This article was downloaded by: [University of Tennessee, Knoxville]

On: 25 December 2014, At: 01:17

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiea20

Limiting values of retaining wall displacements and

impact to the adjacent structures
a a a a a
Paul Fok , Bian Hong Neo , Chepurthy Veeresh , Dazhi Wen & Kok Hun Goh
a
Engineering Group, Land Transport Authority , Singapore
Published online: 18 Jul 2012.

To cite this article: Paul Fok , Bian Hong Neo , Chepurthy Veeresh , Dazhi Wen & Kok Hun Goh (2012) Limiting values of
retaining wall displacements and impact to the adjacent structures, The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering,
5:3, 134-139, DOI: 10.1080/19373260.2012.696447

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19373260.2012.696447

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering
Vol. 5, No. 3, August 2012, 134–139

TECHNICAL PAPER
Limiting values of retaining wall displacements and impact to the adjacent structures
Paul Fok, Bian Hong Neo, Chepurthy Veeresh*, Dazhi Wen and Kok Hun Goh
Engineering Group, Land Transport Authority, Singapore
(Received 20 March 2012; final version received 10 May 2012)

Support systems for deep excavations are designed to ensure safety of the works and to limit deformations in the
ground to acceptable levels. BS 8002 recommends the use of mobilisation factors, M, if wall displacements are
required to be less than 0.5% of wall height for medium dense or firm soils. This paper article presents the author’s
view on this requirement of the BS 8002. The measured displacements from the published data will also be reviewed
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 01:17 25 December 2014

in this article to demonstrate that there are considerable numbers of cases where measured wall displacements
exceeded the limit of 0.5% of excavated depth and the excavations were carried out successfully. This article will also
present a study on the variation of the ratio of wall displacement to excavation depth at various stages of a deep
excavation and highlight that it is not appropriate to use a limit on maximum wall displacement of 0.5% of the
excavated depth as a governing criterion for safety of the works and adjacent structures. Instead of using wall
displacement limit based on excavation depth, a separate assessment on the impact of the deep excavation to the
adjacent structures should be carried out irrespective of wall displacements which can be higher or lower than 0.5%
of the excavated depth.
Keywords: excavation; wall displacement; mobilisation factor

1. Introduction The maximum wall displacement is an important

Deep excavations are widespread in urban areas like
Singapore to build underground basements, MRT
tunnels, road tunnels and utility tunnels. Removal of
soil from deep excavations causes ground move-
ments. Excavation support systems provide the
lateral support and limit the ground movements.
Excessive ground movements around excavations can
damage adjacent structures, roads or utilities and the
severity and extent of damage depend on the
magnitude of the ground movements, the existing
condition of the structures and their proximity to the
excavation. Hence, the performance of an excavation
support system plays an important role to avoid
damages and maintain the stability or serviceability
of the adjacent structures. The performance of the
support system is generally measured by stability and
deformation. The design and check methods for
stability are well established using limit equilibrium
methods but it is difficult to measure in the field;
whereas deformations are generally predicted using
numerical methods and deformations can be easily
measured in the field. It is common to normalise the
maximum horizontal displacement of the retaining
walls, dh by dividing it by the excavation depth, H
(Mana and Clough 1981, Yoo and Kim 1999, Long
2001).
consideration in the design of the wall and in the
assessment of its impact on the adjacent structures.
However, the maximum displacement alone is not the
only parameter for the safety and stability of the wall
and the adjacent structures. The response of the
structures to the wall displacement depends on many
other parameters such as the type, location, foundation
system and existing condition of the structures, etc. A
building assessment is therefore necessary and the
assessment should form an integral part of the risk
management process in the design and construction of
deep excavations, Fok et al. (2012a). There has not
been much guidance in codes of practices in the
assessment of structures undergoing ground settle-
ment. The three-staged assessment methodology in
TR26: 2010 provides the right direction for the profes-
sionals and the industry in the design and construction
of deep excavation. A practical guide and recommen-
dations on the approach of the building assessment has
been presented by Fok et al. (2012b).
2. Design and displacement of retaining walls
The design of earth retaining structures using BS 8002
(1994) is based on a design philosophy of limit state
design and the analyses are largely made using limit

