations: Conduct a survey of existing
from Local Authority's
available geological data. Obtain information
io d whe�her it is
Engineer. Study particularly the groundwate r situat � �
suitable for incorporating this water in some of the building services, i.e.
fire services, etc.
If information is inadequate, arrange for further geotechnical investigation
as set out in Chapter 2. Should such investigation take place on the
sidewalk or road, obtain permission from the City/Town Engineer and Traffic
departments. Particular care should be taken not to damage underground
services. Ensure that plant is protected during the day and illuminated at
night.
If water or fire mains on the perimeter of the site are large (i.e. 100mm
diameter or more) and if they should be damaged by ground movement
due to inadequate lateral support, the consequences could be serious. The
results may be not only flooding of the site, triggering further ground
movement, but also possibly depriving a portion of the city/town of a water
supply.
Discussions on this subject should therefore be held with the City/Town
Engineer to consider whether such mains should be re-routed b efore
commencing excavation.
Other services around the site should be identified and the risk of damage
to the excavation and/or the services themselves evaluated.
{See Table 2.2.)

Step 5:
Activity: Legal precautions and agreements with adjoining owners and
Local Authority
Considerations: Ensure that the principal agent has obtained written
permis�io� from the adjoining owners for any encroachment of
underp1�mng or anchors. If permission has not been obtained, proceed
to_ explain the �roposals to adjoining owners with the co-operation of the
chent an d confirm the ag reements in writing. Where
anchors are to pass
below str�ets, obtain permission from the City/Town Engineer.
Take particular care if the demolition of the existi
ng building and the
excavation are likely to remove the lateral support
to adjoining structures.
(See Appendix D.)
124
Step 6:
Activity: Report on condition of surrounding kerbs, pavm
g s labs,
stormwater gutte rs and roads
Considerations: In view of expected ground movements and the dam
age
that may occur to pave men ts,. gutters, kerb s and roads, an .inspecti.on of
these should be conducted with the City/Town Engineer. A photographic
record a.nd report should be prepared for the Local Authority ' the owner,
the engineer, the arch·tI ect and the quantity surveyor.

Step 7:
Activity: Preparation of plans for the excavation and receipt of approval
for the procedures from the Local Authority
Considerations: Having ascertained the extent of excavation and
established, the nature of the rock or soil, select a system of lateral support.

(See Chapter 3.)

Prepare drawings for submission to the City/Town Engineer, showing the
extent of the excavation, method of lateral support, position and size of
all services, protection for public using the pavements, fencing, lighting,
and the exit and entrance points for trucks. In busy central city areas, the
Chief Traffic Officer may demand certain exit points and the direction to
be taken to the disposal locality .
The plan should be- accompanied by a description of the excavation
procedure, method of lateral support ·and sequence of all site operations,
giving details of the work to be done and the materials to be used. It should
cover the discharge of any dewatering system. . .
Forward a copy of the soil or rock conditions to local data b�nk or research
organisation.

Step 8:
Activity: Insurances
Co nsiderat ions: Provide the owner's insurance adviser with details of the
Proposed works. Negotiate a premium with appropriate conditions whi�h
can be recommended to the owner. Obtain the insurance company s
agreement in writing. Ensure that all members of the professional team
and contractors have adequate insurance cover.
(See Section 1.3.4.)

St ep 9:
Activity: Photo
graphic record of adjoining buildings
C onsiderati g is nec�s��ry,
ons: If the excavation is deep and/or dewaterin
Predict move affect adJommg
ments ' and decide whether these may
125
 ce
. .
s. If so, arran ge for eve ry building with in a reasonable distan
building
ed and a photograph"1c record mad e of · all
of the excavat.10 n to be ·in spect a separate file
•
er na 1 an d exte rna l cra cks · Each building shou.ld have . . '
mt d and i ts pos1t1on recorded on
ul d be clea rly illust rate
and each crack sho
the pla n of each floor.

Step 10:
Activity: Photographic record
s ou be
considerations: The external walls of adjoining buildings h ld
photographed on a regular basis during excavation.

Step 11:
Activity: Excavation of column bases and foundation straps
Considerations: Where bases and straps are large, it may be
advantageous to excavate these at the same time as the excavation
contractor's equipment is on the site. Dis�ussions on the setting out of
the bases and straps should be held·with the professional team.

Step 12:
Activity: Geological description of excavated material; for the quantity
surveyor
Considerations: Where the excavation is to be ·measured by a quantity
surveyor, a comple!� profile inclu_ding a _(ult description of the ground
conditions, is vital for the preparation of a Bill of Quantities.
The plan· of the excavation mentioned in Step 7 should indicate the stages
of the exc�vation to allow the anchor drilling•rigs to have suitable platforms
from which to operate.
This must be clearly defined for the quantity surveyor so that the description
in the Bill of Quantities can cover the requirements.

Step 13:
Activity: Control of noise from excavating operations
Considerations: The contract agreement between the owner and the
excavating contractor should include a clause to ens ure that the contractor
is respon sible for abatement of noise from all machines and bla5ting
?Pera!ions that might cause annoyance to the surroundi ng population. AnY
interdict on the owner will be passed on to the contractor, who maY
negotiate terms with the offended persons to l imit noise to certain hours
of the day or night. Any delay in this regard will not be considered b� th�
owner, and due allowance must be made i n a separate item ·;n the 6111 0
Quantities.
(See Section 8.2.2(f).)
126
 APPENDIX B
LABORATORY & FIELD TESTS
TABLE 81 - LABORATORY TESTS ON SOILS
TABLE 82 - FIELD TESTS
TABLE 83 - LABORATORY TESTS ON ROCKS

127
-
TABLE B. 1 L�BORATORY TESTS ON SOILS
TEST MATERIAL SAMPLE REMARKS REFERENCE
TYPE
Grading Analysls: 1

(a) Sieving Granular solls and D Usually carried out in conjunction with Atterberg Limit Tests to give an TMH1(1986)
gravels indication of soil behaviour and to classify the soil. 8S1377(1975)
(b) Sedimentation Cohesive and fine D
grained soils

Atterberg Um its 1 Cohesive and fine D Plastic Limit, Liquid Limit, Plasticity Index and Linear Shrinkage2 • Used for TMH1(1986)
grained soils indication of soil behaviour. 8S1377(1975)

Moisture Content Soils or rocks 0/U Frequently carried out as part of other tests .. Allows determination of degree TMH1(1986)
of saturation. BS1377(1975)
Specific Gravity Soils or rocks D Used in conjunction with other tests such as density consolidation and TMH1{1986)
sedimentation. BS1377(1975)
Bulk Density Soils U/1 May be carried out on undisturbed samples in the lab. Cohesionless soils TMH1(1986)
require in situ testing. Used with S.G. and moisture content to determine B$1377(1975)
void ratio and degree of saturation

U =- Undisturbed sample 0-=--0isturbed sample R =- Recompacted sample I =- In situ test

1 Known co\\ective\y as "Indicator Tests"
2. Not included in 1986 edition of TMH1 but In 1979 edition
 TABLE B.1 LABORATORY TESTS ON SOILS Continued

II I I SAMPLE REMARKS 1 REFERENCE'

TEST MATERIAL
TYPE
Organic Matter Organic soils D Presence of organic matter may interfere with hydration of Portland cement BS13n(1975)
in soil.
pH Value Soils, rock fines and D Influences aggressivity toward buried concrete or grout TMH1(1986)
ground water
Sulphate and Soils, rock fines and D Influences aggressivity toward buried concrete or grout and potential for BS1377(1975)
Chloride content ground water acid formation in partially saturated dumprock. BS1881(1971)
Bacteriological Soils u Requires undisturbed samples in sterile containers. Influences CP1021(1973)
Tests bacteriological breakdown of concrete.
Redox Potential Soils u Assesses whether soil is conducive to activity of sulphate - reducing CP1021(1973)
bacteria which flourish under reducing conditions in the pH range 5,5 to 8,5
Triaxial
Compression

(a) Undrained Saturated, normally u Undrained shear strength (c"; dJ = 0). Short term stability and anchor Akroyd (1957)
unconsolidated consolidated clays behaviour under rapid loading with fissured clays, sample size may have Bishop &
significant effect. Henkel (1957)
Saturated, u Marsland
overconsolidated/fis- (1971)
sured clays

(b) Consolidated Saturated, normally u Effective strength parameters (c'; a; Bishop &
undrained with consolidated clays. Henkel (1957)
p.w.p Partially saturated u Long term stability. Akroyd (1957)
measurements clays (soaked)

(c) Consolidated Clayey sands, u Effective strength parameters (c'; CJ') Long term stability. Bishop &
drained sandy clays, silts Henkel (1957)
Akroyd (1957)
Partially saturated · u
cl�s (soaked)

U .. Undisturbed sample D = Disturbed sample R = Recompacted sample I = In situ test

_., TABLE 8.1 LABORATORY TESTS ON SOILS Continued
Cu

TEST MATERIAL SAMPLE REMARKS REFERENCE

TYPE
Direct Shear Box:
I•
(a) Immediate Saturated clayey u Undrained shear strength. Triaxial tests generally preferred. Akroyd (1957)
sands, silts and
clays 11

(b) Drained Clayey sands;

sandy clays and u Effective strength parameters (c'; 0') Akroyd (1957)
silts
Akroyd (1957)
Dry or saturated R Angle of shearing· resistance (O'; c = 0) Bishop (1948)
sands
Unconfined
Compressive Saturated intact u Simple and rapid substitute for undrained triaxial. Akroyd (1957)
Strength clays
Residual Shear
Strength:

(a) Multiple reversal Stiff fissured and u Shear box method most common. Used for assessment of overall stability Skempton
shear box or jointed soils in fissured or jointed soils. (1964)
(b) Ring shear particularly Marsh (1972)
slickensided soils or Bishop et al

\
existing failure

'
(1971)
surfaces.
\ j

\.l = \.lnd\s\urbed sample O ... O\sturbed sample R = Recompacted sample I • In situ test
TABLE B. 1 LABORATORY TESTS ON SOILS Continued
MATERIAL SAMPLE REMARKS lREFERENCE,
TEST
TYPE
Cohesive and fine Akroyd (1957)
One Dimensional
Consolidation grained soils
Gives measure of compressibility (c0 ,m.), preconsolidation pressure (pJ and
Triaxial Cohesive and fine u coefficient of consolidation (cJ Triaxial consolidation gives measure of Akroyd (1957)
Consolidation grained soils elastic modulus. Rowe cell uses larger. samples and confining pressure may
be varied. Results' used for prediction of settlement and base heave.
Recompacted sands R Bishop &
Henkel (1957)

Rowe Cell Cohesive and fine Rowe &

Consolidation grained soils Barden (1966)

Permeability:

Constant head test Sands and gravels R For permeabilities of 1-10·2 cm/sec. Akroyd (1957)

Falling head test Cohesive and fine u For permeabilities < 10·2 cm/�ec .. Akroyd (1957)
granular soils
Triaxial permeability Generally cohesive u Allows effect of confin'ing pressure to be determined. Akroyd (1957)
and fine granular Bishop &
soils Henkel (1957)
Rowe cell test Generally cohesive u Ditto plus allows vertical or radial flow. Rowe &
and fine granular Barden (1966)
soils

U = Undisturbed sample D = Disturbed sample R = Recompacted sample = In situ test

 TABLE B.2 FIELD TESTS
REMARKS REFERENCE
TEST APPLICABILITY
Mainly sands and weak Performed generally at 1,5m intervals in boreholes. In rocks, the Webb (1976)
Standard Penetration
rocks. Also used on penetration may be recorded for a given number of blows (say 4 SAICE & NITRR (1978)
Test (SPT)
other soils. sets of 20 blows). Disturbed sample obtained for identification. Gives Sanglerat (1972)
indication of consistency/relative density of soil. Results correlated Ervin (1983)
to many soil properties and empirical design methods.
Most soils Performed by driving cone or spoon with no intermediate drilling or Webb (1976)
Dynamic Cone or
Dynamic Spoon Tests reaming of hole. Not as widely accepted as SPT test but cheaper to SAICE & NITRR (1978)
perform. Disturbed sample obtained from spoon test. Results Sanglerat (1972)
correlated with SPT results. Ervin (1983)

Static cone tests (Dutch Loose granular soils Gives point resistance (cone) and total resistance (cone and friction TMH6 (1984)
Probe) and soft to firm clays sleeve). Results correlated with bearing capacity and compressibility. Webb (1976)
SAICE & NITRR (1978)
Sanglerat (1972)
Ervin (1983)
Piezocone Saturated, loose, Tip resistance, sleeve resistance and dynamic pore pressure are Clemence (Ed) (1986)
granular soils and soft measured while continuously driving the probe into the ground. Weitman and Head
to firm clays (1982)
Pressuremeter Soils and weak rocks Pressuremeters may either be inserted into boreholes, be driven into SAICE & NITRR (1978)
the ground in a slotted casing or be self boring. Results give Menard (1965)
indication of elastic modulus and soil strength. Windle & Wroth (1977)
'. ' Ervin (1983)
Goodman Jack Soft or hard rocks Jack inserted into NX sized borehole. Rock loaded by curved plates Goodman et al (1968)
and deformations measured. May be installed in horizontally drilled
�ol�s and rotated_to determine degree of anisotropy. Results give
indication of elastic modulus of in situ rock mass.
Constant Head Soils or rocks generally Water introduced into soil or rock via piezometer. SAICE & NITRR (1978)
Permeability Test below W.T. BS 5930 (1981)
Schmid (1967)·
Ervin (1983)
Variable Head Soils or rocks generally Either a falling or rising head upset test. SAICE & NITRR (19781/

)
Permeability iest \belowW.i. BS 5930 (1981)
Schmid {1967)
Ervin (1983)
\
 TABLE B.2 FIELD TESTS Continued
1
I TEST APPLICABILITY REMARKS REFERENCE
'Packer Tests Generally applied to Test measures the acceptance of the in situ rock of water under SAICE & NITRR (1978)
rocks and clayey soils pressure between packers inserted in the hole. Used to assess the Lugeon (1933)
grout acceptance of the rock or to check the effectiveness of Ervin (1983)
Pumping Tests Soils or rocks below fff�b\�Qi· pumping at a steady
known flow and observing the· SAICE & NITRR (1978)
W.T. drawdown in observation wells at various distances from the Lugeon (1933)
pumped well. Gives permeability of in situ material. Ervin (1983)
Piezometer All soils and rocks Used to determine ground water pressure at various depths in the SAICE & NITRR (1978)
ground. In permeable ground, standpipe piezometers are used but BS 5930 (1981)
in impermeable conditions or where rapid response is required, Penman (1960)
hydraulic, pneumatic or electric piezometers are used.
Vane Shear Test Saturated cohesive Normally restricted to saturated clays with an undrained shear SAICE & NITRR (1978)
soils strength of less than 100 kPa. This method can give peak and BS 5930 (1981)
residual undrained shear strengths. Ervin (1983)
Plate Bearing Test Most soils and soft Test performed in trench or auger hole by jacking circular plates Ervin (1983)

.
rocks. Generally above
W.T.
against the soil/rock. May be carried out horizontally (across width
of hole) or vertically Gacking against a kentledge). Size of plate
Wrench (1984)

depends on hole size and stiffness of material - generally

75-300mm for horizontal tests and 200-1 000mm for vertical tests.
Test Anchors (Proving All soils and rocks Where the size of the project permits, test anchors may be installed BS 8081 (1989)
test anchors) during the investigation stage. The purpose of these tests is to Littlejohn (1981)
assess the suitability and load capacity of the selected anchor
type(s). See 6.7.2
Seismic Test Soils and rocks Boundaries and elastic parameters of subsoil materials are derived Griffiths and King (1976)
from propagation of seismic waves generated near the ground Weitman et al (1982)
surface.
Dilatometer Soft soils The pressure required to deflect a circular steel membrane a fixed Clemence (Ed) (1986)
distance into the ground provides information on elastic parameters
of the soil.
Resistivity Soils and rocks The electrical potential distribution in the ground through which a Claylon et al (1982)
current passes reflects the type, consistency and depth of soil and Weitman and Head
rocks and the depth of the water table. (1982)
TABLE B.3 LABORATORY TESTS ON ROCKS
TEST MATERIAL SAMPLE REMARKS REFERENCE
TYPE
Moisture Content All rocks C/L Gives some indication of strength, modulus of elasticity and degree of Int. Soc. Rock
Bulk Density weathering Mech. (1979)
Porosity
Thin Section Intact rock C/L Microscopic examination of minerals present. Gives indication of behaviour Williams et al
weathering and drillability. (1954)
X-ray Diffraction Any rock or soil L Gives quantitive information on minerals present. Gives indication of
behaviour weathering and drillability. Particularly useful for swelling rocks.
Slake Durability Mainly argillaceous L Slake durability index indicates rate of breakdown under varying moisture Franklin &
Test rocks content conditions. Chandra
(1972)
Hoek (1977)
Swelling Test Mainly argillaceous C/L Indicate moisture sensitivity of rock and possible pressures on rigid support Duncan et al
rocks work. (1968)
�oint Load Test Isotropic rocks C/L Quick and cheap indicator of rock strength. Useful aid to core logging. Hoek (1977)
Broch &
Franklin
(1972)
Uniaxial Most rocks which C Strength of intact rock. Upper limit for jointed rock mass strength. Widely Hoek (1977)
Compression Test can be cored used for predicting bearing capacity and skin friction. Gives elastic Hawkes &
properties of "intact" rock core. This will overestimate modulus of jointed Mellor (1970)
rock. Clark (1966)
Triaxial Ve'ry soft/soft rock.. .c As above. Only weak rocks may be tested with commonly available
.,
Hoek (1977)
Compression "Intact" weathered equipment.
rock
Direct Shear Box Usually applied to UI Gives shear strength along discontinuity. Used for asses�ment of support Hoek (1977)

'
,est rock discontinuities requirements of jointing or weathered rock mass.
\
\ or intact rock.

