140 4 Supported excavations in soft soil deposits

envelope for estimating the distribution of settlement adjacent to an excavation in

soft to medium clays as shown in Fig. 4.19. According to this figure, the vertical
movement may extend from the edge of an excavation to a distance twice the
depth of excavation for soft to medium clays. In Peck’s diagram (Fig. 4.18), how-
ever, the influence extends as far as 2 to 4 times the depth of excavation in very
soft to soft soils. Fujita 1994 also quoted a report from Uchida et al. 1993 that a
maximum settlement of 0.08% of the depth of the excavation had occurred in a
36.6 m deep excavation in soft ground in Tokyo. Duncan and Bentler 1998 sum-
marised the performance of excavation in soft to stiff clays since 1960 and showed
that the average value of Gv,max/h is 1.3% for the 1962-1975 time period, where as
for the 1990-1998 time period Gv,max/h is about 0.4%.

Excavation heave
Bottom heave in an excavation in normally consolidated soft soils is primarily
caused by the elastic swelling of the bottom of excavation due to the relief of ver-
tical stresses during the excavation process, the deflection of the foot of the wall
which pushes the soil inwards, and the plastic deformation of the soil below the
excavation level due to the change of the principal stresses. The factors that affect
the heave at bottom of the excavation include the depth of excavation, the stiffness
(primarily) and strength (secondarily) of the ground, and the depth to the firm
layer below bottom of excavation.
The elastic part of the heave Gvh can be predicted analytically from the equa-
tions shown in Table 4.4. The main difference between the three equations in Ta-
ble 4.4 is that Weissenbach 1977 assumes the un/reloading modulus of elasticity
instead of the modulus of elasticity for primary loading. Moreover, Eq. 4.9 takes
into account the contribution of the horizontal displacement of the wall toe to the
heave of the cut. This approach seems more reasonable because the soil below the
cut is under unloading condition during excavation.
The stress path method (Lambe 1967; Lambe and Marr 1979) may also give
reasonable estimate of the heave of the cut provided that a stress path test can be
conducted in laboratory that simulate the possible stress path in the field. This
method also requires the stress history of the soil deposit. Of course the best
means of prediction the heave in an excavation today is the finite element method,
where the heave due to stress relief, plastic deformation of the soil and the wall
displacement and deflection at the foot of the wall can be evaluated simultane-
ously by choosing the appropriate soil behaviour model.
 4.4 Behaviour of excavations 141

Table 4.4. Prediction of the elastic part of the heave at the center of an excavation

Equation Equation No. Reference

N (4.8) Bjerrum et al. 1972
G vh P1 ˜ P 2 ˜
[
4 ˜ isi ˜ J ˜ h ˜ ' z 3 ˜ sd ˜ t (4.9) Weissenbach 1977
G vh 
Eur b
J ˜ h2 (4.10) Fang 1991
G vh Cr ˜ 'strip ˜
Eu
where Gvh is the elastic vertical heave at the centre of the excavation; P1 and P2 in Eq. 4.8, isi
in Eq. 4.9, and 'strip in Eq. 4.10 represent the effect of the width of excavation, depth of ex-
cavation, and depth to a firm strata, though they are referred to different charts or tables ac-
cording to the corresponding Authors; N = J˜h/cu or in the case of a surcharge load p
(Clough and Schmidt 1977), N = (J˜h + J˜p)/cu is the stability number; [ is a constant that
relate the undrained shear strength with the undrained modulus of elasticity (Eu = [˜ cu, and
[ usually lies between 200 and 800 (Table 3.12) for normally consolidated soft clays); 'z is
the thickness of the soil below the cut; t is the depth of penetration of the wall; sd is the
horizontal displacement of the foot of the wall, Cr is a shape factor, Eu and Eur are the
undrained modulus of elasticity for loading and unloading.

4.4.4 Excavation stability in soft soils

The stability failure modes: the failure of berm and slopes surrounding the excava-
tion, deep-seated rotational type failure and basal heave failure are among the pos-
sible mode of failure in an excavation in soft clays shown in Fig.4.10. Most often,
the stability failure may not show a complete collapse, rather manifests itself in
large movements. The stability of berms, slopes surrounding excavations, and
deep-seated rotational failure can be checked using the common type of conven-
tional slope stability analysis methods. A revision of the different approaches for
stability analysis of braced excavations in soft soils according to total safety con-
cept is given in the following. More information on basal and sliding failure of
braced and anchored excavations, in particular based on the partial safety concept
can be found in section 4.11.6.
A special procedure is usually adopted to check the stability of an excavation
against basal heave failure. Heave failure is caused by the relief of the vertical
stress during excavation. Several basal heave analysis methods have been sug-
gested in literature, however, only four of them will be presented here, because
most of them are based on similar principles. Terzaghi 1943 was the first to de-
velop a method for bottom heave analysis for shallow or wide excavation
(h/b < 1) as shown in Fig. 4.21. For r > b, the factor of safety against basal heave
is given by
142 4 Supported excavations in soft soil deposits