*Corresponding author. Email: chepurthy_veeresh@lta.gov.sg

ISSN 1937-3260 print/ISSN 1937-3279 online

Ó 2012 The Institution of Engineers, Singapore
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19373260.2012.696447
http://www.tandfonline.com
 The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering
equilibrium methods. BS 8002 acknowledges that soil
deformations with 100% (full) mobilisation of shear
strength in the surrounding soil are generally large in
comparison with the normally acceptable strains in
service. Therefore, a mobilisation factor M is proposed
to limit the proportion of available strength that will
be mobilised in service. With the mobilisation factor
the induced strains in the soil would be low enough to
assure that excessive ground and structure deforma-
tions would be prevented.
Specifically, BS 8002 recommends mobilisation
factors of 1.5 for designs using total stress parameters
and 1.2 for designs using effective stress parameters if
the wall displacements are to be limited to within 0.5%
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 01:17 25 December 2014
of wall height for medium dense or firm soils.
Mobilisation factor should be larger than 1.5 for clays
which require large strains to mobilise if the wall
displacements are required to be limited to within
0.5% of wall height. A more detailed analysis of
displacement should be performed where tighter
criteria are to be applied or soft to loose soils (BS
8002).
Three important points must be noted. The first is
that this recommendation does not specify that wall
displacements should be limited to 0.5% of wall height.
BS 8002 in recommending the mobilisation factors for
medium dense or firm soils is giving an example on
how the mobilised strength design (MSD) method can
be used. According to Bolton (1993), the mobilisation
factors specified in BS 8002 will limit the design
strength of soils to that which could be mobilised at
1% shear strain. To illustrate the relationship between
soil strains and wall deflections, Bolton (1993, 1996)
showed from geometric considerations that the rota-
tion of a cantilevered wall by 1/200 – equivalent to wall
deflection that is 0.5% of wall height – would induce
shear strains in the soil that are 1%. Hence, the
outcome of having wall displacements that are less
than 0.5% of wall height is simply a result of limiting
the shear strain (and therefore the stress) in the soil to
1% for medium dense or firm soils. BS 8002 recognises
the limit of the recommended mobilisation factors for
medium dense or firm soils and requires that a more
detailed analysis of displacement should be performed
for soft or loose soils. The second point to note is that
the wall height referred to in BS 8002 is the total height
of the wall. This includes both exposed retained height
of the wall and length installed into the ground to
provide the toe-in stability of the wall. This is
sometimes misconstrued with the use of retained
height or excavation depth to normalise wall displace-
ments and ground deformations that are reported in
most of the published literature on excavation perfor-
mance. Distinction should be made when making
reference to published data on normalised wall
135
displacement compared to the normalised wall dis-
placement referred to in BS 8002. The third point to be
noted is that the concept of wall rotation as a potential
failure mechanism is only relevant to cantilevered walls
or single propped walls. The mobilisation factor
approach referred to in BS 8002 is a simplified
approach applicable to a failure mechanism such as
the rotational failure of a cantilevered wall or a single
propped wall. For multi-propped walls typical of deep
excavations in Singapore, the deformation mechanism
is more complicated and it becomes necessary to
consider the incremental displacement profiles corre-
sponding to each excavation stage. Bolton et al. (2008)
proposed an extended MSD method that assumes a
cosine function in developing the deformation mechan-
ism for a multi-propped excavation.
Puller and Lee (1996) have pointed out the
inconsistencies in practical application of mobilisation
factors. The constant values of mobilisation factors
suggested by BS 8002 irrespective of the depth of the
excavation do not take into account the fact that the
deformed wall shape will allow changes of strain with
depth. In discussion on the mobilisation factors Bolton
(1996) indicated that, if it were desired to predict the
wall displacements accurately, it would be necessary to
perform a numerical analysis using soil-structure
interaction with appropriate stress–strain curves.
3. Measured performance of wall displacements
As discussed in the previous sections the primary
reason for specifying the mobilisation factors in BS
8002 is to limit the shear strains in the ground. In
actual practice, the performance of retaining walls for
deep excavations depends on various factors such as
type of soil, type of wall, ground water conditions,
support systems, construction method (top down or
bottom up method), wall installation method and
workmanship. A simplified approach as given in BS
8002 is often not adequate and detailed analysis of the
retaining wall performance will be required – often
using numerical analysis – to establish wall displace-
ments and ground deformations, and assess the impact
to adjacent structures and facilities.
To illustrate the influence of various factors on wall
performance, Figure 1 compiles the data from pub-
lished case histories of successful excavations all over
the world. The data shown in this figure consist of
various types of retaining systems, soil types and
construction methods. The measured wall displace-
ments (dh) are in the range of 0.05% to more than 2%
of excavation depth (H). An interesting observation to
note is that for the excavation depth of 5–15 m, the
ratio of wall displacement to excavation depth is well
above 0.5% for a significant number of cases. Yoo and
 136 P. Fok et al.