C = Cote spec\men L = Lump ot in\ac\ roc'k. I = In situ test

 . APPENDIX C
FIELD DESCRIPTION OF
SOIL AND ROCK
C.1 FIELD DESCRIPTION OF SOIL

The procedure for describing soils in terms of six basic descriptions

as recommended by Jennings et al (1973) is summarised below:

Moisture conditions - These are described by one of the following

terms: dry, slightly moist, moist, very moist
or wet.

Colour - The colour is important for describing the

soil and for correlating layers in different
holes. The colour of a particular residual
soil often indicates the degree of
weathering of the parent rock and the
conditions under which the weathering took
place.

Consistency - This is a measure of the hardness or

toughness of the soil and can t;>e used for
assessment of bearing capacity and
compressibility. The Tables C1 and C2
describing the consistency of soils are
reproduced from Jennings et al (1973).
Typical SPT values have been added
according to Peck et al (1974).

Structure - Indicates the presence or absence of joints

in the soil and the nature of these joints.
Cohesive soils exhibit an intact (absence
of joints) to fissured (opened joints)
structure. Soil structure is very important
as a guide to engineering behaviour
particularly with respect to volume change
and heave. In granular soils, a porous
structure is an indication of possible
135
 collapse settlements. In rock mas
spacing and orientation of jo• s�s, the
in s are
particularly important.

TABLE C1 CONSISTENCY OF GRANULAR SOILS

GRAVELS AND CLEAN SANDS - · TYPICAL SPT "N"

GENERALLY FREE-DRAINING FRICTIONAL DRY (COARSE
MATERIALS DENSITY SAND)
(kg/m3)
Very loose Crumbles very easily when less than 0- 4
scraped with geological pick 1450

Loose Small resistance to penetration by 1450 to 4-10

sharp end of geological pick 1600

Medium Considerable resistance to 1600 to 10-30

dense penetration by sharp end of 1750
geological pick

Dense Very high resistance to 1750 to 30-50

penetration of sharp end of 1925
geological pick - requires many
-
blows of pick for excavation

Very High resistance to repeated blows more than 50+

dense of geological pick - requires 1925
power tools for excavation -

n
Soil type - This is described for each stratum o a
basis of grain size.
. determ ines
Origin - The geological history of a site .
t The
the origin of the soil on that si ��d or
division of the soil into tran5P? ce the
51 n
resi dual horizons is important . eerin9
g in
origin strongly influences the en
behaviour.
136
TABLE C2 CONSISTENCY
OF COHESIVE
SOILS
' SILTS AND C
LAYS AND CO
OF SILTS AND MBINATIONS
CLAYS WITH UNCONFIN
GENERALLY SL SAND, ED
OW-DRAINING COMPRESS
MATERIALS COHESIVE IV E
STRENGTH
(kPa)

COP 4" 1 ERZAGHI

�ND PECK
S1 Very soft Pick head (1967)
can easily be
pushed in up to less than less·
the shaft of than
handle. Easily mo 35 25
ulded by
fingers

S2 Soft Easily penetrated by

thumb;
sharp end of pick
can ·be
35 to 75 25 to so
pushed in 30-40mm;
moulded by fingers with
some pressure
S3 Firm Indented by thumb with
75 to 150 50 to 100
effort; sharp end of pick can
be pushed in up to 1 0m m;
very difficult to mould wit_ h
fingers. Can just be
penetrated with an ordinary
hand spade
S4 Stitt Penetrated by thumb-nail; 150 to 300 100 to 200
slight indentation p�od ced
�
by pushing pick point into
soil; cannot be moulded ?Y
fingers. Requires hand pick
for excavation
S5 Very stiff Indented by thumb-nail ith
� more than 200 to 400
difficulty; slight indent�t, n 300
pro duced by blow of pie �
point. Requires power tools
for excavation

'Code of Practic
e No. 4, (1954)
137
 GGING
C.2 CORE LO
g Com m ittee of the SA Association of Engineerin
The core Loggin ha s als o recommended
a six descriptio�
(19 76 ) ised below:
Geologists gging, as summar
classificati on to r c or e lo
nant colour with
- Describe in profile predomi
Colour d, stained, etc.)
(sp eckl ed, m ottle
as per Burland Colour
secon dary colours
)).
Chart (Burland (1960
a rock should
- The state of weathering of
Weathering of Table C3.
be des cribed in terms

G
TABLE C3 WEATHERIN
RE SURFACE
DESCRIPTION DISCOLOURA· FRACTU CHARACTERIS·
ION
TERM TION EXTENT CONDIT TICS

closed or unchanged
Unweathered none
discoloured

discoloured, partial
<20% of
Slightly
may contain discolouration
weathered fracture
spacing on thin filling
both sides of
fracture

>20% of discoloured, partial to

Medium
fracture may contain complete
weathered on;
spacing on thick filling discolourati ept
exc
both sides. of not friable ted
emen
fracture poorly c
rocks

Highly throughout - friable an� ted

y p it
weathered possibl
il
a so
Completely throughout - res e m bl e s
weathered

138
 Discontinuity, - Describe spacing of joints/be
dding and
surface texture of material (Table C4 and C5).
spacing
and fabric

TABLE C4 DISCONTINUITY SURFACE AND MICRO STRUCTURE

SPACING

DESCRIPTION FOR SPACING (mm) DESCRIPTION

STRUCTURAL FEATURES: FOR JOINTS,
BEDDING, FOLIATION OR FLOW FAULTS, OR
BEDDING OTHER
FRACTURES
Very thickly (bedded foliated or · Greater than Very widely
banded) 1000 (fractured or
jointed)
Thickly 300-1000 Widely

Medium 100-300 Medium

Thinly 30-100 Closely

Very thinly 10-30 Very closely

DESCRIPTION FOR
MICROSTRUCTURAL
FEATURES: LAMINATION,
FOLIATIONS OR CLEAVAGE
Intensely laminated (foliated or 3-10
cleaved)

Very intensely <3

139
TABLE C5 GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION

DESCRIPTION SIZE (mm) RECOGNITION EQUIVALENT

-
SOIL TYPE
Very fine < 0,06 Individual Clays & silts
grained grains cannot
be seen with a
hand lens
Fine grained 0,06-0,2 Just visible as Fine sand
individual
grains under
hand lens
Medium 0,2-0,6 Grains clearly Medium sand
grained
visible under
hand lens, just
visible to the
naked eye
Coarse grained 0,6-2,0 Grains clearly Coarse sand
visible to naked
eye
Very coarse > 2,0 Grains Gravel
grained
measureable

Hardness - To describe the hardness of

rock, the
application of Table C6 is recommended.
Approximate and conservative strength
values may be assigned.

140
TABLE C6 HARDNESS
�
CLASSI-
RANGE OF
FICATION FIELD TEST
MINIMUM
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(MPa)
Very soft rock Can be peeled with a knife, 1 to 3
material crumbles under firm
blows with the sharp end of a
geological pick
Soft rock Can just be scraped with a knife, 3 to 10
indentations of 2 to 4mm with firm
blows of the pick point
Medium hard Cannot be scraped or peeled with 10 to 25
rock a knife, hand held specimen
breaks with firm blows of the pick
Hard rock Point load tests must be carried 25 to 70
out in order to distinguish
Very hard rock 70 to 200
between these classifications.
Extremely hard These results may be verified by > 200
rock uniaxial compressive strength
tests on selected samples

.
Rock type - e.g. granite, sandstone, quartzite, etc
nte Chri5to
Stratigraphic horizon - e.g. Vryheid Formation, Mo oup, etc.
Formation, Table Mountain Gr

1 41
 APPENDIX D
LEGAL ASPECTS OF
LATERAL SUPPORT FOR
SURFACE EXCAVATIONS

NOTE: See Section 1.1 for the purpose of this Appendix.

D.1 OWNER'S RIGHT TO EXCAVATE

0.1.1 In legal theory, the ownership of land extends from the surface
thereof to the core of the earth and to infinity above the surface;
subject, however, to the law relating to mining and minerals.

0.1.2 Likewise in theory, the owner of land may excavate it to whatever

depth he pleases; subject, however, to:

(a) his not interfering with the support his land naturally affords his
neighbour's land, without substituting adequate artificial support;
and

{b) there being no prohibition by Statute, Ordinance, municipal

regulations or condition of title against his doing so.

D.2 DUTY TO PROVIDE LATERAL SUPPORT

0.2.1 The duty of an owner not to excavate on his land in such a way
as to remove the support his land affords his neighbour's land unless
adequate artificial support is substituted for it, is well recognised
in South African law;

London and SA Exploration Co. vs Rouliot

Vol.8 Supreme Court Reports (Cape) p.74.

D.2.2 As to what constitutes adequate artificial support:

(a) the form this is to take, whether on a temporary or permanent

basis, rests with the owner on whose property the excavations
are being done;
143
 vs Rouliot
London and SA Exploration Co. . . .
. . .1 o f Joh ann esb ur,g vs Rob inso n Gold Mtmng Co. Ltd.
Municipal Counc,
p.99.
1923 Witwatersrand Local Division
hbouring owner whose land
(b) sueh owner would be liable to a neig .f..
1 suppo rt even .m the
is affected through a failure of the art, 1c1a
property the
absence of negligence. The owner on whose
excavation is done interferes with the lateral support of his
neighbour's property at his peril, and is absolutely liable if his
f
neighbour's land subsides in consequence thereo ;

London and SA Exploration Co. vs Rouliot

but see Vol. 82 (1965) South African Law Journal pp. 210, 357 and 495.

D.2.3 The duty of an owner not to remove the lateral support of his
neighbour's land without substituting an adequate artificial support,
extends to land in its natural state, and not to land, the burden of
which has been artificially increased by the erection of buildings.

East London Municipality vs SAR and H.

1951 (4) South African Law Reports p.466 Eastern Districts Local Division
Douglas Colliery Ltd. vs Bothma and another
1947 (3) South African Law Reports p. 602 Transvaal Provincial Division.

D.2.4 There is some authority for the contrary view that the duty to maintain
lateral support extends to buildings as well as land.

Johannesbuig Board of Executors and Trust Co. Ltd. vs Victoria Building Co. Ltd.
1894 Vol. 1 Official Reports p. 43
Phillips vs Independent Order of Mechanics
1916 Cape Provincial Division p. 61.

D.2.5 The better view is probably that an owner is liable for damage
through subsidence of his neighbour's building if the land upon
which the building stands would have subsided even if the building
had not been there at all.

East London Municipality vs SAR and H.

D.2.6 In practice, however, engineers would be well advised to ignore the

fact that there is support in the law for the proposition that the duty
to maintain lateral support does not extend to buildings. Adequate
st�ps to safeguard the stability of all existing buildings on
neighbouri_ ng properties should be taken beca
use:
(a) civil or criminal responsibility in respect
_ of neighbours or third
parties could still arise if negligence or wilfulness is proved. (See
Sections D.6 and D.8),
144
 (b) it would obviously be very difficult to show that the subsidence
of the land would not have taken place had it not been built upon,

(c) there is a moral obligation owed towards the public by the

engineer and his client to take measures to ensure safety.

0.2. 7 In common with Section 0.2.6 above, an engineer acting on behalf

of an owner of property in proximity to projected excavation works
should advise his client to adopt a reasonable standpoint in respect
of access for underpinning works, installation of tie back anchors,
or other measures intended for the protection of property. (See
Section 0.5.)

D. 3 DEWATERING OPERATIONS
D.3.1 An owner may drain water from an excavation on his land even if
this results in the subsidence of other properties in the
neighbourhood. If the substance drained is 'of the nature of mud
or silt', however, he may be absolutely liable on the basis discussed
in Section 0.2.

Levin vs Vogelstruis Estates and Gold Mining Co Ltd.

1921 Witwatersrand Local Division p. 66 at p.68.
Jordeson vs Sutton, Southcoates and Drypool Gas Co.
1899 (2) Chancery p. 217 Court of Appeal.
Popplewell vs Hodkinson
1869 Law Reports Vol.4 Exchequer p.248.
Gordon vs Durban City Council
1955 (1) South African Law Reports p. 634 Durban and Coast Local Division
'
D.3.2 In practice, engineers should take reasor:iable precautions to avoid
the damaging of neighbouring properties through dewatering
operations because:

(a) it is in the public interest, and

(b) it may be very difficult to show in a given case that what was
removed from beneath the neighbouring property was 'muddy
water' and not 'wet sand'.

NOTE: The terms ·•mud', 'silt', 'muddy water', and 'wet sand' are not defined in a
technical manner for legal processes. Descriptions would be an arguable question of
degree in any particular case. An engineer should therefore take care to err on the
safe side in assessing the acceptable amount of solids in water being pumped or drained
from adjoining sites.

D .4 DISPOSAL OF STORMWATER
D.4.1 Stormwater flowing over the surface of a higher-lying property on
to the surface of a lower-lying property could adversely affect the
145
 stability of an excavation on the
measures necessary to maintain
property. The general principles
stormwater are shortly stated below,
cases.
lower-lying property and the
support for the higher-lying
relating to the disposal of
but they may be varied in given

(a) by local municipal by-law, or

(b) by conditions of title, particularly in respect of township erven

0.4.2 Under urban conditions, an owner of a higher-lying property is not

free to discharge his stormwater on to a lower-lying property
wherever it may suit him, but must make arrangements for it to be
discharged into the street if this is feasible. If it is not feasible, the
necessary arrangements to receive the stormwater must be made
with the owner of the lower-lying property. The owner of the lower­
lying property may take steps to prevent the water flowing on to his
property from the higher-lying property, or may make arrangements
at his own expense on his own property for the water to be disposed
of innocuously. The owner of the higher-lying property cannot be
made to pay for any measures the owner of the lower-lying property
may take except where he agree� to bear such cost or where there
is some by-law or condition of title obliging him to do so.

Bishop vs Humphries
1919 Witwatersrand Local Division p.99.
Barklie vs Bridle
1956 (2) South African Law Reports p. 103 Southern Rh odesia·

0.4.3 The position is otherwise than as described in Section 0.4.2 where

the properties are in a substantially undeveloped state in a nonurban
environment.

Benoni Town Council vs Meyer and others

1961 (3) South African Law Reports p.316 Witwatersrand Local Division

0.4.4 In practice, where it is necessary in connection with any excavation

to provide for the disposal of stormwater from a higher-lying property ,
this should be done, where possible, in conjunction with the owner
of the higher-lying property in the light of the principles explained
in this Section.

0.5 ENCROACHMENTS UNDER NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY

0.5.1 Reference should be made to Section 0.1.1 from which it follows
that the owner of property adjoining an excavation is entitled to
protect the subsurface of his land from encroachment e.g. tor
146
 underpin�ing or for the _installation of tie-back anchors. He may
_
preve nt, 1f necessary by interdict, any workings-of whatever nature
beneath his property even if his attitude in doing so !llay be regarded
as grossly unreasonable. The fact that the measures proposed to
be taken are for the protection of his own property does not alter
the position, nor would he be denied relief in the event of a
subsidence occurring by reason of his unreasonably refusing
permi ssio_n for work to be done under the surface of his property.

D.5.2 If in any particular case a support system is decided upon which

involves working und�f the surface of an adjoining property,_ and
the consent to such working cannot be obtained .from the owner of
such adjoining property there i� -no alten�a�ive therefore but to
redesign the support system in such a way as to avoid the adjoining
property altogether.

D.5.3 In most cases, however, it should �e possible to secure any

necessary consent of an adjoining owner. As such consent would
generally involve the granting of an indemnity, a suggested form
of indemn_ity is provided below.

INDEMNITY

WHEREAS ................................... being the owner of the_ property to be

excavated (hereinafter referred to as "the excavator") wishes to excavate on
-
its property, being Stand No ................................... :
AND WHEREAS the excavator has applied to .......... : .............-........... , the
owner of Stand No ........ .-.......................... for permission to carry out certain
work under the surface of the said Stand in order to ensure its continued
stability;
AND WHEREAS the owner of the said Stand has granted permission_ for the
work to be done under the surface of the Stand, which work is to consist of
the following:

on certain conditions, including the furnishing by the excavator of a suitable

indemnity;
NOW THEREFORE, THE EXCAVATOR
represented herein by ................................... under the a�thority of a
resolution dated the day of ....................... hereby indemnifies the owner
of Stand No .............. against all loss, costsand damage that may be suffered
by him in consequence of the permission granted by him to t�e ex�avator as
.
aforesaid, as also against arr claims that may be brought against him by third
parties arising out of the work so permitte d.

SIGNED AT this day of

AS WITNESSES FOR THE EXCAVATOR
1. O • 1 • • 0 0 o o O o Ito ft o O I I■ I I IO O IO IO I I I I a Io o' 'o •' ' ' • o o o Io O' o 1

2.
147
 ER FOR DAMAGE OR
D.6 LIABILITY OF OWNER AND ENGINE SED
INJURY NEGLIGENTLY OR WILFULLY CAU
ons D.2 and 0.3 aforegoing are
D.6.1 The concepts discussed in Secti
special inasmuch as they apply

(a) as between owners of land only, and

(b) irrespective of a wilful intention to injure or of negligence on the

part of the doer.

The owner of land, the contractor and the engineer may, however,
owe a duty to a much wider field of persons not to cause injury
wilfully or through negligence. Such a duty would be owed to the·
owner of a neighbouring property, the tenants of the neighbouring
property, the employees of such tenants, passers-by in a street
which might collapse into an excavation, the local authority in
respect of the services in such street, etc. Indeed, the duty might
loosely be stated as extending to all persons who could reasonably
be expected to suffer damage or injury by any want of care on the
part of any person responsible for the excavation.

