Effects of deep excavations on existing buildings: a case study

B. Palazzo, M. Calvello, M. de Iuliis & P. Castaldo

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, Italy

Abstract
In this paper the issue of evaluating the effects produced by deep excavations on the built environ-
ment in urban areas and historical centres is discussed. Deep excavations unavoidably cause a field
of soil deformations affecting the surrounding buildings. A second level probabilistic analysis on
these effects is described for a case-study. In particular, a comparison between the obtained results
and those estimated by using widely adopted empirical methods is carried out. The aim is to give a
contribution towards defining probabilistic methods in order to predict buildings damage on varying
excavation depths and edge distances and towards supporting design decisions taking into account
the need for both requirements of urban development and protection of the built environment.

1 INTRODUCTION it, which are also moderately dependent on the

Empty spaces in large urban areas are extremely rare
nowadays and the growing number of urban activities
leads, more and more often, to the use of underground
space for installing urban services, transportation
infrastructures, parking areas, etc. However, the engi-
neering works to be carried out in order to use under-
ground space, frequently call for deep excavation to
take place in highly urbanized areas or in old town
centres which are precious from an historic and cul-
tural heritage point of view. As it is well-known, the
construction of shallow tunnels or open-pit wide ex-
cavations in loosely-packed soil inevitably causes
vertical and horizontal movements. Such displace-
ments in an urban environment may lead to relevant
damage both to adjacent buildings and to infra-
structures, as well as posing risk to cultural heritage
structures. To this aim, the vulnerability of build-
ings to differential settlements of the foundations is
greatly uneven and specific care should be adopted
in the case of masonry constructions, which fre-
quently have relevant cultural value, especially when
there are decorative elements and frescoes.
The present paper aims to give a contribution to-
wards defining probabilistic methods that tackle the
complicated problem of risk assessment related to
the construction of underground structures in ur-
ban areas. In particular, a second-order reliability
techniques adopted for the excavation and on the
workmanship. The literature offers many empirical
methods for estimating an excavation-induced set-
tlement trough. However, none of them explicitly
considers either the effects of the construction ac-
tivities or the changes in groundwater level induced
by the excavation.
Peck (1969) proposed a method based on the
back analysis of a significant amount of monitored
vertical displacements grouped within three soil
classes (Fig. 1). O’Rourke (1981) based his method
on settlements recorded around excavations in
Washington D.C. in dense sands with clayey seams.
Clough and O’Rourke (1990), adopting a different
approach, derived their estimations of the settle-
ments on the basis of both observed historical data
from monitored sites and results of finite element
non-linear analyses of sample cases and defined
dimensionless charts of normalized maximum
predicted settlements versus the stiffness of the
system soil-structure. Bauer (1984) developed a
semi-empirical method for sandy soils proposing
Distance from excavation
Max. depth of excavation
0 1 2 3 4
0
I
:%

analysis is carried out on a case-study in order to

Max. depth of excavation

II
critically review the available empirical approaches
1 III
and provide useful design considerations.
Settlement

2 EMPIRICAL METHODS FOR ESTIMATING 2

GROUND MOVEMENTS INDUCED BY
DEEP EXCAVATIONS
3
A deep excavation always induces significant changes Figure 1 Dimensionless subsidence profiles around deep
in both the stress and strain fields of the soil around excavatins (from Peck 1969).