Kim (1999) showed from Korean experience that for
different wall systems displacements were within
0.5%H. Long (2001) presented 300 case histories of
wall movements due to deep excavations and he
observed similar trends. He noted that for top down
construction maximum displacements were always
within 0.3% of excavation depth. Moormann (2004)
noted that for excavations in soft clays the ratio had
been more than 0.5% (maximum of 3%).
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 01:17 25 December 2014
Similar trends have also been observed from local
experience of excavations in Singapore. Figure 2 shows
the data from published histories of excavations in
Singapore and some recent LTA experiences. As seen in
Figure 2, the ratio of wall displacement to excavation
depth varies from 0.1% to 1.5% for LTA projects. It
should be highlighted that for LTA projects, regardless
of wall displacements, building assessments have been
carried out during the design stage to ensure that the

Figure 1. Variation of ratio of wall horizontal displacement to excavation depth (after Yoo and Kim 1999, Long 2001,
Moormann 2004, etc.).

Figure 2. Variation of ratio of wall horizontal displacement to excavation depth (Data from Singapore after Wong et al. 1997,
Broms et al. 1986, Tan et al. 1985, etc.).
 The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering
safety and serviceability of the adjacent structures
would not be compromised. Nevertheless, these field
measurements point to the fact that the ratio of wall
displacement to excavation depth (dh/H) is variable and
depends on various factors such as depth of excavation,
type of soil, type of retaining system, method of
construction and workmanship, etc. Limiting the ratio
of wall displacement to excavation depth to a single
value for all these cases would not be appropriate.
Limits on wall displacements should be set based on the
site condition to ensure both safety and stability of
retaining system and the adjacent structures.
The other factor which is generally not covered in
the literature is the variability of the dh/H ratio at
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 01:17 25 December 2014
different stages of the same excavation. To investigate
this phenomenon a deep excavation of 18.8 m in
Jurong Formation soil as shown in Figure 3 has been
Figure 3. Deep excavation of 18.8 m with six levels of
struts.
Figure 4. Variation of ratio of maximum wall horizontal displacement to excavation depth at different stages of an excavation.
137
considered. The stability of the excavation is checked
using the appropriate mobilisation factors as per BS
8002 and is found to be acceptable. A detailed finite
element analysis has also been carried out to predict
the wall displacements at different stages of excavation.
The finite element analysis results for the excava-
tion system are presented in Figure 4. At different
excavation stages the maximum displacement of the
retaining wall is compared with the depth of excava-
tion of that stage. At the cantilever stage the maximum
displacement is about 1.8% of the excavated depth
compared to the final excavation stage where the
maximum displacement is about 0.2% of the excavated
depth. Assuming that displacements are normalised
using the final excavation depth at end of backfilling
stage, the wall displacement increases to 0.48% of the
excavated depth at the backfill stage. It is clearly seen
from this example that the ratio of maximum wall
displacement to excavation depth changes throughout
the excavation, and the ratio bears little semblance to
the 0.5% ratio that is implied through the limit
equilibrium design approach used in BS 8002 for
medium dense or firm soils.
An interesting observation can be made at the
intermediate stage of excavation depth of 5.4-m deep
where the maximum wall displacement is nearly 0.76%
of excavated depth. Suppose the excavation has to be