It is not deemed necessary to enlarge further in this field on delictual

liability*, which is a wide and complex one, save to say that insofar
as engineers are concerned, lack of skill can amount to negligence
in certain circumstances. This is where a person voluntarily engages
in some activity which is likely to cause danger to others unless the
doer possesses special skills. The negligence does not consist in
the lack of skill, but in undertaking the work without skill or expert
assistance.

'In deciding what is reasonable the Court will have regard to the general level of skill
and diligence possessed and exercised at the time by members of the branch of the
profession to which the practitioner belongs.'
(Innes, CJ in Van W)rk vs Lewis
1924 Appellate Division p. 438 at p.444)

The conduct of the engineer connected with an excavation will

therefore be judged in the light of what a prudent and skilful engineer
would have done in such circumstances.

D.6.4 It is possible that this Code, insofar as it may embody the best and
most up-to-date engineering techniques, could come to be accepted
by the Courts as the standard by which the conduct of engineers
in this field should be judged .
• Delictual liability is liability arising in consequence of a wrong caused otherwlse than by breach of conlracl.

148
D. 7 LIABILITY FOR NUISANCE
o. 7.1 Nuisance is any unreasonable use of land which injuriously affects
the use and enjoyment of neighbouring land. Examples of possible
nuisances in the case of large excavations would be excessive
noise, dust, vibration, etc.

The following are, briefly, the principles relating to nuisance:

(a) It is essentially P continuing wrong, and seldom a single act.

(b) A person who uses his property in an ordinary and natural

manner does not commit a nuisance even if he causes damage
to another.

(c) There must be physical injury to the property ·of another, or

substantial interference with his lawful enjoyment thereof.

(d) The person liable is the originator of the nuisance, who, in the
case of excavations, would generally be the contractor. An action
based on nuisance could involve others too, however, depending
on circumstances.

D.7.2 In an action based ori nuisance, it is unnecessary to prove

negligence on the part -of the person causing the nuisance or
permitting it to continue.

Bloemfontein Town Council vs Richter

1938 Appellate Division p. 195 at p. 230
But see Regal vs African Supers/ate (Pty) Ltd
1963 (1) South African Law Reports p. 102 Appellate Division per Rumpff, JA and 1965
South African Law Journal Vol.82 p.31.

D.8 CIVIL REMEDIES

D.8.1 The civil reme dies available to an owner whose rights are infringed
or threatened are:

(a) abatement
{b) interdict
{c) damages

D.a.2 Abatement is an extrajudicial remedy consisting of 'taking the law

in one's own hands'. It is therefore countenanced only in case of
Particular urgency where no other remedy will suffice. It is
necessarily of very limited application.
149
 riate rem�dy for thr_eate�ed in v asion of
D.B.S An interdict is an approp_ om tort 1 s b erng suffered. Its
rights , or where inconvenience or d1sc
requirements are:
convenience in favour
(�) a clear right or a substantial balance of
of the applicant;

{b) an actual or reasonably apprehended violation of the applic ant's

rights and

(c) no other satisfactory remedy

D.8.4 Damages in the case of subsidence would prob�bly consist of the

diminution in the value of the damaged property or the cost of
restoring it (whichever is the less), plus compensation for temporary
loss of use and profits. The aforegoing is, however, subject to such
damage not being 'too remote' and the duty on the part of the plaintiff
to mitigate his loss.

0.8.5 The owner of a property which adjoins a completed, but insufficiently

supported excavation cannot apparently compel those responsible
for the excavation to provide proper support. His remedy is limited
to damages as and when subsidences take place. This is not very
.satisfactory, and is apparently based on the Court' s reluctance to
issue Orders which it will experience difficul,y i� �nfordng.
Gijzen vs Verrunder
1965 (1) South African Law Reports p·. 806 at p. 812 Durbal} and' Coas� Local Division.

0.9 CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF ·OWNER AND ENGINEER

D.9.1 It has already been observed in Section 0.6 how the persons
responsible for an excavation may be held liable in delict * when
through wilfulnes s or negligence they cause death or injury to others
or damage to property. In like manner also a criminai responsibility
could arise.

0.9.2 It is beyond the scope of this Appendix to embark upon a discussion

of the field of possible criminal responsibility. Suffice it to say that
generally some wilfulness or negligence on the part of the doer of
an act would have to be proved before such act becomes punishabl e.
Strict observance of the procedures set out in this Code may go
a long way towards rebutting allegations of negligence in criminal
prosecutions just as it would in relation to civil actions for damages
discussed in Section 0.6.
* Liable in delict: Subject to delictual liability. (See Section D.6.3).

150
0.9.3 Where wilfulness or negligence is not an ingredient of the offence,
the charge would generally relate to the breach of some statutory
provision or regulation. As most of the people who will use this Code
have, in any event, to familiarise themselves with these statutory
provisions and regulations, it is not deemed necessary to discuss
them fully. Attention might, however, be drawn to one example, i.e.
Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act, 1941, Sections 34 to
37 (Buildings and excavations to be subject to inspection).

Section D16 of the regulations promulgated in terms of the 1941

Act deals with excavations, and the following subjects are covered:

(a) Proper fences or barriers to be erected around excavations .

.(b) Excavations to be properly lighted.
(c) Excavations to be adequately braced and supported.
(d) Care to be exercised in the location and protection of
underground services.
( "Where the stability of a structure is likely to be affected by_ �n
e)
excavation, adequate steps shall be taken to ensure the stability
of the structure, and every builder and excavator shall take steps
as are necessary to ensure the safety of persons.''
(f) Periodic inspection of excavations to be undertaken to ensure
their continued safety.

151
 APPENDIX E
REMOVAL OF LATERAL
SUPPORT RISKS:
CONTRACTUAL ASPECTS AND
INSURANCE

NOTE: The purpose of this Appendix is to provide an outline of:

a) Risks of legal liability to plaintiffs as borne by the Employer,

Contractor or Engineer, arising out of the removal of or
interference with support to property.

b) Liability insurance cover that may be purchased to improve the

Employer's, Contractor's or Engineer's ability to carry such
risks.

E.1 INTRODUCTION

Whilst the legal responsibilities arising out of the removal of support

are fully described in Appendix D, problems relating to risk and
insurance arise from:

a) the allocation of risk under the various Standard Conditions of

Contract as between the Employer and the Contractor, where
the Contractor generally only accepts responsibility for claims
arising out of property damage if due to his negligence or that
of his subcontractors.

b) the Employer's risk; as the Developer/Owner of the property on

which the excavation works are to be carried out, which would
appear to be (subject to certain specific exceptions) a strict
liability (irrespective of neglige nce) to his neighbour for loss of
or damage to the neighbour's land and possibly the
consequences of such loss or damage.
153
 As the Employer, the Contractor , and the Engineer are all su�jected
to risk, they should all familiarise t�en:iselves thoroughly with the
specific risks relevant to any comm1ss�on of development, design
or contract which they may undertake in order that they should be
fully aware of their legal or contractual liabilities and oblig ations.

E.2 RISK EXPOSURES

The following is a general synopsis of some of the risk exposures
which may assist in determining which insurances may be required
and who should arrange these.

E.2.1 The Employer

a) Arising out of the Law of Property as it relates to adjoining

landowners, the Employer/Developer/Owner (hereinafter referred
to as the Employer) generally carries the risk of strict liability to
his neighbour for damage to the neighbour's property due to the
removal of lateral or other support to such property.

This risk may continue after completion of the construction

contract/maintenance period, whether the damage to the
neighbour's property is a delayed manifestation of something
done during construction or whether the damage is attributable
to some deficiency in the permanent support works (or due to
drainage or to usage of the property, etc.).

b) Liability may also attach to the Employer, arising out of the

Common Law principles of delict in respect of loss, damage or
injury arising from dolus* or culpa* on the part of the Employer,
his servants or agents.

This risk could exist notwithstanding the fact that some forms
of construction contract may attempt to transfer some of this risk
to the Contractor to an extent which varies from one document
to another.

c) The Employer could also, under certain circumstances, be

vicariously liable for wrongful acts of the Contractor vis-a-vis third
.. Do us (i�te nt) - Dolus i� present when
a person's will is direct d towards a particular result
�n � he 15 at the same time aware that the achievement of thise result will infringe th
nght of someone else. e legal

Culpa (negl!gen�e) - Culp is present when the d ion

� efendant, by paying i nsufficient attent
to what h e is doing or by displayin g insufficient care, allows prejudice to take place.
154
 parties. Most standard forms of construction contract ·
. . require the
Contract�r to indemn ify th Employer against such clai
� ms and
also require the Cont ·actor s liability insurance to be in the
joint
names of Contractor and Employer.
Whilst many may endeavour to do so, the usual standard forms of
construction contract do not and in many instances cannot effectively
transfer these risks to the Contra ctor. (See E3 below.)

A prudent Employer would be well advised to employ competent

and experienced Engineers and Contractors· as a means towards
minimising his risk exposure.

He should, however, be aware that whilst there may be some degree

of recourse (in respect of claims against him for loss or damage by
the owners of adjacent property) against

i) the Engineer if he failed to exercise sufficient .pro!essional skill,

and/or
ii) the Contractor fo r failing to carry out instructions or in carrying
them out negligently,

the exercising of such recourse might prove to be a difficult and

onerous task and depe�dent. on exper_t te�timony if the matter is
pursued to trial or arbitration.

E.2.2 The Contractor

The Contracto r's risks of liability to others arise.in three ways, viz:

a) Liability in delict in Common Law which would generally oblige

the plaintiff to prove negligence or fault on the part of the
Contractor, his servants or agents.

b) Contractual liability arising out of t�e pro�isions of the

and
construction contract - particularly the mdemmty cla�ses
pe
the definition of the scope of work. Such clauses vary m sco
and severity
ployer as
- from requiring the Contractor to indemnify the Em
set out in E.2.1 (c) above;

- to requiring the Contractor to indemnify th8 Employ� r againSt

. . · st the Employer m respect
legal proceedings mst1tu ted again
155
 of actions at1ributable to the Employer himself (See E.2
. l(b )
above);

_ and in their extreme form, to requiring the Contractor t

o
assume the risks, unique to the Employer, referred to i
n
E.2.1 (a) above.

c) The Contractor might find himself liable also in contract to his

subcontractors with whom he has contracted, for any breach of
contract which might arise from concluded subcontractual
agreements. In each case this would depend on the
circumstances and conditions of the agreement in issue at the
time.

Such liability may also arise in delict.

E.2.3 The Engineer

The Engineer's exposure to liability arises mainly out of the scope

of the professional services he provides and to whom he provides
them.

The scope of these services generally includes some combination

of the following:

a) The technical design of the temporary and permanent support

works, with or without delegating/subcontracting aspects of the
design to the Contractor, e.g design of the fixed length of any
ground anchorage, design of corrosion protection measures, etc.

b) Supervision to ensure that the design intent is executed to the

Engineer's satisfaction. Even in circumstances where the parties
agree that only the barest minimum of 'supervision' is to be
undertaken by the Engineer, it is possible that the Engineer may
not be able to avoid this liability. It is therefore the duty of the
Engineer to agree with the Employer their respective
responsibilities and liabilities and preferably to commit the
agreement to writing, either in the form of a contract or in the
form of a letter confirming the oral agreement.

c) The role of the Engineer as administrator and advisor to the

Employer whereby the Engineer undertakes to look after and
represent the interests of the Employer in matters ranging f�o�
selection, issue and administration of contract documentation,
156
 through dealing with risk and ins u ra . 0 selecti ng co r
t . Such n t actors,
e c acti vities and the standa::/ o rmance_ expected
from the Engineer are somewhat va ueperf ut the e 1s no oubt
that a potential liability exists, e .g. t�e f�� re byr �
the En gi n eer
to identify to_the Employer or the Contractor t� e need for
Removal
of Support msurance,etc. .
d) In general, an Engineer will take his i n struct'
n d" e c from the
o e a nd th us i n the f ir i �: � t�
Empl y r st n stan a y rea_ch of
duty/contract by the Engineer will give rise to a d'1rect action for
damages or breach of contract against him by the Employer.

e) The Engineer's potential liability in damages is not , h owever,

· .
neces�an·1Y 1-1m1ted to the instance described in (d) above. It is
conceivable that the Contractor or a subcontractor or even a third
partx such as a memb e r of the public may acquire an action
against the Engineer in delict based, interalia, on incorrect data
which the Engineer may furnish and on which he knows the
Contractor and/or subcontractor must place reliance. If this leads
to loss or damage being suffered by such parties, a potential
action can arise against the Engineer.

E.3 CONTRACTUAL ASPECTS

The standard forms of construction contract do not and cannot

effectively transfer the Employer's risk to the Contractor. In fact,
u nless the owner of the neighbouring property is a party
to such
an agreement, he is not and cannot be bound to any agreement
whereby the risk is passed from the Employer to the Contractor (or
any other party).
e the
The contract documents in any particular transaction determin
nces, it
obligations of the parties ·inter se. In appropriate circumsta
t ut of
may be possible for the Contractor or Engineer to contrac � the
have in
negligence and even gross negligence. These clauses
se clauses
past been upheld by South African courts. However, the _
will not be
are not appropriate in all circumstances, and in ge�eral,
agree to the
in the interests of the Employer who will probably not
insertion of s uch clauses.
is advisable that th� Emp��Y=�
Where this is agreed to, however, it s
s and that these be disclo
be made aware of the implication
material information to all relevant insurers.
157
 ng contract
E.3.1 The buildi
Building
d A g ree me nt an d Schedule of Conditions of
In the stand ar
8 1 Ed iti on ), Cl au s e 16.1.2 merely �reates an mdem�ity
Contract (19 l im
Con tra ctor in fav ou r of the E�pl_oye r, m respect of c a s
by the
r da ma ge du e to acts or om1ss1o�s of the Contractor, his
fo r lo ss
tractors. At best, m the event of the owner
o

agents, servants or subcon

ing the Employer, the Employer could
of the neighouring property su
ion; bu t only where there is any
j o in the Contractor in the act
of the Contractor.
suggestion of negligence on the part
ent does not even
Clause 16.3 of the aforesaid standard Agreem
loyer to
purport to try and pass the risk of damage from the Emp
the Contractor. Apart fro m dealing with the engagement of a
professional Engineer, these clauses merely endeavour to provide
for insurance against the removal of support risks.

The adequacy of a contractual requirement such as is dealt with

in this clause warrants consideration in relation to the requirements

a) th at this insurance be arranged by the Contractor, where the

Employer has a (apparently) greater interest in the adequacy of
this insurance and

b) that_ t_he 'policy sh all be kept in force until the issue of the final
c� rt ,ficate ... ' �h�n the indemnity cover may be requi red beyond
this date as indicated in E.2.1 a) above.

E.3.2 The civil engineering contract

The General Conditi ons of Co . .

. ntract, 1982 (Works of C1v1I
Engineering Co t on) do�s not d al at all with any specific
aspects of remo: ��:� p o :
. � rt nsks. Parties to this document sho uld
accordingly make P ov on
i n n addendum o r separate agreement
for th e determinati�n ,� th �1 r �
° rg
r g ar d to sue h : i hts and obligations between
pa rt ies in e
nsks.
such

E.a.a Duty to insure

In view of th e fore
g oin · _,t should be app r
�hould ensure a ent that the Employer
that h; is adequate
insurance for an ly pr otected by a policy of
y t·manciat lo th
r moval of supp
e ort. ss a he may incur relative to the
t
158
 There may be a duty on the Professional Team, particularly wh
dealing with a layman owner, to advise such owner to insure agaiis�
such risks.

E.4 INSURANCE CONSIDERATIONS

It is apparent from the foregoing that the Employer carries the major
risk of liability in co�nection with the removal of support to property.
As he cannot readily transfer all of such risk to the Contractor or
Engineer, he has a vested interest in the insurances that are to be
effected to provide indemnity in respect of such risks.

Even where a contractual transfer of risk to the Contractor is

attempted, the Employer must have an interest in the quality of
liability insurance effected as any transfer of risk is effective only
where the Contractor is able to competently deal with such risks.

The absence or inadequacy of specific instructions in the Conditions

of Contract dealing with insurance in respect of risks arising from
the removal of support generally has the result that this risk is not
adequately insured.

The following comments are relevant in this respect:

a) The Public Liability (Third Party) insurance required in the

contract, generally only indemnifies the Contractor against claims
arising from accidental injury or damage to third party persons
or property.

b) Whilst the contract may require that this insurance should extend
to indemnify the Employer, such indemnity would generally only
relate to claims arising from the activities of the Contractor or
his subcontractors.

c) This form of insurance is subject to certain exclusions; and in

particular there will generally be an exclu�ion of lia?ility arising
out of vibration or the removal or weakening of or interference
with support.

Where a removal of. support risk is known to exist, it is clear that

conventional Public Liability insurance must be unacceptable to both
Contractor and E mployer and in such circumstances th� contract
should clearly demand that specific Removal of Support insurance
be effected, preferably by the Employer.
159
 . . ec· t , it 1• s necessary to be a
ware that an instruction in the
In th is resp ·11 ·insure against
he Contrac1o� �
contract merely to the effect that 't
l of lateral sup�rt 1� _ e sum of R. ..... '
claims caused by the remova
requesting his insurers to delete
.11 babty result in the Contractor
(which !hey �II probably be
;e ��moval of support exclusion, _
mat,on), with the net result
prepared to do on receipt of relevant mfor n
that the Contractor now has some degree of cover for accide tal
l ,
injury or damage arising from his neg�igence._ The Emp oyer is
however, left without insurance protection against what .could be
a heavy responsibility.
A specific 'Removal of Support' policy, without any reference to the
injury, loss or damage being accidental, is required to properly
protect the interests of the Employer and serious consideration
should be given to arranging that the Employer, and not the
Contractor, is responsible to effect this insurance.

