See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337245335

Strut Design of Deep Excavation: Theory and Solved Example

Technical Report · November 2019

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21964.97927

CITATIONS READS
0 8,223

1 author:

Mohammad Bahrami
University of Tehran
5 PUBLICATIONS 40 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Excavation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Bahrami on 14 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

University of Tehran
From the SelectedWorks of Mohammad Bahrami

November, 2019

Strut Design of Deep Excavation: Theory and

Solved Example
Mohammad Bahrami, University of Tehran

Available at: https://works.bepress.com/mohammad-bahrami/4/

 Strut Design of Deep Excavation
Theory and Solved Example

Mohammad Bahrami
PhD Student, School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran

Abstract

In this paper, the theory and the background of strut design are presented. The limitations of

the traditional method and the results of new researches have been discussed. Overall, by

presenting a solved example, this article is like a design guideline for engineers.

Keywords: Steel strut, Strut design, Braced excavation, Peck’s apparent soil pressure.

Nomenclature
α Coefficient of thermal expansion Fy Yielding stress of strut
γ Soil unit weight hi Vertical distance of bracing
γm Moisture unit weight of soil He Excavation depth
γ′ Submerged unit weight of soil Ka Rankine’s coefficient of earth pressure
λ Slander ratio of the strut L Excavation width
ϕ Friction angle of soil M Bending moment
ϕ′ Effective friction angle N1 Strut load caused by excavation
ω Strut weight and live loads N2 Strut load caused by temperature changes
ai Loading height for strut Nb Stability number
A Area section of strut P Apparent soil pressure
Cm Coefficient of modification r Radius of gyration
E Young’s modulus s Horizontal distance of bracing
fa Axial compressive stress su Undrained shear strength
fb Flexural stress S Section modulus
F Force of strut t Temperature
Fe Allowable Euler stress
1. Introduction

The population growth, expansion of the transportation system and environmental issues

have required the construction of underground structures in cities in recent decades. Retaining

walls are used to limit hazardous soil movement and horizontal braces are used to reduce the

wall deflections in urban constructions. Steel struts are a kind of braces that are widely used in

deep excavations. In recent years, many studies have been conducted on braced excavation [1-

6]. In this section of the paper, the background of the strut design has been presented.

1.1. The apparent soil pressure

Peck [7] evaluated loads of struts in deep excavations by investigating some case studies

in Chicago, Oslo, and Mexico [8]. Peck method is a common method for designing lateral

struts. This method has been used for decades by the engineers and has many applications in

the engineering design. Figure 1 presents diagrams of the apparent soil pressure determined by

Peck [7].

Figure 1. Peck’s apparent soil pressure diagram

(a) sand (b) soft to medium soft clay and (c) stiff clay
 The apparent soil pressure (P) of sand is given by:

P=0.65γHeKa (1)

Where γ is the Soil unit weight, He denotes final excavation depth and Ka is the Rankine’s

coefficient of earth pressure (tan2 (45-ϕ/2)). Equation (1) should be used based on the drained

or effective friction angle (ϕ′) and moisture unit weight of soil (γm). For saturated depths, the

soil pressure and water pressure should be computed separately and the Soil unit weight refers

to submerged unit weight (γ′) [8].

The apparent soil pressure (P) of the soft to medium soft clay (i.e. γHe/su > 4), would be

the larger of

4𝑠u
𝑃 = 𝛾𝐻e (1 − 𝑚 ) or 𝑃 = 0.3𝛾𝐻e (2)
𝛾𝐻e

Where su designates the undrained shear strength of soil and m is determined as follows

[7]:

1 𝑁b ≤ 4
𝑚={ (3)
<1 4 < 𝑁b

Where Nb is the stability number (Nb = γHe/sbu). sbu is the undrained shear strength of soil

between the bottom of cutting areas and the influence depth of excavation. For stiff clay (i.e.

γHe/su ≤ 4) the apparent soil pressure (P) is:

(4)
𝑃 = 0.2𝛾𝐻e ~0.4𝛾𝐻e

Equations (2) and (4) adopt the total stress method for calculation (P), that is, the porewater

pressure is not considered and friction angle of soil (ϕ) should be taken zero [8].
 The Peck method despite its widespread use has many limitations. Peck method is

completely capable to design the strut for a 10 m excavation for various stiffness of sandy soils

and the lateral bracing is an efficient method for providing the excavation safety [9]. Using this

relatively simple method for designing a brace for deeper excavation is one of the concerns of

design engineers. One of the other limitations of the Peck method is that it does not consider

soil stiffness on the calculation of the apparent sandy soil pressure.

Accuracy of the Peck method in the design of braces for excavations with different depths

and sands with various stiffness is assessed by comparing the stresses in the struts using both

the Peck method and numerical modeling. Summary of the results of the comparison of strut

stresses in numerical and Peck’s traditional method has been provided in Table 1. As shown in

this table, Peck’s method is acceptable for bracing in excavations of up to 10 m in various types

of sand, up to 15 m in medium to dense, and up to 20 m for dense sand [10].