stopped at this stage for some reason or the other, the
excavation system would still be stable and safe, even
though the maximum wall displacement has exceeded
the implied wall deflection limit of 0.5% of excavated
depth. This example shows that the limit of maximum
wall displacement to 0.5% of excavated depth is
irrelevant to the safety of the retaining wall itself.
 138 P. Fok et al.
During different stages of an excavation the maximum
wall displacement to excavated depth ratio will change.
As long as there is adequate factor of safety in the
system and the mobilised soil strength is within
the maximum permissible soil strain (and hence the
permissible deformation of the structure) as a whole
the safety and serviceability of the retaining wall and
the surrounding structures will be maintained. The
reported case histories of the ratio of maximum
measured wall displacements to excavation depth
shown in Figures 1 and 2 support the conclusion that
wall displacements can exceed the 0.5%H limit without
impacting the stability and the serviceability of the wall
itself and the adjacent structures.
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 01:17 25 December 2014
4. Impact to adjacent structures
For the effects on neighbouring structures BS 8002
clause 4.3.2.3 states that ‘excavations and support
system should be designed to ensure that the settle-
ments or lateral yield of surrounding ground surface is
within acceptable limits’. The acceptable limits should
be set based on a detailed assessment of the buildings,
taking into account the existing condition of the
buildings. There is no single limiting value of 0.5%H
for the wall displacement. This can be demonstrated
through a hypothetical case shown in Figure 5. For
Case 1 the building next to the excavation may be
subjected to damage when the wall displacement is d at
the excavation depth of H1 with a dh/H ratio of ‘d/H1’
exceeding 0.5%. For the same building in Case 2, if the
excavation depth, H2 is doubled from that of Case 1,
i.e. H2 ¼ 2H1 and if the displacement is maintained to
the same value of d (with a stiffer wall or a stiffer
strutting system) the ratio of wall displacement to
the excavation depth would be reduced by 50% (i.e. d/
H2 ¼ ½ d/H1) and the dh/H ratio could well be less
than 0.5%. It would be illogical to conclude that the
building subjected to damage in Case 1 would not be
damaged in Case 2 simply because the displacements
are less than 0.5% of excavated depth. Limiting the
wall displacement to less than 0.5% of the excavated
depth (or any other dh/H ratios for that matter) may
Figure 5. Example of an excavation next to the building.
give a false sense of safety without properly assessing
the impact on the building adjacent to the excavation.
A correct approach should be the assessment of the
building due to the ground deformation caused by the
excavation works and the limit of acceptable deforma-
tion should be established by the assessment. TR26:
2010 requires that retaining wall system for deep
excavation should be designed to keep deformation of
the wall and surrounding structure to a minimum to
prevent damage to neighbouring structures, utilities
and properties, and provides a guideline for a three-
staged assessment approach. Fok et al. (2012b) reviews
the guidelines described in TR26: 2010 and gives
practical recommendations on the approach. With this
approach any building that is assessed to be in
unacceptable category of damage can be protected
with appropriate protection methods or the retaining
system to be re-designed to minimise the damage to the
building irrespective of the ratio of wall displacement
to excavation depth, which can be higher or lower than
0.5%.
5. Conclusions
Measured wall displacements from various published
histories of deep excavations show wall displacements
ranging from 0.05% times to more than 2% times the
excavation depth. In many of these successfully