E.5 REMOVAL OF SUPPORT INSURANCE

It is vital that this insurance be in force before the Contractor is

allowed access to the site, as the risk of damage will arise during
the very early stages when site clearance, excavation, dewatering
and ground work takes place. Before cover attaches, Insurers will
normally insist that:
a) they be provided with all relevant information regarding the risk,
including information relative to the design and all relevant
drawings;
b) where it is intended to encroach on a neighbour's property (e.g.
by underpinning or ground anchoring) the consent of the owner
of the neighbouring property is obtained;
c) a jointly agreed schedule of defects is drawn up by the Contractor
(or Architect) and all nearby property owners.

E.6 RECOMMENDED POLICY COVER

The Removal of Support insurance should includ e the following

features:

E.6.1 Scope

The policy should be issued naming the Employer and �U

Contractors and Subcontractors as insured parties, preferably W1th
160
 a proviso that a breach of any policy condition by any one party shall
not prejudice the rights of any other party.

The policy should be written on a 'losses occurring' basis, i.e. the

policy must continue to respond to claims brought against the
insureds after expiry of the period of insurance provided only that
the loss, damage or injury complained of occurred during the period
of insurance. (Such liability insurance policies should be retained
by the Employer forever).

The cover under the Removal of Support policy should be dovetailed

with the cover provided by the Public Liability policy, i.e if the Public
Liability policy excludes liability arising out of shock or vibration or
interference with or weakening of or removal of (all) support (as
opposed to lateral support), then the Removal of Support policy
should in turn cover all such eventualities.

E.6.2 Period of insurance

The period of insurance should be at least:

a) if the lateral support system is of a permanent nature, until expiry

of the maintenance period; or

b) if the lateral support system is of a temporary nature, until the

permanent lateral support system replaces the temporary lateral
support system.

E.6.3 Indemnity limit

The limit of indemnity will generally apply to the period of insurance

and not to each occurrence. This is a limit which applies to the
aggregate of all claims made during the period of the policy and
should therefore be for an amount (specified in the contract) relating
to the maximum possible loss (including liability for any
consequential losses and all legal expenses which could be
incurred).

E.G.4 Deductible

The Insurers should apply an aggregate 'deductible'; that is, that

they will not be responsible for the first R5000 (say), or any other
specified amount of the total of all claims made relative to the
. '
insured contract.

161
 The alternative is to apply the d eductible as an exclusion of the fi t
rs
amount of each claim, but, as for example, an underpinnin
operation could result in a number of cracks appearing at differe �
times, Insurers could then argue that each crack constituted a clai�
and that each claim should be reduced by the deductible amount
This alternative however is likely to result in disputes with insurers:

E.6.5 Premium

The premium will usually be a specific amount and should not be

based as a rate per cent on the contract price as the size of contract
generally bears no relevance to the risk.
The specific single premium should be applicable for the period of
the contract and not be adjustable, except for extensions of period
or any material alteration to the risk.

E.6.6 Policy conditions and exclusions

The conditions applicable to Removal of Support policies contain

important requirements regarding preconstruction surveys of
surrounding property, consents obtai�ed from surrounding property
owners, the extent of testing and supervision required from design
engineers, notification to insurers of changes in risk factors, etc.

An important condition to be watched is any warranty which will

demand that the operations to be carried out shall be in accordance
with the drawings and the method of work disclosed to Insurers at
the time of arranging the insurance. If any material variation occurs,
cover may automatically cease. ft follows therefore th at any
variations to the original proposals must be submitted to Insurers
in advance for approval. It would be unwise for any other party to
assess whether the variation is material to the insurance or not.
·
Such
. require ments need to be comm unicated to and b e
implemented by all parties involved.
E.6. 7 Extensions of cov
er

�ome extensions to the basic cover which can or should be arranged

include:
·
· or nearby property which is endang eredf
a} Where any ad"Joi· ning
by th e re moval of supp rt
o belongs to the -Emp loyer, or anY 0
16 2
 the other parties insured by the policy, the policy can be extended
to indemnify such _parties against damage to such property.
_
(Norn:1al�y no such !nd�_mnity would be provided by the policy
_
as this 1s a legal hab1hty policy and the parties cannot hold
themselves legally liable for causing damage to their own
property).

b) Most policies will exclude liability arising out of design or other

professional activity undertaken by the Engineer. Such restriction
may be deleted from the policy by agreement with underwriters.
This does not, however, mean that the Engineer is an insured
party under the policy as insurers will generally wish to retain
rights of subroga tion against the Engineer as the Removal of
Support policy is generally not intended to replace Professional
Indemnity insurance.

E. 7 PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE

Provided a competent Removal of Support liability insurance has

been arranged, the balance of the third party liability risks outlined
in E.2 above are generally dealt with by conventional construction
industry Public Liability insurance.

It is not considered appropriate that technical detail of this insurance

be dealt with here.

E.8 PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE

The Engineer should be called upon to show that appropriate

Professional Indemnity insurance has been effected by him. In
addition, he should satisfy himself that appropriate insurance cover
has been effected to include:

·a) Cover in respect of work such as design or supervision delegated

fully or partly to others (e.g. design by Contractor of fixed
anchorage length of ground anc hors).

b) Cover for the entire spectrum of professional duties and not to

be confined to specified activities, (e.g. design).

c) The insured's participation in consortia/joint ventures/joint

appointments.

d) Adequate limits of indemnity to cater for erosion of such limits

by previo usly notified occurrences or claims.
163
 Where any Contractor/Subcontractor has any responsibility for
design, it may be advisable to ensure that adequate insurance
protection in respect of their exposure to loss, damage or liability
is arranged.

E.9 GENERAL CONCLUSION

The vast majority of Employers are unaware of their potential

liabilities and the professional adviser, be he the Engineer or the
Architect, has a responsibility to ensure that the Employer's attention
is drawn to the situation.

164
 APPENDIX F
CASE HISTORIES OF
WALL M O V E M E N T S

F .1 INTRODUCTION

The prediction of movement of anchored walls is difficult. However, -

these predictions can be based on measured movements of similar
walls in similar ground conditions. This appendix gives details of
both International and South African case histories of wall
movements in Tables F.1 and F.2 respectively. Movements of the
crest of anchored walls and of the settlements behind the walls are
given as illustrated in Figure F.1.

The ratio of observed movement to excavation height should be

interpreted in the light of the movements required to develop active
pressure given in Table 4.2 in Section 4.4.

Measurements of the movement of the wall and the ground/buildings

behind the wall should always be made.

The ratio of horizontal to vertical movement depends on the amount

of support and the rigidity of the ground at the base of the excavati�n.
This ratio can exceed 3 in open excavations and be less than umty
for a well supported wall. The wall acting as a cantilever as shown
in Figure F.1 (b) should be taken as the most likely deflected shape
of a wall supported by ground anchorages.

165
 1---�:.:'..
2
1 _:_H:____�--- No damage
:i

3m
--....,Damage
0,6rn C

-
Lateral
Point Settlement movement
A1 B1 c, mm mm
H= 10m to 15m
25 to so
A .. 50 to 150 12 to 38
Soft clay or wet B -25 to 75
loose silty sand C 6to 19 3 to 12
.: . 30 to 75
/
. . ... A
: . . .1.
50
B, 12 25 to 38
: '· -·
: C .·- ..
. .
, , 3 ,•; 3

(a) After Lacroix ( 1969) . ' ..

',

', l • .'-
01 ,
•

- ·:·': .

. S

H .. �- :-·.. ... - ... . H

·: . .. . . � . - -
· -· - ..

t, •
(1) Wall acts as cantilever .(2) Wall propped at ground level
(horizontal movements greater (horizontal movem ents less th an
than vertical) vertical)

i
. .

Soil type 8 /H for preliminary design

Milligan(1977) Burland et ·al- (1979)
: % %

I
Soft clays 2 .
Loose sands and gravels 2 , ,
0,2 (dense sand� and tills) 0,5
Stiff clays 0,5 <0,15

(b) After Burland et al (1979)

F I G U RE F1 T (1 9�
YPICAL WAL oos1
L MOVEMENTS OUTSIDE AN EXCAVATION [after
156
TABLE F1 MOVEMENTS OF ANCHORED WALLS (SOILS GROUP IN ACCORDANCE WITH PECK, 1969) (AFTER BS 8081, 1989)

, REFERENCE DEPTH CREST SETTLE- WALL TYPE REMARKS

OF DIS- A/H MENT o/H
EXCAVA- PLACE-
TION MENT
BEHIND
WALL .
H(m) �(mm) % o(mm) %
Group one. Cohesionless sands

Shannon & Strazer (1970) 24,6 75 0,30 75 0,30 King-post and guniting Bearing capacity failure of
king-posts required emergency

- - measures
Dietrich et al (1971) 17,4 46 0,25
-- King-post and poling board King-posts settled 63mm
Trow (1974) 10,5
10,0
25
25
0,25
0,25
-
-- King-post and poling board

Saxena (1975) 17,0 67 0,39 Reinf. concrete diaphragm Bending moments measured
- -
Jelinek & Ostermayer
19,50
20,0
146
140
0;75
0,7' - - Reinf. concrete diaphragm
(1976)
- -
I

Rizzo et al (1968) 11,3 20 to 38 0,18 to j King-post and poling· board Active method
0,34
Group two. Cohesive granular soils (e.g. clayey sands, silty sands, sandy clays)
' .

Phillips & James (1973) 10,4 10 0,10 - - Reinf. concrete diaphragm Bending moments also

Sandquist (1972) 6,5 15 0,23 - - Sheet pile

measured
Deflection due to frost heave
Larson et al (1972) 15,2 25 0,16 25 0,16 King-post and poling board Ravelling of soil occurred
during placing of poling boards
Ware et al (1973) 14,8 50 0,34. 16 0,11 • King-post and poling board . Maximum street settlement
6.1 m from excavation
Malijian & Van Beveren 33,0 75 0,23 75 0,23 King-post and poling board cavity during anchorage
(1974) installation
Corbett & Stroud (1975) 15,3 20 0,13 .. 18 0,12 King-post and poling board Movements behind wall were
.' upwards (heave)
 TABLE F1 MOVEMENTS OF ANCHORED WALLS (SOILS GROUP IN ACCORDANCE WITH PECK, 1969) (AFTER BS 8081, 1989) Continued
....L
0) REFERENCE DEPTH CREST SETTLE- WALL TYPE REMARKS
00 OF DIS- MH MENT o/H
EXCAVA- PLACE- BEHIND
TION MENT WALL
H(m) A(mm) 0/o o(mm) %
Hodgson (1975) 15,0 3 0,02 28 0,19 Reinf. concrete diaphragm Toe of wall in stiff clay. Wall
moved 25mm when electrical
J
vibrator used close by
St John (1975) first stage) (base of 0,06 - - '
Excavation by mining. Ground
10,0 excava- floor as prop
tion) 6
Rizzo et al (1968) 6,4 2,5 0,04 - - King-post and p oling board Soft clay over rock 'at rest
method'
Group three. Soft to medium clays

- -
Sandegren et al (1972)
Cunningham & Fernandez
6,7
7,0
28 ' 0,42
.100 to. 18 · 1.4;3 to - - Sh�et pile.
Reinforced concrete
Deflection due to frost heave
After wall heated
(1972) 0,27 diaphragm
Murphy et al (1975) 10,0 5 0 '05
',
1
- - King-post an'd poling bo'ard Varied clay underlain by dense
till
Broms & Stille (197�) 6,3 50 to 1_50 1,60 17,5 to 4,0 0,28 to
0,06 Sheet pile Block Manfred, Vasteras
settlements measured 6m and

4,0 to 5,0 50 to 100 1,50 - - Sheet pile

13m behind wall
Blocks Hjotter & Spiran-
Novrkopiny piles settled same
amount as crest displacement
4,0 s10 to 610 - 410 - Sheet pile Wall failure, Lilla Balstorm

da Costa-Nunes & Diaz I 20,0 250 1,25 - - Concrete wall

Gothenburg
Residual soil (partially
(1978) collapsible)
Earth pressures measured to
control design
Fenoux (\978) 50 to 60 0,28 to - - Tee-shaped diaphragm Excavation underlain by gravel

\ ";: -
0,34 and rock
-
S\.\\\e 8,. 'l"redr\\<.sson (."\979)
\ '\O
\
0.'\3 Sheet pile Ground settled 50mm st 7.5m
J behind wall
 TABLE Ft MOVEMENTS OF ANCHORED WALLS (SOILS GROUP IN ACCORDANCE WITH PECK, 1969) (AFTER BS 8081, 1989) Continued

I REFERENCE I DEPTH
OF
1 CREST
DIS- MH
SETTLE-
MENT c5/H
WALL TYPE REMARKS

EXCAVA- PLACE- BEHIND

TION MENT WALL
H(m) �(mm) % c5(mm) %
Group four. Stitt clays

D'Appollonla et al (1967) 8,8 60 1,8 -- -- Sheet pile . Slope in colluvium

Jennings (1969) 14,7
14,7
76
38
0,52
0,26 -- -- Bored piles
Bored piles
- Damage to services in street
and buildings across street.
Wosser & Darragh (1970)
18,3
12 to 18
25
6
0,14
0,04 -- -- Concrete poling board
King-post and poling board
Soft jointed rock
Site underlain by rock
Mansur & Alizadeh (1970) 10,5 12,0 0,11 King-post and poling board Shaley clay
McRostie & Schriever 12,0 90 0,40 75· 0,63 Sheet pile Building settled 75mm at
(1967) - distance of 4,60m from
excavation
Liu & Dugan (1972) 18,0 15,0 0,10 15,10 0,08 King-po�t and poling board Street 7.63m settled 28mm and
.. king-posts settled 10mm
Clough et al (1972) 18,3 - 0,10 30,5 0,15 King�post only
Nelson (1973) 31,0 100,0 0,30 25 0,08 King-post and poling board Soft siltstone: street

Malijian & Van Beveren 28,0 50,0 0,15 - - settlements may be high
King-post and poling board Settlements of king-posts of
(1974) 100mm to 150mm caused
cracks in roads and broke

Littlejohn & Macfarlane 14,5 22,0 0,15 - - --

Reinforced concrete
services
Panel settled 12,2mm. Bending
(1975) dfaphragm moments measured. Top
anchorage in gravel
Sills et al (1977) 8,0 so.a-- 0,63 20,0 0,25 Reinforced concrete Panel settled 30,0mm.
diaphragm 20,00mm settlement occurred

Haines et al (1980) 11,25 20 0,18 - - Reinforced concrete

4,0m behind wall
Gravel over stiff Keuper Maris.

- diaphragm 6,8m cantilever to first

Sommer (1980) 15,0 5,0 to 0,03 to - - Bored piles

anchorage level ..
Limestone layer at base of
......
m
(0 16,50
20,0
35
0,13
0,21 - - Bored piles (piles moved
10mm into excavation at
excavation
Horizontal displacement of
about 10mm at 16m from
lowest slab level) - excavation. Ground heaved
60mm outside excavation.
TABLE F2 MOVEMENTS OF ANCHORED WALLS - SOUTH AFRICAN CASE HISTORIES

REFER- DEPTH CREST SETTLE- GEOTECHNICAL

ENCE OF DIS- �H MENT o/H WALL TYPE PROFILE REMARKS
EXCAVA- PLACE- BEHIND
TION MENT WALL
H(m) .i(mm) % o(mm) %
Loudon 14,5 45 0,31 - - Steel soldiers with 9m of medium dense silty Anchor force
(1989) timber lagging sand granitic talus over 1400kN/m. 440, 500 &
dense silty sand completely 750kN anchors.
weathered granite Waterable at ground
level.
Lourens 21,2 15 to 59 0,07 to 25 0,12 600mm dia reinforced Soft rock weathered
(1986) 0,28 concrete piles and steel diabase overlying hard 400-S00kN anchors.
soldiers - planking shale Water table at 1,8m.
upper Sm

Mullane 11,2(5)* 17 0,15 6 0,05 Steel soldiers Very dense silty sand Anchor force
(1989) 11,7)(N)* 3 0,03 6 0,05 residual quartzite and very 640-670kN/m. 400kN
stiff silt residual diabase anchors. Water table
9-10m(S).
Mullane 12,S(S) 24 0,19 25 0,20 Steel soldiers - , top 2 .Residual· quartzltic and Anchor force
(1989) 9,7(N) 3 0,03 4 0,04 metres lagged shale soils 730-S00kN/m. 400kN
anchors. No water.
Mullane 16,S(S) 33 0,20 40 0,24 Steel soldiers - top 2 Sm of dense silty sand
(1989) 18,0(N) ., 8 0,04 16 ' 0,09 metres lagged hillwash overlying very Anchor force
' dense silty. sand residual 1600-1800kN/m.
diabase 400-SOOkN anchors. No
water.
Mullane 8,6(S) 13 0,15 5 0,06 Steel soldiers Sm of fill and stiff sandy silt Anchor force
(1989) 6,6(N) 3 0,05 3 0,05 overlying very soft rock 410-675kN/m. 450kN
shale anchors. No water.
Rauch 10,0 7,5 0,08 6,5 0,07 Reinforced concrete Sm of transported silty Anchor force
(1984) 13,7 24 0,18 25 0,18 diaphragm wall sand overlying stiff residual 930-1470kN/m.

\
clayey silt with hard shale
'
600-900kN anchors.
at 12m Water table at 4m.