Table 1. Accuracy of the Peck’s method [10]

Excavation
Loose sand Medium sand Dense sand
depth (m)
10   
15 ×  
20 × × 

It should be noted that, according to the evaluations of the Bahrami et al. [9] steel struts

do not demonstrate a good performance under seismic loads. Therefore, cautions should be

taken in the seismic design of struts using traditional methods.

1.2. Struts arrangement

The arrangement of struts includes the number of struts and the locations of them.

Beginning with excavation, the retaining wall is forced toward the cutting area, compressing

the lateral braces. Upon start of the first step of excavation, wall deformations start and the

wall takes a cantilever form. Prior to the start of the second stage of excavation, the first row
of struts is installed. The first-row strut should be located in such a way that the cantilever

depth of the retaining wall does not produce a high bending moment in the wall or a high

horizontal movement of the wall. The required number and depth of struts are presented in

Table 2.

Table 2: guidance for arrangement of struts [11]

Depth of struts (m)
Excavation depth Number of struts
below surface
1: 2
He ≤ 10 m 2
2: 6 - 7
1: 2
10 m < He ≤ 15 m 3 2: 6 - 7
3: 10 - 12
1: 2
2: 6 - 7
15 m < He ≤ 20 m 4
3: 10 - 12
4: 16 - 17

1.3. Stress calculation of strut

The design of a horizontal strut includes the design of cross-section areas. The behavior of

struts is generally evaluated based on the axial compressive loads and flexural loads. The axial

compressive stress (fa) were obtained by using Equation (5):

𝑁1 + 𝑁2
𝑓a = (5)
𝐴

Where, A denotes area section of strut, N1 is strut load caused by excavation and N2 is strut

load caused by temperature changes. N2 is expressed by:

𝑁2 = 𝛼∆𝑡𝐸𝐴 (6)

Where, α defines the coefficient of thermal expansion (for steel is equal to 1.32×10-5 /˚C),

Δt is temperature changes (˚C) and E is Young’s modulus. In practical works is usually used

empirical relation instead Equation (2). Based on the JSA [12] suggestion, N2 can be assumed

10 ~ 15 ton.
 The flexural stress (fb) is calculated via the following relationship:

𝑀
𝑓b = (7)
𝑆

Where, S is section modulus and M denotes bending moment caused by strut weight and

live loads. In the geotechnical executive construction, M is often calculated from ωL2/8

formula, where ω is assumed to be equal to 0.5 ton/m and L is excavation width [8].

1.4. Allowable calculation of strut

In the traditional methods, struts are designed based on the theory of beam-column under

the AISC [13] regulation. The allowable axial compressive stress (Fa) of a steel strut was

obtained by the following equations:

1
𝐾𝐿 [1 − ((𝐾𝐿/𝑟𝑦 )/𝐶𝑐 )] 𝐹𝑦
𝐹𝑎 = 2
< 𝐶𝑐 3 (8)
𝑟𝑦 5 3 1
+ [(𝐾𝐿/𝑟𝑦 )/𝐶𝑐 ] − [(𝐾𝐿/𝑟𝑦 )/𝐶𝑐 ]
3 8 8

𝐾𝐿 12 𝜋 2 𝐸
> 𝐶𝑐 𝐹𝑎 = (9)
𝑟𝑦 23 (𝐾𝐿/𝑟𝑦 )2

KL/ry: effective slander ratio of the strut

L: excavation width
ry: radius of gyration in the weak axis direction

Cc: critical slenderness ratio = √2𝜋 2 𝐸/𝐹𝑦

E: Young’s modulus of strut
Fy: yielding stress of strut

In conventional excavation, the allowable flexural stress (Fb) of a strut is not so large. The

engineers are often calculated Fb by using the simple formula of Fb=0.6 Fy [8].

1.5. Control of combined stress

According to the AISC [13] code, the following two relationships should always be

satisfied:
 𝑓a 𝑓a 𝑓b
≤ 15% + ≤ 1.0 (10)
𝐹a 𝐹a 𝐹b

𝑓a 𝑓a 𝐶m 𝑓𝑏
> 15% + ≤ 1.0 (11)
𝐹a 𝐹a (1 − 𝑓a /𝐹e )𝐹𝑏

Cm: coefficient of modification; according to AISC (0000), Cm is equal to 0.85

Fe: allowable Euler stress = 12𝜋 2 𝐸/[23(𝐾𝐿/𝑟𝑥 )2 ]
rx: radius of gyration in the strong axis direction

2. Discussion and Example

In this section, a solved example is presented to illustrate the entire steps of the strut design.

The strutted diaphragm wall method is adopted, the depth of the excavation and the excavation

width are 10 m, the horizontal distance between struts is 5 m, the soil of the site is sandy soil

and the groundwater level is rather deep. The unit weight of sand is 19.9 kN/m3 and the friction

angle (ϕ) of soil is 33˚. In Figure 2, a 3D schematic of the site is shown. In this figure, He is the

excavation depth, s refers to the horizontal distance between successive struts, and hi is the

vertical distance between two struts.