IACMAG 2011 – Melbourne, Australia, 9–11 May 2011

S20_193_1055.indd 1190 4/19/2011 6:48:13 PM

 20 Case Histories: Prediction, Performance and Evaluation, Forensic Studies; Back Analysis: Pre-failure and Failure
a parabolic settlement trough, with maximum verti-
cal displacement values equal to the ones proposed
by Peck and a trough width significantly shorter if
compared with the other methods. For all methods,
the ground settlements decrease moving away from
the excavation front and become negligible at a dis-
tance between 1 and 3 times the excavation depth.
As far as the horizontal displacements are con-
cerned, most studies report values similar to the ver-
tical displacements.
3 CASE STUDY: SAN PASQUALE STATION –
NAPLES’ SUBWAY LINE 6 (ITALY)
The new section of Naples’ subway line 6, currently
under construction, extends along the city’s coastal
border. The design (Ansaldo 2005) includes the con-
struction of different subway stations for which
open-pit deep excavations should be carried out.
Among them, there is the San Pasquale station, a
1191
conditions analogous to the ones for which they
have been originally proposed, being the response of
a system influenced by many factors (e.g. geometry,
mechanical properties of soil strata and retaining
structures, construction activities). Therefore, the
analysis of a boundary-value problem has to take
into account project-specific characteristics and use
numerical methods that model the soil as a deform-
able continuum (e.g. Finite Element Model).
4.1 Mechanical Modelling of the Soil
Ground settlements in areas adjacent to excavations
are mainly due to the plastic strains developing in
the soil. The elasto-plastic constitutive models pro-
posed in the literature may be divided in 3 classes:
i) “quasi-linear” models (Desai & Siriwardane 1984),
which have the structure of linear models but pa-
rameters depending on the stress and/or strain level;
ii) elasto-perfectly plastic models, characterized by
a fixed yield surface; iii) elasto-plastic models with
hardening or softening behaviour and one or more
rectangular shaped excavation, having 23.6  85.5 m2
plan dimensions and a 28 meter maximum depth.
The excavation edge is 16.5 meters far from a build-
ing’s curtain having a relevant historic and heritage
value, part of which are monumental palaces, insti-
tutionally protected as Cultural Heritage. The main
excavation is propped up with T-shaped reinforced
concrete slurry walls, build up by using hydraulic
milling machines, which are foreseen to be over 50
meter deep to reach the tuff layer. The subsidence
profile shown in Figure 2 is obtained by applying
Peck’s empirical method.
, and Cohesion, c
; a flux law de-
4 FINITE ELEMENT NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS
The methods previously described are indubitably
useful for a first estimation of the ground move-
ments induced by deep excavations. However, they
are, in principle, only applicable to geo-structural
, c
, Rf), 5 stiffness parameters (E50ref,
, the stiffness moduli E50ref, Eurref, Eoedref (cor-
Figure 2 Settlement contour lines around the S. Pasquale
station computed using the empirical method by Peck
(1969).
IACMAG 2011 – Melbourne, Australia, 9–11 May 2011
S20_193_1055.indd 1191
families of yield surfaces. The analysis of the previ-
ously presented case study is conducted using the
FE code PLAXIS. In particular, two constitutive laws
are used in the analysis: “Mohr-Coulomb” (M-C)
and “Hardening-Soil” (H-S), respectively belonging
to the classes of the elasto-perfectly plastic and
elasto-plastic with hardening models.
The Mohr-Coulomb model is based on a con-
stitutive law described by: the elastic parameters
Young’s Modulus, E, and Poisson’s ratio, ; the
strength parameters, defining the yield surface,
Friction Angle, f
fined by the Dilatancy Angle C. The Hardening-Soil
model (Shanz et al. 1999) is based on a Mohr-
Coulomb strength criterion and two families of
yielding surfaces: the “yield cap surface”, with an
associated flow rule taking into account the volu-
metric plastic strains, and the “shearing yield sur-
face”, used to compute the distortional plastic
strains with a non-associated flow rule and with a
plastic potential defined to ensure a hyperbolic re-
sponse upon loading in axisymmetric conditions.
The parameters of the H-S model are: 3 strength
parameters (f
Eurref, Eoedref, ur, m), the dilatancy angle (C) and the
coefficient of earth pressure at rest (K0). Of all the
parameters, the most important in the analyses of
excavations (Calvello & Finno 2004) are the friction
angle, f
related to one another) and the coefficient m, used
to define the stress dependency of the stiffness.
4.2 Sensitivity Analysis of the FEM
Figure 3 shows the mesh of the model used to simu-
late the 16 construction stages defined in the design
of the project (Ansaldo 2005). The model shows a
3-layer stratigraphy with groundwater level at 1 m
4/19/2011 6:48:13 PM
1192 13th International Conference of the IACMAG 2011