• \S) deno'\es aou'\hem 1ace, (.N) denotes northern 1ace, (W) denotes weatem face and (E) denotea e-tem face tor excavation• In JohanneabUl'fl.
TABLE F2 MOVEMENTS OF ANCHORED WALLS - SOUTH AFRICAN CASE HISTORIES Continued

REFER• DEPTH CREST SETTLE· GEOTECHNICAL

ENCE OF DIS• tJH MENT c5/H WALL TYPE PROFILE REMARKS
EXCAVA• PLACE- BEHIND
TION MENT WALL
H(m) �(mm) % o(mm) %
Rohde 13 20 0,15 17 0,13 Steel soldiers - 50 mm Normal to badly weathered Anchor force 610kN/m.
(1983) planks soft rock shale
Day 18,0 7 to 18 0,04 to 5 to 22 0,03 to Steel soldiers, no Firm clayey silt, decomp. Anchor force
(1989) 0,10 0,12 lagging Ventersdorp lava 1500kN/m. water table
at 14m.
Day and 10,0 64 max 0,64 15 max 0,15 Steel soldiers at 1,95m Firm clayey silt, decompo. Anchor force 800kN/m.
Krone (N) centres. Upper 2m Ventersdorp lava. Increased to 11 00kN/m
(1989) planked. Numerous continuous to arrest movement.
slickensides dipping at 60 ° Inclined at 20 °
to south encountered (average) to horizontal.
during construction
10,0 10 max 0,10 5 max 0,05 Steel soldiers at 1,95m ditto Anchor force n0kN at
(W)* centres. Upper 2m 20 ° (average) to
planked. horizontal.
11,5 19 max 0,16 5 max 0,04 Steel soldiers at 1,95m ditto Anchor force n0kN/m
(E)* centres. Upper 2m at 10 ° to horizontal.
planked.
11,9 5 max 0,04 3 max 0,03 Steel soldiers at 3, 1m Highly weathered, closely Anchor force 580kN/m
(W) centres. Upper 2m , jointed, quartzite. at 20 ° (average to
planked. Government Subgroup. Dip horizontal).
variable 80° S to 80 ° N.
13,4 9 max 0,07 1 0,01 Steel soldiers at 3, 1m ditto Anchor force 625kN/m
(E) centres. Upper 2m at 10 ° to horizontal.
planked.
13,5 24 max 0,18 12 max 0,09 Steel soldiers at 3,1m ditto ditto
(S) centres. Upper 2m
planked.

*(S) denotes southern face, (N) denotes northern face, (W) denotes western face and (E) denotes eastern face for excavations In Johannesburg
 APPENDIX G
EXTRACTS FROM CERTAIN
RELEVANT REGULATIONS
AND ACTS

(NOTE : See acknowledgements on page2)

The Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act (1941) (Act 22 of 1941 ),
has been replaced in part by the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act
1983 (Act 6 of 1983), and therefore the latter applies where certain chapters
of the former Act have been replaced by new regulations.

In similar fashion, the National Building Regulations and Building Standards

Act, 1977 (Act 103 of 1977), apply.

The following extracts are applicable:

G.1 EXTRACT.FROM - NOTICE NO. R 2206 OF 5TH OCTOBER

1984: MACHINERY AND OCCUPATIONAL
SAFETY ACT 1983 (ACT 6 OF 1983)

'building work' means any work in connection with:

(a) the erection, maintenance, alteration, renovation, repair,

demolition or dismantling of or addition to a building;

(b) the installation, erection or dismantling of machinery;

(c) the construction, maintenance, demolition or dismantling of any

bridge, dam, canal, road, railway, street, runway, sewer or water
reticulation system or work on any similar project; or

(d) the moving of earth, clearing of land or making of an excavation

or work on any similar project.

173
 BUILDING REGULATIONS
G.2 EXTRACTS FROM -NATIONAL
AND BUILDING STANDARDS ACT, 1977,
AS PUBLISHED AS PART OF SABS
0400-1987 THE APPLICATION OF THE
NATIONAL BUILDING REGULATIONS.

Design requirements (B.1)

c mpone�t the��of
(1) Any building and any structural element or �
I
shall be designed to provide strength, stability, serv ceab1hty
and durability in accordance with
accepted principals of
structural design, and so that it will not impair the integrity of
any other building or property.

(2) Any such building shall be so designed that in the event of

accidental overloading the structural system will not suffer
disastrous or progressive collapse which is disproportionate to
the original cause.

(3) The requirements of subregulations (1) and (2) shall be deemed

to be satisfied where such building is designed in accordance
with Part B of section 3 of SASS 0400.

Safeguarding of basements (E.2)

Where any building is demolished to the level of the ground and

such building contained a·- basement, the owner of such building
shall provide or cause to be provided safe lateral support to any
side of such basement.

Protection of the public (F .1)

(1) In cases where danger or serious inconvenience to the public

� ay ensue from the _demolition or erection of a building on any
site, the local authonty may require that the owner of such site,
before such work 1s _
_ commenced, shall erect a fence, hoarding
or barricade to prevent the public from ente
ring such site and
� o prot ect them from the activities on such site.

<2> Such fence, hoarding or barricad

e shall. for as long as is
necessary be retained an d mai· ntai•
.. ned by such owner in a safe
cond1t1on and any access to su
ch site, and the means thereof,
shall be sub"Ject to approval.

174
 (3) No part of such fence, hoarding or barricade shall be rem
oved
without the permission, in writing, of the local authority
until the
work has been completed.

(4) Any person undertaking any work of erection or demolition o·n

any site shall confine all operations in connection with such work
within the boundaries of such site and shall not encroach upon
or ove� any �treet or public place abutting such site, except with
the prior written approval of the local authority and subject to
the con�itions contained in such approval, with regard to the
safety and convenience of persons using such street or public
place. · ·

(5) The local authority may, before or during the erection or

demolition of any building, impose any reasonable conditions
in addition to the conditions and requirements contemplated in
this regulation for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of
the general public, and every condition so imposed shall be
observed by the owner. ·

(6) Any' owner who contravenes or causes or permits any other

person to contravene a requirement of this regulation or fails
to comply with any notice served on him by the local authority
ordering compliance with this regulation, or contravenes any
condition contained in any approval, shall be guilty of an offense.

Damage to local authority's property (F.2)

(1) Where any work connected with the demolition or erection of

any building may: in the opinion of the local authority, cause
or have any detrimental effect on the strength, standard, safety,
quality or position of any property belonging to or vested in such
local authority, the local authority may require the owner of such
building to pay to the local authority such deposit or give such
security, as it may require to cover the costs of the repair of any
damage which may be caused by such wor�.
(2) In the event of damage to the local authority's property being
so caused the local authority may appropriate the amount of
the deposit or security contemplated in subregulation (1) towards
the costs of repairing such damage : Provided that if the amount
the deposit or security exceeds such costs the balance shall
be refunded to the owner : Provided further that if such costs
e xceed the amount of the deposit or security such owner shall
be liable to the local authority for the deficit.
175
 (3) Where any deposit contemplate� in subregulation (1) has not
been lodged with the local authority the owner of such building
shall pay the cost of such repair to the local authority on demand,
failing which the local authority may recover such cost from the
owner in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Unstable soil conditions (F.3)

(1) Where any local authority has reason to believe that there may
be unstable subsoils or unstable slopes in the area in which a
site, upon which a building is to be erected, is situated, it shall
so inform the applicant.

(2) Whether or not such local authority has informed such applicant
in terms of subregulation (1), the applicant shall, if any unstable
soil or unstable slope is evident within the boundaries of such
site, submit to the local authority particulars specifying the
measures he considers necessary to make provision for any
differential movements or other effects which could be
detrimental to such building and the local authority may require
such particulars to be prepared by a professional engineer or
other approved competent person.

(3) The measures contemplated in subregulation (2) shall be applied

in the erection of such building.

Preparation of site (F.4)

(1) Before any foundation is laid the area to be covered by any

building shall be properly cleared of vegetable matter, tree
stumps, timber and other cellulose material, debris or refuse
and any material contaminated with faecal matter.

(2) Where any site upon which any building is to be erected is

waterlogged or saturated, or whe re any building is to be so
situated that water will drain naturally towards it, drainage shall
be provided to direct such water away from such site or building
to a stormwater drain or to dispose of it in some other safe
approved manner.

Control of dust and noise (F.6)

(1) The ow ner of any land on which excavation work is in progress

or on which any building is being erected or demolished shall
176
 take precautions in the working area and on surrounding roads
and footway� to limit to a reasonable level the amount of dust
arising from the work or surroundings thereof.

(2) (a) No person shall during the periods specified in paragraph

(b), carry on any activity or use or cause or permit to be used
in the course of any building, demolition or excavation work
any machine, machinery, engine, apparatus, tool or
contrivance, however powered, which in the opinion of the
local authority would unreasonably disturb or interfere with
the amenity of the neighbourhood.

(b) The periods referred to in paragraph (a) shall be as follows:

i) Any Sunday and Good Friday, Ascension Day, Day of

the Vow, Christmas Day, and New Year's Day,
ii) Before 06:00 or after 17:00 on any Saturday
and
iii) Before 06:00 or after 18:00 on any other than those days
contemplated in s_ubparagraphs (i) and (ii).

(c) The prohibition in paragraph (a) shall not apply in any

circumstances in which the use of such machine, machinery,
engine, apparatus, tool or contrivance -

i) is urgently necessary in order to preserve the life, safety

or health· of any person;
ii) is urgently necessary to preserve property;
iii) has been authorized by the local authority;
or
iv) is necessary for the execution of work being carried out
on behalf of any public authority.

(3) Any person who contravenes a provision of this regulation shall

be guilty of an offense.

General stability required (G.1)

(1) Where any excavation is carried out or is to be carried out on

any site and it may impair the stability of any property or service,
such measures shall be taken by the owner of such site as may
be sufficient to ensure that such stability is maintained.
177
 (2) Where any excavation may impair the stability of any property
or where the depth at any point in the excavation is expected
to be in excess of 3m, the owner of the site shall -

(a) notify the local authority, in writing, of his intention to

excavate, 7 days prior to the commencement of excavation;

(b) obtain the written authorization of the local authority for such
excavation; and

(c) take any precautionary measures specified by the local

authority in such authorization.

(3) While any excavation remains open, and during the placing of
the foundation within it, such excavation shall be maintained
in a safe condition.

(4) Any owner who fails to comply with any requirement of this
regulation, shall be guilty of an offense.

(5) The requirements of regulation G 1 shall be deemed to be

satisfied if the excavation complies with Part G of section 3 of
SABS 0400.

Stormwater disposal requirement (R.1)

(1) The owner of any site shall provide an approved means for the
control and disposal of accumulated stormwater which may run
off from any earthworks, building or paving.

(2) Such means of stormwater disposal may be in addition to or

in combination with any drainage works required in terms of
regulation F4(2).

(3) The requirements of subregulation (1) shall be deeme d to be

satisfied where -

(a} the means of stormwater disposal is the subject of a rational

design prepared by or under the supervision of a
professional engineer or other approved competent person;
or

(b) such means of stormwater disposal is provide d in

accordance with Part R section 3 of SABS 0400: Provided
178
 that �here a local authority is of the opinion that the
_
c?nd1t1ons on any site render it essential for stormwater
drspos�I to be t�e subject of a rational design, such local
authority shall, rn writing, notify the owner of such site of
its r�asons for the necessity for such design, and may
require such owner to submit for approval plans and
particulars of a complete stormwater control and disposal
installation for such site and for any building erected thereon,
based on such design.

G.3 EXTRACT FROM - MINES AND ·woRKS ACT, 1956

(ACT NO. 27 OF 1956)

Open face working (clause 7.9.1)

In open face working and when digging trenches, pits or excavations

in sand, soil, gravel, clay, tailings, slimes, ash, debris or similar
ground or deposit and when removing any such ground or deposit
from any dump, dam or heap:

(a) no person shall undercut the face or sidewalfor any portion of

a dump, dam or heap consisting of such ground or deposit
unless permitted by the Inspector of Mines and under such
conditions as he may prescribe, and

(b) except as permitted in regulation 7.9.1 (a), the face or sidewall

above the level where persons may work or terraced back at
a safe angle or adequately supported where the vertical height
of such face or sidewall is;

(i) three metres or more, or

(ii) fess than three metres but more than 1,5 metres if the width
of the adjacent working or traveling space is less than the
vertical height of the face or sidewall.

179
 APPENDIX H
DRAFT SPECIFICATION FOR
BLASTING IN BUilT-UP AREAS

H.1 USE OF EXPLOSIVES

Gene�ally, the Contractor will be permitted to use explosives for

breaking up rock and hard material during excavations, for
demolishing existing structures and for such other purposes where
it may normally be required, subject to the following conditions:

(a) The Engineer shall have the power to prohibit the use of explosives
in cases where in his opinion, the risk of injury or damage to
persons, property or adjoining structures is too high. Such action
by the Engineer shall not entitle the Contractor to any additional
payment for having to resort to other less economical methods
of construction unless otherwise provided in the Special Provisions
or Schedule of Quantities.

(b) Should blasting be necessary, the Contractor shall take every

precaution to protect the Works and persons, animals and property
in the vicinity of the Site. The Contractor will be held responsible
for any injury or damage caused by any blasting operations and
shall make good such damage at his own expense.

(c) The requirements of the Explosives Regulations Act (Act 26 of

1956) and the requirements of the Inspector of Explosives shall
be co mplied with. In addition, where applicable, the requirements
of Chapter 9 of the Regulations published in terms of the Mines
and Works Act (Act 27 of 1956) and the requirements of the
Government Mining Engineer shall be complied with.

(d) A copy of each blasting perll'.lit issued to workmen, and of each

permit issued to the Contractor to cover the purchase, storage
and tra nsport of explosives, shall be handed to the Engineer. The
Contractor shall grant the Engineer access to all records
maintained for the Inspector of Explosives or the Government
Mining Engineer, as the ca se may be.
181
 (e) Before any blasting is undertaken, the Contractor, together with
the Engineer, shall examine and measure up any buildings,
houses or structures in the vicinity of the proposed blasting and
establish and record together with the owners thereof the extent
of any cracking or damage that may exist before commencement
of blasting operations. It shall be the responsibility of the
Contractor to make good at his own expense any further damage
to such houses, buildings or structures which is a result of the
blasting.

(f) Where there is reasonable danger of damage to power and

telephone lines or any other property, the Contra::tor shall suitably
adapt his method of blasting, the size of charges and use adequate
protective measures such as cover blasting in order to limit the
risk of damage as far as possible.

(g) When blasting to specified profiles, the Contractor shall so arrange

the holes and charges that the resulting exposed surfaces are as
sound as the nature of the material permits. The Contractor shall
make good at his own expense any additional excavation
necessitated by the shattering of rock in excess of any overbreak
allowance specified in the Special Provisions or in any other
specification or given on a drawing.

H.2 LIMITATIONS FOR BLASTING

(a) Approval of methods and keeping of records

No blasting work may be carried out prior to the Engineer's

approval being given in writing.

Prior to starting any drilling for the first section of blasting, the
Contractor shall submit for approval to the Engineer, details of
the proposed overall method of blasting that will be used on site,
including spacing, depth and pattern of holes, charging levels
(kg/m3), spacing and positioning of relays, method of blast
initiation, precautions to prevent 'fly rock', maximum change per
relay, traffic arrangements during blasting, and any other detai!s
he may consider relevant. These details shall be submitted in
writing and supported with sketches at least 7 days before the
commencement of drilling and blasting.
182
 Engineer will evaluate these details in relation to the given
· e· ·
Th
. .
11mItations and prior
· t o giving his approval, will indicate to the
Contractor any changes that may possibly be needed to comply
with the limitations.

For all subsequent blasts, the Contractor shall, at least 24 hours

beforehand, notify the Engineer of the intention to blast and at
the same time shall note if any changes will be made relative to
the approved method.

The Engineer reserves the right to order the Contractor to modify

his method of drilling and blasting, or to employ reduced blasting,
without thereby invalidating the Contract. The Contractor shall
have no claim for extra payment, over and above his tendered
rates, due to his being ordered to use such a different method
of drilling or blasting or reduced charges, regardless of any prior
approval by the Engineer of any previous method.

After every blast, the Contractor shall, within 24 hours, submit

to the Engineer details of the actual total mass of explosives used,
the approximate volume of material loosened and the maximum
simultaneous mass of explosives detonated (maximum charge per
relay).

Notwithstanding any approval given by the Engineer, the

Contractor shall at all times be responsible for the safety of the
Works, persons, animals and property in the vicinity of the Site
during blasting operations.

(b) Blasting vibrations

Blasting vibrations are caused by the transmission of t�e sh�ck

wave from the explosive charge through the material be1�g
blasted. This shock wave could cause damage to structures in
the vicinity of the blasting if the vibrations are not l_imited _to
acceptable levels. Damage to structures is clo�ely as�o�1�ted with
peak particle velocity of the ground vibration m th� v1cm1ty _of the
structure. Advisable maximum levels for peak particle velocity are
given in Table H1.

183
 ATION)
E H1 MA XI MU M PARTICLE VELOCITIES (VIBR
TABL
MAXIMUM PEAK
PARTICLE EFFECT ON PEOPLE AND BUILDINGS
VELOCITY (mm/s)
ly
0,5 Threshold of human perception unlike to cause
damage of any type

5 Limit for blasting adjacent to historical monuments

25 Limit for blasting near private dwellings in order to

_ _
reduce disturbance to residents to a m1mmum

50 Limit for blasting adjacent to residential structures

on good foundations

84 Limit for property owned by concern doing the

blasting (i.e. minor plaster cracks acceptable)
120 Recommended maximum level for blasting
adjacent to sturdy reinforced concrete structures

The peak particle velocity V is related to the distance D from the

blast and the maximum mass of explosives E instantaneously
detonated (maximum charge per relay) by the general equation:

V = (k)'
-
m n
E
D
where k, m and n are constants for a part of
circumstances. V is in mm/s, D is in metres and icular set
E is in kilograms.
Experim entation has shown that n = 0,5,
be determined for each site by means of vib but k and m have to
at
However, blasting can be safely conducr ion measurements.
measurements or expert advice if the ted without vibration
following relationship is
used:

V=�Eo, s
D
which gives the maximum charge levels for v = somm/s listed
in Table H2.
184
TABLE H2 MAXIMUM CHARGE LEVELS

MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM MAXIMUM CHARGE MA

NEAREST BLAST HOLE TO SS PER
RELAY
STRUCTURE
(m)
(kg)
10
0,19
20
0,76
30 1,7
40
3,0
50
4,7
60 6,8
70 9,3
80 12, 1
90 15,3
100 18,9

Only detonating relay� of at least 20 milliseconds delay interval must be

used.