Figure 2. The 3D schematic of excavation

 The arrangement of the struts in depth of the wall is shown in Figure 3. The soil pressure

and the loading height of each strut are also presented in this figure. Fi is the force applied on

each strut. Struts are made from steel with Young's modulus of 2×108 kN/m2 and Struts

arrangement was selected according to the design guide of Chowdhury et al. [11] in accordance

with Table 2.

Figure 3. The apparent soil pressure

The solved example is presented step by step as follows:

𝑃a = 0.65γ𝐻e 𝐾a

𝜙 33
𝐾a = tan2 (45 − 2 ) = tan2 (45 − 2
) = 0.29

𝐻e = 10 m, 𝛾 = 19.9 kN/m3

⇒ 𝑃a = 0.65 × 19.9 × 10 × 0.29 = 37.5 kN/m2

𝑠 = 5 m → 37.5 × 5 = 187.5 kN/m

Strut load caused by excavation:

𝑎1 = 𝑎2 = 4 m → 𝐹1 = 𝐹2 = 𝑁1 = 187.5 × 4 = 750 kN

Strut load caused by temperature changes:

𝑁2 = 15 ton = 15 × 103 × 9.81 = 147 kN

Total axial loads:

𝑁 = 𝑁1 + 𝑁2 = 750 + 147 = 897 kN

Initial assumption:

H390 × 300 × 10 × 16

𝐴 = 133.3 × 10−4 m2 , 𝐼 = 37900 × 10−8 m4, 𝑆 = 1940 × 10−6 m3

𝐹 897 × 103
𝑓a = = = 67.3 MPa
𝐴 133.3 × 10−4

𝐼
Radius of gyration: 𝑟 = √𝐴 = 0.169 m

𝐾𝐿 𝐾=1 10
Slander ratio of the strut: 𝜆 = 𝑟
→ 𝜆 = 0.169 = 59 ⇒ 𝐹a = 116 MPa

The control of axial compressive Stress: 𝑓a < 𝐹a O.K

𝜔𝐿2 ton kN
𝑀= , 𝜔 = 0.5 = 4.9 𝐿 = 10 m
8 m m

4.9 × 102
𝑀= = 61.25 kN. m
8

𝑀 61.25 × 103
𝑓b = = = 31.6 MPa
𝑆 1940 × 10−6
𝑓a
> 15%, 𝐹b = 0.6𝐹y = 0.6 × 235 = 141 MPa
𝐹a

105 × 104 105 × 104

𝐹é = = = 302 MPa
λ2 592
67.3 31.6
+ 141 = 0.7 < 1 O.K.
141

67.3 0.85×31.6
+ 67.3 = 0.82 < 1 O.K.
116 (1− )×141
302

Designed section ⇒ H390 × 300 × 10 × 16

 References

1. Bahrami, M., M.I. Khodakarami, and A. Haddad, Assessment of the Effect of Pre-
stressing Steel Strut on Displacement of the Diaphragm Wall and the Soil. Journal of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2018. 48.3(92): p. 23-31.

2. Guo, P., X. Gong, and Y. Wang, Displacement and force analyses of braced structure
of deep excavation considering unsymmetrical surcharge effect. Computers and
Geotechnics, 2019. 113: p. 103102.

3. Hsiung, B. C.B., A case study on the behaviour of a deep excavation in sand. Computers
and Geotechnics, 2009. 36(4): p. 665-675.

4. Tang, L., et al., Finite element analysis of lateral earth pressure on sheet pile walls.
Engineering Geology, 2018. 244: p. 146-158.

5. Zhang, W., A.T.C. Goh, and F. Xuan, A simple prediction model for wall deflection
caused by braced excavation in clays. Computers and Geotechnics, 2015. 63: p. 67-72.

6. Zhang, W., Z. Hou, A.T.C. Goh, and R. Zhang, Estimation of strut forces for braced
excavation in granular soils from numerical analysis and case histories. Computers
and Geotechnics, 2019. 106: p. 286-295.

7. Peck, R.B., Deep excavation and tunneling in soft ground, in 7th international
conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering. 1969: Mexico City, Mexico.
p. 225–290.

8. Ou, C. Y., Deep Excavation: Theory and Practice. 2006: CRC Press.

9. Bahrami, M., M.I. Khodakarami, and A. Haddad, Seismic behavior and design of
strutted diaphragm walls in sand. Computers and Geotechnics, 2019. 108: p. 75-87.

10. Bahrami, M., M.I. Khodakarami, and A. Haddad, 3D numerical investigation of the
effect of wall penetration depth on excavations behavior in sand. Computers and
Geotechnics, 2018. 98: p. 82-92.

11. Chowdhury, S.S., K. Deb, and A. Sengupta, Estimation of Design Parameters for
Braced Excavation: Numerical Study. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2013.
13(3): p. 234-247.

12. JSA, Guidelines of design and construction of deep excavation. 1988, JSA Tokyo.

13. AISC, Manual of Steel Construction. Allowable Stress Design. Vol. 1. 2001: American
Institute of Steel Construction.

View publication stats