below ground surface and a loose 4 m-thick upper The results are also compared with the settlement
soil layer, overlying a pyroclastic sandy soil layer troughs predicted by the empirical methods previ-
(pozzolana) and the bottom tuff bedrock. The pres- ously described, which are generally on the safe side
ence of buildings on the right side of the excavation except for the values of the predicted angular distor-
is accounted for by applying a uniformly distributed tions. The sensitivity analysis quantify the role
pressure (15 t/m2) starting from a distance of 16.5 m played by the model variables. In particular: increas-
from the excavation front. ing values of the soil stiffness correspond to decreas-
Due to the high permeability of the soil layers, ing settlements; when the elastic-perfectly plastic
the analysis has been carried out in drained condi- constitutive relationship is used, a significant per-
tions at each phase. On the basis of information de- centage of the ground settlements occurred during
rived from the design of the project, a set of sensitivity the excavation are recovered at the end, which is
analyses has been conducted, employing 8 numeri- against common experience; greater hydraulic con-
cal simulations of the model (Table 1), to study the ductivities of the soil layers mean less significant
effect, on the computed results, of the following lowering of groundwater surface and, thus, lower
5 significant model variables: the stiffness of the predicted settlements and higher values of horizon-
pyroclastic soil layer “Esoil”, the elevation of the bound- tal displacements. In Figure 5, the relative rotations,
ary between the pyroclastic and tuff layers “Elev”, the computed for buildings with isolated foundations
relative permeability between the pyroclastic and relatively to the last excavation phase, are compared
tuff layers “k”, the constitutive law adopted to model with some of the design limits provided in the litera-
the behaviour of the pozzolana, “law” (M-C model, ture (which will be discussed in section 6).
H-S model), the stiffness of the retaining structures
“Estr”. As for the latter, a reduction of the stiffness
of the elements was considered to take into account Subsidence profiles
both the viscous behaviour of concrete and fissuring. 0 0
Figure 4 shows the results of the 8 simulations w (m)
3
in a chart where the ground settlements are plot- 0.1
ted against the distance from the excavation front. 2
6 4
0.05
5 8 1 0 x 0.2
u(x)
00 00 00 00 H
00

00

00

0 0 w(x)
0

0. 0. 0. 0. 00 .0 .0 7
.0

.0

0.3
0.

0.

0.

−8 −6 −4 −2 0. 20 40
60

80

10

12

14

0.10 Numerical subsidence profiles

120.00 Subsidence profiles – O’Rourke
Subsidence profiles – Bauer 0.4
100.00 Subsidence profiles – Peck
80.00 x (m)
0.15 0.5
60.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
x/H
40.00 0 0.5 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
20.00 Figure 4 Comparison between numerical simulations and
0.00 empirical ones.

Figure 3 Mesh adopted for FEM of the case study.

Ñ
× 10−1 Limits w/L
5
Table 1 Model variables for sensitivity analysis Ñ
w/L
4.5
Simulations Esoil Elev k law Estr 4
w/L = 1/300
Ñ
Case 1 V A O M-C I 3.5
Case 2 C A O M-C I 3
Case 3 C A E M-C I 2.5
Case 4 C A O H-S I w/L = 1/500
Ñ
Case 5 C A O H-S R 2
6
Case 6 C A E H-S R 1.5 8
7
Case 7 C B O H-S R 1 5 4
Case 8 C B E H-S R 1
0.5 2
Legend 0 3
Esoil: V  Variable with depth, C  Constant; 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Elev: A  34 m, B  46 m; x (m)
x/H
k: O  Homogeneous, E  Heterogeneous;
0.18 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
law: M-C  Mohr-Coulomb, H-S  Hardening-Soil;
Estr: I  Intact, R  Reduced. Figure 5 Relative rotations and literature limits.