The above relationship can be used to calculate charge mass for other
velocity limits. However, if higher charge levels have to be used for practical
reasons, expert advice and possibly vibration measurements will be
required.

Notwithstanding the above blasting limits, the Contractor shall at all times
be responsible for the safety of the Works, persons, animals and property
in the vicinity of the Site during blasting operations.

H.3 BIBLIOGRAPHY

AE & Cl (1982). The effects, measurement and control of ground

.
vibrations. Explosives Today, Series 2, No. 27, March
Eng.,
Green R (1975). Blasting effects. Symp. on Geophysics in Civ.
Pretoria.
ring wor ks.
New BM (1986). Ground vibration caused by civil enginee
Research Report 53, TAAL, UK.
e. StevenSton,
Nobel's Explosives Co Ltd (1972). Blasting practic
Ayrshire, Scotland, 4th Ed.
185
 for Contra��- No .. �V� 101013, Vol_. 3,
NTC (197a). Specifications
3406 (f)(�11): L1m1tat1ons for blasting.
Special Provisions, Clause SP
, Pretoria.
National Transport Commission
SASS 0120: Part 2, Section D (1982). Code of practice for use with
standardised specifications for civil engineering construction and
contract documents. Earthworks: Clause 3.2.3. Excavation of rock by
blasting and by non-explosive means. South African Bureau of
Standards, Pretoria.

SASS 0120: Part 5, Section D (1982). Code of practice for use with
standardised specifications for civil engineering construction and
contract documents. Earthworks: Clause 3.2.3. Explosives. South
African Bureau of Standards, Pretoria.

SASS 1200 D (1988). Standardized specification for civil engineering

construction. Earthworks: Clause 5.1.1.3. Explosives. South African
Bureau of Standards, Pretoria .

South African Republic (1963). Explosives Act (Act 26 of 1956) and

regulations. Lex Patria Publishers (Pty) Ltd. Johannesburg.

South Afric�n Republic (1980). Mines and Works Act (Act 27 of 1956)
and regulations. Lex Patria Publishers (Pty) Ltd. Johannesburg.

�an �iekerk, Kleyn & Edwards (1988). Data from numerous blasting
v1brat1on measurements in southern Africa._

1 86
 APPENDIX I
SUGGESTED METHODS OF
MEASUREMENT FOR LATERAL
. SUPPORT, EXCAVATION AND
ASSOCIATED WORKS
This Appendix offers guidelines for methods of measurement of the works
associated with excavation and lateral support. Section 1 is an abstract
from the Standard System of Measuring Builder's Work (5th Edition, 1987),
issued by the Association of South African Quantity Surveyors in
consultation with the Building Industries Federation (South Africa), covering
Earthworks and Piling. Section 2 is the suggested method of measurement
of lateral support covering ground anchoring and associated works, as well
as planking, strutting and shoring. This has been adapted from the Standard
System of Measuring Builder's Work issued by the Association of South
African Quantity Surveyors in consultation with BIFSA, since the
Association of South African Quantity Surveyors are at present updating
this section of their Standard System of Measuring Builder's Work (5th
Edition, March 1987)

1.1 SECTION 1 : EARTHWORKS AND PILING

1.1.1 EARTHWORKS

1.1.1.1 Nature of ground:

The nature of the ground shall be described.

Excavations of a more difficult character owing to the nature of

the strata shall be given as 'extra over', separating only 'bulk' and
'trenches and holes' as provided for in clauses 1.1.1.8 and 1.1.1.9.
No separation for depths shall be made.

l.1.1.2 Removal of concrete, brickwork, etc.

Breaking up and removing surface concrete or other hard surface
pavings shall be given in square metres stating the thickness;
similarly, kerbings and the like shall be given in metres, the
crosssectional size being stated.
187
 Breaking up and removing concrete, brickwork, etc., encountered
in excavations shall be given in cubic metres as 'extra over
excavations'. Separate items shall be given for mass concrete and
reinforced concrete.

Descriptions of excavations shall include the removal of drains,

pipes, etc., encountered during excavations including cutting and
stopping off disused drains and pipes. The diversion of inuse drains­
and pipes including cutting, stopping off, etc., shall be given in
the appropriate trades.

1.1.1.3 Method and procedure

The method of excavating shall be left to the contractor, but any
restrictions required by the employer regarding blasting and the
use of jack hammers or mechanical excavators shall be stated.

Any excavations which are to be done in a particular order or in

sections, such as may be prescribed for the removal of lateral
support to adjoining premises, shall be clearly indicated.

1.1.1 .4 Site clearance

The digging up and removal of rubbish, debris, vegetation, hedges,
bush, shrubs and trees not exceeding 200mm girth, etc. shall be
given in square metres. Where the value is of relative significance,
the removal of hedges, etc., shall be given separately in metres
or in number.

The removal of larger trees shall be given in number, the girth

around the trunk 1 m above ground level being stated, grouped in
sizes exceeding 200mm and not exceeding 400mm girth and
thereafter in stages of 400mm. The species of tree shall be stated
where possible and whether roots are to be grubbed up and holes
filled in. The removal of existing tree stumps shall be similarly
measured but kept separate from trees, the girth being taken at
ground level.

If turf or vegetable soil is to be preserved, the stripping or

excavation thereof shall be given in square metres stating the
average depth and where it is to be deposited.

1.1.1.5 Demolitions
Demolition and removal of buildings and other structures shall be
s,
given in number, giving general descriptions and sizes. Fence
s. (Th e
boundary walls, etc., may be given separately in metre
188
 removal of foundations shall
be dealt With
. I .1 . 1 . 2. ) i. n accordanc
e w,'th clause
The manner of disposal
of m at
materials are to become the enals shall be stated and ,
roperty of the c wh er
sh aII be made for allowin cP ontractor, provis e
ion
g redit.
1.1.1.6 Scope of measurement
The quantities of all e
xc avatio s . s h_all b
formed in accordan ce with e th e net voids to
the. � rawings and be
shall be not" less than the specification and
h onzontal area of th e bott
reIevant structures, multiplie om of the
d bY th� average d e p
surface. Where undercuttin i ths from the
s prescnb d, ho
work shall be kept separateg w v r, the undercut
all n �
e e

at an angle of 45 degrees� Ex e
�:�n ;:0��;:�!� i: �:�ic:
e

��
The description shall indicate
that th e contractor is to make
allowance for bulking

Setting aside excavated material for use

as filling, forming
excavated_ surfaces _to falls, slopes, curves, etc.
trimming sides
�nd stepping, levelling and ramming bottoms shall be inclu
ded
m the descriptions of the excavations. - .

1.1.1. 7 Working space

Sides of all excavations necessarily requir ed to be excavated back
for working space, i.e. beyond the extent defined in clause 1.1.1.6
above, shall be given in square metres and descriptions shall
include any cons equent backfilling stating the method and/or
degree of compaction. Items shall be grouped in successive
overall depths of not exceeding 500mm, exceeding 500mm and
not ex ceeding 1,5m, and thereafter in stages of 1,5m stating in
each case the nature of the requirements and the distance (if any)
between the structure and the side to be excavated back.

Sides of excavations occurring in strata of a more difficult

character (see clause 1.1.1 .1) shall be given in square m etres as
'extra over'.

1• 1 · 1 .8 Bulk excavations
t tn
Bulk excavations shall be given in cubic metres and, exce�
s,
open face excavations such as cutting or levelling of slop in� site
ons to
shall be separated into successive depths of 2m. Exc�vat,
ng stated.
open face shall be so described, the extreme depth bei
189
 in successive depths of 2m shall
The classification of excavafons
�ound or red uced level, as the case
be related to th e average 9
may be.
and holes
1.1.1.9 Excavat.ions for trenches ll eac h be
.
given
.
in
.
cubi c
or tren ches and hol es sha
Excavations f . depths of 2m. Th e
siv e
metres an d k ept separa te in suc ces
· e d epthsof 2m shall be
classification of excavations in successiv
el, as the case may
related to the average ground or reduced lev
be.

1.1.1.10 Carting away of excavated material . .

If the excavated material is to be carted from the sate, the carting
away thereof shall be given in cubi� metres � 'extra over all
excavations' and, if to be dumped m a prescribed place, the
location and approximate distance shall be stated. The
descriptions shall indicate that the contractor is to make allowance
for bulking.

1.1.1.11 Risk of collapse of excavations

The risk of the collapse of excavations shall be given in square
metres, except where prescribed support is to be measured or
where the excavated face is prescribed to be cut back to the angle
of repose. Separate items shall be given for 'bulk' and 'trenches
and holes', as provided for in clauses 1.1.1.8 and 1.1.1.9, as well
as for excavations from ground level to a-depth not ·exceeding
1,5m and from ground level to a depth exceeding 1,5m. The area
shall be measured vertically to the bottom of all sides whether
vertical or sloping and whether working space is given or not.
1.1.1.12 Keeping excavations free of water
, An item shall be given for keeping excavations free of water during
the execution of a contract.

Should it be necessary to have works kept free of water after the

completion of a contract, a separate item shall be given stating
the duration in weeks. . • .

1.1.1.13 FIiiing
�illing_ shall be measured to the compacted volume and given
'" cubic metres stating the method and/or degree of compaction.

Separate items shall be given for filling obtained from the

excavations or from specified borrow pits or supplied by the
190
 contractor. The descriptions of filling obtained from the
excavations shall include for haulage not exceeding 1 00m from
the perimeter of the excavation: if filling is hauled beyond this
limit, the approximate distance shall be stated. Forming to falls,
slopes, curves, contours, etc., shall be included in the descriptions
where applicable.

Separate items shall be given for backfilling to trenches, holes,

etc., for filling over site and for filling under floors, steps, paving,
etc.

1.1.1.14 Compaction of surfaces

Compaction of natural ground or excavated surfaces shall be
measured only when the method and/or degree of compaction
(other than ramming bottoms referred to in clause 1.1.1.6) is
prescribed, and shall be given in square metres.

1.1.1.15 Hardcore, sto�e packing, etc.

Hardcore, stone packing and similar fillings shall be measured
to the finished thickness and given in squ�re metres if not
exceeding 200mm thick and in cubic metres if exceeding 200mm
thick. The materi�I to be used, the method and/or degree of
compaction and any blinding shall be described.

1.1.1.16 Grassing, pitching, etc.

Grassing shall be given in square metres and shall be kept
separate if to sloping surfaces exceeding 30 degrees from the
horizontal.

Pitching shall be given in square metres.

1.1.1.17 Gabions
Retaining structures formed of filled gabion boxes and mattresses
shall each be given in cubic metres, stating the sizes of boxes
and mattresses and the diaphragm spacing.

1.1.1.18 Filter fabric

Filter fabric shall be measured net and given in square metres,
stating the laps.

1.1.1.19 Tests
Prescribed tests to establish the degree of compaction or other
properties of the ground or filling shall be given in number.
191
1.1.2 PILING

GENERAL

1.1.2.1 Site conditions

A description of the nature of the site with regard to contours,
water tables, strata through which piles will have to pass, etc.,
shall be given. In work near rivers or tidal waters, the level of the
ground surface in relation to high and low water marks and to
the highest water levels recorded shall be stated.

I. 1.2.2 Piling conditions

The nature of the work and any limitations on the methods to be
used shall be described. Descriptions shall include for staging,
tubing, framing, rigs, etc., and any necessary jetting. The general
layout, spacing and tolerances allowable in positions of piles, and
whether piles are single or in groups, shall be stated.

Separate items shall be given for trial piles, raking piles, piles
driven in contact with one another, piles driven clos� together
in groups or to form sheeting, piles sunk from basement or from
any level other than natural ground level, piling carried out under
water, and piles sunk under other special conditions.

1.1.2.3 Reinforcement
Reinforcement shall be included in this trade and given as
provided for in 'Concrete, Formwork and Reinforcement'.

1.1.2.4 Testing
Testing of piles shall be given in number.

1.1.2.5 Plant
·
An item shall be given for transporting plant to the site and
removal.

DRIVEN PILING

1.1.2.6 Precast concrete piles

Precast concrete piles shall be given in metres for the designed
length of pile before being driven stating crosssectional sizes.
Descriptions shall include for moulds. Reinforcement may be
included or given separately. Shoes shall be given in number.
Handling and pitching shall be given in number, suitably grouped
for different crosssectional sizes and lengths.
192
 Driving to a given set shall be given in number. Driving to a given
level shall be given in metres of penetration or in number,
separated into groups for piles not exceeding Gm deep and
thereafter for total depths in successive stages of 3m. Redriving
lengthened piles shall be given separately in metres.

Cutting off tops of piles, stripping back heads of piles to expose

reinforcement and dollying piles below ground level shall each
be given separately in number.

Where piles are to be lengthened, concrete in situ shall be given

in cubic metres, formwork in square metres and coupling in
number, including stripping the exposed end and forming the
connection of new with old.

1.1 .2.7 Timber piles

Timber piles shall be dealt with as provided for precast concrete
piles where applicable.

Tolerances allowable in crosssectional areas shall be stated.

Cutting off tops of piles and ringing shall be given in number.
Descriptions shall include any necessary pre-treatment.

1.1.2.8 Steel piles

Steel piles shall be dealt with as provided for precast concrete
piles where applicable, stating the mass per metre.

Points shall be given separately in number.

CONCRETE CASTINSITU PILING

1.1.2.9 · Disposal of excavated material

Disposal of excavated material shall be included in this trade and
dealt with as provided for in 'Earthworks'

1.1.2.1 0 Augered piles

Drilling shall be given in metres separated into groups not
exceeding Gm deep and thereafter for total depths in successive
stages of 3m. Underreaming for enlarged feet shall be given in
number as 'extra over drilling', stating the diameter of the shaft.
Work of a more difficult character owing to the nature of the strata
shall be given as 'extra over' drilling and under reaming in cubic
metres. Casing to prevent collapse of excavations or to exclude
193
 asured only when prescribed and
subterranean water Shall be me
shall be given in metres.
me��ured from th: bottom of
Concrete shall be given in metres
t1onal _concrete m enlarged
the pile to the soffit of the pile cap. �dd1
the diameter of the shaft.
feet shall be given in number, stating
ll be given in square
Formwork to concrete above ground sha
back heads to
metres. Cutting off tops of piles and stripping
ly in number.
expose reinforcement shall each be given separate

1.1.2.11 Driven, bored or similar tube piling

Piles shall be given in number, stating the depth to which they
are sunk, including all components, and describing shoes or other
required formation at the bottom.

Provisional items for depths beyond those stated shall be given

in metres in successive stages of 3m. A provisional item of credit
for empty bore shall be given in metres.

A provisional item of credit for reduction in length of piles shall

be given in metres.

C�tting off tops of piles and stripping back heads to expose

reinforcement shall each be given separately in number.

SHEET PILING

I. 1.2.12 Permanent sheet piling

Permanent sheet piling shall be given in metres measured along
the length to be ret�ined, stating the height of both the piling and
t�e f�ce to�� retained. Descriptions shall include for handling,
pitc�ing, driving, pr�tection �aps, shoes, all laps and locking
.
devices and any add1t1onal height of piling necessary for driving
purposes.

Co�ner piles, junction piles and other special pile

s shall be given
as extra over sheet piling' in number.

Cutting or burning throug h sheet piling

shall be given in metres
measured along the centre line of
the piling.
1.1.2.13 Temporary sheet piling
See clause 1.2.3.1 .

194
1.2 SECTION 2 : GROUND ANCHORING, PLANKING, STRUTTING
AND SHORING

1.2.1 GENERAL

1.2.1.1 Removal of lateral support

. Precautions to .be taken and procedures to be followed when
removing lateral support shall be measured only if prescribed and
shall be given in accordance with the following principles. In all
other cases, risk of collapse shall be given in accordance with
the principles laid down in 'Earthworks'.

1.2.1.2 Insurance
• Insurance against claims arising from the remov�I of lateral
support shall be allowed for by provisional sum.

1.2.1.3 Movement monitoring .,. ·.: ...

·
When prescribed an item shall be given for establishing bench
marks, pegs, etc., for movement monitoring. Periodic movement
surveys shall be given in number and descriptions shall include
the scope of a survey.

1.2.2 GROUND ANCHORING

1.2.2.1 Descriptions _ ". · . · .. p

The nature of the work and the excavated faces to be supported,

any limitations affecting the ground anchoring; the strata through
which the anchors will have to pass and the position of any cables,
pipes or other services shall be des�ribed.

Descriptions shall be deemed to include drilling.

1.2.2.2 Establishment
An item shall be given for establishment of plant, etc., on the site,
which shall include for disestablishment on· completion of the
contract. Reestablishments for testing, retensioning or
destressing shall be given in number.

1.2.2.3 Test anchors

Test anchors shall be given in number. Descriptions shall include
the working load, lower anchorages, upper anchorages, thrust
blocks and the free length of tendon.
195
 Ground anc��:: l g dings stating �he working
1.2.2.4
nd a hal be iven under hea
Grou ow:� anchorages shall be given in number, stating whether
h

load. L . per anchorages . shall be

anchors. Up .
rock anchors or soft ground incl ude prote ction against
. • n mber and descriptions shall . . ·
given m · u . . . . and stan dard testing,
nitial tensioning
corrosion where specified , i .
ed graphs. Free
/extension relat
· I ud'm 9 the preparation of load
me . ·
le for all anc hor s sha ll be give n m metres and
I eng th of cab . .
greasing, etc., w h ere
description shall include sheath mg,
required.