5.7 ˜ cu
F .S.
§ c ˜ 2· (4.11)
h ˜ ¨¨ J  u ¸
© b ¸¹

and for r < 0.7b

5.7 ˜ cu
F .S.
§ c · (4.12)
h ˜ ¨J  u ¸
© r ¹

where cu is the undrained shear strength of the soil, J is the unit weight of the soil,
and h, b, and t are the depth of the excavation, the width of the excavation and the
depth to firm layer respectively as shown in Fig. 4.21.
Later, Bjerrum and Eide 1956 developed a method for bottom heave analysis
for deep braced excavations in soft clays (Fig. 4.22a). It is given by
N c ˜ cu
F .S. (4.13)
h ˜J  p

where Nc is the bearing capacity coefficient (Fig. 4.22b) and p is the surcharge
load. Both methods above are developed based on the principles of bearing capac-
ity failure of the clay below the excavation level while neglecting the effect of
support flexibility above the excavation level and the influence of the stiffness and
depth of the wall below the excavation.
Based on similar principle as the above methods but assuming different shape
of the failure zone (Fig. 4.23), considering the friction force between the moving
block above the excavation level and the rest of the retained soil, and taking into
account the depth of penetration of the wall, Weissenbach 1985 formulated the
safety factor against basal heave failure as:
PG  Rv
F .S. (4.14)
GP
where G = bg˜(h + t)˜J, P = p˜bg, Rv = Eav + Kv, Eav = Eah˜» tanM», Kv = c˜(h + t),
PG = (J˜t˜Ot + J˜bg˜Ob + c˜Oc)˜ bg, Eah is the horizontal earth pressure force on the
right side of the sliding block (Fig 4.23), and Ot, Ob and Oc are the bearing capacity
coefficients according to DIN 4017-1.
Since the determination of the values of G, P and PG require the value of bg
which is unknown, the factor of safety should be calculated for different value of
bg until a minimum safety factor is obtained. According to Weissenbach 1985, the
length of the failure surface lg d b + 0.5˜ bg (Fig. 4.23) is the critical situation and
lg t b + 0.5˜ bg is impossible.
On the other hand, Kempfert and Stadel 1997 proposed a method based on the
principal of virtual work done for analyzing the basal heave failure in wide exca-
 4.4 Behaviour of excavations 143

vations (h/b < 1) in normally consolidated soft clays. The failure mechanism is
shown in Fig. 4.24. The safety factor against basal heave is thus given by
cu1 ˜ ( 3 ˜ t  h )  6.87 ˜ r ˜ cu 2
F .S (4.15)
r ˜ 2 ˜( h ˜J r  p )

where cu1 and cu2 are the undrained shear strength of the soil above and below the
excavation level respectively. Kempfert and Stadel 1997 recommended that the
value of cu1 on the passive side should be reduced by half in order to account for
the effect of the inherent anisotropy on the strength of the soil. They further sug-
gested that if the wall is made up of bored piles and the firm strata is at relatively
shallow depth below the excavation level, it is recommended to extend some of
the piles up to the firm layer in order to reduce the danger of the basal heave fail-
ure.

a) b b) b

r
0.7b
h h

r
0.7b

a) r > 0.7b b) r < 0.7b

Fig. 4.21. Bottom heave analysis for deep excavations (h/b < 1) (after Terzaghi 1943)

p Nc, rectangle = (0.84 + 0.16 b/L ) Nc, square

9
8
7
h
Nc 6
5 Infinitely long, b/L = 0
4 Cicular or square, b/L = 1.0
3
b 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
h/b
Fig. 4.22. Bottom heave analysis for deep excavations (h/b > 1) (after Bjerrum and
Eide 1956)
144 4 Supported excavations in soft soil deposits

a) b bg b) b bg
p
p

G Rv h h G Rv

t t

P
lg P
lg

lg < b +0.5bg lg = b +0.5bg

Fig. 4.23. Failure mechanism for basal heave analysis (after Weissenbach 1977)

h cu1, Jr

t
Fig. 4.24. Failure mechanism for basal
cu2 heave analysis (Kempfert and Stadel
r
1997)

Extension Compression

4.5 Execution of excavations

A selection of construction methods and stages that take into account the under-
ground conditions is of great importance for a successfully execution of a defor-
mation free excavation and will be described briefly in the following.
The installation of the bottom support on the bottom of an excavation that lies
in the soft soil immediately after full excavation or partial excavation is also of
great importance for the stability of the excavation and settlement behaviour of
nearby buildings founded on shallow foundation. Thereby, a distinction has to be
made between the following cases:
a) If the soft soil layer is relatively homogeneous, possesses high plasticity,
contains no fine sand seems and no groundwater is available, the excavation bot-
tom can be sealed of in sections with base concrete slab immediately after the final
excavation.
b) In all other cases, however, a geotextile filter mat, a layer of non-compacted
filter material (about 10 cm thick) e.g. split gravel and then a watertight geomem-