IACMAG 2011 – Melbourne, Australia, 9–11 May 2011

S20_193_1055.indd 1192 4/19/2011 6:48:15 PM

 20 Case Histories: Prediction, Performance and Evaluation, Forensic Studies; Back Analysis: Pre-failure and Failure 1193

5 SECOND LEVEL PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS function for both vertical, w, and horizontal, u, free-
field displacements by using the maximum likeli-
To take into account the uncertainties of the prob- hood technique. Figure 7 shows, as an example, the
lem, a probabilistic analysis is carried out, in which probability density function (log-normal distribution)
variables, E50, f , e, K for each layer, are treated as for relative vertical displacement at a pre-assigned
random quantities having Gaussian distribution distance from the excavation edge (x/H  0.714).
(Table 2), with variation coefficients consistent with
Lumb (1974).
The free-field displacement profiles are plotted in 6 BUILDINGS DAMAGE THRESHOLDS
Figure 6, both in terms of vertical and horizontal
components. They represent the result of a Point Different criteria to evaluate the effect of soil move-
Estimate Method analysis (Christian & Baecher ments on building’s foundation are herein summa-
2002) in which two values for every random variable rized, along with the related damage thresholds
are considered (i.e. mean value  standard devia- (Tables 3, 4 and 5). It’s notable as different damage lev-
tion), for a total of 8 model runs. By using these els strictly depend from building’s use. For instance,
data, it is possible to infer the probability density even in the case of light cracking, an historic palace hav-
ing fresco walls will suffer heavy economic damage.
Table 2 First and second moment of the random variables
With reference to reinforced concrete buildings,
Skempton and MacDonald (1956) suggest two limit
m Cv (%) s
E50 (kPa) 50.000 30 15.000
Probability density function for vertical displacement
log k (log(m/s)) 5 20 1
f 36 10 3.6 18
fw Vertical absolute displacement x
16 0
x/H = 0.714
u(x)
Subsidence profiles 14
H w(x)
0 0 12
w (m) w/H (%) ¶w
0.02 10 w¢(x) =
¶x
0.1
8 ¶ 2w
0.04 w¢¢(x) = 2
¶ x
0.2 6 u
Ñ
0.06 el(x) ≅ Ñ
4 x
0.08 0.3
2 w (m)
0.10 0 x
u(x) 0.4 0
0.12 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
H w(x)
0.14 0.5
0.71 x (m)
0.
0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.
0.
00

0.

0.

0.

0.
0.
1

0.16
15
0

7
25

35

45

65
55
.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 w/H (%)
x/H Figure 7 Log-normal probability density function for verti-
0 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 cal displacement at x/H  0.714.
Horizontal displacements profile
0 0 Table 3 Relative rotations limits in Eurocode 7 [16]
u (m) u/H (%)
0.01 0.5 b SLS b ULS
0.02 Serviceability limit state Ultimate limit state
0.02 0.10
0.04 0.15
1/2000 1/500 1/300 1/150
0.0005 0.002 0.0033 0.0067
0.05
0.20
0.06
0.07 0.25
0 x Table 4 Relative rotations limits in literature
0.08 0.30
u(x)
0.09 H w(x) Skempton & Polshin & Burland
0.35
0.10
x (m) MacDonald (1956) Tokar (1957) Wroth (1974)
0.11 R.C. R.C. non reinforced
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 structures structures bearing wall
x/H b SLS b ULS b SLS b ULS D/L SLS D/L SLS
0 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 (H/L  1) (H/L  5)
Figure 6 Subsidence and horizontal displacements profiles
1/500 1/150 1/500 1/200 1/5000 2/5000
from PEM analysis.

IACMAG 2011 – Melbourne, Australia, 9–11 May 2011

S20_193_1055.indd 1193 4/19/2011 6:48:15 PM

1194 13th International Conference of the IACMAG 2011
values for the relative rotation parameter: b  1/500
to exclude the possibility of cracking phenomenon
and b  1/150 to avoid structural damages (also in
Polshin & Tokar 1957 and in EC 7 2003). They also
suggest maximum values of 25 mm and 40 mm re-
spectively for differential and absolute vertical dis-
placement. According to Burland and Wroth (1974)
the deflection ratio for masonry structures should not
to evaluate the exceeding probability with respect to
the damage limit described in the previous para-
graph. In Figure 10, the cumulative probability
function for the vertical component of the soil dis-
placements is plotted as a function of the distance
of the structural system from the edge of the excava-
tion. As expected, the greater the distance, the lower
the probability of occurrence with respect to a pre-
exceed the values D/L  2  1044 and D/L  4  1044 re- assigned damage level. Similarly, Figure 11 shows
spectively in the case of H/L  1 and H/L  5, where the exceeding probability for different relative rota-
H is the height of the structure. Grant et al. (1974) tion limits, evaluated in the case of buildings sup-
correlated the differential and the absolute vertical ported by isolated foundation with reference to
displacements settlements in the case of foundation both service and ultimate limit states. For clarity,
on sand, obtaining the following empirical formula the Eurocode (1994) reference probabilities are also
to estimate the maximum relative rotation: bmax  reported in the Figure.
wmax /15000. According to Terzaghi & Peck (1948),
the differential subsidence in sand can be estimated Table 6 Description of damage levels [17]
as 75% of the maximum displacement.
With reference to masonry structures, Burland Category of Normal degree of Typical crack
damage severity width (mm)
(1995) proposed damage curves in terms of two defor-
mation parameters: the bending factor D/L, and the 0 negligible   0,1
horizontal strain h  x (Fig. 8). In particular, he de- 1 very slight 1
2 slight 5
fined 5 different regions representing different damage 3 moderate 5–15
levels (Table 6). The issue of defining damage level due 4 severe 15–25
to soil movements in structures has been also tackled 5 very severe 25
by Boscardin and Cording (1989), they introduced
damage functions considering both angular distor-
tion b and the horizontal strain, h  x (Fig. 9). Deep
Horiz. strain, eh × 103