1.2.2.5 Waterproofing of ground anchor holes

Water testing and retesting of anchor holes to determine
watertightness shall each be given in number. Cement grouting
to waterproof tendons shall be given in units of 50kg bags of
cement. Redrilling holes, washing out of grout and encasing the
free length of anchors in cement grout where required, shall each
be given in metres.

1.2.2.6 Testing, retensioning and destressing of ground anchors

Testing and retensioning of anchors outside of the standard
acceptance testing and destressing of ground anchors shall each
be given in number.

1.2.2.7 Rock bolts and rock dowels

Rock bolts, rock dowels, soil nails and expanding rock bolts shall
each be given in number. Description shall i,nclude length,
diameter, nature of ground into which installed, nuts, washers,
thrust plates, grouting and tensioning where required.

1.2.2.8 Soldiers, boarding, shotcreting, etc.

Soldiers, boarding, mesh, etc. shall be given in appropriate items
in accordance with clause 1.2.3.1 below and the principles laid
down in the respective trades. Concrete or mortar packing behind
soldiers shall be given in metres, the minimum thickness being
stated and descriptions shall be deemed to include formwork.
S�otcreting shall be given in square metres, th e minimum
th1ckness and mix being specified. Mesh for shotc reting where
required, shall be given in square metres and descriptions shall
include the mass per square metre, size of mesh and spacing
_
of wires. Thrust blocks shall be given in number.

196
1.2.3 PLANKING, STRUTTING AND SHORING

1.2.3�1 Planking and strutting

Timber planking, precast concrete planking and metal or other
sheeting shall be given in square metres. Timber strutting shall
be given in cubic metres except gum poles, logs and the like,
which shall be given in metres, the minimum diameter being
stated. Tubular and solid section steel strutting shall be given in
tons and descriptions shall include bolting and welding.

Bolts and clamps shall be given in tons and may be included with
the relevant items.

Descriptions shall be deemed to include cutting, notching, fitting,

wedging, nailing, screwing, etc.

Planking and strutting required to be left in shall be given

separately.

1.2.3.2 Shoring units

Shoring units shall be given in number and descriptions shall
include sole pieces, wall plates, etc. The cubic metre content per
unit if in timber and the tonnage per unit if in steel shall be stated.

The re-use of shoring units shall be given in number.

Crossbracing between shoring units shall be given in cubic metres

if in timber and in tons if in steel.

1.2.4 LATERAL SUPPORT PILING

Lateral support piling shall be included in this trade and given
in accordance with the principles laid down in 'Piling'.

197
 APP·ENDIX J
DEFINITIONS OF SOME
ANC�QR TEA.MS

Anchor head
The component of a ground anchor that is capable of transmitting the tensile
load from the anchor to the surface of the ground or structure requiring
support._

Coating
A term sometimes used to describe the grease filling in the annulus between
the sheathing �nd t�e ten_don. (Se� Section 6.6.1.)

Characteristic strength
The characteristic strength of prest�essing steel is the tensile.strength below
which no more than 5 per cent of test results in a statistical p�pulation
may fall.

Corrugated sheathing
A corr ugated plastic tube sometimes u�ed �to proviqe both corrosion
protection and· effective load transfer through shear across the corrugations
in the fixed anchor length.

Creep
The change in strain of the tendon with time, under constant stress.

Debonding
The breakdown of bond at the grout/tendon or ground/grout interfaces.

Decoupling
The separation of components when tendons are to be debonded from
the surrounding grout by greasing and sheathing, sheathing only, or by
other methods to eliminate lo�d transfer.

Design load
See working toad.
199
Draw�in . . n caused by relative movement
on°f the tendo
Draw-in is the loss in elongati on ents owing to seating and
h� ge o pier comp
betw�en th� anc ra
.
cti on du rin g or 1
�� � :d i ately after transfer of load
gripping a

Encapsulated bond length . h"

e�cap�ulated w1! m a corrugated
fixed length wh ere the tendon is
A bond • or
after insertion and m th e co urse of
sheathing e1·the r before homing or
anchoring. The annulus betw
een the tend on and the corrugated sheath'mg
is filled with resin o r cement grout.

Fixed anchor length (La) _ .

anchor over which the ten sile load 1s trans mitted to the
The lef"!gth of the
surrounding gro und.
f
Free anchor length (L)
The distance between the proximal end of the fixed anch or and the anchor
head.

Gra�e
A chemical compound normally resembling grease, used sometimes to
protect the tendon against corrosion where no bond is required to the
surrounding material. Usually located in t�e annulus between the tendon
and the sheathing in the free length, or
· as· a filler nea r the anch or head.
(See Section 6.6.1.)

Ground anchor
An installati on that is ca p a ble of transmitting an applied tensile load to a
load-bearing stratum. The installation consists basically of an anchor head,
free anchor length and fixed a nchor (See Figu_re 6·. 1.)

G.U.T.S
Guaranteed ultimate tensile strength, a term
characteristic strength.
no I anger used. s ee

!J��ir��
Hydrogen embrittlement
ind c�d crack ing or severe loss of
ductility caused by absorption
en �unng a �1c
_ _
klmg, cleaning or plating pr
ocess.
Initial load (Ti)
The minimum load to wh
ich an anchor 1s rebou
nded during stressing.
King post
See soldier.
200
Lagging
Planks or boards inserted behind or between soldiers to assist in the
transfer of the anchor or supp Jrting loads via the soldiers and/or walers
to the supported material.

Liftoff load
The minimum load monitored during a restressing operation at which the
anchor head just lifts off its seating.

Lock-off load
The load transferred to the anchor head immediately on completion of a
stressing operation.

Permanent anchor
An anchor that is required to ensure the stability and satisfactory service
performance of the permanent structure being supported. The service life
is greater than 2 years and the anchor is protected against corrosion. (See
Table 6.1.)

Pitting
Corrosion of a metal surface, confined to small surface cavities or pits rather
than general surface corrosion, the formation of which is ·attributed to
processes such as fatigue, load adhesion or cavitation. A width/depth ratio
of one is commonly recognised for a pit.

Pitting factor
The ratio of the depth of the deepest pit resulting from corrosion divided
by the average loss due to corrosion often calculated from weight loss.

Planking
See lagging.

Poling board
See lagging.

Proving test anchors

Ground anchors installed during the design stage where ground conditions
are unusual or difficult, in order to prove the anchoring system or establish
the length of the fixed anchorage, etc., and sometimes required to establish
whether anchors be temporary or permanent.

Proof load (Tp)

The maximum test load to which the anchorage is subjected during the
initial stressing phase.
201
Relaxation
The decrease of load with time, while the tendon is held under constant
strain.

Residual load
The load remaining in the anchorage at any time during service.

Rock bolt
A specific form of ground anchor where a bar of steel or other appropriate
material is fixed in rock.

Sheathing
A smooth plastic tube over the free length of the tendon to ensure
decoupling and in some cases to assist in corrosion protection.

Site. suitability test anchors

Ground anchors installed at the commencement of an anchor contract to
ensure that the anchor design is acceptable and to function as models
against which the working anchors will be compared.

Skin fri�tion
The frictional resistance developed between the ground and the grout in
the fixed anchorage.

Soldier
A vertical member of a supporting system for distributing anchor or strut
loads to the_ supported soils. ..

Soldier piles
Soldiers which are cast in situ in holes drilled prior to construction to form
a continuous structure.

Stress corrosion cracking (SCC)

Stress corrosion cracking may be transgranular or intergranular cracking
resulting from the combined action of internal or external static tensile stress
and localised corrosion. This excludes fast fracture in corrosion reduced
sections and intercrystalline or transcrystalline corrosion that can produce
failure without the application of stress.

Temporary anchor
An �nchor that is often used during the construction
phase of a project
to withstand forces for a known short period of
time usually less than 2
years. These anchors are normally destressed
when they have serve.d their
purpose.
202
 Note: l_f aggressive corrosive ac�ion is likely during service, special
protective measures may be mqu1red. (See Table 6.1.)

Tendon
Tha� element of the _ground anchor which is capable of transmitting the
tensile load from the fixed anchor to the anchor head (i.e wire, bar or strand).

Tensioned rock anchor

An anchor inserted in rock. and prestressed so as to apply an active
pressure to the rock face.

Tieback
See ground anchor.

Ultimate anchor load (Tu)

The lesser of

(a) The load which can be maintained without excessive creep movements.
(b) The load which is the product of the characteristic strength of the
material and the cross-sectional area of the tendon.

Untensioned rock anchor

An anchor installed in rock, with no prestressing of any magnitude to take
up any active pressure produced by the rock face.

Waler
A horizontal member of the support system spanning between soldiers in
order to distribute restraining forces to the soldiers.

Working anchor
An anchor, either temporary or permanent, which is installed to form part
of the supporting system either during or after construction or both. Some
working anchors may be specially tested and monitored as site suitability
test anchors.

Working load (Tw)

The load which the ground anchor has been designed to carry when in
place after lockoff. This is a factored load to which a factor of safety has
been applied.

203
 APPENDIX K
REFERENCES
AE&CI (1982). The effects, measurement and control of ground vibrations.
Explosives Today, Series 2, No.27, March.

Akroyd TNW (1957). Laboratory testing in soils engineering. Soil Mechanics

Ltd. London.

Association of SA Quantity Surveyors (1987}. Standard system for

measuring builder's work. 5th Ed.

ASTM A416 (1987}. Standard specification for uncoated ?-wire stress

relieved steel strand for prestressed concrete. Amer. Soc. Test. Matis.
Philadelphia.

ASTM A421 (1980). Standard specification for uncoated �tress relieved

steel wire for prestressed concrete. Amer. Soc. Test. Matis. Philadelphia.

ASTM ATT9 (1980}. Standard specification for steelstrand 7-wire, uncoated,

compacted, stress relieved for prestressed concrete. Amer. Soc. Test.
Matis. Philadelphia.

ASTM D2664 (1986). Test for triaxial compressive strength of undrained

rock core specimens without pore pressure measurements. Amer. Soc.
Test. Matis. Philadelphia.

Attewell PB, Yates J and Selby AR (1986}. Soil movements induced by

tunnelling and their effects on pipelines and structures. Blackie, London.
1st Ed.

Baguelin F, Josequel JF and Shields DH (1978) The pressuremeter and

foundation engineering. Trans Tech Publications, Clausthal-Zellerfeld.

Bishop AW (1948}. A large shear box for testing sands and gravels. Proc.
2nd Int. Cont. Soil Mech. Found. Eng. Rotterdam. Sub Section lie.

Bishop AW (1954}. The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of
slopes. Proc. Europ. Cont. Stab. Earth Slopes, Stockholm. Vol 1.
205
 } . The us e of slip cir cle in the stability analysis of earth
Bishop AW (1955
Vol 5 No 1 ·
slopes. Geotechnique,
s in
W d He nk el DJ (19 62 }. The measurement of so il prop ertie
Bishop A an
Arnold, Lond0n.
the triaxial test. Edward
een GE , Ga rga VK , An d ersen A and Brown JD (1971). A
Bishop AW, Gr
application to the measurement of residual
new ring shear apparatus and its
strength. Geotechnique, Vol 21.
tability coefficients for ea rth slopes.
Bishop AW and Morgenstern N (1960). S
Geotechnique, Vol 10.
Brink ABA (1979-1985}. Engineering Geology of southern Africa. Volumes
1-4, Building Publications, Silve rton.

British Geotechnical Society (1973). Field instrumentation in geotechnical

engineering. Symposium. Butterworth, London.

Broch E and Franklin JA (1972). The point load strength test. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. Vol 9.

Broms BB and Stille H (1976}. Failure of anchored shear pile walls. Proc.
ASCE 102(GT3) March.

Bruce DA and Jewell RA (1986, 1987). Soil nailing: application and practice.
Pa rt s 1 and 2, Ground Eng. Nov. and Jan.

B� 1377 (1975). Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes.
Bnt. Stand. Inst. London.
B� 1501 (1973) (Part 3). Corrosion and heat resisting steels. Imperial units.
Bnt. Stand. Inst. London.

�� �!�� �� rt 6 (1971}, Analysis of hardened concrete. Brit. Stand.

t. o

BS 4486 (1980) S
high ten sile all�y
:i:�� ·
'f at,o for hot rolled and hot rolled and processed
�
ars ;or the prestressing of concrete. Brit. St and.
Inst. London.

BS 5896 (1980). Specificati

on· for h.igh tensil. e steel wire a d strand for the
prestressing of concret n
e · B n t · s tand. Inst. Lon
don.
BS 5930 (1981) Code . .
of Practic . e for site investigations. Brit. Stand. Inst.
London.
206
 BS 8081 {1989). Ground anchorages. Brit. Stand. Inst. London.

Bureau Securitas {1977). Recommendations regarding the design

calculation, installation and inspection of ground anchorages: Ed. Eyrolles:
Paris. {Ref. TA77).

Burland JB {1960). A simplified ·soil colour chart for soil identificatio·n.

Dissertation. University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg.

Burland JB, Broms BB and de Mellow VFB {1977). Behaviour of foundations

and structures. Proc. 9th Int. Cont. Soil Mech. Found. Eng.,-Tokyo. Vol 2.

Burland JB, Simpson B and St.John HD {1979). Movements around

excavations in London clay. Proc. 7th Euro: Cont. Soil Mech. Found. Eng.,
Brighton. Vol 1.

Canadian Geotechnical Society {1978). Excavations and retaining

structures: Can. Found. Eng. Manual Part 4.

Cedergren HR {1977). Seepage, drainage and flow nets. John Wiley and
Sons, N.York. 2nd Ed.

Clark GB {1966). Deformation moduli of rocks. ASTM Specl. Tech. Pub.

No.402: Testing techniques for rock mech.

Clayton CAI, Simons NE and Mathews MC {1982). Site investigation

handbook for engineers. Grenada Publishing.

Clemens SP {Ed.)(1986). Use of in situ tests in geotechnical engineering.

Proc. Specl. Conf. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg. ASCE, N. York.

Clough GW {1975). Deep excavations and retaining structures. Conf.

Found. Tall Build., Lehigh Univ., Ana.

Clo ugh GW, Weber PR and Lamont J {1972). Design and observations
of a tied-back wall. Proc. Spec. Conf. Performance of earth and earth
supported structures {ASCE), Perdu Univ. Part 2, June.

Code of Practice No. 4 {1954). Foundations, ICE, London.

Corbett BO and Stroud MA {1975). Temp orary retaining wall �onstruction

by Belinoise system at Centre Beanbourg, Paris. Proc. Cont. D1aphr. Walls
and Anchorages, (ICE), London.

207
 les de s maximis et
b CA (177 6 ). E ssa ·
1 sur une application de. s reg
. ). '
om
. • s a. quelques probl·emes de statiq ue relat1fs a larch 1tecture. Mem.
Coul
mm,mu
ris.
Acad. R. pres. p. div sav vii, Pa
cathodic protection. Brit. Stand. Inst.
CP 1021 (1973). Code of practice for
72). Performance of two slurry wall
Cunningham JA and Fernandez JI (19 Performance of earth and earth
systems in Chicago. Proc. Spec. Cont.
iv. Part 2, June.
supported structures (ASCE), Perdu Un
DJ (1967). Behaviour of a
D'Appollonia E, Alperstein A and D'Apollonia
colluvial slope. Proc. ASCE 93(SM4), July.
Day PW (1989). Personal communication.

Day PW and Krone B (1989). Personal communication.

Da Costa-Nunes AJ and Diaz PHV (1978). Experimental verification of

anchored curtain wall. Revue Francaise de Geotechnique No.3, January.

DD 81 (1982). Draft for development. Recommendations for ground

anchorage. Brit. Stand. Inst.

Dietrich M, Chase B and Teul W (1971). Tie-back system permits

uncluttered site. Found. Facts, Raymond Pile Co. 7(1).

Duncan N, Dunne MW and Petty S (1968). Swelling characteristics of rock.

Water Power, May.

Duncan �- and Seed RB (1986). Compaction induced e�rth pressures under

Ko cond1t1ons. ASCE J. Geot. Eng. Vol 112(1).
Ervin MC (Editor)(1983). In situ testing f�� geotechnical investig. ati�ns AA
alkema, Rotterdam. · ·
8
Fang Y and Ishibashi M (1986) Static earth
pressures with various wall
movements · ASCE J · Geot • Eng. · Vol 112(3).
Fenoux CY (1978). Enceinte etanch
ed
essais et mesures surles tirants ' e la centrale electrique d� Blaye
_
Geotechrnqu d an�hrage. Revue Francaise de
e No.3.
Franklin JA and Chandra R (19
72). The slake-durability test. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. Vol 9_

208
 Gassler G and Gud ehus G (1981). Soil nailing - some aspects of a new
technique. Proc. 10th Int. Cont. Soil Mech. Found. Eng. Stockholm, Vol3.

Giddings !R and Kantey BA (� 979). C�rrent practice in soil sampling in

south Africa. Int. Conf. on Soil Sampling. Singapore.

Goodman RE, Van TK and Heuze FE (1968). The measurement of rock

deformability in boreholes. Proc. 10th Symp. Rock Mech. (lntersociety
Committee on Rock Mech.) Texas.

Green R (1975). Blasting effects .. Symp. on Geophysics in Civ. Eng.

Pretoria.

Griffiths DH and King RF (1976). Applied geophysics for engineers and

geologists. Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Haines EC, O'Leary EM and Watkins HJM (1980). Crown offices, Cathays
Park, Cardiff. The Structural Engineer; 58A(4).

Hanna TH (1982). Foundations in tension. McGraw Hill, N. York.

Hanna TH (1985). Field instrumentation in geotechnical engineering. Trans

Tech Publications, Clausthal-Zellerfeld. · . ·· . . .,

Harr M� (1962). Groundwater and seepage, _McGraw Hill, N. Y�rk.

Harr ME (1966). Mechanics of particulate media. McGraw Hill, N. York.