engineered excavations, the maximum wall displace-
ments exceeded 0.5% times the maximum excavation
depth. Retaining wall displacements are important
considerations in evaluating the impact to adjacent
structure, and allowable wall displacements depend on
the ground condition, location of the adjacent building
from the retaining wall, the existing condition and the
foundation type of the building, etc. Hence, wall
displacements should not be limited to an arbitrary
value. A considered assessment on the adjacent
buildings should be made to establish the limits on
maximum wall displacements which can be higher or
lower than 0.5%H that would not likely to cause
damage to adjacent structures.
References
BS 8002, 1994. Code of practice for earth retaining structures.
London: Bristish Standards Institution.
Bolton, M.D., 1993. Codes, standards and design guides in
retaining structures. London: Thomas Telford.
Bolton, M.D., 1996. Geotechnical design of retaining walls.
London: Institution of Structural Engineers.
Bolton, M.D., Lam, S.Y., and Osman, A.S., 2008. Support-
ing excavations in clay – from analysis to decision-
making. In: C.W.W. Ng, H.W. Huang and G.B. Liu,
eds. Proceedings of the 6th international symposium on
geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft
ground, Shanghai, 10–12 April 2008. London: Taylor &
Francis Group, 15–28.
 The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering
Broms, B.B., Wong, I.H., and Wong, K.S., 1986. Experience
with finite element analysis of braced exvations in
Singapore. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international
symposium on numerical methods in geomechnics, 1986.
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Balkema, 309–326.
Fok, P., et al., 2012a. Design and construction of earth
retaining walls – a risk management process. IES Journal
A – Special issue on Technical Reference on Deep
Excavation TR26: 2010.
Fok, P., et al., 2012b. Assessing the impact of excavation-
induced movements on buildings. IES Journal A –
Special issue on Technical Reference on Deep Excavation
TR26: 2010.
Lee, S.L., et al., 1985. Developments in soft ground
engineering in Singapore. In: Proceedings of the 11th
international conference soil mechanics and foundation
engineering, San Francisco, 11–16 August 1985, Vol 5.
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 01:17 25 December 2014
1661–1666.
Long, M., 2001. Database for retaining wall and ground
movements due to deep excavations. Journal of Geo-
technical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 127 (3), 203–
224.
Mana, A.I. and Clough, G.W., 1981. Prediction of move-
ments for braced cuts in clay. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 107 (6), 759–777.
Moormann, C., 2004. Analysis of wall and ground move-
ments due to deep excavations in soft soil based on a
new worldwide database. Soils and Foundations, 44 (1),
87–98.
139
Puller, M. and Lee, T., 1996. Comparison between the design
methods for earth retaining structures recommended by
BS 8002:1994 and previously used methods. Proceedings
of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical En-
gineering, 119 (1), 29–34.
Tan, S.B., Tan, S.L., and Chin, Y.K., 1985. A braced
sheet pile excavation in Singapore marine clay. In:
Proceedings of the 11th international conference soil
mechnics and foundation engineering, San Francisco, 11–
16 August 1985, Vol. 5. 1671–1674.
TR26, 2010. Technical reference for deep excavations.
Singapore: Spring.
Wong, I.H., Poh, T.Y., and Chuah, H.L., 1997. Performance
of excavations for depressed expressway in Singapore.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geo environmental Engineer-
ing, 123 (7), 617–625.
Yoo, C.S. and Kim, Y.J., 1999. Measured behaviour of in-
situ walls in Korea. In: Proceedings of the 5th interna-
tional symposium on field measurements in geomechancis,
1–3 December 1999. Singapore: A. A. Balkema, Rotter-
dam, 211–216.