3
Severe to very severe
Mines
Shallow mines
7 CASE-STUDY PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS 2 braced cuts
and tunnels
Using, as shown in Figure 7, log-normal pdfs for both 1
Moderate lf-weight
vertical and horizontal displacements, a second level to severe
se
probabilistic analysis has been carried out in order 0
Neg Building settlement
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Table 5 Differential and the absolute vertical displacements Anglar distortion, b × 103
limits in literature and Eurocode 7 [16] Figure 9 Damage curves (from Boscardin & Cording, 1989).
Terzaghi & Skempton &
Eurocode 7
Peck (1948) MacDonald (1948) 0.9
Fw (w)
w (mm) Dw (mm) Dw (mm) w (mm) Dw (mm) 0.8
50 20 25 40 25 0.7
Fw at x/H = 2.5
0.6 Fw at x/H = 2
Fw at x/H = 1.5
0.4 0.5 Fw at x/H = 1
Fw at x/H = 0.5
Severe to very severe 0.4 w = 0.5 m
(Eurocode 7)
0.3 0.3 w = 0.4 m
(Skempton and
Moderate 0.2
/L (%)

MacDonald)
0.2 0.1
Ñ

w (m)
0
0.1 Sight 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
0.
0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.
0.
00

0.

0.

0.

0.
0.

0.0
1
15
0

7
25

35

45

65
55
.5

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 w/H (%)

Horizontal strain (%)
Figure 10 Cumulative probability function for the vertical
Figure 8 Damage curves (from Burland, 1995). displacements on varying x/H.

IACMAG 2011 – Melbourne, Australia, 9–11 May 2011

S20_193_1055.indd 1194 4/19/2011 6:48:16 PM

 20 Case Histories: Prediction, Performance and Evaluation, Forensic Studies; Back Analysis: Pre-failure and Failure 1195

× 10−3 x/H = 0.714

0 Log [Prob(LS)] Ñ
−2 3 Contour line for bivariate density
L probability functions
−4 2.5
−6 Severe to very severe
L=5m 2
−8
w/L = 1/500 (SLS)
−10
Ñ
1.5
w/L = 1/300 (SLS)
Ñ
Moderate
−12 w/L = 1/200 (ULS – Polshin e Tokar)
Ñ
1 Slight
w/L = 1/150 (ULS – EC7, Skempton et al.)
Ñ
−14 Reference ECO probability ULS (10−5)
Reference ECO probability SLS (10−3) 0.5
−16
x (m) eA
−18 0
× 10−3
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Figure 12 Contour lines for bivariate pdfs at x/H  0.714
0.36 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 x/H and damage functions by Burland (1995).
Figure 11 The exceeding probability for different relative
rotation limits.
× 10−J x/H = 0.714
4
eH Contour line for bivariate density
The proposed probabilistic approach has also 3.5 probability functions
been applied to evaluate the exceeding probability
3
with respect to the damage limits. In particular, bi- Severe to very severe
variate density probability functions, by considering 2.5
the variables couples D/L  H and b  H, have been 2
evaluated on varying the distance of the structural 1.5 Moderate
system form the excavation edge. In Figures 12 and
13 contour lines for such functions are plotted in 1
the case of buildings located 20 meter far from the 0.5 Slight
b
excavation edge. This allows for the evaluation of 0 × 10−J
the occurrence probability corresponding to each 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
damage limit.
Figure 13 Contour lines for bivariate pdfs at x/H  0.714
and damage functions by Boscardin & Cording (1989).