Harr ME (1977). Mechanics of particulate media. A pr�babilistic approac�.

McGraw Hill, N. York. ·
,
Harr ME (1987). Reliability based design in civil engineering. McGraw Hill,
N. York.

Hawkes I and Mellor M (1970). Uniaxial testing in rock mechanics

laboratories. Eng. Geol. 4, Elsevier.

Hobst (1965). Vizepitmenyek Kihorgonyzasa, Vizugi Kozlamenyek Vol.4.

Hobst and Zajic (1982). Anchoring in rock and soil, 2nd Ed. Elsevier Sci.
Publ. Co. N. York .

Hodgson FT (1975). Design and construction of a diaphragm wall at Victria

Street, London. Proc.
Conf. on Diaphragm Walls and Anchorages, ICE,
London.
209
 e context of a
o k cha nic s -laboratory testing in th
H
oek ( 97 R
� m�g an isation . Int .J. of Rock Me ch., Min.Sci. and
grneerrn g
consult�ing1 en7)_. .B.
. Perganon Press, G
O
ech. Ab st. Vo l 14 (2 2)
Geom .
d Br ay JW (19 77 ). Ro ck slo pe engin eering. Inst. Min. and Met.
oek E an
H
London 2nd Ed.
derground excavations in rock. Inst. Min.
Hoek E and Brown ET (1980).Un
and Met. London.
n to geotechnical engineering.
Holtz Ro·and Kovacs WO (1981). Introductio
Prentice Hall, N. York.
on retaining walls.
Ingold TS (1979). The effects of compaction
Geotechnique Vol 29 No. 3.

Int.Soc. Rock Mech. (1979). Suggested methods for determining water

content, porosity, density, absorption and ·related properties and swelling
and slake-durability index properties. Int. J. Rock Mech. and Min. Sci. Vol
16.

Jaky J (1944). The coefficient of earth pressure at-rest. (in Hungarian) J.

Soc. Hungarian Archs. and Engrs. Vol 78 (22)..

Janbu N (1954).Discussion ·on : Applications of composite slip surfaces

!or �tability analysis. Eur. Cont. Stab. Earth �lopes, Stockhol m, Vol 3.
.
Janbu N (1957). Earth pressures and bearing capacity calculations by
generalised procedure of slices. Proc. 4th Int. Cont. Soil Mech.Found.
Eng. London, Vol 2.

Janbu N (197:). State of the art report on slopes and excavations in

normally and slightly overconsolidated clays. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Soil Mech.
Found. Eng. Tokyo.

Jelinek and 05termayer H (1976). Verpr�ssanke·r n

R i Boden · Bauingenieur
V ol 51 (3), March.

Jennings JE (1969). Cont_rr·b ut,on .

• to discu ssion. Proc. 7th Int. Conf.Sari
Mech · Found · E ng., Mexrco, Vol
3.
Jennings JE, Brink ABA and
rllrams �B (1973). Revised guide to s�rl
w· . . .
.
profiling tor civil engineerrn
g purposes in South Africa.The Civil Eng. rn
S. Africa, Janu ary.

210
Kovari K and Fritz P (1976). Stability analysis of rock slopes for plane and
wedge failu�e with the aid of a programmable calculator. Proc. 16 Symp.
Des. Meth. m Rock Mech., (ASCE), Univ. Minnesota.

Kranz E (1953). Ober die Verankerung von Spundwanden. Wilhelm Ernst

& Sohn, Berlin.

Lacroix Y (1969). Supported temporary excavations in urban areas. In:

Woodward Clyde Associates, Geotechnical Bulletin, April, 11 19.

Ladd CC (1971 ). Settlement analyses for cohesive soils. Res. Rep. R71-2,
Soils Publ. 272, Dept. Civ. Eng., MIT.

Lambe TW (1970). Braced excavations.-Proc. Spec.·Conf. Lat. Stresses

and earth Ret. Structures, (ASCE), Cornell Univ.

Lambe TW and Whitman RV (1969). Soil mechanics. John Wiley and Sons.
N. York.
. - -
- .
Larson ML, Willette WR, Hall HC and Gnaedinger JP (1972)._A case study
of a soil anchor tie-back system. Proc. Spec. Cont. Performance of e·arth
and earth supported structures, (ASCE), Perdue Univ.

Littlejohn GS (1977). Ground Anchors. Installation techniques and testing

procedures. Review of diaphragm walls (ICE), London, and Discussion.

Littlejohn GS (1979). Ground Anchors. State of the art. Symp. on Prestr.

Grnd. Anchors. (Cone. Soc. of SA) Prestr. Cone. Div., Johannesburg.

Littlejohn GS (1981). Acceptance criteria for the service behavior of ground

anchorages. Ground Engineering Vol 14(3).

Littlejohn GS and MacFarlane IM (1975). A case history study of multi-tied

diaphragm walls. Proc. Cont. Diaphr. Walls and Anchorages, (ICE), London.

Littlejohn GS and Bruce DA (1975/76). Rock anchors, State of the Art.

Ground Engineering

Liu TK and Dugan JP (1972). An instrumented tied-back deep excavation.

Proc. Spec. Conf. Performance of earth and earth supported structures,
(ASCE), Perdue Univ.

Locher HG (1969). Anchored retaining walls and cut-off

·
walls. Losinger,
Berne. (unpublished). · . _

211
 onal co mmun
icatio n .
Lou don PA (1989) Pers
nal co mmunication.
Lourens JP (1986) Perso
• . ounod· Pa ris.
et geoI og1e
Lugeon M (1933) · Barrages
. .
JL (19 74). Tie-ba ck excavations tn Los
Malij ian PA and Van B � e e n
c � l 100 (C03).
Angeles area. Proc. AS o

cks in clay to supp ort sheeted

Mansur Cl and Al.1zadeh M (1970). Tie-ba
excavat ion. Proc. ASCE Vol 96 (SM2)-

• • 1 s h earstrength of clay by a modified

Marsh AD (1972). Interacti• on of ongma
shear box method. Dept. of the Environ. Rep. 515, TAAL. Crawthorne, UK.

Marsl and A (1971). The shear strength of stiff fissured clays. Proc. Roscoe
Memori al Symp., Cambridge Univ.

Mayne PW and Kulhawy FH (1982). Ko-OCR relati_onship in soil. J. Geot.

Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol 108(GT6).

McG own A, Murray RT and Andrawes KZ (1987). Influence of wall yielding

on lateral stresses i n unreinforced and reinfo rced fills. Research Rep. 113,
TAAL, UK.

McKittrick DP (1979). Reinforced earth: application of theory and research

to practice. Ground Engineering, January.

McRostie G and Schriever WR (1967). Frost pressure in the tie-back system

at the National Arts Centre excavation. Engineering Journal (Canada),
March.
Menard L (1965). Regles pour le calcu
l de la force portante et du tassement
des foundations en function des res
ultats pressio·metriques. Proc. 6th Int.
Co n t. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., Mo
ntreal.
� illigan V �197�. The uncertain equa
tion between des ign and constructio
m �oil_ engi n eering. In: Proc n
. of speciality sess ion No
Soil M e ch. an d Found. . 3, 9th Int. Co nt. on
Eng. To kyo, 54 103.

�� r��r;;tern N A and Pri�e VE (1965). An a

P aces. G eote chnique nalysis of the stability of gene
Vol 15. ral
Mullane OM (1989
). Personal com
municat ion.
212
Murphy DJ, Clough GW and Woolworth RS (1975). Temporary excavation
in varved clay. Proc ASCE Vol 101 (GT3).

NAVFAC. DM-7.2 (1982). Foundations and earth structures. US Dept. of

the Navy, Naval Facilities Eng. Command, Washington, DC.

NAVFAC. P-418 (1983) TM 5-818-5, AFM 88-5, Chapter 6: Dewatering and

groundwater control for deep excavations. US Dept. of the Army, the Navy
and the Air Force, Washington DC.
Nelson JC (1973). Earth tie-backs support excavation 112 ft deep. Civl,
Engineering (ASCE) Vol 43(11).

New BM (1986). Ground vibration caused by civil engineering works.

Research. Rep. 53, TAAL, UK.

Nobel's Explosives Co. Ltd. (1972). Blasting practice. Stevenston. Ayrshire.

Scotland. 4th Ed.

NTC (1978). Specifications for Contract No. NVK 101013. Vol 3, Special
Provisions. Clause SP 3406 (f)(iii): Limitations for blasting. National
Transport Commission, Pretoria. ·

NTC (1980). Standard specificati_ons for road and bridge works. Section
1200: General requirements ·and provisions. Clause· 1224: ·use of
explosives. National Transport Commission, Pretoria.

NTC (1984). Standard specifications for geotechnical investigations.

National Transport Commission, Pretoria.

Ostermayer H (1977). Detailed design of anchorages. Review of diaphragm

walls, ICE, London.

Pappin JW, Simpson B, Felton PJ and Raison C (1985). Numerical analysis

of flexible retaining walls. Proc. Int. Cont. Numer. Methods in Eng.Swansea.

Peck RB (1969). Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground. State of

the art report. 7th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., Mexico.

Peck RB, Hanson WE and Thornburn TH (1974). Foundation engineering.

John Wiley and Sons, N.York.

Penman ADM (1960). A study of the response times of various types of

piezometers. Proc. Conf. Pore Pressure and suction in soils, Butterworth,
London.
213
 pped and cant ilever rigid walls (1984). Symp. in print
��mM�of Pro
Geotechnique Vol 34.
f � � a urin g the
an d Ja m e s EL (1973�. An inclinometer � � ;_
PhillipsS HE to mu 1-t 1e 1aphragm
fo rm at io n of bu rie d str uctures w i th reference
de . Soc. London, Par t 1.
lnstrum. British Geotech
walls. Proc. Symp. Field
e
currence of sulphates in S. Africa and _th ir
PCI (1960). A note on the oc
te technology. Portland Cement Institute.
importance in ·relation to concre
Johannesburg.

Rauch WT (1984). Personnal communication.

Ranke H and Ostermayer H (1968). Betrag zur. Stabilitatsuntersuchung

mehrfach verankerter Baugrubenumschliessungen. Bautechnik H.10.

Rizzo PC, Ellison RD and Shafer RJ (1968). Prestressed'tie-back walls for

two deep excavations in Buffalo, New York. Paper presented at ASCE
Annual Meeting, October.

Rohde AW (1983). Grondankers in die Pretoria gebied. Dissertation.

University of Pretoria.

Rowe PW (1952). Anchored sheet pile walls. Proc. ICE Vol 7(1 ).

Rowe PW and Barden LA (1966). New consolidation cell. Geotechnique

Vol 16.
S A S e?tionof the_ Association of Eng. Geologists (1976). Core Logging
Committ�e. A guide to core logging for rock engineering. Symp. on
Exploration for Rock Eng. Johannesburg NoV. I

t �S 02 1 (1973)- Code of practice for the waterproofing of buildings. South

! ncan 8 ureau of Standards, Pretoria.

SASS 0120: Part 2 Section D..( 1982�-

C�de of practice for use wit h
standardised specifi�ations c i vil engmeenng_ construction and contract
documents. Earthworks: Cl��r
by nonexplosive means. Sou
s: 3·�·3· Excavation of rock by blasting and
t Afr i can Bureau of Standards, Pre toria.
SASS 0� 20: Part 5, Secti
on D <1982). Code of practice for use with
standardised spec·,ti· cat·io
ns for civil engine · construction and contract
· ering
documents. Earthwork
s·. Clause .2.3 plosiv
of Standards, Pretoria. 3 Ex es. South African Bureau

214
 SABS 1200 Part B (1982). Standardized specification for civil engineering
con struction. South African Bureau of Standards, Pretoria.
SABS 0400 (1987). The application of the National Building Regulations.
South African Bureau of Standards, Pretoria.

SABS 1200 D (1988). Standardized specification for civil engineering

construction. Earthworks: Clause 5.1.1.3. Explosives. South African Bureau
of Standards, Pretoria.

SAICE and NITRR (1978). Course in in situ testing in boreholes. Pretoria,

March.

Sandegren E, Sahlstrom PO and Stille H (1972). Behaviour of anchored

sheet pile wall exposed to frost action. Proc. 5th Europ. Cont. Soil Mech.
Found. Eng., Madrid Vol 1.

Sandqvist E (1972). Back-tied sheet pile wall in friction soil. Deformations

and drag forces due to piling and freezing. Proc. 5th Europ. Cont. Soil Mech.
Found. Eng. Madrid, Vol 1.

Sanglerat G (1972). The penetrometer and soil exploration. Dev. in Geotech.

Eng. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Saxena SK (1975). Measured performance of a rigid concrete wall in the

world trade centre. Proc. Conf. Diaphragm Walls and Anchorages, ICE,
London.

Schmid WE (1967). Field determination of permeability by the infiltration

test. ASTM Spec. Tech. Publ. No 417. Permeability and capillarity of soils.
Philadelphia.

Schofield A and Wroth P (1968). Critical state soil mechanics. McGraw

Hill, London.

Schwartz Kand Friedlaender EA (1989). Soil nailing in South Africa. Ground

Profile SAICE No 58.

Seed RB and Duncan JM (1986). Compaction induced stresses and

deformations. ASCE J. Geot. Eng. Vol 112(1).

Shannon WL and Strazer RJ (1970). Tie-back excavation wall for Seattle

First National Bank. Civil Engineer (ASCE) Vol 40(3).

215
 z owski MK (1977). Behaviour of anchored
Sills GC, Burland. JB nd C ech Cont. Soil Mech. Found. Eng.
1 clay • Proc • 9th Int.
diaphragm wall in st.;
Tokyo, Vol 2.
. DD (1979). A computer model for the
Simps?n B' O'R'iordan NJ and Croft
don clay. Geotechnique, Vol 29(2)
analysis of groun d movements in Lon
lity of clay slopes. Geotechnique
Skempton AW ( 1964). Long term stabi
Vol 14 (4th Ranki ne Lecture).
r
Somerville SH (1986). Control of groundwater for tempo ary works.
Construction Industry Research and Information Assa. Report 113.

Sommer H (1980). Contribution to discussion on design p�rameters for

stiff clay. Proc. 7th Europ. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng. Brighton, Vol 4.

South African Republic (1941). Factories, Machinery and Building Work

Act (Act 22 of 1941) and regulations. Lex Patria Publishers (Pty) Ltd.
Johannesburg.

South African Republic (1963). Explosives Act (Act 26 of 1956) and

regulations. Lex Patria Publishers (Pty) Ltd. Johannesburg.

South African Republic (1980). Mines and Works Act (Act 27 of ·1956) and
regulations. Lex Patria Publishers (Pty) Ltd. Johannesburg, 1980.

South African Republic (1983). Machi nery and Occupational Safety Act
(Act 6 of 1983) and regulations. Lex Patria Publishers (Pty) Ltd.
Johannesburg. . .

South African Re public, (1985 and 1987). Building Standards Act (Act 103
of 1977) and National Buil ding Regulations. Lex Patria Publishers (Pty)
Ltd. Johannesburg, Amend. 1987.
St John HD (1975). Discussion on Papers 14 to
17. Proc. Cont. Diaphragm
walls and Anchorages. ICE, London.

Stille M and Fr deriksson A (1979)

� . Field measurement of an anchored
sh�et p_ile wall m clay. Proc. 7th E
urop. Conf. Soil Mech Found. Eng.,
Brighton, Vol 3.

�:������ <1954). Anchored bulkheads. ASCE Transactions, Vol 119 Pa

per

216
Terzaghi K and Peck RB (1967). Soil mechanics in engineering practice.
John Wiley Sons, N. York. 2nd Ed.

TGL 11464/03 (1979). Methods for calculation of earth pressure.

Staatsverlag der DDR, Berlin, October.

TMH1 (1979 and 1986). Standard methods of testing road construction

materials. NITRR CSIR, Pretoria.

TMH6 (1984). Special methods for testing roads. NITRR CSIR. Pretoria.

Trow WA (1974). Temporary and permanent earth anchors: three monitored

installations. Canadian Geot. J. Vol 11(3).

Van Niekerek, Kleyn Edwards (1988). Cape Town. Data from numerous
blasting vibration measurements in southern Africa.

Wahls EH (1981). Tolerable settlement of buildings. Proc. ASCE, Vol 107

(GTII).

Ware KR, Mirsky E and Leuniz WE (1973). Tie-back wall construction -

results and controls. Proc. ASCE Vol 99 {SM12).

Webb DL (1976). State of the art report. Penetration testing in South Africa.
Europ. Symp. on Pen. Testing, Stockholm.

Weissenbach A (1982). Baugrubensicherung. Grundbautaschenbuch. Ed.

U. Smoltczyk, Teil 2. Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn. Berlin.

Weitman AJ and Head J (1982). Site investigation manual. Spec. Publ.

25. Const. Ind. Res. And Inf. Ass. London.

White RE (1975). Anchored walls adjacent to vertical rock cuts. Proc. Conf.
Diaphragm Walls and Anchorages. ICE, London, and Discussion.

Whiteside P (1985). Rock pressure coefficient for design of rock retaining

structures. Quart. J. Eng. Geol. London. Vol 18.

Williams H, Turner FJ and Gilbert CM (1954). Petrography. An introduction

to the study of rocks in thin sections. WH Freeman & Co., San Francisco.

Windle D and Wroth CP (1977). The use of self-boring pre�suremeter to

_
determine the undrained properties of clays. Ground Engme�rmg, Vol 10(6).

217
 Winterkorn HF and Fang H (Ed)(1975).; Foundation engineering handbook.
Van Nostrand Reinhold, N. York.

Wosser TD and Darragh ED (1970): Tie-backs for Bank of America Building

excavation wall. Civil ·Engineering (ASCE) Vol 40(3). ·

Wrench BP (1984). Plate tests for the measurement of modulus and bearing
capacity of gravels. Civil Engineer in S.Africa (SAICE), September.

218