8 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the issue related to the evaluation of
the damage to a curtain of buildings located close to
a deep excavation has been tackled by considering a
case-study and different computational approaches.
The results show the complexity of the problem, due
to its sensitivity to the uncertainties affecting sev-
eral parameters involved in the analytic procedure.
Therefore, results of the proposed probabilistic
approach have to be read in the light of a wide set
of existing scientific contributions.
The buildings’ vulnerability to soil movements
has been evaluated by using a probabilistic approach
with a FE model of the excavation and different lit-
erature damage functions. Results pointed out that
the exceeding probability for deformation parame-
ters are very high when a building’s distance to the
edge of the excavation is less than the excavation
depth. Such probability decreases for distances
higher than twice the excavation depth. However,
the need is recognised for a critical revision of the
literature damage functions by using more detailed
approaches which should be able to better capture
the mechanical behaviour of a structural system.
Finally, the uncertainties in the evaluation of the
expected damage suggest, on the basis of the so
called caution principle, to take into account the
need for proposing explicit limits in terms of mini-
mum distance of deep excavation works from his-
toric buildings. Such limits should, of course, be
carefully derived and depend on both the excavation
depth and the soil mechanical characteristics.
REFERENCES
Ansaldo Trasporti Sistemi Ferroviari 2005. Progetto Definitivo
Linea 6 Metropolitana di Napoli.
Bauer G.E. 1984. Movements associated with the Construction
of Deep Excavation. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Ground Mov. And
Structures, Cardiff 694–706.
Boscardin D.M. & Cording E.J. 1989. Buildings Response to
Excavation-Induced Settlements. ASCE J. of Geotechnical
Engineering 115(1): 1–21.
Burland J.B. & Wroth C.P. 1974. Settlement of Buildings and
Associated Damage. Proc. Conf. Settlement of Structures,
Cambridge 611–654. London: Penetech Press.
Burland J.B. 1995. Assessment of Risk of Damage to Buildings
due to Tunnelling and Excavations. Proc. 1st Conf.
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, IS-Tokyo 155–162.

IACMAG 2011 – Melbourne, Australia, 9–11 May 2011

S20_193_1055.indd 1195 4/19/2011 6:48:16 PM

1196 13th International Conference of the IACMAG 2011
Calvello M. & Finno R.J. 2004. Selecting parameters to opti-
mize in model calibration by inverse analysis. Computers
and Geotechnics 31(5): 411–425.
Christian J.T. & Baecher G.B. 2002. The Point-estimate
Method with large Numbers of Variables. Int. J. for Num.
and Anal. Methods in Geomechanics 26(15): 1515–1529.
Clough G.W. & O’Rourke T.D. 1990. Construction Induced
Movements of In situ Walls, Design and Performance
of Earth Retaining Structures. ASCE GSP 25, Ithaca
430–470.
Desai C.S. & Siriwarne H.J. 1984. Constitutive Laws for Engineer-
ing Materials with Emphasis on Geologic Materials. Prentice-
Hall Inc.
Eurocode0 1994. Eurocode – Basis of structural design. ENV
1991–1: 1994.
Eurocode7 2003. Geotechnical design – Part 1: General rules. EN
1997–1: 2003.
Grant R., Christian J.T. & Vanmarcke E.H. 1974. Differential
Settlement of Buildings. ASCE J. of the Geotech. Eng. Div.
100(9): 973–991.
IACMAG 2011 – Melbourne, Australia, 9–11 May 2011
S20_193_1055.indd 1196
Lumb P. 1974. Application of Statistic in Soil Mechanics. In
I.K. Lee (ed.), Soil Mechanics: New Horizons, Chapter 3, 44–112.
London: Newnes-Butterworth.
O’Rourke T.D. 1981. Ground Movements caused by Braced
Excavations. ASCE Journal of The Geotechnical Engineering
Division, 107(9): 1159–1179.
Peck R.B. 1969. Deep Excavations and Tunnelling in Soft
Ground. Proc. V ECSMFE, Madrid 225–290.
Polshin D.E. & Tokar R.A. 1957. Maximum Allowable Non-
uniform Settlement of Structures. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, London 402–405.
Schanz T., Vermeer P.A. & Bonnier P.G. 1999. The Hardening
Soil Model – Formulation and Verification. Proc. Plaxis
Symposium, Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics,
Amsterdam 281–296.
Skempton A.W. & Macdonald D.H. 1956. The allowable
Settlements of Buildings. Proc. Inst. of Civ. Engrs Part III(5):
727–768.
Terzaghi K. & Peck R.B. 1948. Soil Mechanics in Engineering
Practice. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
4/19/2011 6:48:17 PM